Panel discussion on the consequences of the European Parliament elections that took place on the 24th of September 2024. The members of the panel were Francis Jacobs (former head of the European Parliament Office, Dublin), Sarah Collins (Brussels correspondent, Business Post) and Professor Ben Tonra, MRIA (UCD). It was chaired by Iulia Siedschlag (ESRI). Francis Jacobs, in his analysis of the EP election results, confirmed that the EPP had been a clear winner, increasing its seat share. The S & D group had largely held its own. It had been a poor election for Renew and the Greens. The far left had increased its seat numbers slightly. While the far right had done well, especially in the largest member states, it had not had the sweeping victory some had predicted, and was fragmented into three rival parties. In principle the mainstream parties should have a majority, but there could also be times when ECR votes were needed. How PM Meloni played her hand would be critically important. There could well be different majorities on different issues. Sarah Collins spoke about the formation of the Commission. The definition and allocation of portfolios was complex and was generally felt to be likely to boost the authority of President Von der Leyen, as the arbiter of likely disputes, still further. She confirmed that Von der Leyen had been irritated by the Irish Government’s approach to the nomination process, and by the high-profile opposition of four FF MEPs to her re-election. The promotion of European competitiveness as a core objective meant that the Commission could be expected to tilt in a pro-business direction. The Draghi Report offered a range of policy priorities to further this overarching goal. State aid could become very controversial. Climate change and the green new deal would remain important, and other prominent topics would include defence, tech and biopharma regulation, energy and the rule of law. The Ukraine/Russia war would obviously loom large too, however it developed. Ben Tonra, recognising that the Parliament’s role in relation to the Common Foreign and Security Policy remained relatively weak, nonetheless said that its budgetary role, and its resolutions, even if non-binding, gave it influence. Trends to look out for, with an increase in far right representation and growing anxieties within mainstream parties, included an opposition to strengthening the EU’s foreign policy capacity; resistance to the pooling of defence resources; a transactional approach by some (HU, CZ) to Russia and China; scepticism about enlargement; hostility to migration, including legal migration; the securitisation of development policy; a reluctance to push hard on human rights; less ambition on climate change. Several varied issues were raised from the floor, including regarding the strength of the commitment to combating climate change; the next Multiannual Financial Framework; the contribution of Irish MEPs; the Apple tax decision; the EU and the Middle East; the speed of decision-making; planning for the effects of either outcome in the US election, including on the goal of strategic autonomy; Von der Leyen’s management style; the role of EP President Metsola; and the robustness of the euro. The rapporteur for this event was Rory Montgomery, MRIA

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related