The European People’s Party once again finds itself trapped in a contradiction that Brussels has spent years trying to manage, with limited success. The largest political group in the European Parliament is considering sanctioning one of its own MEPs, Slovenian Branko Grims, for attending an event alongside representatives of Patriots for Europe, Europe of Sovereign Nations, and the European Conservatives and Reformists.
Measures being discussed range from stripping him of speaking time to a possible expulsion from the parliamentary group. All because Grims took part in a conference whose message was almost heretical for certain sectors in Brussels: the idea that different conservative and sovereigntist forces across Europe could cooperate more closely.
The problem is that parliamentary reality has long since moved ahead of the official narrative and the effort to preserve appearances around something that no longer holds together.
Because while Manfred Weber publicly insists on maintaining the so-called cordon sanitaire against the ‘far right,’ the numbers inside Parliament tell a different story. On migration issues, especially during this parliamentary term, the EPP, ECR, Patriots and even ESN have repeatedly aligned on key votes. The same happened with the controversial migrant return regulation and on files related to border control and asylum.
In other words: they vote together, negotiate discreetly, and build alternative majorities whenever it is useful. The problem seems to begin when someone acknowledges it publicly. Why? Because they fear it could become ammunition for the Left, allowing them to perhaps scrape together a few extra votes by exploiting fears of the ‘far right.’
The whole scene has taken on an almost surreal character. European institutions have spent decades presenting themselves as permanent laboratories of dialogue, consensus and diplomacy. Brussels constantly preaches the need to listen to diverse perspectives, build bridges and create common ground between different political actors. That narrative is almost part of the institutional DNA of the European project. Or at least that is what is always said whenever the opportunity arises.
Grims, moreover, is hardly a newcomer to these spaces. The MEP regularly takes part in conservative debates and gatherings where he has defended hardline positions on immigration while also offering analysis and perspectives that many attendees consider valuable.
It is precisely in these informal spaces — conferences, debates or forums — where contacts are usually built and political distances reduced. And that is not something strange in a democracy. It is exactly the opposite.
The European Parliament was created as a space for plural political representation. Its role is not to isolate political tendencies backed by millions of European voters, but to confront them through public debate and parliamentary negotiation.
If sharing a conference can become grounds for an internal disciplinary procedure, where exactly does the line end? A joint panel? An interview? A coffee in the corridors of Strasbourg?
The boundary starts becoming blurred, and that is precisely where arbitrariness begins to emerge.
