(21 May 2024 – CEPS)
Speakers:
- Klaus Welle, former Secretary General of the European Parliament
- Eddy Wax, politics reporter for POLITICO
- Sophie in’t Veld, Member of the European Parliament, Renew
Moderator:
- Sophia Russack, Researcher, CEPS
Klaus Welle started the panel by talking about currently existing coalitions in the European Parliament, such as the standard “system stabilizing majority” of EPP, S&D and Renew, the “progressive majority” of the left and Renew, and the “negative vote” majority of EPP and the far-right. The system is quite symmetrical with equal deviations to both the left and the right. Taking polls into account, Welle expects the right to gain more seats in the next cycle which would have two consequences. On one hand, the possibility to have a “progressive majority” will be less likely, so the possibility to outvote the EPP will decrease. On the other hand, for the first time since 1979, groups from the Left to Renew could gain less than 50% of seats, so the decisive vote in the Parliament could be the EPP’s and not Renew’s as for now.
Eddy Wax brought up the key difference between the European Parliament and national ones, namely that the former does not have the right to initiate legislation. As the Parliament is a “gatekeeper”, it seems to be more important who sits in the European Council where there are more and more far-right politicians. According to Wax, the EPP does want to play “kingmaker” in the next cycle, because they have been visibly frustrated with the “progressive majority”. The EPP would revel in a more decisive role, that is why they are working on it, reaching out to the ECR and using a different rhetoric. Wax revealed that Ursula von der Leyen did a press conference in the Parliament months ago – before even being confirmed as a Spitzenkandidat. He found the fact that the Commission President talked about Parliament majorities and how she would get votes odd, but it shows that this is on the top of the minds of the EPP.
Welle thinks that the maximum political influence of the Parliament comes when candidates need to get the qualified majority, because it not only concerns politics, but also people and institutional arrangements. When von der Leyen was to be elected, as a compensation for the fact that she was not a Spitzenkandidat, she promised that if the Parliament votes a legislative initiative report with qualified majority, she will make that proposal. Welle left the Parliament during 2022, but he said that until then von der Leyen kept her promise, with 16 legislative initiative reports on their way – the only, later also resolved issue concerned the budget.
Sophie in’t Veld addressed the fact that Renew did not fulfil the “kingmaker” role as much as it could have done. She seconded Welle in saying that the Parliament has actual power in the moment of confirmation of the Commission President, and she thinks the Parliament “failed spectacularly” in 2019. In’t Veld noted that the 16 legislative initiative reports Welle had mentioned must have escaped her attention, or they were about small technicalities, because when it came to big political issues, the Commission ignored the requests of the Parliament. To name a few, she listed requests concerning golden passports, spyware and rule of law reports. In’t Veld also voiced that von der Leyen is not the “biggest fan” of parliamentary democracy, accountability and transparency, but it is up to her to convince the Parliament that it is going to change. Nonetheless, she emphasized that the Parliament has to understand its role, because it has become lousy as a democratic watchdog which absolutely has to change.
Talking about why the Greens are losing, Wax explained different theories. On one hand, they pushed too far too fast, and we have extremely binding green laws now “set in stone”. On the other hand, in recent years we had numerous crises which have changed the political compass, and provided arguments to parties that were not so on board with the Green Deal. So, it is a combination of the Greens potentially being “too ambitious” and a number of parties lying about actually wanting to have the Green Deal. Wax also finds it interesting that von der Leyen seems to act as if she had not created the Green Deal, when in fact “that is her biggest legacy” to date. But now she has to present herself as someone who is going to be big on topics like foreign policy and security. Wax expects lot of private conversations and deals behind closed doors, and much will also depend on the timing of the upcoming secret vote.
Welle explained that a vote in September instead of July cannot actually be considered as a delay, since the election of the Commission President usually happens in the second plenary session. During the first one, the Parliament deals with its own functions, constitutes its own system, its committees which is kind of time consuming. According to him, having the secret vote in September does not have to mean a disadvantage, because von der Leyen will have to sort out a lot of things and getting the majority might be more difficult than the last time. The “system stabilizing majority” is shrinking, but the Parliament is growing which foreshadows a negative starting point for her. Meanwhile, political groups will want to know in detail about the agenda they will support, and that will definitely take some time to discuss.
To the first audience question, in’t Veld replied that we can have detailed interinstitutional coalition agreements, “and then the world decides otherwise”. She still thinks that we need not only a detailed, but also a binding agreement about the relationship between the Commission and the Parliament, because she considers the lack of it the “biggest failure of the Parliament” in this cycle. No footnotes, no exemptions in accountability and transparency are what she aspires to have, and a proper “question hour” at least once every month as well. In’t Veld suggested that during the confirmation vote at the beginning of the mandate, the Parliament should already set a date midterm for “refreshing the marriage vows”, which could be an alternative to the very difficult motion of censure against the Commission. Besides, when the Parliament adopts a legislative initiative report, the Commission should have to make that proposal, to ease the imbalance between the institutions. In’t Veld also assumes that if other MEPs are less ambitious, that is one more reason for her to be more ambitious.
The Speakers tackled the issue of the fragmented Renew, and changing dynamics with the French declaring to not want the Dutch VVD in the group anymore. According to In’t Veld, it could be time for a new centrist progressive liberal pro-European group. Welle also emphasized the consolidation issue in Renew, then circled back to the Parliament which he considers to be stronger than national ones. He noted that in order to do coalition agreements, people need to know who is ready to vote the Commission President. Welle reminded us that at the beginning of the present cycle, the Greens dropped out “the evening before” and the group actually voted neither von der Leyen, nor the previous three Commission Presidents.
Reacting to another audience question, in’t Veld recalled the large turnover in 2019 which affected the groups differently. Renew consisted of 75% new MEPs which made quite a big difference considering how much of institutional memory disappeared. Then we were hit by the Covid pandemic with a lockdown, and this combined with the new members meant that people did not really get to know each other, even though it is kind of indispensable for the Parliament to work as a whole. In’t Veld hopes that the case will be better next time. Despite the difficult circumstances, Welle addressed that this Parliament had a big impact in multiple cases, like the Green Deal or Ukraine, so it did manage to leave a decisive mark.
Welle admitted that he was “one of the devious minds” behind the Spitzenkandidaten process. The aim was that people who want to run for the Commission present themselves to voters. In 2014, it worked because the candidate was acceptable for the Parliament and the European Council as well, and he was “the most left leaning Christian democrat possible”. In 2019, the candidate’s downfall was that he was not electable on both the left and the right. Welle still believes in the process, but the issue now seems to lie in if EPP, S&D and Renew can have a qualified majority, to which Welle’s answer is rather no. Wax reacted by declaring that the Spitzenkandidaten is dead, it died in 2019. He argued that von der Leyen has barely presented herself to people, she has been “a very guarded and secretive” Commission President. She is only doing a campaign tour now, because her own group pressured her into that.
Wax thinks that the Spitzenkandidaten has become “a general jobs race” as S&D candidate Nicolas Schmidt is just going after any kind of job, liberal candidates announced that they are running to be MEPs, and none of the Greens candidates will become Commission President either way. Wax expressed that the process is eating itself, especially since ID was excluded from the next debate, while ECR does not even presented a Spitzenkandidat. In’t Veld stated that she is in between Welle and Wax as she does not believe that the process is dead, but she sees the issues. According to her, the only question is whether the Parliament or the European Council determines who will be the Commission President. She found it unfortunate that von der Leyen did not become a candidate for the Parliament, but she does not deny the other groups’ responsibility. In’t Veld was openly critical towards the groups, since “they did not understand the role of the Parliament”, and towards the European Council which acts like a government, to which the Parliament has not given enough counterweight. The institutional system seems to be “skewed” which is not healthy for democracy by any means.
You can watch the event here.