Defense needs risk overshadowing social measures as EU Parliament grows restless

Brussels – Sure, there is a need to invest in defense, but budget stability and services for citizens are equally important. After acknowledging a situation requiring rethinking priorities and supporting the plan to rearm Europe, the European Parliament is concerned with financial and social issues the following day. Defense risks overshadowing all of this, and for different reasons, all political groups emphasize the need to work to avoid disparities.

The debate intended to take stock of the European Semester, the coordination of member states’ economic policies, served as a reminder that there is more than just defense. On the contrary. “Housing and unemployment are challenges we need to address,” stressed Billy Kelleher (Renew), convinced that “we need to invest in the economy, in citizen services.”  The Socialists (S&D) share these concerns with Gabriele Bischoff, pointing out “also investments in schools and digital infrastructure. That’s why within the Socialist group, Claire Fita specifically urges not to touch European funds but, rather, to imagine “a European defense investment facility.”

The harshest and most severe criticism of the European Commission’s plan to rearm Europe comes from members of groups that are not part of the so-called ‘grand coalition’ or the ‘Ursula majority.’ Among them is Manon Aubry (the Left), who attacks, “You find money for tanks but not for hospitals.” Then, the other jab at the Community Executive president, Ursula von der Leyen: “Suddenly there is no more climate change and no more poverty,” she criticizes, referring to the fact that the Green Deal and the social agenda appear to have been put aside. Also critical are the Greens, who, through Benedetta Scuderi, denounce how “this arms race undermines growth and public finance.”

However, the internal perplexities within the People’s Party (EPP) group stand out the most because they give the sense of internal disagreements within a party and a group that is not entirely satisfied with the Commission. “European funds must be used for their original objectives,” stresses Maravillas Abadia Jover, in what sounds like censure of the idea of diverting cohesion funds to finance the defense industry. The report she is responsible for emphasizes the need to use structural funds to respond to demographic challenges, affordable housing, and vocational training.

However, it is on the proposal to loosen the Stability Pact rules that the EPP expresses doubts. Portugal’s Lidia Pereira notes that “there are countries with high debt” and that “markets look where the risks are.” So she urges caution on allowing public defense spending because, she warns, “if we increase debt, we expose ourselves to the risk of new crises.” The line to take, therefore, is, “Yes to defense cooperation, but no to new debt.” Abadia Jover adds: “We must not have new debt, which will fall on future generations.” Meanwhile, Fernando Navarrete Rojas defends the stability pact: “We have to make sure that the rules are credible for citizens and markets.”

The Stability Pact is neither being changed nor reformed: this is the concept that Adam Szlapka, Minister for European Affairs of Poland, made clear speaking in the House to represent the proposals related to loosening stability pact constraints. “For the Polish presidency, implementing the new Stability Pact is crucial,” he cuts short. “The time has come to implement what we have agreed” in the EU because “economic and financial stability remain crucial” for the future of the EU as a whole.