European Parliament sidelined from new ‘rearm Europe’ plan

The European Parliament’s Role in EU Decision-Making: A Contentious Debate Over Defence Funding

The European Union (EU) has recently found itself at the center of a heated debate over the role of the European Parliament in key decision-making processes. At the heart of this controversy is the EU Commission’s decision to use Article 122 of the Treaty to bypass parliamentary approval for a proposed €150 billion financial instrument aimed at boosting defence funding. This move has sparked mixed reactions among Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), with some expressing frustration over being sidelined, while others have accepted the urgency of the situation and the need for swift action. The issue has raised important questions about democratic legitimacy, the balance of power within EU institutions, and the broader implications for the union’s defence strategy.

The €800 Billion Plan and the Bypassing of Parliament

The controversy stems from a larger €800 billion plan unveiled by the EU to strengthen its support for Ukraine in the short term and enhance its strategic autonomy in defence over the long term. Dubbed the "Rearm Europe" plan, the initiative includes a new financial instrument worth €150 billion in loans, which will be implemented under Article 122 of the EU Treaty. This article allows the Commission to propose measures directly to the Council in emergency situations, thereby circumventing the need for parliamentary approval. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen defended the decision, emphasizing that the situation requires immediate action and assurance that the Parliament would be kept informed of progress. However, this approach has left many MEPs feeling excluded from a critical decision-making process.

Article 122 and Its Implications

Article 122, introduced into the EU Treaties in 2007, is a rarely used provision designed for emergencies. It enables the EU to adopt measures to address severe economic difficulties, such as supply chain disruptions, without requiring the consent of the European Parliament. While the article has been invoked in exceptional cases, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, its use in the context of defence funding has raised eyebrows. Critics argue that bypassing the Parliament undermines the democratic principles of the EU, while proponents claim that the urgency of the situation justifies the decision. The debate has highlighted the tension between the need for swift action and the importance of maintaining democratic oversight.

Mixed Reactions Among MEPs

The decision to use Article 122 has drawn mixed reactions from MEPs, with opinions divided even within political groups. Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party (EPP) group, has been a vocal critic of the move, arguing that democratic legitimacy is essential and that the Parliament must be fully involved in such significant decisions. He emphasized that Europe’s democracy relies on both its citizens and member states, and that excluding the Parliament risks eroding trust in the EU. On the other hand, some MEPs, such as Riho Terras of the EPP, have taken a more pragmatic approach, stressing the need to focus on delivering results rather than the process itself. Terras and others have expressed confidence that as long as the Parliament retains oversight and transparency over the use of funds, the exclusion from the decision-making process is acceptable.

The Parliament’s Resolution and the Way Forward

Despite the controversy, the European Parliament had the opportunity to voice its opinion on the plan through a non-legislative resolution. The resolution, approved with 419 votes in favour, 204 against, and 46 abstentions, called for increased defence spending by member states, the creation of a defence and security bank, and the exploration of European defence bonds to pre-finance major military investments. However, the resolution did not include any explicit censure of the use of Article 122, despite attempts by some MEPs to include such language. This omission has been interpreted by some as a sign of the Parliament’s limited influence in this matter, as well as a pragmatic recognition of the urgent need for action.

Conclusion: Balancing Urgency and Democratic Legitimacy

The debate over the use of Article 122 has brought to the fore important questions about the balance between urgency and democratic legitimacy in EU decision-making. While the Commission’s decision to bypass the Parliament has been justified on the grounds of expediency, it has also raised concerns about the erosion of democratic oversight and the exclusion of elected representatives from critical decisions. As the EU continues to navigate the complexities of its defence strategy and the challenges posed by the situation in Ukraine, finding a balance between swift action and democratic accountability will be essential. The outcome of this debate will not only shape the future of EU defence policy but also have broader implications for the legitimacy and effectiveness of the EU as a whole.