“We should reevaluate our tactics in the EP”
Panorama: What happened to Romania’s influence in the European Parliament during this mandate? Last time we spoke, at the beginning of the legislature, you said that Romania had managed to open a lucky window of influence. What happened to this window?
Doru Franțescu: I was saying that it’s a lucky window and that it won’t be like this for a long time, let’s not get used to it, that it can’t stay at that level. Looks like I was right.
Romania’s lucky window, although not closing completely, is closing partially. On the one hand, because I had that special opportunity with Dacian Cioloș at the presidency of a political group (Renew Europe, the third largest political group in the EP, no). And from there the influence went down. On the other hand, because the Romanian delegation will be substantially fragmented in the next Parliament, with the arrival of the AUR.
Already the very fact that this work is expected has also affected behaviors, and the way in which the other national delegations relate to them. Because you always start making friends when you’re expected to become more influential. By the time influence is predicted to decrease, it already begins to decrease just from the thought that you will become smaller.
On the other hand, ours, on average, are more concerned with occupying formal positions, as president, vice president, in groups or committees, from where they believe they have more influence or a bigger vision.
Romanians, therefore, like other Easterners, have important points for the positions they occupy, which positions are stable for at least half the duration of the mandate or even the entire mandate. So you have the same, say, 15 points for the entire term.
While others – generally westerners or northerners – are very active in their capacities as rapporteurs. namely to directly influence legislation. And accumulate points during the term. There, they increase their respective points as they are more active, as they influence reports more.
That’s why Romania was doing well before. He has almost the same points, but others have accumulated more as they become reporters and influence more reports.
Panorama: From your point of view, which is the better strategy? What is more important: hunting for reports that are really important to you, your country, your delegation, or your functions?
Doru Franțescu: I think the first option. Even we, after having this year’s and last year’s reports, are starting to place more importance on actually being a political coordinator in a committee or a rapporteur.
It seems that these positions are more and more important as the working dynamics in the European Parliament also evolve. And I think they will be even more important in the next Parliament, which will be even more fragmented, and then those who will conduct the negotiations, those who have to push the reports back and forth will be the ones who will exercise influence. so to remain influential, we should also reorient ourselves or reevaluate our tactics a bit.
What helped us, what hindered us
Panorama: This whole story about influence, like any other political game, is also a matter of circumstances. From your point of view, looking at the last years and this legislature that is coming to an end, what were the circumstances that helped Romanian influence in the European Parliament? What helped us, what held back our potential?
Doru Franțescu: The most positive circumstances were the fact that I had a fairly stable and focused political backer, in the sense that we had no marginal elements, let’s call them that. Or we started having such fringe elements later than other states and that was to our advantage. Before, they began to have Spain, Italy, even Germany, but Germany began to have later, which will be seen in the next Parliament and in them. So this phenomenon helped us.
Even if, at home, it seems to us that the political system is not stable, it is not stable at the level of government changes, but it has been stable at the level of centrality, mainstreaming of political parties until now. That helped us.
On the other hand, the fact that the priorities of the Commission and the Parliament changed a little during the mandate also helped us, in the sense that geopolitical concerns have become more important. Obviously, with the situation at the EU-East border, the countries there, like us and Poland, started to pay more attention. And in the direction of agriculture, we have an advantage here, although it was not dramatically capitalized… It could be capitalized there, and it can be done more in the next mandate.
Also, the fact that we had in the Parliament some parliamentarians with old states there, with many mandates or with a lot of experience and good contacts in Brussels, which are seen as the most influential in our analyses. But not all will stay there.
So, on the one hand, people who had the experience in Parliament, on the other hand, others who had a level of survey. Here the example of Dragoș Tudorache immediately comes to mind, who will no longer be in Parliament. He had the advantage of having very focused technical expertise on his subject and became a star in Parliament on the subject of artificial intelligence.
How to explain the “surprise” Grapini
Panorama: There will be readers who will notice a name in your charts this year, that of Maria Grapini. Explain to me why she is there, not only in the top 100, but also in two top 20. In the country, as you know, there is a completely different perception regarding Mrs. Grapini and her role as MEP.
Doru Franțescu: Yes I know.
Panorama: So: what is the measure of her influence?
Doru Franțescu: We must understand that politics is a popularity game. It’s about popularity within the political family, within the political circles in which you move. It’s about political ability, beyond the technical expertise we were talking about in the case of Dragoș Tudorache.
The fact that you come from a large delegation, that you have political connections and an ability to move helps. And for me it was a surprise. But if that came out of the criteria we applied to everyone, that came out.
Now, let’s not imagine that MEPs from other countries have a level of expertise far above ours. namely they also have their “Grapinis”, so to speak.
Panorama: A completely different surprise is Dacian Cioloș, who, at the beginning of the mandate, was the superstar of the Romanian delegation, which he was pulling up. It was a locomotive of influence. Now, Dacian Cioloș is not even in a top 20, while Mrs. Grapini is in two. What happened to him?
Doru Franțescu: He entered a shadow cone in the second part of the mandate. I know, maybe he ran out of bullets. He had his piece of the pie. And after that, it was probably a bit difficult for him to ask for more, to be given more, to be very influential on reports and in other subjects, because he had already received them.
Politics is a game of transactions, I give you today so you can give me back tomorrow. Mr. Cioloș was much more concerned with national politics in the second part of his mandate. And that was seen.
