BRUSSELS — The European Parliament’s political groups are more polarized than they’ve ever been. But they all agree on one thing: The debates are insufferably dull — and it’s time to change that. Parliament President Roberta Metsola asked political group chairs before the summer recess to brainstorm ways to make the hemicycle’s debates — often empty, tedious and scripted — more engaging. It’s part of a long-standing effort to spice up how MEPs do politics in the house. In January, the Parliament tried to start forcing lawmakers to at least show up from the start of debates, by not telling them when they will be called on to speak at the podium. POLITICO got its hands on the groups’ suggestions — which range from more unscripted interventions and new debate formats to turning up the heat on the EU executive. We read them so you don’t have to, but here are the letters in full, by the far-right European of Sovereign Nations, right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists, liberal Renew, center-left Socialists and Democrats, the left-wing Greens and The Left. The center-right European People’s Party and far-right Patriots for Europe did not send any suggestions. “The elements proposed will now be assessed and possible measures to be tested will be made for a new discussion” in a future meeting of political group leaders, the Parliament’s press service said. GETTING TO REALLY GRILL THE COMMISSION All groups agree that commissioners get let off the hook too easily. To put an end to that, the ECR proposes a “ping-pong” Q&A format, allowing MEPs to directly question commissioners — instead of just delivering statements drafted in advance. “This segment should be flexible enough to be added to the agenda at short notice, enabling the Parliament to respond rapidly to unforeseen or emerging events of political or geopolitical importance.” The group wants to improve the tools available for MEPs beyond “purely declarative speeches” to scrutinize the commissioners’ actions — an idea shared by Renew and the S&D, both of which want to have regular quizzing of commissioners. One idea from the ESN group, led by Alternative for Germany, is to extend the blue card system — a tool for MEPs to be able to reply to another MEP’s speech ad hoc and ask a question — to commissioners too. The Left and S&D are also proposing that, following the College of Commissioners meeting in Strasbourg — when the 27 commissioners take decisions together — they then come to the Parliament to present the outcome, and give MEPs the chance to challenge it publicly. SPICING UP DEBATING FORMATS All groups also agree that the blue card system should be allowed to be used more often by lawmakers. The ECR is proposing a new debate format called “right-left” in which political groups with opposite views on big policy issues — such as the Green Deal and migration — “challenge each other’s positions directly.” To boost attendance, many groups asked Roberta Metsola to ban side events during plenary week. | Olivier Matthys/EPA The Greens similarly want “controversial topics” to be prioritized when scheduling debates, and are also proposing a new debate format in which one MEP in charge of a file or topic is grilled for 60 minutes. “After short opening statements, members can respond and rebut directly, allowing for genuine dialogue,” the proposal reads. Several groups are calling on the Parliament to schedule the debates right before voting on the topic or file, either at the plenary or committee level — with some even asking to schedule key debates during voting sessions. FEWER EMPTY SEATS To boost attendance, many groups asked Metsola to ban side events during plenary week. Ushers should also sit MEPs attending the debate in the front rows, instead of their usual allocated seat, to make it more lively, the letters say. Another idea is to reduce the number of debates to focus lawmakers’ attention on those that really matter — in particular getting rid of the many debates on foreign affairs, on which, as the S&D pointed out, the Parliament has limited authority. All letters stopped short, however, of proposing an incentives and sanctions regime for MEPs to actually show up. ‘The EPP believes it’s important to improve attendance and we reflect on the possibilities,” said the party’s chief whip, Jeroen Lenaers, when asked why they ignored Metsola’s request for suggestions. The Patriots did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

KYIV — There were cheers in Ukraine and the EU when the Trump administration sanctioned Russia’s two biggest oil companies Wednesday. The U.S. sanctions “are a clear signal that prolonging the war and spreading terror come at a cost,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a post on X on Thursday. “This is a fair and absolutely deserved step. It is precisely pressure on Russia that will be effective for achieving peace, and sanctions are one of its key components.” He also called it “a strong and much-needed message.” The U.S. slapped sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, and their subsidiaries in an attempt to pressure Russia to take ceasefire negotiations more seriously. “I just felt it was time,” Trump said less than a week after he announced that he’d be meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Hungary and declared that the Russian leader was ready for peace. This was the first time Trump has slapped any sanctions on Russia. The European Union’s 19th package of sanctions against Russia will likely be approved Thursday after Slovakia dropped its opposition late Wednesday. Across the bloc, there was also support for the U.S. move. U.S. “Treasury decision to sanction major Russian oil companies in the face of Russia’s lack of commitment to the peace process. With the imminent adoption of the EU’s 19th package, this is a clear signal from both sides of the Atlantic that we will keep up collective pressure on the aggressor,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a post on X Wednesday night. “So it happened. … The beauty of this decision is its comprehensiveness. The complete oil infrastructure is subject to sanctions as it should be. I think the effect will be big and quick,” the Ukrainian president’s sanctions envoy, Vladyslav Vlasiuk, said in a post on Facebook on Thursday. The sanctions target not only Lukoil and Rosneft but also dozens of their subsidiaries. “Those subsidiaries cover all key links in the oil and gas business — exploration, production, transportation, processing, trade, and service,” Vlasiuk said. Rosneft alone accounts for approximately 40 percent of Russia’s oil production and 14 percent of its gas production, and remains the primary contributor to the federal budget, having paid 6.1 trillion rubles in taxes in 2024. The company also has a fleet of at least 39 vessels. “What adds spice to this particular solution is that Lukoil, Rosneft, and others were preparing cooperation proposals for the U.S. — on the eve of Anchorage [summit], Reuters reported this, and we also knew about it from other sources,” Vlasiuk said. “U.S. sanctions open Pandora’s box. We are working to have more.”

BRUSSELS — The European Union is striving to project unity as it races to negotiate a high-stakes trade deal with Washington, but backstage, national divisions threaten to weaken its negotiating hand. “Nobody in Europe wants to escalate,” European Council President António Costa said last weekend. “Nobody wants a conflict.“ That’s also a message EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič will be keen to convey as he meets with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Thursday for a potentially decisive round of talks. It will be the last chance to clinch an initial political agreement before a July 8 deadline set by President Donald Trump to do a deal or face 50 percent “reciprocal” tariffs.  Away from the diplomatic dance, however, EU countries don’t always see eye-to-eye on how best to deal with the White House. And as so often, the diversity of views held by the bloc’s 27 national leaders — all catering to domestic interest groups and voters — is making it difficult for Šefčovič to drive a hard bargain. The Commission is set to brief EU ambassadors on the talks on Friday. Whether it can quickly announce a breakthrough will depend largely on their feedback. On the final stretch, Brussels continues to push to lower the baseline 10 percent tariff that Trump imposed on most U.S. trading partners in April. It has, however, signaled it could be ready to accept 10 percent should other conditions be met, such as providing immediate relief for specific industries. “There are some differences emerging, which I think should be discussed and composed quickly, because it’s a problem,” Brando Benifei, a senior lawmaker who chairs the European Parliament’s delegation to the United States, told POLITICO in an interview. “This emergence of diverging views from those that seem willing to accept the 10 percent as part of an agreement that would counter the rest, and those that are saying that such a high base tariff is so far from what we do on our side — it is something that should never be accepted,” added the Italian Social Democrat. “I agree with the second camp.” A Commission trade spokesperson pushed back against that characterization of the debate. “There has been a far higher than usual level of consultation with our member states, which is why we have had this very striking level of unity all along,” they told reporters in Brussels on Wednesday. HEAVYWEIGHTS CLASH German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni are the most vocal proponents of a fast deal — even at the price of greater concessions to the White House.  At a summit of EU leaders last week, Merz argued that “it’s better to act quickly and simply than slowly and in a highly complicated way.” During the discussion, he “pointed out individual industries … in Germany — the chemical industry, the pharmaceutical industry, mechanical engineering, steel, aluminum, the automotive industry — [that] are all currently being burdened with such high tariffs that it is really putting companies at risk.” Meloni — a Trump ally — has described the 10 percent U.S. tariff as “not particularly impactful for us.” One EU diplomat, granted anonymity to speak candidly, described Rome as “quite keen to maintain good relationships and willing to accept a lot” in talks about the tariffs. The German chancellor has mostly been pushing for lower rates for specific sectors, such as the powerful car industry that drives its export-led economy. That has gone down well in Washington, with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick observing last month that “Germany would like to make a deal — but they’re not allowed.”  That may not be in the wider European interest, argues David Kleimann, a senior trade expert at the ODI think tank in Brussels.  “The Commission has so far — fortunately — pushed back against the most immediate German instincts,” Kleimann said. “At the same time, the Commission now appears to be willing to accept an agreement — with a landing zone involving sectoral carve-outs from a 10 percent U.S. baseline tariff — that would …  erode fundamental principles of the rules-based trading system and undermine EU strategic autonomy.” SYMMETRY IN ASYMMETRY At the other end of the spectrum are Paris and Madrid, which want to resist the U.S. president’s roughhouse negotiating tactics, according to two EU diplomats who were granted anonymity to discuss the closed-door trade talks. At last week’s summit, French President Emmanuel Macron — who has been pushing for weeks for Trump to remove all tariffs — initially argued against rushing to accept an “asymmetrical” agreement just to meet Trump’s deadline. At the end of the meeting, however, he indicated he might be willing to accept a 10 percent tariff under certain conditions. “It would be best to have the lowest tariff possible, zero percent is the best. But if it’s 10 percent, it’ll be 10 percent,” he said. “If the American choice falls on 10 percent, there will be a compensation on goods sold by the United States. The levy will result in the same levy on U.S. goods.” Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, meanwhile, has tasted Trump’s anger: The U.S. president threatened new tariffs against Madrid last week after Sánchez refused to increase defense spending in line with other allies at a NATO summit — even though that wouldn’t be doable as the EU’s members operate as a trade bloc. To add spice to the mix, smaller countries are also bringing their own demands to the table — all keen to shield their own sensitive industries. Some, whose trade with the U.S. is balanced, are reluctant to take the heat for the bloc’s overall trade surplus with the U.S., for which a handful of countries led by Germany are responsible. Giorgia Meloni — a Trump ally — has described the 10 percent U.S. tariff as “not particularly impactful for us.” | Giuseppe Lami/EPA The split also impacts the EU’s retaliation playbook, which the Commission is preparing in order to be ready to fire back quickly if needed. In addition to initial retaliation measures — approved but not yet implemented — targeting €21 billion in U.S. exports in response to Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs, the Commission has proposed another €95 billion package over his reciprocal and car tariffs.  Special pleading by member countries would reduce the impact to €25 billion, the executive warned last month. Should this week’s talks fail, that discord threatens to undermine the bloc’s ability to impose significant pain on the U.S. economy when EU trade ministers meet on July 14 to take a final decision on the retaliation measures. “Although some member states signal that they could live with the 10 percent if the rest is solved, I still think it’s not a good idea,” said Benifei, the Italian MEP. “You should have countermeasures if we end up in the deal with the 10 percent.”