gros123_GUIDOKIRCHNERAFPGettyImages_globeaboveEUflagcelebration

A Parliament is Born

Jun 4, 2019 Daniel Gros

With the latest election, the European Parliament seems to have taken a small but important step toward becoming a true expression of Europeans’ popular will. While many issues are still decided in the European Council, the balance of authority between European and national leaders now seems to be less lopsided.

BRUSSELS – European Parliament elections used to be a boring affair, forsaken by voters and barely noticed by the media. But the latest election, held in the last weekend of May, broke the mold, capturing attention as it confounded expectations.

Voter turnout, which had been declining since the first European Parliament election in 1979, increased sharply this time, reaching just over 50%. That is not only the highest turnout for a European Parliament election in 20 years, it is also higher than the 40-50% typical of a mid-term congressional election in the United States. Turnout excluding the United Kingdom – over 53% – was comparable to that of the 2016 US presidential election.

A key factor driving the increase in participation was probably the rise of populist parties, but not for the reason one might think. For some time, opinion polls have revealed rising support for European Union membership, with citizens reporting more confidence in EU institutions than in national institutions. So the specter of Brexit, and the fear that populist forces in other countries would jeopardize the benefits of European integration, may have fueled higher turnout. Yes, populist forces gained ground, but not nearly as much as some had feared. Moreover, none of the major populist parties proposed leaving the EU (or the euro), whereas 16 of them advocated such an outcome just a year ago.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world’s foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

Europe’s Citizens Say They Want a More Political EU
pbombaert/Getty Images

Europe’s Citizens Say They Want a More Political EU

Jean Pisani-Ferry explains why the most important outcome of the European Parliament election was the surge in voter turnout.

4

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 in all 7 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen Jun 8, 2019

Daniel Gros says the new European Parliament (EP) – though fractured – may just be a small but significant step toward becoming a “true” expression of “popular will.” Recent national elections across Europe have revealed a rapidly fragmenting political landscape, with the big parties getting smaller, and the small parties bigger. Now this fragmentation has become reality in the EP following last month’s elections. However the balance of power between European and national leaders “now seems to be less lopsided.”
Much of the focus had been on the rise of nationalists and far-right populists, bent on disrupting the parliament’s decades-long centre-right/centre-left consensus and returning power to member states by rolling back the EU’s remit. Eurosceptic forces had failed to win big, and none had proposed to leave the EU or the Euro as they did before. Their gains are not as shocking as Trump’s 2016 election or the UK’s Brexit vote in 2016. Pro-EU forces still hold a comfortable majority.
The author maintains the EP reminds of the American bicameral system, with its Senate and House of Representatives. Yet the parliament’s structure “resembles that created by the US Electoral College, which gives greater weight in presidential elections to voters in less populous states.” The only difference is that “the over-representation” of lawmakers from smaller EU member states “has not become a major issue.” Vice versa, if America had a parliament, it could well be as fragmented as the EP.
According to the author a fractured parliament may nor be a bad idea. Ever since the first elections in 1979, the EP has been run by the two main centre-right and centre-left groups, reflecting the fact that the vast majority of EU citizens lived in countries governed by parties belonging to one of them. But with the steady decline of centrist parties across Europe, that is now the case for fewer than 40% of the EU voters. Member states, such as Italy, Greece, Poland and France, are all ruled by parties that belong to neither the European People’s party (EPP) nor the Socialists & Democrats (S&D).
The real big winners were the Liberal Democrats, thanks mainly to Emmanuel Macron’s La République en Marche and the Greens. The Nationalists did well, thanks mainly to Matteo Salvini’s League. As a result the new parliament will be fragmented like never before. Nevertheless, the anti-EU camp of nationalists, sovereignists and populists itself is widely fragmented, divided by profound differences of ideology and policy.
Poland’s nationalist Law and Justice party and the far-right Sweden Democrats have shunned Salvini’s alliance because of his fondness for Vladimir Putin. Economically, The German AfD and the Danish DPP are free-market ultra-liberals, but the French National Rally rails against “uncontrolled globalisation” and wants to boost public spending. On migration, Salvini favours a system of quotas obliging member states to share the burden, alleviating the pressure on southern “frontline” states; the illiberal regimes in the east, and many others, reject such a proposal.
Critics say the kind of straightforward majorities achieved to pass EU legislation in the past are unlikely to happen. They believe ad hoc, cross-group coalitions will become more common. They could emerge as veto players and possibly complicate decision-making in sensitive areas, such as the EU’s next budget, border controls and climate measures. Making matters even more difficult will be the challenge if the centre-right EPP panders more to the right for support.
The author agrees that a more fragmented European parliament may make the European decision-making process more troublesome and fractious. But it could also be a boon for democracy. Greater political competition on the EU level could increase public interest in the European parliament elections, and that would be a healthy development for the EU. Although parties need charismatic leaders to win supporte, they should not be all too personalist and rely solely on the political fortune of their leaders.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Jun 6, 2019

David (below) writes incorrectly that: of course the EU Council is not an elected institute.
He demonstrates how confusing the EU top is organised.
This chaotic structure is to the benefit of Juncker and friends, who employ that to gain power. When you look at how dictators came to power, it is because of chaos and that the people around them let it happen.
In a complex organisation as the EU, with 27 diverse members, clarity at the top is essential. Expressed in clear terms who common citizen are able to understand.
- The EU Council. Is the assembly of the elected Government leaders of the 27 EU members.
It is the top in the EU governance. They are politicians and supervise their memberstates as well as the EU project. I would call it the EU Supervisory Board.
- The EU Commission is the institute that assists the Council by implementing the EU project. They are unelected officials and not politicians. I would call it the EU Project Office.
- The EU Parliament is not a real Parliament. It deals only with matters concerning the EU project. It has value as a debating club and sounding board to the EU Commission ( EU Project Group). The real Parliaments are those of the member states.
- The Spitzenkandidaat. It is the responsibility of the Council (Supervisory board) to select the Project leader ( Commission President ) who will be carrying out the EU project.
That is not the responsiblity of the EU Parliament. It has nothing to do with increasing democracy. It is an attempt by the Parliament to obtain a seat in the Council.
It is a corruption of the EU organisation and it should be abolished.
- The EU Council could be strengthened by forming around the EU President an EU management team, comprising of representatives from Germany, France and 4 representatives from groups of smaller members (Hanseatic group).
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Jun 6, 2019

The so-called EU-parliament is not a representative and democratically legitimate representation of anybody but the executive and party elites of the member states. There are 28 different laws about this kind of elections, and one-man-one-vote is not even a consideration. Furthermore, there is no EU-28-people or state for which a representative body of legislators could be elected. There is no such a thing as a transnational parliamentary democracy in 22 languages etc.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Jun 5, 2019

Voter turnout has increased. The most significant is the increased influence of the EU skeptical parties.
Nevertheless I am afraid the Parliament has too little influence to bring much reform in the EU. That has to come from the EU Council.
So, when they appoint new officials I hope they also give them some directions.
Because the EU has not done well over the past decade. Economic decline of 2,4 % ( 2009-2017), many crisises, Brexit, increasing skeptism in the EU, lack of democracy.
- The goal of the Federation must abandoned. We have to go back to the successful EEC.
- The task, role and authoritity of the President of the EU Commission must be better defined. The Commission will be an Institution to serve the memberstates.
- A plan for the coming five years will be established. Focus will be on improving the EU.
- The EU will be no transfer Union. The Eurozone has to be made sustainable.
- The new members will receive a Development program. This will be decided upon by the members paying for it.
- An EU immigration system will be set up based upon the existing laws, which is that only member states can decide what immigrants they want to accept. Brussels will have a logistics, coordinating and deportation role. Blackmail via budget cuts will not be allowed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Margaret Bowker Jun 5, 2019

The next six months should be extremely interesting. Will the EU exude an air of reform or have a real go at it? First indications could be found when the new EU Parliament gets up and running. Will there be a change of direction or the appearance of one? And the big posts to be filled. The next incumbent of the President of the Commission's post is particularly significant. Hopefully, considerable thought will be given to this decision and the bigger picture will feature in the negotiations. Who will lead the European Central Bank interests me even more. A 'neutral' perhaps, from Finland, with appropriate policies might be acceptable. The Fed is working on 'appropriate' policies, which should be very helpful. In this background Brexit seems something to be dealt with efficiently, but not stretched out.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Emery Jun 4, 2019

Without "right of origination", the European Parliament will continue to be a debating society for the legislation brought to it from the European Council (which, of course, is not elected by the people of Europe.)
- Bernhard Kopp Jun 7, 2019
  
  A " right of origination " is the last thing this particular assembly of party delegates should have. This would elevate the chamber above the national parliaments, but without any public control, in 22 languages, without any legitimacy, and without any accountability to a constituency.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/lsjSx4r

Cookies and Privacy

A Parliament is Born

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Europe’s Citizens Say They Want a More Political EU

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

A Parliament is Born

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification