All But Quiet on the Western Front

Yankees legend Yogi Berra, known for his simple witticisms, once said: “The future ain’t what is used to be.” This statement was widely interpreted as ridiculing the notion that any outcome is predetermined. Berra later elaborated in his 1998 autobiography, “I just meant that times are different. Not necessarily better or worse. Just different.” European politics today are similarly volatile. For those who have been following the EU, the last couple of months were a roller coaster of change as its leaders scrambled to protect national interests in the midst of a shifting political landscape. Chaos was initiated by the Lisbon Treaty, which was passed in 2007 but only came into force in 2009. Its implications came in two parts: The first is primarily institutional in the form of significant alterations to the laws governing the EU. Most notably, the European parliament is now instrumental in the selection of the European Commissioner, the executive branch of the European Union (previously the assembly only served a rubber-stamp role).

This has had profound implications for EU leaders, who find themselves suddenly at the whim of a much more powerful, democratically-elected parliamentary body. The threat of not having influence, or the power derived from a seat at the table, in the pioneering government structure has spawned a series of high-stakes political skirmishes.

To further illustrate this point, last month conflict crystallized between the divisive figure of Jean-Claude Juncker—a member of the center-right European People’s party and former prime minister of Luxembourg— and British Prime Minister David Cameron. Fortunately for Mrs. Merkel of Germany, Juncker recently won in a landslide, receiving 422 votes out of the 729 total (and the support of 26 out of 28 EU leaders). This result dealt a significant blow to Mr. Cameron, who had staked a significant amount of political capital on Juncker losing. However, even with Juncker’s place guaranteed, the situation has failed to stabilize. If anything, competition has intensified, as many top jobs in Brussels are still up for grabs, and Britain’s opposition has pushed it ever-closer to separation from the EU (a bad sign for anyone who favors closer union as a way to deal with increasing foreign competition).

The second change has been less direct but may prove to be the most enduring. As a result of the euro crisis, public distrust of expanding authority in Brussels has increased. This has resulted in marked gains for “nationalist and populist parties with a firm anti-European Union stance.” Taken alone, the election results do not represent a profound change to the existing political landscape. The newcomers, a motley bunch of anti-establishment, populist, and fringe parties, did not win enough seats to dominate the assembly, an entity tasked with ratifying European Union-wide legislation. Centrist parties retain a clear majority. However, in the words of New York Times analyst Andrew Higgins: “The insurgents’ success has nonetheless upended a once-immutable belief, laid out in the 1957 Treaty of Rome, that Europe is moving, fitfully but inevitably, toward ever closer union.” If these divisions are not healed, we may be looking at a Europe that is more divided and sectional than ever.

All of these changes have rendered Europe not necessarily better or worse, but just different. However it is possible that the resulting political jockeying and changing voter preferences are becoming strong indicators of the EU’s frailty. We may indeed be witnessing the beginning of sectionalist, if not extremist-nationalist rumblings that could spell the end of European geopolitical unity. Or perhaps these might also be just dialectical reactions to be expected within a system of proportional democracy working to smooth out its rough edges—thus resulting in constant improvement and therefore a positive change in the long term.

Consider the case of Italian Prime Minister Renzi, who used the situation with Juncker to gain leverage. In a strange twist of events, tensions between German and British leaders over the next president of the European Commission may actually cause a lessening of fiscal austerity measures. This would be a huge step forward for the EU, and particularly poorer member states, whose hands have been tied in recent years by policies that *some* have been accused of being overly cautious. The situation will most likely continue to evolve in the coming months, especially as competition for top jobs in Brussels remains an ongoing concern.