BRUSSELS — Following the fallout from the cash-for-influence Qatargate scandal, the European Parliament initiated efforts to establish a unified ethics body aimed at setting and overseeing standards for elected officials. However, recent developments suggest that this initiative may now be in jeopardy.
Concerns arise over potential obstruction
Centrist and left-wing Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are increasingly concerned that the Parliament’s current right-wing majority could hinder or completely obstruct the implementation of this ethics body, despite a prior inter-institutional agreement made during the last parliamentary term. Right-wing lawmakers have aligned to revisit previously resolved issues, including legislation concerning the Green Deal, while also advocating for stricter measures regarding migration and taking a tough stance against the Nicolás Maduro regime in Venezuela.
During the last parliamentary term, negotiations regarding the ethics body experienced significant contention, particularly between centrist and left-wing factions, which advocated for the establishment of the body, and the center-right European People’s Party (EPP), which opposed the notion that such an entity could arbitrarily determine moral conduct. The EPP raised concerns that the body could evolve into a disciplinary council for MEPs. Ultimately, the bill was narrowly passed through by a coalition of centrist and left-wing groups.
Power dynamics shift in the Parliament
Fast forward to the present, and the balance of power within the Parliament has shifted, with the EPP now enjoying a more dominant position alongside a coalition of right-wing groups known as the Venezuela majority. In a recent meeting described by several MEPs as “very heated,” the Socialists and Democrats, Renew Europe, and the Greens sought to expedite the implementation of the ethics body by presenting a list of nominees for its expert group to Parliament President Roberta Metsola and the vice-president responsible for the ethics body.
However, far-right and right-focused MEPs opposed this initiative, employing procedural tactics to delay progress. Members from the Patriots for Europe, European Conservatives and Reformists, and the EPP contended that before the Parliament engages with the ethics body, it must amend its internal rules of procedure.
Daniel Freund, the Greens’ lead negotiator during the previous term, countered these claims, stating, “it’s not true” that amendments are necessary to proceed with the body, while accusing the EPP of having previously attempted to undermine or prevent the establishment of the ethics body.
Additionally, there are concerns regarding Sven Simon, who previously led the EPP’s campaign against the ethics body and now chairs the Constitutional Affairs Committee. Some lawmakers fear he may leverage his position to obstruct the establishment of the ethics body entirely. Juan Fernando López Aguilar, the S&D’s representative on the committee, warned that Simon might “take advantage” of his role to delay or hinder the fulfillment of the agreement for the EU ethics body.
“The most worrying thing is that, in an uninhibited way, the EPP has arranged an opposing majority [to S&D, Renew Europe, and the Greens] with the three far-right groups … to object or postpone the implementation of the agreement,” Aguilar noted.
Despite these objections, Simon maintains that as chair, he will act “neutral and objective” during the process, emphasizing that clarity is needed regarding the nominations for the body’s advisory experts. Once the Constitutional Affairs Committee reaches a consensus, any amendments to the rules of procedure will require ratification by the plenary, where they could potentially be derailed by the Venezuela majority.