It’s easy to think that the European Parliament elections are the most important elections, but they are not.
Hundreds of millions of voters in 27 countries will go to the polls this weekend, but the European Parliament is the least powerful of the EU institutions. It is often derided as a talking shop. Its 720 members have limited powers and a small number of them are rising stars, retired politicians or even criminals.
But since its founding as an economic union nearly seven decades ago, the EU has never been more important in delivering tangible benefits to its citizens and as a force for stability and prosperity for the world. The parliament elected this time, however weak it may be, will be a constraint or an accelerator on key policies that will determine Europe’s near-term future.
In the five years since the last election, the group has jointly purchased COVID-19 vaccines and launched Massive economic stimulus package It has sanctioned Russia and provided funding for weapons and reconstruction in Ukraine. It has cut off Russian energy imports and negotiated new sources of natural gas. Overhauling the immigration system.It has adopted ambitious climate policies.
But at the same time, the EU has been criticized for failing to heed calls for more accountability and transparency, and for promoting policies that favor urban elites over farmers and rural voters. Many Europeans are also unhappy with the transfer of sovereignty to a nebulous power center controlled by technocrats in Brussels.
Angry over coronavirus-era policies and the arrival of more immigrants, and desperate to regain a sense of control and identity, many voters are expected to turn right, with the two more right-wing parties in the race expected to make significant gains.
This shift has also been influenced by some of the culture war issues related to gender politics, especially in Eastern Europe, the United States and other developed countries.
Against this backdrop, the European elections will produce a new political extreme compromise. It looks like centrist parties will have to work with the far right to make a difference.
if If the predictions are correct, then Parliament may have a hard time carrying out its limited functions – approving EU legislation, the EU budget and the EU's top leadership position. Smaller, more disruptive players will become more powerful. The far right itself is splittingleading to further instability in the European political process.
“Normally these elections come in second or third place in importance. But the vote is important because of context,” said Mujtaba Rahman, managing director for Europe at consultancy Eurasia Group.
Never waste a crisis
The EU grew out of crisis. At the heart of this unique experiment in supranational governance is the idea that Europe’s countries can achieve more together than they can on their own.
Yet the way the EU functions relies on inherent tensions between the EU’s joint institutions (based mainly in Brussels, primarily its executive body, the European Commission) and the national governments of the 27 member states.
According to its founding documents, the European Commission sees itself as the guardian of a federal vision of Europe, leading member states toward “ever closer union.” National governments vacillate between empowering and funding the Commission and trying to control it, blaming it for failures and taking credit for successes.
This weekend's elections will send a strong signal to Europe's leaders about which side the public wants to be on. Every consolidation of power in Brussels has tended to spark a popular backlash that has taken European integration two steps forward and one step back.
The epidemic is an example. During the first wave of the epidemic, Europeans could not get enough vaccines, and then the EU organized Buying billions of doses of vaccine Europeans quickly lifted their harsh blockades.
By many measures, the response has been seen as a success. But it has also fostered a deep distrust of Brussels among voters, especially on the right, who are wary of government overreach and may also be skeptical of vaccines.
Vaccine procurement contracts remain shrouded in secrecy, and the EU is widely seen as having ordered too many doses and wasted taxpayers’ money. (The New York Times is suing the European Commission in the European Court of Justice on freedom of information grounds for access to documents related to these contracts.)
In the wake of the pandemic, as a severe economic crisis devastated countries and triggered dizzying inflation, the European Union persuaded its member states to borrow together to finance a massive stimulus package. This “Rubicon”-style joint borrowing broke new ground and arguably prevented the EU from falling into a deeper and longer recession.
But the EU's richest countries also dislike the bloc because they are underwriters of such debt and net contributors to EU spending. It also angers right-wing voters in countries such as Germany and the Netherlands who believe the EU takes too much from them and gives too little in return.
The next test was Ukraine. When Russia launched a full-scale invasion, the EU joined the United States and other allies in imposing sanctions on Russia. The EU cut ties with large parts of the Russian economy and eventually gave up on Russia as a source of energy — and cheap electricity, too.
Today, while the United States remains Ukraine’s indispensable supporter, the European Union is providing Kyiv with billions of euros for weapons and reconstruction, and promising full EU membership in the future.
The war has become another driver of the far right’s appeal for voters who find supporting Ukraine too costly, as well as other pro-Russian voters.
Which way to go now?
After such crises, governments typically seek to wrest back some of the powers they ceded to the EU to avert disaster. This backlash is fueled by nationalist and nativist parties resenting the loss of sovereignty to the EU.
“The problem is that all the major areas where the EU needs to address issues for its citizens right now — competitiveness, migration, security — these issues are beyond the EU’s remit,” Mr. Rahman said.
“These are areas where national power is embodied and it is very difficult to get countries to give up their sovereignty again and build a collective and coherent European response.”
The EU political mainstream (including the European Commission) tries to stay ahead of this trend, e.g. Easing green policies to meet the demands of farmers who have launched sometimes violent protests across Europe this year.
But the EU continues to push for greater coordination because it sees a new crisis looming: joint defense, an area in which it is less skilled.
Another thing the EU is not good at is foreign policy, but ready or not, these elections will shape whether the EU can find its voice in a deeply fragmented global order.
A Trump presidency could undercut U.S. investment in NATO, push for a quicker peace in Ukraine on Russia’s terms, and lead to more active U.S. support for Israel.
It will be hard for the EU to maintain a tough stance against Russia if the United States cuts its support for Ukraine. The EU’s push for international rules will also face challenges elsewhere, including in the Middle East, where the bloc is a minor player.
More broadly, as the far right strengthens in the European Parliament, leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who are aligned with Trump, will move to the center.
With seven of the 27 EU member states forming coalition governments with nationalist parties, the bloc could end up closer to the U.S. under Trump. The bloc’s own desire to hold together and project European power around the world will be tested.
“I think we should be prepared for drastic changes from the United States, but we may not be able to do that, mainly because member states are not ready,” said Shahin Vallée, a senior fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations.
“My basic scenario is that if Trump is elected, European leaders will flock to the White House to do what they did last time: beg Trump for favors.”
