How recent elections could leave the European Parliament “impotent”

Last month saw the election of the most fragmented European Parliament (EP) ever – a move that will have a lasting and profound effect on how Member States, including the UK, will relate to Europe. In the context of years of economic recession, unemployment and lack of growth, the outcome represents a major challenge to the UK government’s reform agenda.

Centrist parties have seen their representation shrink, this will transform the way the EP will work in the future. Traditionally the EP has been dominated by the two main groups – the right-of-centre European People’s Party (EPP) and the left-of-centre Social Democrats (S&D). Together they previously had 60% of the seats. Meanwhile, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) occupied almost 11% of the Parliament. In cooperation, these three groups could comfortably drive forward an agreed-upon agenda. However, after recent elections,  the combined influence of these groups will be reduced to just 62%. The remainder of the seats are now controlled by “outlying” parties, who might try to stall progress and delay consensus.

These power shifts could have a substantial impact on the way the EP works. At key stages in the legislative process the EP generally has to muster an absolute majority of 376 votes (50%+1 MEPs) to get its position approved. However, neither of the two largest groups now come close to securing that number on their own. The S&D could form alliances to its left with the Greens and the United Left group (GUE) but it would not be enough. On the other side of the coin, the EPP has much less room for manoeuvre to its right. The likelihood is therefore that a grand coalition will emerge between the EPP and S&D in order for business to progress, failure to achieve that could make the EP impotent and such a coalition will also mean that controversial measures are unlikely to be approved.

Although populist, anti-EU and extremist parties have grown in number. The reality is that they are unlikely to contribute constructively to the day-to-day workings of the EP, as they seldom engage in committee work and infrequently vote in plenary. What’s more, the lack of cohesion between UKIP and other such parties means they are unlikely to develop a particular policy identity, except when trying to block proposals.

The indifference of these parties – who now make up a of a fifth of the Parliament – towards the legislative process will also mean more work being done by fewer people. This will have a notable impact on legislation and advocacy. If Britain is to achieve the reform it needs, a considerable amount of work needs to be done to change this modus operandi.

The election results across Europe make the need for EU reform clear. But the problem is that the very reforms the UK wants and needs contradict the ethos of the protest parties who now have such significant influence. David Cameron wants to see reforms that increase EU economic efficiency, strengthen the single market, loosen the rules around employment law and increase competition. Reformers want the European Commission to improve the single market while staying out of other areas of competence.

In stark contrast, many of the protest parties are anti-globalisation and protectionist –  the National Front’s battle cry, “France for the French”, typifies this. Many want to see less influence of the single market rather than more, directly contradicting the reform agenda. So the big question is: how do we construct a reform agenda that takes Europe forward, rather than backwards?

The months ahead will be characterised by negotiations to distribute responsibility in the Parliament, and as we have seen in the last few days, the battle to agree the President of the Commission. Cameron’s vocal stance on Jean-Claude Juncker demonstrates that this selection is crucial for the fortunes of the UK reform agenda. Following the selection, the full Commission will be appointed and ratified by the EP, which has the potential to be a very fraught process.

Overall, these elections have ushered a very uncertain period in the development of the EU. Most importantly, the EP could find itself unable to properly exercise the greatly enhanced powers it received under the Lisbon Treaty.

Gary Titley is a Senior Parliamentary Consultant at Hume Brophy Communications. He was leader of the Labour party in the European Parliament and represented the North of England as an MEP for 20 years before stepping down in 2009