In January 2022, Roberta Metsola became the first Maltese person to occupy a top EU role by becoming the President of the European Parliament. Yesterday, she was elected for a second term with a thumping majority – news which the Maltese heavily welcomed. However, is obtaining this high-profile role beneficial for Malta, or does it lead to a loss of direct influence in EU policymaking?
Undoubtedly, Metsola’s ascension to the presidency showcases Malta’s capacity to produce leaders even for the EU level, and could potentially increase Malta’s profile in Brussels and outside the EU. The diplomatic prestige of the role also brings with it an empowering message that, hailing from the smallest member state does not prevent you from landing a position of importance in one of the major institutions.
Moreover, the presidency enhances Malta’s diplomatic leverage. With Metsola at the helm, Malta can build stronger alliances and foster better relationships with other member states. This can lead to increased cooperation on various fronts, including economic, environmental, and security matters. The enhanced visibility that comes with the presidency also means that Malta’s concerns and priorities are more likely to be heard and addressed at the highest levels of EU governance.
The President also has some influence over setting the legislative agenda of the Parliament. Whilst the power is not as big as one might expect, as this role falls under the Conference of Presidents, the EP President is the chair of this meeting and has a vote in the proceedings. The Conference of Presidents is responsible for decisions on the organisation of the Parliament’s work, legislative planning, relations with other EU institutions, and the composition and competence of parliamentary committees.
Therefore, the EP President’s primary role is oversight, coordination, and representation, rather than direct legislative steering. Like Parliament, the President does not have the power to propose legislation. This power lies with the European Commission, and the role of the Parliament is to debate, amend, and vote on proposals. In these debates, as EP President, Metsola must maintain impartiality, limiting her ability to advocate for Malta’s national interests.
This is reflected even in some statements which seem to conflict with the national agenda and priorities. Whilst statements in support of Israel may quickly come to mind, equally important are her positions in favour of EU enlargement. Whilst increasing member states is in the interest of the EU, Malta does not benefit by these inclusions as it further reduces our vote share and introduces nations to the bloc that might be less developed than Malta and with their membership, Malta would also become a net contributor rather than a net beneficiary of the EU budget. Another example would be the increased burden being placed on the maritime industry through the Green Deal, which puts at risk Malta’s connectivity, and to a degree, jobs in the manufacturing industry, whilst also adding pressure on cost of living in a time of inflation woes across Europe.
In addition, the EP Presidency brings about reduced committee participation. Before becoming President, Metsola was actively involved in several important committees, particularly those dealing with migration. As President, she no longer participates in this committee work, meaning Malta has lost its direct influence and voice in these critical discussions. This loss is quite significant, because much of the detailed legislative negotiation occurs within committees, and MEPs can steer policy better in these fora.
One final significant drawback is that Metsola no longer votes in the EP’s plenary sessions unless there is a tie. For a small country like Malta, which has a limited number of MEPs, this loss of a direct vote is notable. However, in practice, gaps in votes are normally too large for one vote to make a difference.
The overall impact on Malta’s influence in the EU with Metsola’s reflection is therefore complicated to assess, with both gains and losses that need to be carefully weighed. The true measure of her presidency’s benefit to Malta will depend on how effectively she navigates the complexities of her role to indirectly advance Maltese interests despite these limitations.
Leave a Reply