Front National leader Marine Le Pen during a press conference at the party's headquarters in Nanterre. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Eurosceptics will do well in May, but the federalists will retain their grip

The parliamentary alliance between the the centre-right and the centre-left means the increase in the number of eurosceptic MEPs will have a largely symbolic effect.

Most people believe that Europe needs to integrate for the eurozone to survive. As such, the makeup of the Commission and European Parliament may be about to become rather more important than it has been previously. This is thanks in large part to the Lisbon Treaty, which has bolstered the powers of the Parliament, extending its influence over the Commission, and prompting the main European party groups to insist on selecting their own candidates for the role of Commission President (currently held by José Manuel Barroso).

The overwhelmingly pro-European profile of the European Parliament could also be about to change, with a number of new eurosceptic nationalists likely to be elected at this May's European elections. With no obvious explicit basis for banking union or financial solidarity in the existing treaties, fears are growing among the European cognoscenti that the integration process, such as it is, could be at risk of derailment by Europe’s increasingly restive electorate.

The political duopoly of the centre-left and centre-right has been eroding since the onset of the global recession in 2008 (chart 2). Since then the combined support of the big, pro-EU, pro-market parties, which have held power in most of western Europe since the 1970s, has dropped from 67 per cent to 57 per cent. The average support of "hard" eurosceptic parties, meanwhile, has jumped from 5 per cent to 14 per cent in the same period (chart 1). Both of these measures are weighted, so the rise of the Five Star Movement in Italy, or UKIP in the UK, has a far greater impact than the dwindling of Vlaams Belang in Belgium (where eurosceptics have faded).

Precise projections for seat numbers at the European elections are tricky thanks to the varied electoral systems employed by each country, but the broadly proportional nature of the overall system resulted in the 8.1 per cent that hard eurosceptic parties polled in 2009 translating to 65 or so seats (8.6 per cent of the total). Based on current trends, we can expect such parties to poll between 16 per cent and 22 per cent, which would translate to between 120 and 165 seats.

These numbers should not be construed as constituting one monolithic, eurosceptic bloc. They include parties of both the hard left and hard right who would be highly unlikely to work together. They also include neo-fascist parties like Greece’s Golden Dawn and Hungary’s Jobbik, who are shunned even by right-wing parties like France’s Front Nationale. Indeed, Front Nationale is currently taking steps to expand the eurosceptic, anti-immigration party of which it is a member, European Alliance for Freedom, but has ruled out including neo-fascist parties and has also failed to bring on board Europe’s other big eurosceptic party, UKIP. European parliamentary history is littered with attempts to construct nationalist, anti-immigration parties which eventually broke up in disagreement and recrimination. Such parties do not play well with others and their influence is less potent as a result.

So the data indicate that the centre-right and centre-left will retain their legislative grip on the European Parliament. They vote together on most of the important bills (e.g. the general budget for the European Union). It’s worth noting that there is no mechanism for small groups of recalcitrant MEPs to filibuster legislation that has majority support (as in the US). Speaking time is allotted to parties in proportion to their size and those parliamentarians who go over their allotted time are liable to being physically removed from the chamber.

There will almost certainly be a significant boost to the number of eurosceptic MEPs, but it will likely be of little more than symbolic effect. In fact, we expect it to be more or less business as usual in the European Parliament after the election dust has settled. That’s good for stability, though whether it’s a good thing for Europe long term is another matter. If the toxic mix of political inaction and high unemployment continues in, then the trends in the charts below will likely continue to deteriorate, pushing an ultimate resolution to the crisis even further beyond reach.

Chart 1: Support for eurosceptic parties on the rise, but still relatively modest

Source: ASR Ltd.


Chart 2: Europe’s biggest established parties are losing support

Source: ASR Ltd.

Richard Mylles is a political analyst at Absolute Strategy Research, an independent consultancy based in London.

Show Hide image

For the first time in my life I have a sworn enemy – and I don’t even know her name

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

Last month, I made an enemy. I do not say this lightly, and I certainly don’t say it with pride, as a more aggressive male might. Throughout my life I have avoided confrontation with a scrupulousness that an unkind observer would call out-and-out cowardice. A waiter could bring the wrong order, cold and crawling with maggots, and in response to “How is everything?” I’d still manage a grin and a “lovely, thanks”.

On the Underground, I’m so wary of being a bad citizen that I often give up my seat to people who aren’t pregnant, aren’t significantly older than me, and in some cases are far better equipped to stand than I am. If there’s one thing I am not, it’s any sort of provocateur. And yet now this: a feud.

And I don’t even know my enemy’s name.

She was on a bike when I accidentally entered her life. I was pushing a buggy and I wandered – rashly, in her view – into her path. There’s little doubt that I was to blame: walking on the road while in charge of a minor is not something encouraged by the Highway Code. In my defence, it was a quiet, suburban street; the cyclist was the only vehicle of any kind; and I was half a street’s length away from physically colliding with her. It was the misjudgment of a sleep-deprived parent rather than an act of malice.

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

I was stung by what someone on The Apprentice might refer to as her negative feedback, and walked on with a redoubled sense of the parental inadequacy that is my default state even at the best of times.

A sad little incident, but a one-off, you would think. Only a week later, though, I was walking in a different part of town, this time without the toddler and engrossed in my phone. Again, I accept my culpability in crossing the road without paying due attention; again, I have to point out that it was only a “close shave” in the sense that meteorites are sometimes reported to have “narrowly missed crashing into the Earth” by 50,000 miles. It might have merited, at worst, a reproving ting of the bell. Instead came a familiar voice. “IT’S YOU AGAIN!” she yelled, wrathfully.

This time the shock brought a retort out of me, probably the harshest thing I have ever shouted at a stranger: “WHY ARE YOU SO UNPLEASANT?”

None of this is X-rated stuff, but it adds up to what I can only call a vendetta – something I never expected to pick up on the way to Waitrose. So I am writing this, as much as anything, in the spirit of rapprochement. I really believe that our third meeting, whenever it comes, can be a much happier affair. People can change. Who knows: maybe I’ll even be walking on the pavement

Mark Watson is a stand-up comedian and novelist. His most recent book, Crap at the Environment, follows his own efforts to halve his carbon footprint over one year.

This article first appeared in the 20 October 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brothers in blood