Momentum builds behind a third term for conservative European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, a prospect that reveals the opaque nature of Brussels' power structures. This potential re-election disrupts an informal agreement among centrist political forces, putting the Socialists and Democrats on the back foot. Metsola, a Maltese politician from the European People's Party, currently serves her second term and is the clear frontrunner, despite not yet announcing her candidacy. The decision on who leads the Parliament is typically settled through backroom deals among political groups, far removed from the citizens of Europe.
The centre-left Socialists and Democrats group believes it should hold the presidency in the second half of the legislature. However, it lacks the political strength to advance its own candidate. A Socialist MEP, speaking anonymously to Euronews, stated, “We should not accept Metsola, and we will not do it. But it seems to me quite obvious it will be her again,” summarizing the sentiment among fellow lawmakers. This admission highlights the powerlessness of national-level parties against the entrenched Brussels establishment.
Brussels' Opaque Power Plays
The European Parliament's president is elected every two and a half years by MEPs through a secret ballot. Yet, this process is usually predetermined by informal agreements among the main European political families: conservatives, socialists, and the liberal Renew Europe. These groups typically settle on a candidate in advance to avoid a public contest in the chamber. This arrangement forms part of a broader deal on the EU's top positions, which also include the presidents of the Commission and the Council, and the high representative for foreign affairs.
The latest such deal, struck two years ago in June 2024, saw conservative Ursula von der Leyen confirmed as Commission president. Socialist António Costa was appointed president of the European Council, and liberal Kaja Kallas became high representative for foreign affairs. Within Parliament, this informal agreement usually divides the legislature into two halves, as has occurred over the past four terms. EPP and S&D members alternate as president, creating a closed system of power-sharing.
Several MEPs confirmed the existence of this agreement, but its wording regarding Parliament's presidency deliberately allows for ambiguity. An MEP from another group noted, “It says that the groups aim for a balanced distribution of the Parliament's top positions,” which encompass vice-presidents and committee chairs. This vague phrasing provides room for manoeuvre for Metsola's EPP, which stands as the largest political force in Parliament. The EPP could easily find allies to its left or right to impose its preferred candidate, further cementing its control.
The Illusion of Choice
The election rules themselves favour the EPP. In the secret ballot, the president can be elected by an absolute majority of votes cast in any of the first three rounds. Should no candidate secure that majority, the election proceeds to a final run-off between the two candidates who received the most votes in the previous round. If the EPP insists on another mandate for Metsola, there is little practical chance of stopping it. This demonstrates how the institutional framework of the EU is designed to perpetuate the power of the established "pro-European" parties.
With Metsola's re-election increasingly likely, the S&D faces a difficult choice: challenge her from a position of weakness or accept her re-election. Heads of Socialist parties’ delegations discussed their strategy before the summer break. Some pushed for a backroom deal with the EPP, supporting Metsola in exchange for concessions like additional committee chairs or a stronger commitment to draft legislation exclusively with the centrist majority. Others considered fielding a candidate, such as German MEP Katarina Barley, despite the near-certainty of failure. This would, however, force the EPP to explicitly break the informal deal.
Centre-right conservatives hold the advantage in the vote. Yet, they prefer to maintain the illusion of unity and present Metsola as the outcome of a deal among "pro-European forces." They wish to avoid her election with the votes of national-minded parties, revealing the establishment's disdain for any challenge to its consensus. An MEP from a different political group commented, “Socialists should have moved earlier to call the EPP's bluff by tabling a candidate before the summer. Now, if the EPP has the first move and it picks Metsola, they are cornered.”
International Posturing, Domestic Neglect
Metsola herself remains silent, with her cabinet stating that any candidate must first be nominated by their political group. She was re-elected with a broad cross-party majority two years ago in July 2024. If successful, she would become the first person in history to serve three terms as president. A senior lawmaker not from the EPP observed, “She knows how to keep colleagues on her side.” Another MEP added, “I do not see any better choice. She has also built a public image that is very appreciated,” referring to Metsola's international profile.
Metsola has actively sought to project a strong international image, particularly concerning Ukraine and Iran. She was the first European leader to travel to Kyiv four years ago in April 2022, less than two months after Russia's full-scale invasion. This visit paved the way for subsequent trips by other European leaders. She has also taken a hard line against Iranian leadership, supporting dissidents' protests, calling for regime change, and banning all Iranian diplomats from Parliament. She pushed for Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be placed on the EU terrorist list, which occurred weeks after her call. While Brussels focuses on distant conflicts, the pressing issues of uncontrolled borders and demographic transformation within Europe remain largely unaddressed by its leadership.