The centre is struggling to hold at the European Parliament.
This week’s plenary session showed that the traditional alliance that has dominated European politics since the inception of the union is no longer undisputed.
For the European People’s Party, the conservatives who dominate the hemicycle, there is now a choice: it can work with its pro-European, progressive allies or team up with the hard right, a combination that would have seemed too toxic to work just four years ago.
But with the tide turning across Europe, the EPP cares about the EPP’s goals.
If that means teaming up with the hardest right in the Parliament, the party is prepared to go there. This week, the party was determined to pass a bill to simplify corporate sustainability reporting and roll back due diligence requirements.
The EPP initially tried to pass the law with the centrist majority, reaching an agreement with Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and the liberals of Renew Europe in October. The deal fell apart when some socialists complained it was unfair to the environment and social rights and betrayed the regulations approved in the previous mandate.
The “Omnibus I” package is in line with the centre-right group’s push to make life easier for companies, as it applies EU due diligence rules only to large corporations and removes the fines of up to 5% of a non-compliant company’s net turnover.
Without the progressives, the EPP turned right. If the package was unacceptable for the socialists and liberals, it worked for European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and far-right Patriots for Europe (PfE) and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN).
The EPP justified this switch, citing the need to slash bureaucracy. “We put forward EPP amendments only and they were supported by the right-wing parties together,” the Swedish MEP Jörgen Warborn, rapporteur for the file, told journalists after the vote.
His explanation is in line with EPP chair Manfred Weber’s strategy: ruling out any structured cooperation with the far right but counting on their votes when needed.
The EPP also argues that if progressive forces showed more flexibility, the votes of the right-wing would no longer be decisive.
The trick of variable majorities
Last year, the EPP signed an informal coalition agreement called “platform cooperation statement” with socialists and liberals, its traditional allies during the previous legislature.
The three-party agreement was needed to unblock the new College of Commissioners: the EPP eventually agreed to back Teresa Ribera, nominated by Spain’s left-wing government, while the socialists and liberals agreed to back Italy’s Raffale Fitto of the ECR, and a close ally of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
The centrist “platform” was intended to function as a stable majority, but it has never worked as such.
In the European Parliament, a “ruling” coalition is much less rigid compared to national politics, where the head of government stems from the largest party in the chamber.
The only way to topple the European Commission is a no-confidence motion, which needs to be approved by at least two-thirds of the votes cast in the Parliament.
This threshold is so high that the probability of a Commission collapsing is much less certain than a national government, which is by definition less stable.
The shift to the right in this parliament also means the EPP has a choice that did not exist in previous terms. Far-right parties were in a minority, easily ignored and seen as too toxic to cut deals with. The rise of the hard right in Europe means more seats and a parliamentary group that is too big to ignore.
For the EPP, it also means an alternative majority is possible whenever suitable.
The shift started in October 2024, EPP lawmakers joined ranks with the ECR, PfE and ESN to recognise opposition leader Edmundo González as Venezuelan president in a non-binding resolution that was mostly symbolic. But the tone was set.
The so-called “Venezuela majority” has resurfaced in more substantial decisions.
For example, when the EU deforestation law was postponed and diluted by amendments introducing less strict requirements, tabled by the EPP and backed by ECR, PfE and ESN. Similar cases include the Sakharov Prize, the setting upof a working group to scrutinise EU funding to NGOs and the rejection of new transparency rules.
The informal alliance is so recurring that the NGO The Good Lobby has created a tracker to flag each time the EPP has aligned with the right.
However, these votes do not mean a permanent change of majority in the Parliament.
The EPP is still voting with the centre on most of the files, including the crucial ones. The three groups defended the Commission in back-to-back no-confidence votes and teamed up with the Greens to demand changes to the next EU budget.
Still, the “Venezuela majority” could influence policy-making during this legislature.
The pullback on the Green Deal through simplification packages and the roll-back of environmental laws could put alliances to the test, with the 2035 ban for combustion engine cars gearing upto unleash an all-out clash between the right and the left.
Migration is another contentious point that is splitting centrists.
The Commission’s new proposals are aligned with the EPP’s hard line on the issue, which is not shared by some liberal and many socialist MEPs.
The right-wing majority will be needed to pass controversial bills such as the return directive, which enables EU countries to establish deportation camps outside the bloc, or the “third safe country” concept, which would allow member states to dismiss some asylum applications without consideration.
Von der Leyen against the ropes
The EPP’s flirtations with the far-right pose a headache for Ursula von der Leyen, too.
Since her appointment to the top job in Brussels politics in 2019, the president of the Commission has relied on the traditional centrist majority to advance her agenda.
In her re-election campaign last year, von der Leyen said she would only work with “pro-European, pro-rule of law, pro-Ukraine” parties. To secure her re-election, she turned to the four centrist parties, including, much to the EPP’s dismay, the Greens.
During those negotiations, she promised to draw a line between the centre and the far right, a commitment that progressives remember to this day.
“Today is a good day for Europe because this vote shows that the centre is holding,” she said last year after her College of Commissioners was approved. “Over the next five years, what will be of absolute critical importance is unity. I cannot underline this enough.”
Von der Leyen has held tight to the pro-centre mantra, even if her pro-European majority has only weakened and fractured compared to her first term.
Commission officials are alarmed by the fragmentation and polarisation in the Parliament, as critical votes descend into recriminations, finger-pointing and culture wars among the very parties that are supposed to close ranks and support the president’s vision.
Meanwhile, patience is wearing thin among member states, the true power brokers.
Diplomats bristle at the Parliament’s perceived inability to act with speed and resolve at a time of multiple challenges. There is a growing feeling that the two co-legislators – the Parliament and the Council – are moving in separate, irreconcilable directions.
For von der Leyen, that means additional complications.
On the one hand, she is determined to keep progressives by her side. In September, she unveiled sanctions against Israel over human rights violations in Gaza and promised new action to combat the housing crisis, two key topics for the left.
On the other, she is aware of the broader shift to the right – and reflects that in policy.
Von der Leyen has developed a close relationship with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, all of whom come from the right and have pushed her to undo elements of her first mandate.
Her most notable reversal is the Green Deal, which she once hailed as Europe’s “man on the moon” moment. Now, she speaks of decarbonisation and a “clean” European industry.
Ultimately, as Commission president, von der Leyen wants to see her proposals move through the legislative cycle and receive the stamp of approval. With member states, she knows the pulse is on the right. With the Parliament, she is still figuring it out.
Read the full article here