European Elections 2019 - Greens, Liberals and Nationalists stay afloat in churning electoral waters

After the last five years, it's not surprising that the old centrist parties of left and right faced a slip in support - to the extent that the big two of the EPP and S&D can no longer command a majority on their own - but their votes held up a bit more than might be expected.  The nationalists and far right had a very mixed night, advancing in Italy and Germany while falling back in Denmark and the Netherlands.  The big winners were the Greens and the liberals, winning an extra 57 seats between them and giving them a strong position in the upcoming coalition horsetrading.

The Results

The results are still to be fully confirmed, and some of the national parties may still switch between the European blocs (Orban's Fidesz party is currently suspended by the EPP and may decide to switch to the ECR), but at the time of writing the results are:

European People's Party 178 seats (-35)
Socialists & Democrats 153 (-34)
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats - 105 (+30)
Greens / EFA - 69 (+17)
European Conservatives and Reformists - 63 (-13)
Europe of Nations and Freedom - 58 (+22)
Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy - 54 (+13)
European United Left / Nordic Green Left - 38 (-14)
Non-Attached Members - 8
New Members (yet to join one of the blocs) - 25

Turnout across the EU was up for the first time after years of continuous decline from 43% to 51%, giving a huge boost to the legitimacy of the Parliament, but the Spitzenkandidat process seems to have made less of an impact than in its first outing in 2014 - except perhaps in the Netherlands, where Timmermans led a revival in S&D fortunes.

What's the Story?

The election brought such differing results that no Europe-wide narrative could really be drawn from them.  The Greens, Liberals and nationalists had good nights in certain areas, though the nationalist right will be disappointed that it hasn't done as well as expected.  The Greens made great progress in Germany, France, Finland and Ireland, while the far right scored successes in Italy and Britain (making modest gains in Germany and Spain, where they underperformed their previous national support, and standing still in France).  The Liberals did well in France, Britain, Czech Republic, Romania and the Nordic countries.  Meanwhile, the centre-left managed to hold on or revive itself in Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal.

Proportional representation means that there is always going to be a certain kaleidoscopic quality to the results, but the electoral churn this year is particularly perplexing.  It seems that the liberal/far right populist divide has polarised pro- and anti-European feeling, leading to mirroring support for those movements in certain countries, and that the Greens are stepping in as an alternative to the old centre-left in countries where the established left is struggling to revive itself.  Both developments will have a big impact on politics at a European level, as MEPs more self-consciously pitch themselves to these audiences, and nationally, as Green issues are taken ever more seriously and certain countries are absorbed in culture wars (particularly France, Italy and the UK).

Tilting left: where now for the Parliament?

Overall the Parliament has started to tilt ever-so-slightly leftwards.  Now the big two have lost their majority, the Liberals and the Greens are increasingly important in forming a stable coalition.  Coalitions aren't as important as at the national level as they can be formed more easily on issue-to-issue votes, but there needs to be a sufficient level of stability and cohesion to elect a college of commissioners and help pick the top EU jobs.

The Parliament website has a useful tool for calculating potential majorities.  The main ones are:

EPP + S&D + ALDE - 436 seats

EPP + S&D + Greens - 400 seats

EPP + S&D + ALDE + Greens - 505 seats

EPP + ALDE + ECR + ENF - 404 seats

The last of these potential coalitions, EPP + ALDE + ECR + ENF, is highly unlikely as ENF houses France's National Rally party and would be considered unacceptable as a coalition partner.  However, it illustrates how difficult it is constructing a coalition on the right as the ENF and EFDD are not only difficult partners politically, but they have very low levels of voting cohesion (this also applies to the far-left EUL/NGL bloc).

The weakness of both the EPP and S&D, coupled with the shift towards the Liberals and Greens, means that the political balance has started to shift leftwards, which may impact on the shape of future Eurozone and other economic legislation.  It would also add weight to arguments on civil liberties.  The four-bloc pro-EU coalition has a very large majority, showing that on issue-to-issue votes, ad hoc coalitions necessary to get amendments and legislation through can afford to err more on the left of an argument. The ability of the EPP to maintain its own cohesion on votes and the economic positioning of the Liberals will be key in determining how far the leftward shift can actually go.  The left is, after all, very divided and will need to have a clearer idea of where it wants to go to make an impact.

#EU09vsEU19 - What's changed in EU politics and social media?

EuroPasionaria has made a welcome return to EU blogging, and has asked old EU bloggers: what's changed? How has EU politics and communication changed online and how does it live up to the idealistic outlook of EU bloggers from a decade ago? La Oreja de Europa, Mathew Lowry and Polscieu have already posted their views under the hashtag #EU09vs19, and it's got me thinking about what has changed over the last decade.

I was mainly active from 2009-2014, actively reading up on and following the last two European elections, but as work commitments increased, I had less time to blog and haven't returned since the last election.  My interest in EU politics hasn't fallen away, however - after I moved back to the UK, I volunteered for some local campaigning in the Remain campaign, and Brexit has pretty much dominated the political concerns around me ever since (particularly as someone who grew up on the Irish border).

So what's changed?  And how do things compare to the aims of Eurobloggers?


EU politics, then and now

Back in 2009, EU affairs were rarely discussed in the national media - and even when they were discussed, it was with little detail and from a(n understandably) fairly narrow national perspective.  EU bloggers were largely people with some academic, work or life experience of the EU, who wanted to open up the EU institutions, politics and issues for wider debate.  It was a lot of fun and it was exciting to be part of an evolving debate and the small successes that the community had in gaining access to the EU Bubble and debating the issues (hey, reading government and parliamentary documents was big in 2009 - there was no Netflix and we had to make our own entertainment!).

The 2009 European elections saw a lot of anti-Barroso sentiment online, but a lacklustre campaign saw little change in the parliamentary arithmetic and he returned to lead the Commission.  The Eurocrisis, however, saw European issues merge with national issues in a major way not only in Ireland, Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal, but also in other Member States faced severe economic circumstances and the big question: how much economic and social solidarity should there be in the EU?  "Europe" loomed larger in the national media, and encouraged more people to join the debate on social media, though often sticking to national silos.

At the 2014 elections, the Europarties tried to bring the debate to life by picking Spitzenkandidaten for the Commission presidency. It did little to stimulate much of a debate outside some circles, and by then the Euroblogosphere community had shrunk (I myself stopped blogging around this time).  Blogging can be time-intensive, so it's not surprising that people dropped out, but it was sad to see that new people weren't joining at quite the same rate.  Discussions moved on to other social media platforms (primarily Twitter), and the interested citizen-activist community of bloggers that lived in the curious middle ground between the media and academia was hollowed out.

What's different in 2019?  Things seem to be the same, only more so.  Brexit, the growth of anti-EU populism, the refugee crisis, and unfinished Eurozone reforms mean that European issues are even more at the forefront of national politics than ever before.  People are more energised on European issues and the debates are much more mainstream.  So many more take to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc., to make their views known.  But the debate is now on the level of the fundamental direction of Europe and its nations in a way that doesn't fully air the key questions or truly hold people and institutions to account.  The Eurosceptic European conservatives and reformists may now have a Spitzenkandidat, but it's hard to claim there's much of a policy debate taking place.


Reasons to be Pessimistic, and causes for optimism

So the kind of long-form, institution-focused blogging that made up the early Euroblogosphere has diminished and, to a certain extent, been dissolved into a broader short-form social media conversation that's much more open.  It's a great thing that much more people are involved and active in the debate.

The fault-line of a pro-EU coalition versus anti-EU populism means, however, that such debates have not yet shifted in the direction we may have wished for.  The Spitzenkandidaten are not under much scrutiny and campaigns are largely Europeanised national campaigns rather than campaigns on European issues, such as the Euro, with national characteristics and flavour.  Rather than building a community that bridges the gaps between citizens, institutions and national media, citizens and national media have begun to engage more with "Europe".  While the increase in support of EU membership and (potential) mobilisation in defence of the basic ideals of the EU and its institutions is welcome, I worry that without the creativity of conservatives, liberals, social democrats and Greens putting forward new ideas in a way that captures the public imagination and fashions real change, the rallying cry in defence of Europe could fade away without generating anything constructive of its own (as the institutions themselves rarely figure in these debates).  That said, with so many new people joining the debate in new ways and taking another look at the world and continent around them, I think we can be optimistic that new and better debates and ideas will emerge.

Personally, I blogged because I was interested in the subject, liked writing, and was proud to be part of such an active and thoughtful community.  It's something that I've learned a lot from and that gave me the opportunity to meet may fantastic people - and I still believe there's a certain value in engaging with people in a long-form format that (hopefully) stretches your thinking.  With European issues so mainstream and with little time to invest in writing amount more niche European issues, I don't feel as great as need to write about the EU as I once did, but I hope to blog more again in the future from time-to-time.

The European Green Primaries Open

The primaries of the European Greens opened yesterday, and anyone in the EU over 16 and who supports Green values can register and vote in them. The primaries will be open until January 28th.

Four candidates are running: José Bové, Monica Frassoni, Rebecca Harms and Ska Keller. They've already gone through two stages before the open primaries - first they have to be nominated by a national party of the European Greens, and then get the support of at least four member parties. This threshold is lower than the PES's (of 6 member parties), and coupled with the maximum limit of 8 supporting member parties, probably encouraged more candidates to come forward and be selected.

The primaries will select 2 leading candidates for the European Greens who will represent them in the election campaign and in debates with other Europarty leaders.

The Candidates

José Bosé is a French Green MEP who has been in the European Parliament since 2009 and is Vice-Chair of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. He got into the Green movement as a farmer in France and has campaigned against nuclear power and GMOs. He is against fracking. Bosé is anti-globalisation and campaigned for a No vote in the French referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He has criminal convictions for destroying GMO crops and a McDonald's in France.



Monica Frassoni is the current co-president of the European Green party. In the last parliamentary term (2004-9) she was a co-leader of the Greens/EFA group in the European Parliament, but did not retain her seat in the election. She supports a "Green New Deal" and is a European Federalist. There has been some controversy over Frassoni running in the Italian elections on a list that competed with the Italian Greens (the Left Ecology Freedom list), which caused the Young Italian Greens to demand her resignation from the European Greens co-presidency.


Rebecca Harms is a German Green MEP who currently leads the European Green/EFA group in the European Parliament in debates (along with Daniel Cohn-Bendit). Harms was a landscape gardener before becoming a politician, and has also led the Green group in the Lower Saxony state parliament between 1998-2004. She got into the Green movement through the anti-nuclear campaign in Germany (over the infamous nuclear waste dump in Gorleben) and has spoken on energy transition and climate change in the EP. Harms supports further EU integration. As co-chair of the European Parliamentary group, she'll probably top the primary.


Ska Keller is a German Green MEP and the candidate nominated by the youth wing of the European Greens. She grew up behind the Iron Curtain and has worked on cross-border solidarity in her home on the Polish border. Keller is a member of the Committee on International Trade and a substitute on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. Her specialisms in the EP are migration and EU-Turkey relations, and she is for better protection of refugees.


It's great to see an open primary get off the ground. Probably inspired by the French Socialist presidential primary that engaged people from outside the party, the European Greens will hope to get people interested first in the primary, and then in supporting the member parties come election time. It will be interesting to see how many participate.

If you're interested in voting, you can vote here.

Martin Schulz: Political, Left-wing and Federalist

Yesterday Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, was announced to be the Party of European Socialists' candidate for the Commission Presidency.

So who is Martin Schulz? A former binder and book-shop owner, Schulz's only experience in political office outside of the European Parliament was at the local level as a councillor and then mayor of Wuerselen in Germany. He was elected to the European Parliament in 1994, was head of the PES/S&D group between 2004-2012 and has been president of the Parliament since 2012.

This experience is both a weakness and a strength. The current trend for Commission presidents is for them to be selected from the ranks of former prime ministers, and it's easy to see why. Name recognition, executive and diplomatic experience and (for members of the European Council) an understanding of national leaders. While Schulz doesn't have this, he clearly knows the EU institutions inside out and currently leads one. Speaking German, French and English and having lead a multi-national political group in the Parliament for 8 years, he should have a good grasp of EU political issues, how the institutions work (and how to work them) and how to build coalitions at the European level. Compared to a former prime minister who is offered the job, Schulz clearly sees the Commission presidency as the top job in his career and will probably be more politically ambitious in the role.

As a more openly political Commission president, a Commission lead by him would probably be more combative. Schulz sees wants the election to be a battle of ideas. As president of the European Parliament for almost 2 years, he hasn't actually voted on many of the most recent and controversial policies (as it's not the role of the president), but he has been a vocal president (no doubt with an eye on the upcoming campaign). In the last few months he's called for immigration reform (and wants Germany to take more refugees), supported pausing the trade talks with the US over the spying affair, supports a smaller Commission, sees the balance between large and small Member Sates shifting too much towards the larger ones, and is anti-austerity and wants Eurozone reforms (including a Currency Commissioner who chairs the Eurogroup). 

It's an open question how far he can take this combativeness from the Commission - the Commission still needs Council and Parliament approval to pass legislation. However, having an outspoken President could be a positive for small member states who want the Commission to do more to counterbalance the big countries, provided that they feel they can hang on to their Commissioners. Those who want an active Commission or to change the economic direction of Europe could see him as the man to pin their political hopes on, but Schulz will need to build broad support across Europe to get the votes he needs, and it might not be the biggest electorate in the world. Though with Eurosceptic parties established as the protest vote and rising in popularity, the PES probably can no longer simply rely on anti-incumbency sentiment to boost its vote. A more coherent anti-austerity vision may actually be the better than national parties simply going their own way. Politically and rhetorically, Schulz is to the left of several of the PES's member parties, though his main Eurozone and anti-austerity ideas are not too far outside the mainstream of the pro-integration centre-left.

How much Schulz's opinions will make it into the PES election manifesto remains to be seen, but Schulz has used the EP presidency to set out his leadership style: political, left-wing and federalist on the Eurozone and not afraid to annoy the bigger Member States. Whatever your political opinion, you can't accuse him of being another Barroso. Obviously this makes him an unlikely choice as the European Council's pick for the Commission, which makes electoral success all the more important for Schulz. He not only needs the PES/S&D to emerge as the winners of the election, but he has to be a visible and successful part of the campaign so that he can't be sidelined by the European Council. As I said yesterday, the lack of an open primary contest makes this more difficult.

The Primary will not be Televised

Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament, has become the candidate designate of the Party of European Socialists for the Commission Presidency. You didn't have to work for the NSA to know that Schulz wanted to run - it's been widely known for over a year that he has been the front runner in the centre-left camp - but the fact that his candidacy has pretty much been confirmed today was a surprise.

It certainly surprised me that the PES announced their candidate today. A few weeks ago I'd written about the PES primary process, so I thought that the nominees would be announced today, with a primary campaign being waged until the end of January. It turns out that out of all the names touted for the role - Helle Thorning Schmidt, Pascal Lamy, Margot Wallstroem, etc. - only one was nominated. So, with 19 member parties of the PES supporting him (out of 32), Martin Schulz has been elected PES candidate unopposed.


Bad for the PES, bad for Schulz

I'm sure Schulz is glad to have it in the bag, but the lack of a proper primary is a bad result for both Schulz and the PES. The primary race was going to be a way of connecting voters (or at least party members) with the European elections, which would boost the profile of the nominees and eventual candidate, make the elections more European (both within the national parties and in the media for the elections) and help energise and inform the grassroots for the election campaign. These factors would have supported and re-enforced each other. However, without a proper campaign, member parties are not so attached to their candidate and Schulz has lost out on the publicity that he will need (as a candidate who was never a prime minister and so not very well known outside the Brussels bubble). The PES have also heavily diluted out on their chance to boast about how democratic they are in comparison to the European People's Party's more intergovernmental horse-trading approach.

It is probably a sign of Schulz's success in his campaign for the nomination that he was the only candidate in the end. He will now spend the primary time touring member parties to talk to them and raise his profile. But it is a loss not to have a contest.


Positives

The good news is that the PES have a candidate! In a way this is a bit ridiculous to have something so basic as running a candidate to be a plus for a political party, but the PES failed to run one last year. Having a candidate will be a plus if placed within the campaign properly. Schulz is right to want a left-right debate in the elections, and it's the PES's best chance to win more seats. Especially within the Eurozone, the PES need to present themselves as the political group with policy alternatives, and a working alliance (demonstrated by having candidates for executive office) that can change things. The centre-left have done very poorly in polls nationally, and with the prospect of a strong Eurosceptic showing, simply waiting for voters to come to them as the party of opposition in most Member States will not work. (Whether Schulz is the best placed for this I'll leave til tomorrow).


The Merkel Factor

With Merkel re-elected, an PES win would complicate things. Schulz, as a German, would be taking the German slot in the Commission and despite the prize position, Merkel would probably be uncomfortable with loosing the power to pick a more CDU/EPP friendly person for the post. In fact, she has already spoken out against the winning Europarty candidate automatically becoming the Commission president. At the same time, the issue of Germany's Commissioner job has not come up in coalition talks between the CDU/CSU and Schulz's SPD (and Schulz has been involved in these talks). Having a CDU-SPD government should make the idea more realistic at the same time.

Election Mail (Northern Ireland Style)

I've finally got some election literature (not that the writing exactly warrants that description) for Northern Ireland. So far I have something from all of the major (and some not-quite-so-major) parties, except for the UUP/Conservatives' Jim Nicholson. Here's a quick overview for anyone who wants a taste of NI political leafleting (you know who you are):

DUP/No Group (Diane Dodds):

Medium-sized booklet promising "Strong Leadership in Challenging Times". The chief concern is on preventing Sinn Féin from topping the poll and the state of Unionism in general. It is almost entirely composed of one-line long bullet points (European issues are mentioned in 2-3 out of 22 of them on the inside pages). EU-wise the DUP is for the "best deal from Brussels for business, farmers and fishermen" - it doesn't elaborate, but my impression from their campaign so far is that they want less regulation and CFP reform.

Sinn Féin/GUE-NGL (Bairbre de Brún):

Tiny stretched postcard of a leaflet; tagline: "Putting Ireland First". Has "MEP" written beside Bairbre de Brún's name, which I thought wasn't allowed (but that might only apply to election posters). Contains a mere two paragraphs - one English, one in Irish. Talks about delivering for Ireland, supporting various communities (agriculture, business, etc) and mentions the potential of a green economy. No policies outlined or even general stances on policy areas mentioned.

Jim Allister/No Group (Traditional Unionist Voice):

Booklet with the most writing out of the bunch. Tagline: "Experience, Principle, Integrity". Main points are the need for a full time MEP (claiming that 70% of laws originate in the EU), outrage over Sinn Féin being in government (the NI regional government) with the DUP (his former party), and his principles on moral and constitutional issues. Highlights his number of speeches, oral questions and written questions versus the 2 other NI MEPs and the NI MEPs of the previous EP, and his ability in "Opposing Sinn Féin 24/7".

Talks about local government issues, but he does talk about European issues - EU funding (he wants more), farming (wants fewer Brazilian imports), CFP (against), regulation (proposes a "regulation holiday"), traditional family values (for), Euro (against) and the Lisbon Treaty (against). Has quotes from Farage and Hannan praising him.

The Alliance Party/ELDR (Ian Parsley - not connected to the more famous Ian):

Fold-out leaflet; tagline: "Replace the Politics of Fear with the Politics of Hope". Pro-European, but not much that stands out - wants to make Europe closer to its citizens, to make it work for citizens, and is pro-green investment - but no policies. May be what Julien Frisch has yearned for in terms of "European experience" - Parsley has lived in Germany, Spain and England, speaks fluent German and Spanish and he has set up his own business (though it doesn't mention if this business was outside NI).

SDLP/PES (Alban Maginness):

Small fold-out poster; tagline: "When we Win, You Win" - in English, Irish, Polish and Spanish. Highlights his online campaign, which in website terms is on all the usual suspects; though his blog makes a play on the old Guinness ad slogan, calling it: "Maginness is Good for EU". Describes himself as "passionately pro-European", and there are some bullet points, which is pretty much the same sort of stuff as in the other parties, except the anti-CFP and defensive CAP stance of NI in general is gentler in rhetoric. Emphasises the importance of the PES and belonging to one of the big EP groups - and has the PES logo beside the SDLP one (one of only two to have the Group logo on their literature - at least, out of this collection).

Green Party/Greens-EFA (Steven Agnew):

Another fold-out booklet; tagline: "For a New Green Deal". One of the few candidates I have actually met in person, but that was a year ago. Calls for a "Green Industrial Revolution" and claims that 5 million jobs could be created across Europe if there's proper investment in green technology (seems possible) - with 50, 000 of them in NI (which I don't personally find a particularly convincing number). Also highlights its links with its EP Group (one column devoted to it), though the group logo is small and on one of the inside pages.


I have to say that none of the leaflets actually impacted on or changed how I'm planning to vote (at the moment, anyway), but that could be because I'm just interested in politics so I'd already knew the outline of the parties' stances. Does leafleting have much of an impact on your voting intentions?