Check what's new on our other blogs:

The M5S embarrassing exculpation after failing to form a group

They were very vocal in denouncing “fake news” linked to them. But now MEPs from the Five Star Movement (M5S) are the first to offer an alternative version of reality. It’s not easy to tell voters that something went wrong. If the M5S have no parliamentary family and have no choice but to seat within the non-attached members, it is because the strategy they used was not good and their political ability to maneuver was very poor.

They find it is impossible to say “sorry, we made a mistake, we were wrong”, so M5S produced an official press release in which the 14 MEPs try to justify their marginal position in the new European Parliament. Of course the attempt is very clumsy.

‘We chose not to can change in name of change’

First of all, M5S states that “this scenario is the only one that can guarantee representation to the millions of citizens who are asking for a true and non-hypocritical change in the European Union”. Unfortunately it appears hard to imagine what and how the EU could be changed by people with no political group.

As already explained on this blog, having a parliamentary group is key to shape the political agenda of the European Parliament and being in the front-line of the political activity. No group means no chairs, no rapporteurs, less money, less speech time in the plenary. No group means being out of the game. It seems they say that in name of change they wanted to be in the position of not having any possibility change. It seems that being among the non-attached is not a defeat but, on the contrary, a victory. It doesn’t make sense, but that’s it. A “non-hypocritical change” is thus not possible for M5S, so let the Movement being non-hypocritical, since what they say is very far from reality.

The doors are not closed. So why the Movement didn’t walk in?

The Movements insists on conspiracy theory. There was nothing wrong, it is just because of the others. “When newspapers will report that ‘the doors have been closed in face of M5S’, please  remember that with 14 MEPs we would have been the first or the second delegation in many groups”. True, unfortunately, these groups, for a reason or another, didn’t want to embark the Italians so far. Thus, for the time being the doors are closed, and there is no fake news in writing so.

“The truth is that the other existing groups showed themselves insensible and deaf to change”, the press release states. “In some groups the usual power games prevailed, while other groups feel comfortable with the austerity policies that we want to change”.

If the Five Star failed to start the new European legislature with a political group is thus because the other parties didn’t want to change. First consideration: it could be thought that the Movement was incapable to convince the other political forces to change line, and it would be a political failure; Second consideration: how to change the austerity policies being in the opposition part of the plenary, and above all without a political group? It is unclear, and it sound contradictory.

Identity, finally

“Our identity is untouchable and is not for sale”. This is perhaps the key passage of the press statement. There is written that the choice of being in the group of Non-Inscrits (NI) preservers the nature and the identity of the group, which is “a post-ideological and pragmatic force” according to the self-definition provided by the Five Stars.

Since the very beginning people from the Movement have being repeating the Five Stars are neither left-wing nor right-wing. They are basically anti-establishment. Frankly speaking, how the existing pro-European parliamentary groups, expression of the establishment, can accept to work so close with those who want to radically reverse the establishment? Here comes the problem number one of the M5S.

Be the first to comment on "The M5S embarrassing exculpation after failing to form a group"

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Disclaimer

The project was co-financed by the European Union in the frame of the European Parliament's grant programme in the field of communication. The European Parliament was not involved in its preparation and is, in no case, responsible for or bound by the information or opinions expressed in the context of this project. In accordance with applicable law, the authors, interviewed people, publishers or programme broadcasters are solely responsible. The European Parliament can also not be held liable for direct or indirect damage that may result from the implementation of the project.