Ana Palacio says the European Parliament “has obtained its current powers by elbowing its way into relevance and into the treaties. It has been remarkably successful in doing so.” Unsurprisingly, each treaty revision has seen an increase in its responsibilities and has strengthened its ability to check the power of the Commission and EU governments. Since the first European elections in 1979, the Parliament has done what parliaments everywhere tend to do: fight for more power, “going from a parliamentary assembly that served as little more than window dressing to a full-fledged influencer and co-legislator.”

According to the author, “the Parliament must move beyond this phase of expansion and begin to show real leadership.” As the only directly elected EU institution, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) argue that this increase in powers has strengthened democracy. In the past the Parliament had been able to override national governments and choose the president of the European Commission, based on its “Spitzenkandidaten” system. “Lead candidates” are being put forward by the pan-European groups of like-minded political parties in the Parliament. And each contender has to be running in the European elections.

The Spitzenkandidaten-concept was tried for the first time in the 2014 elections as a way of “carving out more influence for the Parliament than EU treaties stipulate.” The Council was supposed to nominate the “lead candidate” from the political group winning the most seats in the European elections. Yet in July it “disregarded the (non-binding) system, members of the Parliament – which must approve the Commission president by an absolute majority – expressed their outrage,” because Ursula von der Leyen, was not one of their preferred candidates.

It was seen as a slap in the face of the Parliament, which has been building its authority lately. It had threatened to derail von der Leyen’s nomination, but accepted the Council’s decision. Critics say her election had weakened the Parliament. The author says, her “candidacy was taken hostage by a system that no longer corresponds to reality.” She was a “compromise candidate” backed by EU leaders, who ignored their preferences and agreed on another. Opponents decried this backroom dealing, calling it undemocratic.

MEPs had themselves to blame for the demise of the Spitzenkandidaten concept. The Parliament is no longer dominated by the two main centre-right and centre-left camps. Had the MEPs managed to unite behind a candidate, it would have been difficult for the Council to override their decision, despite having legal authority to do so. But none of the lead candidates – Frans Timmermans, Margrethe Vestager and Manfred Weber – was able to command a majority, because of their unpopularity among EU leaders for various reasons.

Despite being fragmented, the author says the Parliament “shows unity in continuing to reach for more authority – and this at a time of clear intergovernmentalism, with national capitals dictating EU decision-making. It has become abundantly clear in recent years that even ostensibly appealing initiatives – such as banking and energy unions – get nowhere without buy-in from member states.”

In the face of this fragmentation, the Parliament should not command “more authority at the expense of the Council and particularly the Commission,” because it “will only weaken further the EU’s capacity to develop and implement policy, while shifting the fragile and fundamental institutional balance of power.” Even worse, it “will fuel Europe’s all-too-frequent blame game, with national governments decrying faulty EU-level policies, and EU bodies criticizing weak country-level implementation. The resulting gap between expectations and performance will lend additional support to claims that the EU is an inefficient and bloated enterprise.”

What the author does not say is that in the absence of the two centrist camps, the kind of straightforward majorities achieved in Parliament to pass legislation belong to the past. Ad hoc, cross-party coalitions will become the new normal, possibly complicating decision-making in highly pressing issues, such as the EU budget, border controls and measures concerning climate change and environmental protection etc. Given these circumstances, it would be difficult for MEPs to “flex” their muscles and fight for more powers. Indeed, they should put the bloc’s interests ahead of their own ambitions.