The leader of the European People’s Party (EPP) group in the European Parliament, Manfred Weber, has signaled a willingness to engage in further discussions with far-right parties, sparking renewed debate about the boundaries of mainstream conservative politics within the EU. While asserting that structured collaboration with such groups is undesirable, Weber emphasized the urgency of addressing issues like illegal migration and securing economic prosperity, suggesting a pragmatic flexibility that critics denounce as a dangerous normalization of extremist viewpoints.
Speaking to the Funke-Mediengruppe newspapers, Weber stated, “I want to ensure that we do not have structured cooperation with far-right parties in the European Parliament, but we will not allow ourselves to be held back from stopping illegal migration and securing our prosperity”. This pronouncement arrives amidst growing scrutiny of the EPP’s recent compromises, notably the weakening of the EU’s Supply Chain Act, achieved with the support of right-leaning factions.
Weber’s remarks also addressed the contentious “internal combustion engine ban” hinting at a potential reversal through negotiations with various political forces. He specifically acknowledged constructive initial signals from Social Democrats, aiming to preempt populists from leveraging the issue for electoral gain in upcoming state elections. This indicates a strategic calculation to neutralize potential political ammunition for rivals by seeking consensus across the parliamentary spectrum, even if it necessitates engagement with previously avoided groups.
Deflecting accusations that his actions are eroding a crucial “firewall” against the political right, Weber maintained that the demarcation remains firm. He unequivocally condemned the Alternative for Germany (AfD) as an anti-European party and an advocate for Vladimir Putin’s agenda. However, he articulated three non-negotiable principles for any engagement with other parties: unwavering support for European integration, solidarity with Ukraine and adherence to the rule of law.
This justification, while attempting to define acceptable parameters, fails to entirely quell concerns that tactical maneuvering in the parliament risks legitimizing extremist ideologies and ultimately jeopardizes the integrity of the EPP’s stated values. The ongoing debate raises fundamental questions about the responsibilities of mainstream political actors when confronting populism and the potential consequences of sacrificing ideological principles for short-term political gains. The calculated ambiguity of Weber’s position will almost certainly fuel accusations of political expediency and further complicate the already fraught landscape of European politics.
