Brussels/Berlin. Investigations by the German Press Agency (dpa) have revealed that Members of the European Parliament from the European People’s Party (EPP) exchanged messages in a chat group with, among others, politicians from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and other right-wing parties. The exchange took place during deliberations on tightening European migration policy, where stable majorities beyond the traditional parties of the centre appeared for the first time. The jointly drafted proposal secured a majority in the responsible committee – against the opposition of Social Democrats, Greens and Liberals.
What is regarded in Germany as a political scandal is part of everyday parliamentary practice in the European Parliament. Members speak across political groups, sound out positions and organise majorities. Particularly in cross-cutting policy fields such as migration, decisions often emerge not along fixed camps but through variable coalitions. That logic is not an exception but a structural principle of European lawmaking.
The escalation begins only in Berlin. Representatives of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), one of the governing parties, openly announced that they would seek to slow down such decisions at national level. Sebastian Roloff, economic policy spokesman of the SPD parliamentary group in the Bundestag, declared: ‘It must be clear to everyone involved that the SPD will use all available means … to delay and dilute decisions as far as possible.’
Hakan Demir, the SPD’s domestic policy spokesman, was even more categorical: ‘If you can implement an idea only with the help of right-wing extremists, then it may simply be wrong.’ In this way a European process becomes a domestic political instrument of pressure – and Germany’s ‘firewall’ effectively turns into a precondition for implementing European policy in Germany. The threat is directed not against specific content but against the way a majority is formed. That is precisely where its political explosiveness lies.
The EPP as a European power machine
The EPP is not a national party but Europe’s largest political family. It brings together conservative and Christian Democratic parties from across the EU and beyond and forms the strongest group in the European Parliament. It therefore plays a decisive role in shaping European legislation and structurally depends on majorities that must be assembled anew depending on the issue. At its head stands Manfred Weber, a German CSU politician and chairman of the EPP group, whose task is not to impose national lines but to hold together a politically heterogeneous alliance.
Within that family exist different political cultures that cannot easily be harmonised. While the German Union – the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Christian Social Union (CSU) – rules out any cooperation with the AfD, alliances to the right of the centre form part of political reality in other countries. The Austrian People’s Party has repeatedly governed with the Freedom Party of Austria, both at federal and state level. In Italy conservative parties cooperate with right-wing forces, while in Scandinavia models of parliamentary cooperation exist without formal coalition agreements.
Germany’s ‘firewall’ is therefore not a European standard but a specific national model. Comparable concepts exist elsewhere, for example the ‘cordon sanitaire’ in Belgium or the republican front in France, though even there they have come under increasing strain. In many European states a pragmatic approach to new political majorities has long since become established.
The political pressure from Germany therefore encounters structural limits. Friedrich Merz, leader of the CDU and at the same time Germany’s chancellor, called for ‘clarification’ and said: ‘We disapprove of this.’ At the same time he made clear: ‘We do not cooperate with the right-wing radicals in the European Parliament.’ The criticism is thus directed not only at political opponents but also at his own European party family.
At the same time other parties have further sharpened their tone. Martin Schirdewan, chairman of the Left group in the European Parliament, demanded: ‘Manfred Weber must resign.’ Figures from the SPD and the Greens also argue that the alleged ‘dismantling of the firewall’ is not an isolated case but is being carried out ‘systematically’. The political dynamic is therefore shifting from a substantive debate to a fundamental question about the legitimacy of certain parliamentary majorities.
Germany’s special path becomes a European problem
For many EPP member parties the debate is difficult to understand. Cross-group discussions, joint drafting of texts and flexible majorities are part of everyday parliamentary life. The fact that even participation in a chat group is being treated as a political scandal appears, from this perspective, like an overextension of national standards.
The German debate overlooks a central reality. The European Parliament does not function according to the model of stable coalitions. Unlike national parliaments, it has no fixed governing majority. Legislation emerges through shifting alliances that reconfigure themselves depending on the issue. Anyone seeking to push through political initiatives under such conditions must be prepared to move beyond established political camps.
With the threat to delay EU decisions in the Bundestag, however, the conflict changes qualitatively. It is no longer merely about political distancing but about the subsequent correction of European decisions. The message is unmistakable: anyone who organises majorities in Brussels that do not conform to Germany’s firewall risks political obstruction in Berlin. The accusation of coercion therefore arises naturally – not as rhetorical exaggeration but as a description of a political instrument.
For the EPP this creates a strategic dilemma with far-reaching consequences. Majorities in the European Parliament, particularly on migration policy, are visibly shifting to the right. That shift reflects changing voter preferences in many member states. Politically it cannot simply be ignored without losing influence. At the same time the CDU/CSU in particular faces enormous pressure to avoid any form of cooperation, even where it would appear politically obvious.
In the end the conflict condenses into a fundamental question of European politics: should the legitimacy of decisions depend on who supports them – or on whether they command a democratic majority?