Identity And Democracy European Parliament GroupEdit
The Identity and Democracy group in the European Parliament (ID) is a coalition of national parties that prioritize national sovereignty, controlled borders, and a realignment of European governance toward more accountable, citizen-driven decision making. Formed in the run-up to the 2019 elections, the group brings together parties from several member states that advocate a rebalanced Europe—one in which national parliaments play a decisive role and Brussels respects the democratic choices of each member country. Its members argue that ordinary voters have seen Brussels grow distant from everyday concerns, and that a more pragmatic, nation-first approach is required to restore legitimacy to the European project.
From its inception, ID positioned itself as a counterweight to centralized integration, arguing that the Union’s current trajectory—especially on migration, budgetary discipline, and regulatory overreach—threatens the ability of member states to chart their own futures. Proponents contend that the group provides a necessary channel for citizens who want clear borders, secure communities, and policies that reflect traditional social norms and shared cultural values. In this sense, ID frames its purpose as defending representative democracy and the right of national governments to determine economic and social policy without irreducible external dictates. See Identity and Democracy for the formal designation and structure, and consider how it sits beside other European party families such as European Conservatives and Reformists in broader discussions of the European political spectrum.
Origins and Membership
The Identity and Democracy group was assembled as a successor vehicle for parties previously aligned in other European parliamentary coalitions, uniting like-minded forces across several member states. Its membership is drawn from nationalist and conservative parties that have grown in electoral relevance by promising to restore sovereignty, tighten borders, and reform EU structures they see as unaccountable to voters. Notable participants include:
- Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party known for its Eurosceptic stance and calls for reforms to EU monetary policy and immigration rules.
- Lega (Italy) (Italy), a party that emphasizes national sovereignty, stricter asylum rules, and a re-examination of fiscal integration within the Eurozone.
- National Rally (France), formerly the National Front, which has pressed for border security, stricter immigration controls, and a reconfiguration of European integration.
- Freedom Party of Austria (Austria), which has advocated tougher migration policies and a critical view of deepened EU integration.
- Vlaams Belang (Belgium), a Flemish nationalist party prioritizing autonomy and immigration control.
- Sweden Democrats (Sweden), a party that has pushed for strict border controls and reconsideration of Sweden’s EU commitments.
The exact composition of the group can shift with elections and parliamentary alliances, and its members are united more by policy directions than by a single doctrinal program. Members participate in parliamentary committees, coordinate on joint amendments, and speak with a shared emphasis on national decision-making power within Europe.
Policy Platform and Priorities
Sovereignty and institutional reform: ID argues that member states should retain primary authority over key policy areas such as immigration, policing, and certain economic regulations, with Brussels subject to stronger parliamentary oversight and clearer accountability to voters. This includes calls for reforms to the EU budget process and governance mechanisms to prevent overreach.
Immigration and border policy: A central plank is tighter border control and a reduction in asylum inflows. The group promotes policies aimed at faster processing of asylum claims, stricter deportation where appropriate, and a more selective approach to integration that emphasizes civic participation and national norms.
Security, law and order: ID advocates robust policing, counter-terrorism measures, and an emphasis on the rule of law within member states. It argues that safe communities are foundational to democratic legitimacy and economic vitality.
Economic nationalism and competitiveness: Proponents favor policies that protect national industries and address perceived distortions from ultra-Liberal EU rules. They emphasize competitiveness, fiscal discipline, and a level playing field in trade, arguing that a more flexible EU framework would better serve diverse member economies.
Social and cultural policy: The group often defends traditional social norms and cultural heritage as pillars of social cohesion. Supporters contend that policy should reflect the values and expectations of the citizens who elect national governments and that social institutions ought to be anchored in longstanding practices.
Climate, energy and Europe’s future: ID members typically advocate pragmatic energy strategies that prioritize reliability and affordability, while expressing skepticism about policy directions they view as jeopardizing industrial competitiveness. They argue for open debate about the costs and benefits of rapid decarbonization and for policies that protect jobs and energy security.
Foreign policy and defense: While cautious about surrendering national autonomy, the group supports stronger European cooperation in defense and security where compatible with national sovereignty. It favors pragmatic alignment on issues such as cyber security and regional stability, provided national interests and constitutional orders guide decisions.
Debates and Controversies
Controversy surrounds ID in two broad veins: disagreements over policy versus accusations of identity-based prejudice. Supporters insist that the group is a legitimate expression of voters who are frustrated with what they see as Brussels’s distant governance, arguing that its focus is policy realism rather than racial or ethnic grievance. They contend that critics mischaracterize straightforward disagreements over immigration, sovereignty, and economic governance as bigotry, and they reject characterizations that equate policy differences with illiberal intent.
Critics, however, accuse the group of tolerating or enabling xenophobic rhetoric and, in some member parties, associations with movements that have displayed intolerance. They argue that defending national borders and resisting supranational authority can slide into rhetoric that marginalizes minority communities or questions equal treatment under the law. Debates often center on how to balance democratic accountability with the protections afforded to minorities, and on whether calls for national sovereignty inadvertently undermine shared European rights and protections.
From a perspective that emphasizes citizen representation and constitutional order, supporters argue that opposing EU-wide mandates does not equate to rejecting equal dignity for all people. They maintain that legitimate policy disagreements about immigration, security, and economic policy should not be conflated with discrimination, and that the ability of voters to influence national and European policy through their elected representatives is a core feature of a healthy democratic system. They also contend that the political and legal framework of the EU provides channels for redress and reform, and that the existence of a diverse, competitive political landscape is a sign of vitality rather than a threat.
Institutional observers discuss the challenge of sustaining unity within a heterogeneous coalition. The member parties have varied national contexts, languages, and historical experiences with immigration and integration, which means that the group must navigate differences on specifics even as it presents a coherent set of priorities at the European level. Critics worry that internal disagreements could dilute shared commitments or complicate the group’s ability to advance a consistent legislative agenda.
Influence in the European Parliament
As a substantial bloc within the European Parliament, ID can influence committee assignments, legislative amendments, and the tempo of debate, especially on issues touching sovereignty, immigration, and EU governance. Its members frequently advocate for amendments to proposed directives and for rebalancing the EU’s budgetary and regulatory architecture in ways that reflect national preferences. The group’s presence also shapes the political conversation around how the EU should approach reform, enlargement, and relations with member states that pursue more autonomous domestic agendas. See how the group interacts with other factions, such as European People's Party and Renew Europe coalitions, in shaping consensus on complex policy files.