The European Parliament, Heart of European Democracy?

10 May 2018 - France
When ?
Starts the

I. Panel 1
Mr. Ágoston Sámuel Mraz gave an overview of the historic background and the first years after the creation of the European Economic Community (ECC). During the early 1960s, the EU was led by Christian Democrats, who towards the end of the decade, reconciled with the Left that had earlier distanced itself from the Communists. From then on, their big coalition has led the EU. However, based on the latest research carried out by the Nézőpont Group the 2019 European Parliament Election would end this coalition, and a new political mainstream would emerge. At the same time, Eurosceptic forces would lose ground. Speaking about European values, He said that national values differ from country to country, but there are some common ones such as the acquis communautaire—however, they are difficult to define in an exact way. He also agreed with the other panellists saying that these days we were living in a politicized Europe that resulted in a competition between the different political forces. He believes that the EU has two major political figures: Emmanuel Macron and Viktor Orbán, who do not share the same ideology, but a moment will come when they will be able to make a compromise. Ms. Gertrúd Kendernay-Nagyidai raised the question: to what extent do 21st century values differ from those of the 20th century, and what are the common European values that every European shares? By analysing the relativisation of values stemming from Nietzsche's philosophy, she stressed that it was important for the European Union to have at least a minimum of common values, because if a community was unable to re-create its own value system, it would disintegrate. Today's crises such as Brexit, have shown that even the invisible hand of the market is unable to solve everything. Since apparently, this solution has also been drained, and a paradigm shift will be needed, which could, in the near future, force many parties to redefine their values. According to her, this should not be a problem, because the Union is a process, an ever-evolving project. In today's politicized EU, legitimacy is going through a serious crisis. Also, one of the issues is that bottom-up initiatives have no binding force, nor legal basis—this was demonstrated by the fact that from the recent, approx. 60 citizens' initiatives only one was adopted at EU level. But the crucial question is how national parliaments could become more involved in the decision-making process, in particular at a time when centralisation is more and more emphasised, and subsidiarity weakened. This also resulted in the re-politicization of the Union, as today citizens want to take a more active role in the decision-making process. She added that currently we are living the crisis of the free market solutions and many are being left behind. We must give an answer to how we can keep these divided societies together, and what conflict management methods would be acceptable to everyone. Ms. Boglárka Koller emphasized the importance of Christian roots within the Union, but she also pointed out that by simply drawing up an inventory of our common values would not mean anything to the individual. She compared European integration to a marriage: in the beginning, after World War II, everyone wanted peace and economic prosperity. This lasted until the mid-1960s, when major crises started to loom. With the 2008 financial crisis and Brexit, for instance, these have extended into to the 21st century. She also added that the EU should deliver more concrete results in its policies, because these were the most important for the average citizens. According to her, it is an interesting paradox that the founding fathers of the EU built up welfare States based on Keynesian ideas at home, but amongst themselves—and as a result of the EU—free-market principles have been enforced. Although the Maastricht Treaty stipulates economic and financial union, in reality the economic part is still incomplete. In order to further develop it, the political pillar needs to be strengthened, since today, we face backlash from the technocratic concept established at the outset, when political aspects were not a priority. Nowadays, however, the Union is becoming more and more politicized, and anti-EU forces are able to trigger much stronger emotions than those which are pro-European. Today's EU has a number of different levels, and some politicians send out different messages in their own countries from those at the European political stage. All this confuses the populations' relationship with the EU, their EU identity, and it is possible that the EU will develop in such a direction that people no longer know exactly where they belong.
II. Panel 2
Mr. Charles de Marcilly in his opening speech highlighted how the EU and all the European countries are in the midst of a very sensitive stage of development. Having almost passed through the hard years of the economic crisis, the EU is facing many other challenges today. The moderator named Iran, migration, the new US administration's attitude and other issues on which EU's response is awaited. The moderator also emphasised the various security aspects that endanger the EU and trade relations, and how the new European Parliament that will be elected in May 2019 should cope with them. The moderator raised the topic of Euroscepticism as well, and stated that today in some countries Eurosceptic parties were winning over 20% of the vote. In the EP the old main political groups on the left and right are not the only main groups anymore and for this reason new ideas are shaping the political discourse. Mr. Balázs Molnar stated that a reform, not only of the Parliament, but of all EU institutions is necessary. He reminded us how the economic crisis had strengthened some negative aspects within the EU and had resulted in an increased support for populist and extremist parties. Therefore, the EU needs more security, mostly because the US is not ready today to take care of the European interests any more. He also explained how, in his opinion, it is an error to be tough against the UK regarding Brexit and that a more pragmatic approach is needed. He advocated an EU composed of stronger nation states, whose national interest are matters of the greatest importance and for this reason the unanimity vote within the Council is of vital importance in terms of dealing with critical issues. He also highlighted the counterproductive aspect of the transnational EP party lists proposed by French President Macron, because it is unthinkable that a citizen of one country to be forced to cast his vote for a representative with a different nationality from him. He mentioned the importance of guaranteeing and preserving the EU's four basic freedoms. If we reduce or limit the basic freedoms, it might cause serious damage to the whole integration process. He mentioned that citizens in Western Europe could not expect to live in such wealth as the previous generations had done and for this reason progress has to be achieved and a strong issue in this sense is security. He also emphasized that after Brexit, 22 seats will be redistributed to other Member States and that the number of MPs will be lowered to 700. The Deputy Minister of State warned against the plan of a multispeed European integration. There is already a group of States that might be considered as the centre and others, the periphery; and the main question is how we deal with this in the future and which reforms we should use to decrease this gap. Mr. László Boros agreed that the EU should protect the achievements of the last 60 years, but that we should bear in mind that the integration process was started with the purpose of seeking further integration and not to stop at one point. He stated that in Hungary there is some uncertainty about the respect and acceptation of some European values. Focusing only on one point and creating a sense of anger towards EU institutions is dangerous and counterproductive. He emphasized, that serious reforms can only be implemented with the reform of all of the institutions. He stated that there are still many uncertainties within the EU and we still do not know where Macron's place in the EP will be or which side Italy will take. Also, the system of seat allocation is too disproportionate and has to be reformed: it is not fair that in Germany one seat needs 800.000 voters, while in Malta the number is 80.000. He emphasized how EU institutions should try to reduce the democratic deficit and that the yellow card procedure is a useful tool, but that the process might have to be regulated. According to him, transnational lists will not increase the distance between voters and EP, but that it will further harmonise the democratic system within the EP. Moreover, the multispeed EU already exists, and it is up to those nations outside the core to manage this situation with a more prepositive approach and with more openness. Ms Erzsébet Kardosné-Kaponyi emphasized how the EU is in a situation as in 2014, when the heads of State were called to reform all of the institutions. According to her, Brexit is still an ongoing process in which everybody is trying to out trump the other. The UK will be weaker outside the EU and the EU without the UK will be less productive. As a lawyer she emphasized the importance of norms and she affirmed that the leading procedures are those inside the treaties. As long as we do not have a new treaty we have to follow the one in force. Only the Court has the right to settle disputes between countries and to give the correct interpretation of the treaties. She stated that now it is important to understand which direction the EU will take, whether towards a federal or confederal union. The topic of the distribution of seats is only a detail that can be discussed also at the end. The speaker mentioned the Cambridge Compromise formula according to which Hungary will receive less seats than in the current situation, but that will correct today's discrepancies between the number of seats and population. In this sense, V4 countries should work together to make their voices heard, but in a smart way. The Cohesion policy is very important for those countries trying to converge toward the centre. She affirmed that EU first needs reform before any other possible enlargement.Events
19 November 2025 to 19 November 2025
The Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies organises an open lecture by Jean-Dominique Giuliani, President of the Robert Schuman Foundation.
The lecture, titled “Democratic Resilience in Europe in Times of Polarisation,” is organized in cooperation with the French Embassy in Tallinn and the Institut français d’Estonie, as part of the French Week in Tartu. The event opened by Ms. Sophie Coumel, Director of the Institut français and Cultural Counsellor, and moderated by Dr. Stefano Braghiroli, Associate Professor of European Studies at our institute, .marks the concluding activity of the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence “REPAIR - Rejuvenating Democracy in the EU”, led by the Johan Skytte Institute of Political Studies and supported by the European Union’s Erasmus+ Programme.
