( brussels+ )

Briefing on the EP Elections

The election of Martin Schulz (German, S&D) as the new President of the European Parliament (EP) for the second half of the Legislature is more a symbol of continuity than change. Schulz won solidly (387 votes) against opposition from a British ECR Euro-sceptic, Nirj Deva (142 votes) and a maverick British ALDE member Diana Wallis (141 votes).

His victory was the result of the deal brokered between the two big Groups in the EP, the European People’s Party (272 MEPs) and the Socialists and Democrats (190 MEPs) that they would divide the spoils between them across the term of the Parliament as they have done in three of the last four legislatures. The vote shows that, allowing for the turnout (89%), Schulz received virtually all the votes of the two Groups and few from the other four Groups, although in reality a few EPP members will have voted for Wallis as a reaction to Schulz’s abrasive style and some members of the two left groups may have opted for Schulz, in what was for them an unsavoury field of candidates, as the best of a bad lot.

Buzek was a symbol of the new Member States coming of age – he epitomised consensus, convention and caution. This is not Schulz’s style who while in socialist terms is ‘conservative’ personally he is more impetuous, temperamental and downright angry. Some expect much heat if less light from his term of office.

With the EP’s need for qualified majority votes to impose its will on Commission and Council, the result of the last European Elections in 2009 (in which stronger Euro-sceptic voices emerged on both the left and right) effectively restricted the building of these majorities in the EP to collaboration between the two big groups. In the previous legislature, the EPP with the ALDE and other right wing groups commanded a majority while on a good day the Socialist, ALDE and the left could do the same. This was no longer the case after 2009. Yet, it probably strengthened the EP’s federalist, interventionist and social market economy tendencies.

The impediments in both the large groups had been internal with their ‘fifth columns’ waging rear guard actions in favour of the Anglo-Saxon model. But the electorate sorted out British Labour as it slumped to an historic low of 13 seats from 19 (at one time it had held 62), while the Tories’ internal divisions on Europe saw them abandon the EPP for a new Group founded on their strength and buttressed by mostly minor rightwing Euro-sceptic Parties across the Union.

This collaboration between the two big groups was further strengthened by a certain paranoia from Schulz that the deal might come unstuck. As a result he played a very ‘conservative’ hand in the Parliament fiercely resisting inside the S&D Group all attempts to adopt radical positions on the economy, financial regulation or foreign policy. This may begin to change a little.

Firstly, for Schulz the leadership deal has now been sealed. While in the short-term he plans a ‘Trade Presidency’ that should keep the coalition together, in the medium term he has ambitions to be the Socialist candidate for the Presidency of the European Commission in 2014. He will be selected more from the left than the centre.

Secondly, Hannes Swoboda (Austria), Schulz’s successor as S&D Group leader, might turn out to have a mind of his own. He was Schulz’s choice and won easily in the first ballot against French and British opposition but Schulz’s influence in the Group will quickly decline as he takes with him many key administrators into his cabinet. With the 2014 European Elections just beginning to appear on the political horizon, Swoboda will be under pressure to put more clear ‘red’ water between himself and the EPP. Attempts are being made, of which Swoboda is aware, to prepare and launch an Alternative Socialist Vision for Europe challenging the cosy consensus that emerged under Schulz and was challenged by electorally embattled and bruised Parties back in the Member States.    

Relations with other EU institutions – namely the Commission and Council of Ministers - may become a little more strained if Schulz indulges his tendency to strident rhetoric in asserting the EP's role.  There are plenty of hot topics, from the new international treaty on fiscal stability to the EU budget, where the Council and EP are already at odds and the tone of negotiations on big headline issues could become more heated.    

Schulz's ambitions, however, might lead him to adopt a more statesmanlike posture.  And the conduct of day to day negotiations on legislative items, reflecting the political balances and personalities in the various EP committees, will probably be little changed.