MEPs want the European Parliament to be fun again

The European Parliament has never been so polarized between its political groups. But there’s one thing everyone agrees on: debates have become unbearably boring — and it’s time to change that.

Before the summer break, the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsolaasked the leaders of political groups to present ideas to make debates in the hemicycle, often empty, monotonous and rehearsed, more dynamic.

Metsola’s initiative is part of a long-time effort to make parliamentary activity more lively.

In January, Parliament tried to force MEPs to at least be present from the beginning of the debates, failing to tell them in advance When would they intervene? not pulpit.

The had access to the proposals of the six Parliamentary Groups represented in the hemicycle who sent suggestions, ranging from more spontaneous interventions and new debate formats to forms of increase pressure on the executive European. Only the European People’s Partyof the center right, of which the PSD is a part, and Patriotas pela Europa, of the extreme right, did not send suggestions.

“The PPE considers important to improve attendance and we are reflecting on the possibilities”, stated the head of the party’s bench, Jeroen Lenaers, when asked about the lack of proposals. The Patriots did not respond to Politico’s request for comment.

“The proposed elements will now be evaluated and the possible measures to be tested will be presented for further discussion” at a future meeting of political group leaders, the Parliament’s press service told Politico.

Truly putting the Commission under pressure

All groups agree that European Commissioners get away with intervening in Parliament too easily.

To put an end to this, the ECR group (right-wing Conservatives and Reformists) proposes a format of questions and answers in “ping pong”which allows MEPs directly question the Commissioners — instead of limiting themselves to reading previously drafted statements.

“This format must be flexible enough to be added to the agenda at short notice, allowing Parliament to react quickly to unforeseen or emerging political or geopolitical events.”

The ECR also wants improve scrutiny tools available to MEPs, going beyond “purely declarative speeches”, an idea shared by Renew (liberals) and S&D (Socialists and Democrats), who also defend regular question sessions for commissioners.

The far-right group ESN (European of Sovereign Nations), led by the AfD (Alternative for Germany), is expand the “blue card” systema mechanism that allows one MEP responds or questions another during the debate, also to the commissioners.

The Left and S&D also suggest that, after the meeting of the College of Commissioners in Strasbourg, where the 27 commissioners take decisions together, these go to Parliament to present the results and publicly respond to MEPs’ questions.

Bring more life to debates

All groups equally agree that the “blue card” system should be used more frequently by MEPs.

The ECR proposes a new debate format called “right-left”in which political groups with opposing views on major topicssuch as the European Green Deal or migration, “directly confront each other’s positions”.

The Greens also argue that “controversial topics” should have priority in the scheduling of debates and propose a format in which an MEP responsible for a given dossier or topic is subject to a 60-minute session of questions.

“After brief opening statements, members can respond and rebut directly, allowing true dialogue”, reads the Greens’ proposal.

Several groups ask that debates be scheduled immediately before votes on the topic in question, whether in plenary or in committee, with those who defend the holding key debates during the sessions themselves of voting.

Fewer empty seats

To increase the presence of MEPs in the hemicycle, many groups asked Metsola to prohibit side events during the plenary week.

The proposals also suggest that assistants feel MEPs who attend debates in the front rows instead of their usual seatsto make the environment more dynamic.

Another idea is reduce the total number of debatesfocusing MPs’ attention on those that really matter — namely by eliminating the numerous foreign policy debatesan area in which, as the S&D point out, Parliament has limited skills.

None of the groups proposed, however, a system of incentives or sanctions to effectively force MEPs to attend debates, says Politico. Apparently, the salaries they earn aren’t enough of an incentive if the work isn’t fun.