European Parliament’s defence committee caught in political cross-fire and bargaining
The future of the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence (SEDE) has become the source of horse-trading between several political groups, with some arguing the institution lacks the competencies and skills for its upgrade.
A few months after Russia invaded Ukraine, the European Commission proposed a series of texts to boost procurement and the bloc’s arms manufacturing capacity.
The latest is the European Defence Industrial Programme (EDIP), which is meant to upgrade the EU’s military-industrial complex making it fit for meeting potential future war needs.
Now some Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have grabbed the opportunity for their institution, which usually has limited powers in the field of defence industrial policy and its budget, to assert its voice.
French MEP Nathalie Loiseau (Renew), chair of the European Parliament’s sub-committee, has made it her quest to turn it into a fully-fledged committee.
Proponents argue it will give a better parliamentarian oversight over the EU’s future defence industrial policy, dedicating a team of specialised EU lawmakers to European security rather than leaving it to the industry (ITRE), internal market (IMCO), or foreign policy (AFET) committees.
After months of debates, “negotiations go on, all groups are requesting their own thing,” said a political source.
But many see the push as unlikely to bear fruit before the start of the next term post-June’s EU elections.
Horse-trading
The Renew Group and European Parliament President Roberta Metsola are in favour of a committee upgrade, but the Socialists are the hurdle, said Loiseau.
S&D President Iratxe García responded by saying the “group never had a proper discussion on whether to support or not a defence committee, so it is impossible to say we have hindered it.”
“The mandate and competencies of such committee and how they would interact with other committees,” would have to be taken into account, García told Euractiv. This will be crucial in the group’s decision, she added.
“Promoting SEDE to a fully-fledged committee would require a likewise promotion of the human rights sub-committee to a fully-fledged committee,” German MEP René Ripasi (S&D) told Euractiv.
An S&D insider said this is also the group’s position.
Eyeing even further reform, the EPP is arguing for a fully functional health committee, while the Socialists oppose splitting its parent committee on environment, public health and food safety (ENVI).
Renew, S&D and the EPP all see each new committee as a move to prove the European Union – and its elected house – seriously takes the matter into its own hands.
That said, the Parliament remains new to defence policy and holds little influence on an issue traditionally under the responsibility of member states.
Agreeing with the Socialists, Greens leading defence MEP Hannah Neumann said: “If real competencies on defence move [from the member states] to the EU level and to SEDE – including those on the defence industrial base – we can discuss an upgrade.
“As long as we don’t, I don’t see why it is needed,” she told Euractiv.
However, EPP MEP Željana Zovko cautioned the debate is very politicised and may not even lead to concrete results.
“The European Parliament as an institution lacks experts,” on all topics, she told Euractiv, arguing that this knowledge gap could jeopardise the “substance” of the policy.
A matter of European security
For Loiseau, the EU “needs parliamentary control both before [proposals are adopted] and after.”
SEDE members, she argued, would have a specific perspective and understanding of the defence industry and its business model’s particularities, whereby governments are clients, and because of the implications of the war in Ukraine, rather than the traditional market-oriented way members in other committees would.
Last year, infighting between lawmakers on competence sharing, where SEDE’s chair Loiseau argued for a bigger say, delayed negotiations on the EU’s joint procurement act, EDIPRA.
The most sensitive part of the text ended up as the responsibility of the internal market committee, opening the door to non-EU purchases with the bloc’s funds, which the European Commission said went against the text’s legal base.
The result was “not so great,” said Loiseau.
Michael Gahler, an EPP leading legislator on defence is pro-SEDE, agreeing with Loiseau that the war in Ukraine created new needs for the Parliament.
“Programmes we undertake to promote our defence base shall not be addressed in the industry committee but in SEDE, because those programmes’ prime reason is not to promote industry, but to address the threat to our security,” he told Euractiv.
For Loiseau, commenting on the S&D’s reluctance, the Parliament “would grow by adapting to this new reality rather than haggling between political groups or wondering whether, in the end, the status quo isn’t so great.”
Defence “was quasi-inexistent as an EU competence at the beginning of the mandate, but is not now,” she concluded
*Max Griera contributed reporting.
Read more with Euractiv
