Eurosceptic alliance ‘may destroy EU from within’
Anti-establishment parties could block Brussels’ laws if they gain seats in May’s elections, report suggests
EUROSCEPTIC parties are on course to take a third of seats in May’s European Parliament elections and could form alliances to destroy the EU from within, a think tank has claimed.
Anti-establishment parties could band together to block or curb EU legislation if they won 33 per cent of the 751 seats, the European Council on Foreign Relations warned in a report published yesterday.
The surge for anti-eu and anti-globalist parties could wreak havoc with the bloc’s foreign and trade policy, as well as paralyse EU migration policy and its efforts to prevent an illiberal drift in some member states.
The parties could even prevent the EU budget from being approved or frustrate the appointment of a new European Commission president when Jean-claude Juncker steps down after the elections.
Far-right parties were predicted to win 132 seats (19 per cent), traditional “conservative Eurosceptics” 65 seats (9 per cent) and other anti-establishment parties, including the hard-left, 53 seats (8 per cent), the report said.
Matteo Salvini, Italy’s deputy prime minister and leader of the League party, has been at loggerheads with Brussels over EU fiscal rules and migration since forming a coalition government with the Five Star Movement in May last year.
The League was expected to return 29 MEPS, up by 23 on the 2014 elections, while Five Star was expected to get 24, 10 more than last time.
The report also predicted gains for France’s National Rally, formerly the National Front, and Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AFD).
On the Left, Podemos in Spain, Syriza in Greece and Insoumise in France are also predicted to win more seats.
“Unfortunately for beleaguered internationalist Europeans, the election really does matter,” the report said, while warning that the parties could curb the EU’S cherished freedom of movement rules by demanding stricter border controls to tackle migration.
Most EU law now requires the assent of MEPS. The parliament has, for example, an effective veto on free trade deals.
MEPS organise themselves into paneu groups of similar political leaning to qualify for funding and speaking time. The largest groups, the European People’s Party and the Socialists and Democrats, are pro-eu, which means
‘[This] would defuse the argument that the project is capable of reform… the EU would be on borrowed time’
most Brussels legislation is passed. But if the Eurosceptic surge materialises, powerful new groups could, for example, veto free trade deals, including a post-brexit agreement, or call for the end of sanctions against Russia.
A recent attempt by pro-europeans to ensure that parties within pan-eu groups shared a “political affinity” was defeated, but the bid to prevent Eurosceptic alliances revealed the Brussels establishment’s anxiety.
The authors warned that a group could block Article 7 procedures against countries led by authoritarian governments, such as Hungary and Poland, for breaches of EU laws which are intended to safeguard democracy.
The long-term influence of such paralysis “would defuse pro-europeans’ argument that the project is imperfect but capable of reform. At this point, the EU would be living on borrowed time.”