Last Wednesday in Strasbourg we saw our first real glimpse of how the next session of the European Parliament will play out over the next 5 years. The leaders of each of the seven revamped political groups in the Plenary, and also Mrs Le Pen representing those who failed to form or join one, were given consecutive platforms to make their introductory speeches and so plant their flag in the sand. The differences in approach, content and demeanour between the leaders were stark, emblematic of the heterogeneous nature of the 751 strong Parliament.
European People’s Party
There were no real surprises from Mr. Weber, leader of the EPP. The only slight eyebrow raiser was the proclamation that the European Parliament (EP) election results were a clearly pro-European result, a conclusion that would certainly be fiercely opposed by certain other members in the session. Moving forward, Weber called for responsibility, mutual respect, and a willingness to act from his peers. He stated that the next logical step for a democratic Europe, would be strengthening of the European Parliament, who all need to maintain strong ties of responsibility to their voters. In terms of tangible policy, Mr Weber emphasised the need for growth, new banking rules, and support for Ukraine’s movements in a pro-European direction. Finally on the European buzzword in Britain – reform – Mr Weber was open in saying that it was both necessary and would be beneficial for Europe’s future.
Socialists and Democrats
In contrast to many of the leaders, Mr Pittella, leader of the Socialists and Democrats, used the opportunity to sharply focus in on key policy plans he and his group have for the next session of the Parliament. After briefly commending the democratic process that brought about Mr Junker’s nomination for next Commission President, he congratulated Mr Shultz on his re-election as EP President, and then launched into a shopping list of policy areas upon where he and his group want to focus. First off economics; employment, growth, standard of living and poverty were his main concerns, to be tackled by a European wide minimum wage and a ‘fair deal’ for international workers abroad. He then called for a new migration and asylum policy, to help share the burden of outside immigration into the Union across more member states. Finally, Mr Weber exalted the progress being made with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia as a great step forward for Europe’s Eastern relationships and future prosperity.
European Conservatives and Reformists
Mr. Kamall, like many of the leaders, began by addressing the EP election results. He told the Plenary that the real loser at the ballot box was the European status quo, a sentiment Nigel ‘it’s business as usual’ Farage might disagree with. Like Farage however, Kamall argues Europe needs to change, albeit in a slightly different way. Unsurprisingly, given the British Conservative dominance of the ECR, Kamall’s speech could have been coming directly from David Cameron’s mouth. He spelt out a position very clearly geared toward the UK Conservative plan for European ‘re-negotiation,’ away from a ‘one size fits all’ Europe, and coalitions based on shared ideas for reform. With regard to Mr Junker, once again Kamall took the Cameron line (see, phonecall) saying that the ECR looks forward to working alongside him for reform and decentralisation. Whether this is a sincere expectation or wishful thinking remains to be seen. Finally, some vague policy areas mentioned were trade, energy and European bureaucracy, certainly nothing new or unexpected from the new third largest EP group.
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats
Mr Verhofstadt, one of the Parliaments more outspoken and well-known figures, was boisterous and defiant in his approach from the word go. He began by hitting out, albeit indirectly, at particularly the British critics of Mr Junker and his nomination process, arguing that it is no different to the way David Cameron was elected. He then moved onto discussion of the Parliament itself. Mr Verhofstadt told the session that the Parliament the real European Democracy, and called for a new relationship with the Commission moving away from that Council domination that had been commonplace under Barrasso. Mr Verhofstadt also called specifically for the Commission to use it’s right of initiative whenever the Parliament requested it. On policy, Mr Verhofstadt too called for change, but not the kind called for by the ECR, which he claimed was a blocking process rather than a reforming one. Top of the agenda were ‘new approaches’ to migration, civil liberties, LGBT rights, and privacy regulation, signature policies designed to differentiate themselves from the crowd, however Mr Verhofstadt’s statements on the institutions were by far the most noteworthy part of his speech.
European United Left/Nordic Green Left
As one of the smaller groups in the EP, the UL/NGL group differentiates and promotes itself principally on a few bold policies that appeal directly to it’s core supporters. As such, Mrs Zimmer’s speech focused primarily on the economy, the environment, and social issues from the political left, which is uncommon to hear in much of Europe. She argued for a fairer society and economy, moving away from economic liberalisation and privatisation. What gained the most positive reaction however was to do with the group itself; Mrs Zimmer proudly announcing that hers was the only group with 50/50 gender parity in it’s membership, simultaneously praising her allies and shaming the rest.
Greens/European Freedom Alliance
Unlike most, Co-President Harms used her leader’s speech to focus very specifically on a single key issue; the crisis in Ukraine and Russia. Mrs Harms criticised the EU’s security policy, claiming it has holes and contradictions that have been exposed by the crisis. She called on the Union to better clarify it’s exact position and role in the situation, and also to back up diplomacy with hard-hitting economic sanctions against Russia. Clearly, Mrs Harms thought her group’s purpose would be best served by becoming associated from day one with a specific and important international issue, rather than stating generalised principals. Finally, like many others, Mrs Harms acknowledged Mr Junker and stated that her group would push him to deliver on his promises and potential.
Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy
The last, and smallest, of the official European Parliament groups is Nigel Farage’s new and reformed EFDD, fresh with a new name, new seats, and new friends… back with old ideas. Predictably, Mr Farage began by addressing the EP election results as a victory for the eurosceptics. Before long however, it was almost as though he was making a campaign speech for the British Parliament, rather than the European one. Despite having MEPs from 7 different countries in his group, Mr Farage focused almost entirely on British political current affairs; Cameron and Junker, the European elections in Britain, and even Britain’s Eurovision record. In a statement that would come as a surprise to some, Mr Farage claimed that if Britain were given back ‘control’ of it’s borders, the population vote to stay in Europe, showing once again that he and his party and truly only concerned with migration. Three key European figures were also in Mr Farage’s firing line; Mr Junker, Mr Shultz and Mrs Merkel; each was criticised for their ideology, appointment and influence respectively. Finally, Mr Farage offered a grim prediction that the next five years would be a period of ‘misery’ for Southern Europe, this – along with everything else – was met by a binary reaction of raucous support from those behind him, and a smattering of shouting, booing and general protestation from the rest of the Plenary.
Non Inscrits
Finally, it was the turn of the highly controversial Marine Le Pen to represent those who either failed to form or join a group (as in Le Pen’s case), or chose not to do so. As has been pointed out on many occasions, despite Mr Farage’s very public refusal to ally with the controversial Mrs Le Pen, their European rhetoric was barely distinguishable from one another. Mrs Le Pen too criticised Mr Junker’s nomination as a fait accomplis; a collusion between the SD and EPP, and described herself as fighting against an anti-democratic, brutal, and disconnected Europe. In more confrontationally orientated rhetoric regarding policy, Mrs Le Pen said she was committed to fighting poverty, unemployment, austerity.
There were few surprises in the first exchanges between the 8 group leaders, instead rather predictable patterns emerged relatively clearly. In a nod to populist European politics, reform remains the go-to policy on almost all sides, however it is clear that almost everyone has a differing opinion on what and how this should be done. The economy was another popular topic, again unsurprising given the context in which the last elections were held, where in many countries there were drastic divides between austerity and growth policies. Perhaps the clearest message was to Mr Junker; all members are looking to him as next President of the Commission to deliver big things, or else doubting that he is capable of doing so. How Mr Junker ‘fits in’ with the new Parliament is likely to define it as much as any internal factor, especially in the early months when many will be baying for action.
About the Author
