The European election results are in. Last night saw the EU Parliament continue its slow Rightward and populist trajectory. But despite some drama, this was largely confined to a few countries’ ballots, not the continent-wide rejection of the ‘globalist’ mainstream that some had predicted. The clues from this election about the future direction of European climate politics are similarly mixed, with the hard green vote falling sharply but centrist parties committed to the green agenda gaining ground.
The big dramas of the night were caused at the national, not European, level. Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo resigned following the country’s coincident federal election which saw large gains for conservative and anti-immigration parties. Similarly, following a huge gain by the National Rally party of Marine Le Pen, which, according to provisional results, increased its seats from 18 to 30, President Macron called a snap general (parliamentary) election in an attempt to restore his weakening authority. In Germany, the ascendent Alternative für Deutschland saw a modest gain from nine to 15 seats. The much-feared rise of the radical Right, in the form of the Identity and Democracy (ID) group, was somewhat muted. The group gained nine seats, increasing its total to 58. The European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group gained four seats.
Both of these continent-wide political groups are circumspect about green policies, arguing for ‘affordable’ solutions to environmental problems rather than the radical targets-based ideological policies that seek bans before economic alternatives can be found. “Ambition has turned into wishful thinking and pragmatism has been replaced by an ideology that has produced unattainable rules and goals,” explains the ID group’s website.
Without doubt, however, the election has been terrible for the parties of the Greens and European Free Alliance (EFA) group in the European Parliament. According to preliminary results, it was the worst election for the EFA group since 1994, with the group’s vote share halving in some member states. Overall, the greens won 18 fewer seats than in the 2019 election.
The EFA fared worst in the countries that had seen the biggest boost for the radical greens in the 2019 election. Whereas in the 2019 election the German Greens had gained nine seats, six of these were lost in this year’s vote, leaving them with 16, signalling trouble for the German governing coalition, of which the Greens are a minority member. In France, the EFA doubled its seats in 2019, but of those 12, seven were lost this year, leaving it with just five.
These losses were slightly ameliorated by modest gains in Italy (three seats), Slovenia (one), Croatia (one) and Czechia (one), in each case up from zero in the last Parliamentary term. Single seats were also gained in Spain (bringing the total to four), the Netherlands (four), Denmark (three) and Sweden (three).
The 2019 elections were (falsely) hailed by many as a ‘green wave’. But as I pointed out at the time, these gains were confined to Europe’s wealthiest parts – the north and northwest – not signifying a continent-wide appetite for radical environmentalism. It seems that the last five years, which have seen lockdowns, the consequences of war in Europe and economic hardship, have shown that deep green politics is a luxury belief predicated on a surfeit of First World levels of abundance. Overall, the EFA’s results this year show a more diffuse and weaker level of support across the EU members.
Despite green parties now having been around for half a century, the group’s vote has historically only hovered around the level required to keep deposits, with the occasional instances of support above or below this level being akin to statistical noise. This speaks to one of the most enduring mysteries of European politics: with so little evidence of public support for radical environmentalism, why does the climate agenda dominate political decision-making both at the EU and national level? Now, with the EFA polling so poorly, will the political centre of gravity shift in Brussels, or will EU elites cling on to the Green Deal championed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen over the last few years?
The European People’s Party (EPP) is the centre-Right group which has long dominated in the European Parliament. In this election, the EPP increased its seats from 176 to 186. This is not a majority of the 705 seats, so in previous sessions the EPP has formed a Grand Coalition with the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group. After the 2019 election, the EPP joined instead with broadly liberal and centrist Renew Europe to give EPP’s nominee von der Leyen the majority she required to become President. However, Renew has lost 22 of its 80 seats.
According to the Telegraph in an article published before the election results, the EPP has already been attempting to soften its environmentalism to face off the emerging threat from the growing nationalist and more conservative parties. This includes vowing to “reverse the EU ban on combustion-engine cars as soon as possible”. But this politicking should not be seen as signifying intent. Much like Rishi Sunak’s minimal adjustment to U.K. Net Zero policies – the delay on the ban on gas boilers and combustion-engine car sales – the softening of policies doesn’t amount to a U-turn and is better seen as an attempt to save Net Zero. We’ve a long way to go before these managerialist technocrats realise the green policy agenda is ill-conceived and doomed.
But how the new presidency – which von der Leyen is hoping to retain – will build a majority coalition remains to be seen. It may be that Net Zero and the bloc’s Green Deal can be saved by von der Leyen seeking a broad or grand coalition, the members of which require a continuation of Europe’s green suicide pact. This may be a better option for the green champion, who would have to perform something of a U-turn if she is to rely on those to her and the EPP’s Right.
The former option would of course risk supplying more grist to the Right’s mill. Will the centrists risk keeping the Right on the margins, with the danger of greater blowback as public anger about mass immigration and the cost of aggressive environmental policies boils over? Or will they try to neutralise Right-wing parties by acceding to the minimum of their demands and bringing them in closer?
Whichever way von der Leyen and her cronies (or her successor and theirs) jumps, one thing is certain. This election was not exactly the earthquake some had predicted, but it does signal that there is nothing ahead but crises for the EPP and wider European political class. Either the corrupt, anti-democratic EU political elites continue to ignore the material interests of half a billion people, or they take steps towards shattering the consensus that has brought them to this point. With public discontent growing, threatening their cosy politics, neither option will be comfortable. Don’t expect an end to Net Zero just yet.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“It’s not easy being green.” K.T Frog.
Easier to be RED though, which is what GREEN really is.
The one overriding bogey for the green blob is going to be cost of living. As fuel costs rise and these costs effect us domestically via, heating, travel and food the blinkers are going to lift. As increasing fuel costs percolate through every aspect of our lives via clothing, hardware, the dreaded mobies, housebuilding, roads etc etc even the idiots will wake up and realise that they are being had. There has to come a crunch point. Obviously our Davos Deviant functionaries will attempt to shield us from this initially but eventually there will be no more shields to hide behind.
When the gloves come off…who knows where it ends.
Correct.—–The biggest bogey will be when we get “Dynamic Pricing” via smart meters. I have mentioned this a few times here on Daily Sceptic, but a few times isn’t enough and I will be mentioning it often. “Dynamic Pricing” will mean the price of customers electricity will be based on demand. (a) Is there enough wind? If not up will got the price to discourage use. (b) What time of day is it? In other words at peak times when everyone is at home cooking dinner, has their heating on and is watching the big football match etc then price will be hiked to discourage use. ——-I often hear people say “Ah yes but the price will be less during the night”——Are these people real ? Who cooks dinner and watches telly at 3 in the morning? Very few. Shift workers perhaps, but the rest of us use energy mostly between 4 pm and 8 pm.
I suggest to call this the EU citicide and not the EU suicide pact. The intent is to sacrifice the plebs (or rather, their fairly comfortable everyday lives) to Gäa-Moloch to keep her in good humour. The climate changers don’t plan to sacrifice their own lifestyle.
The significance of the German EU election result doesn’t lie in it being some sort of political sea change but in the fact that – despite and endless campaign of vilification as Nazis and enemies of democracy by the German establishment politicians and MSM alike – the AfD as comfortably left all presently governing parties in the dust.
I am sorry to see the state Germany is currently in with about 40,000 turbines, their Nuclear energy reduced, and along with Denmark and the silly UK trying to follow the German absurdity, the highest electricity prices in the world. Who in their right mind covers a beautiful country like Germany in 40,000 turbines that have virtually wiped out the Red Kite? ——GREEN/RED tyranny is the greatest threat to freedom and prosperity we have seen since the war, and I am glad to see that at least some people in Germany are starting to wake up.
This is indeed a sorry state as there are basically turbines everywhere in what used to be otherwise ‘useless’ country, ie, forrested mountains. The Green schizophrenia is such that they’re making laws to prevent deforestation in Brazil while cutting down German forests to build more windmills at the same time. And there are MSM article bragging about how ‘wind’ would be the most important source of energy in Germany as it would cover 60% of the supply. The remaining 40% comes mostly from burning coal and I suspect the long-term plan for that is to let coal-fired power stations goes extinct one-by-one as they reach their planned end-of-life and keep hiking energy prices in order to reduce demand.
Recent absurdity: I’ve booked a Lufthansa flight London – Munich and back yesterday. During the process, I was informed that this would amount to emitting 208kg of CO₂ per person for each flight and I was offered three ‘voluntary’ (so far) options to atone for that by donating money to nondescript projects beneficial to the climate. I’m wondering if that’s really more than donating to the Green party which certainly considers itself a project beneficia to the climate.
Surely you should have been offered discounts on your next flight bookings as your journey helps to maintain current CO2 levels.
Perhaps the red inside of the green watermelon is not so sweet as was advertised?
https://off-guardian.org/2024/06/10/discuss-the-eu-elections-and-the-rise-of-the-far-right/
Here’s a slightly different view.
“First, the European Union elections are over and done with, and the announced results proclaim the rise of the “far right” all over the continent…except not really.
If you actually look at the results, it’s a swing of ~40 seats total, which isn’t so much when 720 seats were up for grabs (including 14 that hadn’t previously existed).”
Looks a bit different. Are we being conned once again?
All over Liberal Progressive Land hands will be getting rubbed in glee. The phony planet saving communists are breathing a sigh of relief that the sheep have not caught on to their scam in the numbers they expected. ——Time will tell though and as people get crucified in the coming years, those numbers will grow to become an irresistible force. Net Zero will be watered down because they cannot live in Alice in Wonderland forever.
The Blob’s problem is that exploding numbers of voters are realising “We see you.” And once they do, they will never “unsee” them and their technocratic putsch, again.
Good way to put it
Very true