Defence, Ukraine and migrants on Strasbourg agenda

Brussels – From simplification to the future of the automotive industry, the upcoming plenary of the EU Parliament will address some of the central nodes for continental policy. Particularly under the magnifying glass are the EU executive’s plans on defence and security—including support for Ukraine —and those on managing unlawful immigration.

European Defence

Keeping MEPs busy as they gather in Strasbourg from March 10–13 will be, first and foremost, the latest developments in defence and security, as well as increasingly urgent issues that are unequivocally marking the figure of this historic phase. On Tuesday morning, European Council President António Costa and Commission head Ursula von der Leyen will discuss with members of the hemicycle the results achieved by the leaders of the Twenty-seven at yesterday’s (March 6) extraordinary summit.

There will thus be on the menu the five-point plan announced a few days ago from von der Leyen, Rearm Europe, which is still in its embryonic stage but has received the political green light from the heads of state and government. The positions of the majority groups are close: Populars, Socialists and Liberals support the need to make the EU independent in the field of security, albeit with some distinctions.

The EPP is pushing for a “Joint European Defence” and wants to make the Old Continent “a global security bastion,” according to the group’s spokesman, welcoming the layout of von der Leyen’s plan. Substantial green light also came from Renew’s liberals, who had long made European defence a banner.

The social democrats also agree, however—the S&D spokeswoman points out—one cannot think of financing efforts of this magnitude solely through the activation of the safeguard clause of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). For Camilla Laureti (a member of that PD which is critical of von der Leyen’s plan) the common debt mechanism with which the Commission aims to raise 150 billion on the international markets should be extended, invoking a “courage” like the one shown during the COVID-19 pandemic. A flat “no” also applies to the use of cohesion funds to finance European defence (in tune with what was observed yesterday by PM Giorgia Meloni).

The position of the Greens/EFA is more complex, as they insist on a holistic concept of security. For environmentalists, the door must also be opened to joint investments and joint debt instruments. However, the group’s spokesman notes that security does not just mean weapons. There are other dimensions, such as social, energy, and climate resilience. Ignazio Marino (AVS) stresses the need to think on a continental scale, avoiding the duplication implied by having 27 different systems instead of a single European one.

The right-wingers in the House are on opposite sides of the argument. The Patriots (PfE) are skeptical of the centralisation in Brussels of decision-making powers that, they say, should remain an exquisitely national competence—defence remains one of the most visible attributes of state sovereignty—and are absolutely against the assumption of further common debt by the Twenty-Seven.

The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) take a different view. They welcome von der Leyen’s plan (dubbed by Melonian Alberico Gambino a “defence plan” rather than a “plan for rearmament”) and reiterate the need to promote European industrial capacity, but always remaining within the framework of an overall strengthening of NATO rather than an overcoming of it. If anything, Gambino notes, it is time to start buying European products to make continental industry breathe and to stop buying only from the US.

Strongly critical, finally, is the Left. The Continental rearmament promised by the EU executive “benefits only arms manufacturers,” complains the group’s spokesman, who notes that in Brussels, funds are never found for social policies, but hundreds of billions are pulled out of the hat for defence—an “insane” plan, according to 5-Star Danilo Della Valle.

MPs are generally skeptical about whether the Commission should resort to an accelerated procedure (following Article 122 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU) to start with this maxi-defence plan as quickly as possible. Very critical is the Left, which accuses von der Leyen of wanting to “bypass Parliament,” while Gambino reiterates that “the Parliament is sovereign” and should always be involved. According to Marino, it is “very serious that executive power cancels out legislative power.”

Ukraine

Closely linked to the defence issue is that of Ukraine, which has been at war for more than three years against the Russian invader. On support for Kyiv MEPs will debate in various meetings during the upcoming session, and on Wednesday they will vote on a resolution committing the Union to maintain firm support for Ukrainian resistance now that aid from Washington is coming up short.

All majority groups, as well as the Greens and ECR, are convinced of the need to continue to provide the former Soviet republic with the help it needs to cope with Moscow’s pressure, including the use of extra-profits generated by frozen Russian assets. From Renew comes the suggestion to equip Ukraine with a made-in-Europe satellite system capable of compensating for a possible “shutdown” of Starlink, Elon Musk‘s satellite network, after Donald Trump has already suspended intelligence sharing with Kyiv. The Greens point out the risks of letting the unanimity rule make the EU a hostage to “Kremlin apologists” such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán who withdrew from yesterday’s summit conclusions.

Patriots and the Left maintain greater ambiguity on the issue, following the calls for a “just and lasting” peace—whatever this abstract formula may actually mean—but remain more reserved on sending war materiel to Kyiv, not to mention the option of dispatching European peace-keepers (although, it must be said, this idea splits all political forces across the board). For PfE nationalists, the priority must be the cessation of hostilities, and Europe should support (rather than criticize) the “diplomatic efforts” of the star-studded administration, which is negotiating with Russia behind the backs of Ukrainians and Western allies.

The other hot topics

Strasbourg will also be talking about something else. On Tuesday afternoon, the Commission will present in Strasbourg its legislative proposal on repatriation of irregular migrants, that is, on the expulsion from the territory of the Union of people who have been refused international protection and thus refugee status. The regulations that the EU executive will propose are not expected to contain references to the controversial non-EU “return centres”, a particularly sensitive issue from a legal point of view and highly controversial from a political one.

The EPP insists on the need for a crackdown on irregular immigration since, says the spokesman, only one-fifth of migrants whose asylum claims are not accepted actually leave the EU. This is a traditional battlehorse of the radical right, which indeed agrees: “Irregular immigration must be tackled with concrete action” is the message of the Patriots, who call for “an effective repatriation policy.”

The Parliament will also discuss the Commission’s plan to revive the ailing automotive industry throughout Europe. The Populars are calling for the government not to stifle the industry with excessive regulation and to let automakers decide how to meet emission reduction targets (which must stand), a demand generally shared by all parliamentary groups right of center.

For the ECR, the Brussels plan is only a start but lacks ambition because it does not free the sector’s productive forces from the bureaucratic fetters in which it has forced them in recent years. Finally, from the Patriots, they call for suspending “the attack on auto manufacturers” and removing sanctions against them, as well as ensuring the supply of strategic resources without becoming dependent on China.

Also planned is a debate on the first Omnibus package, with which the Commission intends to begin simplifying some regulatory areas to foster European competitiveness. The EPP is in favor of reducing regulatory complexity to come to the aid of businesses. The ECR also agrees, saying that excessive regulation undermines growth, and one priority is to review existing regulations before introducing new ones. Critics come from the Left, for whom the Omnibus package actually hides an “anti-worker” agenda that benefits only businesses, protecting the rich by deregulation while also harming the environment.