Martin Schulz’s ‘power broker’ plan

By Tara Palmeri

The Parliament president would move beyond the traditional role of moderator, under a proposal obtained by POLITICO.

European Parliament leaders are considering new proposals to radically change the way the institution works by consolidating power with the president and the political groups while curbing the influence of individual members.
A draft paper now circulating at the Parliament’s highest levels examines how the institution can grab more power after it seized control last year of the process for electing the European Commission president.

The document, obtained by POLITICO, calls for boosting the role of the president from “interlocutor to political power broker,” strengthening political groups by giving them more sway over the legislative process, and “reducing excess” in the activities of individual members.
The assembly’s top staffer, Secretary General Klaus Welle, submitted the paper last month to Parliament President Martin Schulz and political group leaders.
Welle and Schulz have long been at odds over how to run the institution. Welle has fought to make the assembly more like the U.S. Congress, including empowering individual members with strong support staff. But Schulz has said it is more important to have power centralized at the top.
The new draft from Welle appears to give ground in that battle, with Schulz elevated beyond the post’s traditional role as constitutional moderator.
“The role of the President has visibly changed,” Welle’s paper states. “The President speaks for the House.”
To solidify this new level of visibility, the paper says, “The President has charged the Secretary General and all Directors-General to play an active role supporting him in this new role.”
In the paper, Welle addresses Schulz’s concern that individual members advocate their national interests over those of the political parties, causing divisions within the Parliament, according to an assembly official who requested anonymity. The paper calls for more emphasis on the institution’s “political groups as the core structure.”
“Individual Members have more possibilities than any other parliament to express themselves. This includes an enormous amount of creativity, but can lead to anarchy as well,” the paper states.
The paper, titled “First reflections on European Parliamentary democracy,” says European political groups in the Parliament are hamstrung by a tendency on the part of many members “to re-nationalise resources and voting through national delegations.”
Furthermore, it says, parliamentary committees finalize “more than 80 percent of legislation in first reading without giving the political groups the possibility to impact on the outcome in a serious and consistent manner.”
To concentrate more power in the hands of the political groups, Welle proposes giving them more of a say in the first reading of legislation. The political group and committee leaders, he writes, “should monitor all first reading agreement negotiations on a monthly basis.”
The paper also proposes changing the role of individual members to reduce what it calls “excess.” It identifies two practices now widely used by MEPs as worthy of concern: Parliamentary questions, which are written inquiries from MEPs to other EU institutions on any given subject, and which are frequently used to score political points; and declarations of vote, in which MEPs state for the record right after a vote why they were for or against a measure, and which are aimed at their home audiences.
Asked to comment on the document, Schulz’s office said only that it was an “internal administrative reflection/discussion paper.”
Welle did not respond to requests for comment on the paper.
Early reaction from Parliamentary insiders to the proposals has been mixed. Some MEPs share Schulz’s view that it is important to strengthen the political parties, even if it comes at the expense of the MEPs.

“Keeping the groups strong is the best tool for keeping the Parliament working and fulfilling its role in the institutional framework,” said Siegfried Muresan, an MEP in the European People’s Party group. “The more power and more influence the MEPs have, the higher the possibility that they will use it in their own interest and promote national opinions.”

But others say Schulz is taking his role as president too far.

“The president of the Parliament should be seen more as a speaker who serves the whole parliament across the political spectrum, not a wannabe Prime Minister who acts as figurehead and power broker of a grand coalition,” said James Holtum, a spokesperson for the European Conservatives and Reformists group. 

“The political groups are there to facilitate the work of members but the 751 MEPs must be equally sovereign. Any move to give the majority of powers to a small handful of MEPs would set a dangerous direction that makes the Parliament less open, less pluralistic, and its MEPs less able to fulfill the mandate they were elected for.”

Despite its clear nod to Schulz’s preferences for how the institution is run, Welle’s paper still defends the tools the secretary general has given to individual members in recent years, including increasing their resources and those of political groups and policy departments by 20 percent, as well as committee staffs by 43 percent.
It also notes that the new European Parliamentary Research Service, an in-house think-tank that functions like the U.S. Congressional Research Service, and the new Directorate for Impact Assessment “have given us a completely new quality of advice.”