Brussels – More than a real confrontation, many monologues one in a row: this sometimes happens at debates in the European Parliament when MEPs enter and leave the chamber, limiting their presence only to the time they are scheduled to speak. From the next plenary, January 20–23, the EU Parliament will test a first solution: the list of speakers will no longer be made known in advance, effectively forcing those who want to speak to follow their colleagues at least until their turn arrives.
The new format will be tried out in two of the most important debates of the session, in which the issue of absenteeism would likely not arise at all, those on the conclusions of the last European Council and on the need to make the digital platform giants comply with European legislation. Both debates involve the Commission and the Council. Essentially, after the first round of speeches by speakers on behalf of the political groups, all other MEPs who have requested speaking space will be called upon by the person presiding over the session in an undisclosed predetermined order. MEPs will only be able to see, exclusively on the screens in the chamber, the names of the first two speakers on hold.
“It is a test, and the outcome will be evaluated by the chairwoman and the leaders of the political groups accordingly,” stressed Delphine Colard, spokesperson for the European Parliament. The proposal was made by the president herself, Roberta Metsola, in an effort to “increase the attractiveness of plenary debates” and approved by the group leaders in the Conference of Presidents (CoP), the body that brings together precisely the president of the EU Parliament and the leaders of the political groups.
Actually, the input was launched last December by some 60 MEPs, who delivered a letter to Metsola with a series of proposals on how to improve the participation and relevance of debates. These included the far more challenging idea of instituting “mandatory quotas” of participation for each political group. A proposal, the latter, that runs the risk of not taking into account the complexity of the parliament’s work, which does not end with plenary debates, and where forcing an MEP who deals with security and defence to participate in, for example, debates on fishing quotas in the Baltic Sea doesn’t help. To ensure conspicuous attendance during votes, the rules already stipulate that MEPs who participate in less than half of roll-call votes receive half of the daily allowance.
As Simon McKeagney, spokesman for the Greens group, pointed out, “Other things happen outside the plenary debates, meetings of parliamentary committees, meetings with organizations and other actors.” It is “not just people going to lunch and dinner” in the elegant French city of Strasbourg, McKeagney added. If there seems to be little room for mandatory quotas, groups have welcomed—some with a hint of scepticism—the experiment planned for next week. “This is a test, but of course, any measure that encourages real and constructive debates is welcome,” said the Social Democratic family, while according to the Renew Liberals, “an active presence in the hemicycle is always a positive sign, but it remains to be seen whether this is the right tool.” Populars and conservatives put off any judgment until the next conference of presidents, “It’s a test; we’ll see how it works,” spokesmen said.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
