THE MAIN STRATEGIES FOR EUROSCEPTIC MEPs AND HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM

Four main strategies for Eurosceptic MEPs

The first strategy- the Absentee, is a form of ‘exit strategy’, characterized by comparatively low involvement in the assembly and the concentration of the activities at the national level and on the constituency. Such MEPs do not take an active part in the work of the Parliament and its committees, do not have any responsibility within the EP and do not want to be involved in parliamentary work. But these MEPs are very active at national and local levels as they see their role as  promoters of Euroscepticism in national public opinion through interventions in the media, public meetings, etc. Such a strategy allows Eurosceptics to separate themselves from the EP while claiming a proximity (real or not) to their constituents and fellow citizens through strong activity at the national level.

The second strategy – the Public Orator - involves a greater presence in the Parliament in order to denounce the European system by all possible means. Guided by a taste for anti-conformism and an attitude of frontal opposition, public orators give priority to two aspects of their mandate: public speaking, research and dissemination of negative information on European integration. They take great satisfaction from reactions aroused by their attitudes, behaviours and grand gestures. Such MEPs are not interested in the traditional parliamentary work and do not want to participate in the legislative process. They remain outsiders whose primary objective is to publicize and defend their positions by all means and they see themselves as the only real opposition against the European elite.

The third strategy is characterized by pragmatism. Unlike the two other strategies, such MEPs are partially involved in the EP’s daily work of the Parliament while still being in opposition. Their objective is to strike a balance between the promotion of their views and the pursuit of concrete results. They develop a dual conception of their mandate: as Eurosceptic they see themselves as an opposition, but as MEPs they want to make a difference. Two subgroups are distinguishable: the first one includes Pragmatists who conceive and carry out their mandate in order to amend and control, in specific areas, the initiatives of their fellow MEPs and of the other EU institutions. The second subgroup is primarily driven by the motivation to defend the national/regional interest in the chamber and solve the problems in their country/region. They tend to adopt an instrumentalist approach as they use the assembly as a forum for the advocacy of national or specific interests that they cannot defend at the national level.

The last strategy – the Participant - involves a focus on the legislative aspects of the European mandate and a great involvement in committees. Such MEPs do not see themselves as in opposition and are committed to participating in the parliamentary work. They fully adapt their activities and attitudes to the formal and informal rules of the EP and its bodies in order to be seen as insiders. They stand out from the other Eurosceptics by their desire to appear as “MEPs like any other” as they seek first and foremost to influence the decision-making process.

Implications

The choice of a strategy by Eurosceptic MEPs depends on various factors but two are particularly essential. First, the institutional context is a key element to take into consideration in order to understand the attitudes and activities of Eurosceptics. These rules of the game reduce the room of manoeuvre of Eurosceptics. Over the last decades, the rules of procedure have changed considerably: the political groups have been empowered while the powers of individual members have been reduced and their behaviour has been increasingly supervised and regulated. Moreover, the way the EP works (in particular the domination of the two larger groups, the consensual interactions and the compromise-oriented decision-making process) further limits the range of possible strategies for Eurosceptics, who have the choice between getting involved (the last two strategies) or remaining in a sterile opposition at the margins (the first two strategies). Second, if the strategies developed by Eurosceptics depend partially on party affiliation and the electoral system, the degree and nature of their oppositions to Europe significantly influences the choices they make. The more hostile the MEP is towards the European integration or the EU, the more he/she will play an outsider role (Absentee/Public Orator). On the contrary, the more moderate the opposition towards Europe is, the more the MEP will be likely to become an insider and participate in the legislative process.

Radical left MEPs and Eurosceptic from large parties will probably continue participating, to a certain extent, to the decision-making process and to the EP’s daily work. While elected representatives from radical right and Eurosceptic single-issue parties are likely to adopt an outsider strategy (Absentee or Public Orator), at least in the beginning, leading maybe to some occasional disruptions of the parliamentary proceeding but without much influence on the legislative process. Finally, the presence of such dissenting voices could actually be an asset for the EP. They contribute to increasing the EP’s representativeness as an institution open to society in its diversity by providing a channel for the expression of the oppositions of some segments of public opinion that would otherwise remain unrepresented. And they may actually strengthen the role of the EP as an arena for political conflict by bringing a more contentious style in the chamber.

Some lobbyists (especially industry lobbyists) fear the rise of protest parties and anti-EU rebels is going to leave them, and the businesses they represent, out in the cold. They say these groups are anti-globalisation, anti-business, that they are not open to any arguments because they are ideological, that they don't understand business and they're not interested. They say that many of the new lawmakers will prove hard for lobbyists to visit because they won't want to be seen as having close relations with business, that they're opposed to corporate's right to lobby.

A new lobbying approach

Instead of refusing to knock on their doors we should try to engage in a constructive conversation with our opponents. Here are a few suggestions: First, we need to set aside presuppositions about our opponents. Granting others a fresh start, as best we are able, will allow our adversaries the opportunity to share their views without feeling defensive. Second, we should listen to our opponents share their perspectives and the reasons for them and ensure that we accurately understand their position. Listening to and seeking to understand our opponents prevents us from criticizing them based on a misrepresentation and misappropriation of their views. Third, we should share our views and the reasons for holding them and ensure that our opponents accurately understand our position. Sharing our views allows us to feel that our position is adequately and accurately understood and will not be misrepresented or misappropriated. Fourth, we should search for shared ground on which compromise and collaboration toward the common good can be enacted. Focusing on what we hold in common prevents us from seeing our opponents as wholly different than and, thus, wholly contrary to ourselves. Finally, we should discuss and, yes, even debate, our differences in a manner that presents our opponents' views fairly and accurately, even when we are critiquing their position. Turning to debate only after we adequately and accurately understand one another and have identified common ground will ensure a discussion more civil and constructive than would have been possible before.

These steps offer a practical, albeit challenging, way to engage in constructive conversation about divisive issues. Yet, this will not, and cannot, happen unless we are willing to approach our opponents, at least initially. It will not be easy, especially with those groups toward which we have long held negative presuppositions. But it might reveal previously unrecognized common ground on which shared action toward the common good can be enacted. It also might result in a better understanding of one another and in the ability to disagree agreeably. If the latter is all that happens, it will be well worth the effort.