Groups ruffled by winds of change

Date: 21/11/1996

By Rory Watson

THE mid-term blues have begun to affect the European Parliament as members indulge in a wide-ranging bout of musical chairs, jumping from one political group to another.

The changes to the parliamentary landscape have been caused by a mixture of national pressures and personal ambitions. They leave in their wake not just acrimony, but also financial repercussions.

The most significant development has been the disappearance of the anti-federalist Europe of Nations (EDN) Group created by French MEP and billionaire Sir James Goldsmith.

The Parliament announced its dissolution this month after French member Anne-Christine Poisson switched to the Gaullist-led Union for Europe (UPE) Group.

The decision to disband the Europe of Nations Group is the first time the Parliament has taken such a step because its rules on the minimum number of members and nationalities were no longer met.

But it is not unprecedented for a parliamentary group to be dissolved. The Confederal Group of the European United Left went into voluntary liquidation in the early 1990s when its former Italian Communist members joined the Socialists.

The other major change in the Parliament's line-up has been the decision of eight Portuguese Social Democrat MEPs to leave the Liberal Group and join the European People's Party.

The move was prompted more by internal developments in Portugal than by a fundamental disagreement within the ranks of Liberal MEPs.

Although angered by the decision, which has reduced its numbers to 43, the Liberal Group insists that the departures will not affect its right to a parliamentary vice-presidency or committee chairmanship.

Senior parliamentary officials insist that shuffling between different political groups is nothing unusual, but concede that the pace is more hectic than usual.

They also predict more moves are in the offing. “The music is still playing. People are now speculating about the future of the European Radical Alliance (ARE) and of the Union for Europe (UPE),” confirmed one source.

Doubts about the ARE have been prompted largely by rumours that its leader, former French European Affairs Minister Catherine Lalumière, would like to return to national politics.

Question marks over the UPE are being raised because of the belief that French President Jacques Chirac feels his country's representatives would be more effective if they were not spread across so many political groups.

Some observers believe the gradual consolidation of the two main groups - Socialists (215 members) and Christian Democrats (182 MEPs) - is inevitable.

If they are correct and both groups emerge from the process roughly the same size, this could strengthen the bargaining power of those such as the Liberals who occupy the centre ground.

Others argue that the very diversity of politics in the Union will continue to ensure a wide range of political groups.

The dissolution of the Europe of Nations Group was more than just a blow to Goldsmith's prestige. He and his followers have had to join the large number of non-attached members.

The most immediate impact is financial - they automatically find themselves ineligible for money which the Parliament makes available annually to political groupings.

This year, the various groups are sharing 12.4 million ecu from the parliamentary budget to help finance their secretarial expenditure and a further 14.3 million ecu for information policies to promote the institution's image in the Union. The funds are divided according to the size of each group's membership and its linguistic make-up.

Although the EDN no longer exists, its former members may still benefit individually from the 6.8 million ecu which is made available to help groups and non-attached members with their supplementary political activities.

In addition, Goldsmith himself is no longer a member of the conference of presidents (made up of political group leaders) who determine a large part of the institution's work and activities.

The absence of a group also makes it virtually impossible for individual members to have access to the chairmanship of committees or of intraparliamentary delegations.

“The weight of individual MEPs is not the same if they do not have a group behind them. They have less speaking time in debates and can introduce fewer amendments,” explained one senior official.