Klaus Welle opened the discussion by emphasising the unique structure of the European Parliament. Unlike national systems where power is fused within a parliamentary majority, the European Union (EU) operates through a diffusion of power. This federal-style system ensures that no single party dominates; instead, the EU is governed by a complex web of institutions—the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council—where alliances are essential to achieving legislative goals.
A key takeaway from Welle’s remarks was the changing composition of the European Parliament. The 2024 elections resulted in a divided assembly, with one-third of members aligned with left-wing parties, a strong centrist faction, and a growing presence of right-wing representatives. The steady rise of right-wing populist parties across member states, such as Le Pen’s National Rally in France and the Alternative for Germany (AfD), mirrors the broader European political landscape. Notably, the so-called “progressive majority” that had characterised the previous Parliament has now disappeared, with left-leaning parties falling below the 45% threshold necessary to form a stable coalition.This shift in parliamentary balance has profound consequences. In previous years, centre-left, liberal, and green parties could form a progressive alliance when needed. However, with this bloc weakened, the European People’s Party (EPP) has emerged as the dominant force. Welle described four circles of power within the new Parliament. The EPP, now at the centre, enjoys a strategic advantage, controlling key leadership positions such as the Commission President and influencing the legislative agenda. The second circle comprises an alliance between the EPP, Socialists, and Liberals, maintaining a centrist coalition. The third circle includes more distant allies such as the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and sections of the Greens. The fourth circle—the far-left and far-right factions—finds itself largely excluded from policymaking, as these parties oppose the EU’s foundational principles.
Another critical aspect Welle highlighted was the immediate post-election period, when candidates for the Commission must secure parliamentary approval. This moment represents both a point of maximum weakness for candidates, as they must negotiate support, and a period of maximum strength for Parliament, which can impose policy demands. The 2024 elections demonstrated how these dynamics shape the Commission’s priorities. In 2019, the dominant agenda was the Green Deal; in 2024, competitiveness, security, and migration have taken centre stage. These priorities will likely define the EU’s direction for the next five years, reflecting the shifting power balance within Parliament.
Anthony Teasdale added to Welle’s analysis by examining the structural resilience of the EU. He argued that predictions of the EU’s collapse under populist pressure have been circulating for over 15 years, yet the system has consistently demonstrated its ability to adapt. A key reason for this resilience is the EU’s committee system, which ensures that policy decisions emerge from negotiated compromises rather than abrupt ideological shifts. The continuity between successive European Commissions is stronger than often perceived, as policies are refined and built upon rather than overturned wholesale. Teasdale also pointed out that while the public discourse highlights a supposed conflict between digital transformation, environmental sustainability, and economic competitiveness, these agendas are often intertwined rather than mutually exclusive.
A significant part of the discussion revolved around the budget and financial priorities. Defence spending is expected to increase substantially, driven by concerns over European security and the perceived weakening of U.S. commitments under the Biden-Trump political cycle. The EU has already repurposed unused regional funds for military mobility, indicating a strategic pivot. The potential for a European Defence Fund or a NATO-style financing mechanism is now a serious consideration. This shift reflects the broader realignment in global geopolitics, with Europe seeking greater autonomy in defence and security policy. The panellists noted that the EU’s role as a stabilising force is increasingly crucial, especially as major member states like France and Germany face internal political instability.
One of the more provocative points raised during the seminar was whether the political right’s growing influence in Brussels could facilitate or hinder engagement with a possible second Trump administration. The panellists distinguished between constructive and destructive right-wing forces—those that seek to reform the EU from within versus those that aim to dismantle it. Figures like Giorgia Meloni were cited as examples of the former, while parties like AfD and Hungary’s ruling Fidesz were categorised as existential threats to the EU. This distinction matters in diplomatic terms, as constructive right-wing governments may be more inclined to engage with the U.S. on issues such as trade, defence, and migration policy.
Migration policy was another critical topic, though its relative absence from the 2024 policy agenda was surprising. Despite being a dominant issue in national politics, only two major legislative initiatives related to migration were included in the Commission’s work plan. The panellists speculated that this may reflect ongoing divisions within the EU, where Southern and Eastern member states prioritise border control while Western European governments emphasise humanitarian concerns.
The discussion also touched on the European Commission’s evolving role. Historically, the Commission was seen as a technocratic body, but over the years, it has become more centralised and politically driven. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has been particularly adept at consolidating power, shaping the EU’s long-term agenda, and securing her position through strategic alliances. Some argue this transformation makes the Commission resemble a national government, with the President assuming an executive role akin to a prime minister. While this strengthens leadership continuity, it also raises questions about democratic legitimacy, as the Commission is not directly elected.
Finally, the panel considered the future of EU enlargement, particularly regarding Ukraine and the Western Balkans. While Ukraine’s accession to the EU remains a long-term goal, the panellists acknowledged the geopolitical complexities, particularly the security guarantees required for membership. The war with Russia has accelerated discussions on EU defence integration, with some suggesting that security cooperation should precede full membership. The Balkans, meanwhile, present a different challenge—countries like Montenegro and Albania are making steady progress, but broader institutional reforms are needed before further expansion can take place.
In conclusion, the seminar provided a comprehensive overview of the shifting political landscape in Brussels. The 2024 elections have reshaped the power structure of the European Parliament, with the EPP emerging as the central force and progressive coalitions weakening. The EU’s legislative focus has shifted towards economic competitiveness, defence, and security, while issues like migration remain contested. Despite these changes, the panellists emphasised the EU’s institutional resilience and its ability to adapt to evolving political realities. With defence spending rising and geopolitical pressures mounting, the next five years will likely see the EU positioning itself as a more autonomous and strategically assertive actor on the global stage.
By Yangyang Zhao (ESC Research Assistant)
No comments:
Post a Comment