The citizens of the EU have spoken. We now need to interpret the will of the people and learn political lessons for the next, imminent, stage.
For the first time ever, the turnout rate was actually up: 50%, which is far better than the 42% rate of 2009 and 2014 (see EUROPE 12263/3). For this agency, which encouraged everybody to get out and vote (see EUROPE 12260/1), this is good news. While we await the analysis of political commentators, let us attempt an ‘off-the-cuff’ reading of the results: over the course of the term in office of the current Parliament, the citizens have seen European issues arise, one by one, and realised the need to have their say, to engage: the Parliament itself campaigned for them to vote; the mainstream press undoubtedly fulfilled its mission to monitor and to explain, as we have been calling for it to do since September 2018 (see EUROPE 12105/1); the stakes were particularly high in certain countries (France, Italy, etc.).
What, ultimately, is the signal sent out by the voters? The nebulous ‘populist-nationalist-Eurosceptic’; the Liberal Democrat family and the Greens won seats; the Conservative Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and radical Left lost them. What are the implications of this in terms of the political groupings in the new Parliament?
According to the projections of the European Parliament published at 4 p.m. on Wednesday 29 May, the hard far-right (ENF group) rises from 36 seats to 58 (mainly courtesy of the Italian Lega party); the group ‘Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy’ (EFDD) goes from 42 MEPs to 54 (due to the success of Farage’s Brexit Party). The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) fall from 77 seats to 63 (due to the hammering taken by the Tories). The total headcount of ‘populists’ stands at 175 (in an EP of 751). It is by no means the anticipated tsunami. There are no plans to merge these three groups any time soon.
Thanks to the ‘Renaissance’ list, the Liberal Democrat group (ALDE&R) jumps from 69 seats to 105. The ecologists (Greens/EFA) are up 17 seats from 52 to 69.
Looking at those who scored losses, the radical Left (GUE) drops from 52 MEPs to 38. The Social Democrats (S&D) go from 185 seats to 153 (-32), the EPP from 216 to 179 (-37); should the Hungarian Fidesz party of Viktor Orbán decide to exit the group, it would be down to just 166 members.
In another first-ever, the two largest groups (EPP + S&D) do not have an absolute majority (376) between them. To get it, they would need the ALDE&R and/or the Greens/EFA on board. The alternative potential coalition (S&D, ALDE&R, Greens/EFA) would not have a majority either, even if you add the GUE/NGL group. An alliance of all sovereignists plus the EPP – which the latter has officially ruled out – would give you just 354 seats.
Not only is the EPP group still the biggest, it is also absolutely indispensable. Even so, the other pro-European groups whose stars are on the rise may legitimately start to feel that it is now somewhat disproportionate for the EPP to hold the Presidencies of the Parliament, the European Council and the Commission.
The European Council met on Tuesday evening, without naming any names (see EUROPE 12265/1). Taking account of the elections in the nomination of the President of the Commission, as per the Treaty, means having to embrace this situation in all its complexity (see EUROPE 12161/1). On Tuesday morning, the Conference of the Presidents of the political groups confirmed its commitment to the principle of Spitzenkandidaten (see EUROPE 11265/2). On the evening of the day before, Liberals and Socialists turned down a dinner proposed by the EPP candidate, Manfred Weber, who, on the basis of group size, ought to be put forward by the European Council. However, should a quadripartite coalition (EPP+S&D+ALDE&R+Greens/EFA) take shape, Donald Tusk’s idea of negotiating a global package starts to make a lot more sense. Five posts to fill by October.
The European Council has a free hand to select its own President and that of the ECB. It appoints the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, with the agreement of the Commission President, whose own legitimacy is drawn from the European Council and the EP. As for the EP’s President, this position is voted on by the MEPs, some of whom take advice from their national governments, others not at all. So, not all elements of this ‘package’ are entirely in the gift of the European Council. It cannot be done without the agreement of the political groups. The timing aspect of the appointments will also be a factor.
The proportional representation system reflects the diversity of public opinion, no question, but it also contains the seeds of instability. As the Commission can be toppled only by a two-thirds majority of MEPs, it enjoys better protection than any government. But this time, before its leader is chosen, there will have to be a period of intensive multi-party negotiations, which will require more listening, more patience and more discipline than ever before. And they will have to agree on a common political programme. This is the gamble of collective intelligence!
The support of the second-tier groupings will come with a hefty price tag. The EPP cannot possibly give up the Presidency of the Commission unless it gets at least one position it deems to be of comparable weight in return. It’s hard to see what job would tick that particular box other than the Presidency of the European Council, possibly with that of the EP thrown in as part of the deal. Only then could the second-largest group aspire to take that of the Commission, and only then if the other two groups get something they want too.
Renaud Denuit