With unpredictable majorities now running the show, the European Parliament is legislating by improvisation — throwing the Brussels machine into disarray.
For the first time in the Parliament’s history, the far-right is within striking distance of power. Majorities anchored by the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) can now swing either towards a centrist pro-EU bloc or towards a right-leaning alliance that gives hard-right forces real influence.
Since September 2024, the Parliament has been projecting this political volatility to its partners — the Council and the European Commission — upending decades of settled interinstitutional balance.
The three EU actors are no longer playing in tune, forcing the legislative process to adapt.
“Everyone could use some guidance,” a senior official who has worked both in the Parliament and the EU executive told Contexte, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The new possible majorities in Parliament make it “completely unpredictable”, and risk creating “more tension between the institutions” and more “friction”, said Andrea Cepova, deputy secretary-general of the ultraconservative ECR group. “Things will never be the same,” she added.
The rise of the far-right Patriots for Europe as the Parliament’s third-largest group following the June 2024 European election has weakened the cordon sanitaire — the long-standing refusal to cooperate with hard-right forces. With that barrier eroded, the era of automatic grand coalitions between the centre-right, centre-left and liberals has come to an end — also challenging the internal workings of the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and EPP.
“It has become much harder to predict where the Parliament will land,” said a northern European diplomat who has been negotiating with MEPs for more than 20 years. He blames the parliamentary unpredictability on the EPP, which is “now shopping around, deciding whether it wants to go left or right”.
On the member states’ side, several diplomats said it has become increasingly difficult to anticipate — or influence — parliamentary votes. Many permanent representations in Brussels say they are effectively operating blind.
“It has become impossible for us to calculate [parliamentary] majorities in advance, since we don’t talk to the far-right,” another EU diplomat said.
That uncertainty is complicating the Council’s own preparations.
It’s also “harder to draw up our negotiating mandate without knowing what stance the Parliament will take”, the northern European diplomat added.
For years, Council diplomats had grown used to a familiar dynamic: Parliament pushing to raise the bar beyond the Commission’s proposals.
However, “this dynamic has now disappeared”, said a central European diplomat. “Sometimes Parliament asks for more, sometimes less, sometimes something completely different.”
The Parliament’s shift may actually simplify the Council’s job, the same diplomat said.
“Now we only care about defining the best position for the member states, and the Parliament will have to follow,” said the diplomat.
The Council is becoming the most predictable institution — while Parliament’s influence over legislation is weakening, he added.
S&D MEP Thomas Pellerin-Carlin echoed these thoughts.
By relying on far-right votes, EPP leader Manfred Weber is becoming “king of a Parliament that no longer has any political impact because it falls in line behind the Council’s position”, the French lawmaker said.
He points to a November 2025 plenary vote on the simplification of corporate due diligence rules, when the centre-right struck a deal with the far-right to secure a trilogue mandate. To hold that alliance together, Parliament accepted amendments that diluted its position, bringing it close to the Council’s initial mandate.
Another parliamentary source said that, on that file, centrist and left-wing groups quietly signalled to the Council that the mandate resulting from a far-right-backed compromise should largely be ignored.
The episode underscored a deeper shift: Parliament no longer always negotiates as a unified actor.
“It’s very troubling,” the source warned. “But it will happen again.”
While the Council appears to be adapting, the Commission is struggling to adjust to the new parliamentary reality.
As the EU’s agenda-setter, the executive had grown used to a familiar pattern: Parliament pushing for loftier aspirations, the Council pulling it back. The Commission’s role was to arbitrate between the two, fine-tuning the level of ambition.
That equilibrium has broken down, said an official who has worked in the EU executive. Many Commission proposals are now drafted from the outset as compromise texts, aimed at securing a viable majority.
The shift is not always deliberate, but several sources describe it as a shared reflex.
During preparations for the automotive package unveiled in December, some officials pushed internally for stronger decarbonisation measures, said one Commission official. But “what came out was a text that would allow for a European majority”, the source added.
The logic was to reassure the EPP’s right wing that it would not need far-right backing to weaken green ambitions.
An EPP official confirmed the shift, saying the party now presses the Commission to reflect its concerns earlier in the drafting process.
But managing those tensions is tough.
For months, at the Commission, “they are no longer able to anticipate, to strike the right balance”, said one diplomat.
Commission officials “are out of sync with the political climate of either institution”, the same diplomat said, citing the example of EU rules on deforestation-linked products.
After weeks of consultation, that October proposal fell flat, with majorities in both Parliament and Council judging that it didn’t cut enough red tape.
When the Commission turns to omnibus bills to simplify legislation, there’s always a risk of mission creep. Several officials describe protracted internal debates to limit the scope — without understanding that MEPs could reopen entire files.
“You spend hours defending your red lines to simplify without deregulating, then you cross the street and you arrive at the Parliament, and you realise that the text you spent so much time drafting has turned into a monster,” a Commission cabinet member told Contexte.
The confusion within the EU executive is palpable.
“The Commission has not grasped why an omnibus can become extremely risky once in the hands of this new Parliament with its shifting majorities,” explains another internal source.
One EU diplomat was blunt: the Commission “is no longer as strategic a player as it was in the past”.
That is not for lack of effort.
One parliamentary advisor says he has never received so many calls from the Commission’s cabinets or directorates-general. Senior-level discussions and internal seminars have multiplied as the EU executive tries to decode the new Parliament.
“This problem was discussed during various away-days, and there is a general awareness of this lack of understanding,” said one participant.
On paper, some commissioners appear well equipped. France’s Stéphane Séjourné counts at least ten former parliamentary staffers among his 15 cabinet members, while Vice-President Henna Virkkunen has eight out of 13.
But none have worked inside the Parliament elected in 2024 — the one now reshaping Brussels’ political scene.