Irony alert as Poles ride to UKIP's rescue in a classic Brussels stitch-up

We reported only a few days ago that UKIP's EFDD group in the European Parliament collapsed after a Latvian MEP resigned, meaning the group no longer met the criteria of having MEPs from at least seven different EU member states. The news drew a lot of media attention (not to mention schadenfreude) mainly due to the financial implications for UKIP - which, according to our estimates, stood to lose nearly €2 million a year in EU funding.

Today, it was announced that Robert Iwaszkiewicz, an MEP with Janusz Korwin-Mikke's KNP (pictured) has joined the group. Korwin-Mikke himself was deemed too toxic to join the UKIP group after the European elections given his controversial views on rape (women always "pretend to resist") and the Holocaust (no evidence Hitler knew about it), and that was before he provoked a full-blown race row. Iwaszkiewicz himself is hardly baggage free; during an interview about with Gazeta Wrocławska a couple of months ago, when asked about domestic violence, he said that:

"I'm convinced that many a wife would benefit from such a response in order to re-connect with reality."

When asked about his Korwin-Mikke's views as described above, he said that "these are taken out of context... when considered broadly, they make sense". In any event, this does not appear to be a principled defection - but rather a classic Brussels-style dirty deal. Polish daily Rzeczpospolita reports that Korwin-Mikke and Farage struck an agreement which would see Iwaszkiewicz's transfer mirrored by an MEP from the EFDD move to the 'far-right' bloc led by France's Marine Le Pen, which also includes Geert Wilders's PVV, the Austrian Freedom Party and Lega Nord, and fell one nationality short of forming an official group during the summer. The paper describes this a "binding transaction" and quotes Iwaszkiewicz as saying that:

"Negotiations are on-going. It was necessary to save them and I had to join urgently".

It remains unclear therefore whether an MEP from the EFDD will definitely join the Le Pen group - but that seems to be the implication. Because of the way the nationalities are represented over the two groups, it would either have to be one of UKIP's 24 MEPs or one of the two Sweden Democrats.

If the former, UKIP and Nigel Farage will face some uncomfortable questions given the extent to which they have tried to distance themselves from the Front National. Regardless, this incident just underscores the absurdity of these taxpayer subsides for European Parliament groups.

'Grillage People' no more: European Parliament group of Farage and Grillo collapses

Nigel Farage and Beppe Grillo (the 'Grillage People', as @Berlaymonster brilliantly renamed the duo) have just lost their group in the European Parliament.

Latvian MEP Iveta Grigule left #EFDD group today. #EFDD no longer has members from at least 7 countries, so declared dissolved today. #EP
— Jaume Duch (@jduch) October 16, 2014

The Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) group has collapsed following the departure of Latvian MEP Iveta Grigule, of the Latvian Farmers' Union. We don't know yet what pushed Grigule to leave. Sources from the EFDD group are already circulating their version of what happened:

EFDD sources say Latvian MEP was 'bribed' by @MartinSchulz and @EPPGroup to leave @Nigel_Farage group
— Bruno Waterfield (@BrunoBrussels) October 16, 2014

However, what we know is that Grigule's decision means UKIP, the Five-Star Movement and the other parties that had joined the group will lose a few millions of EU funding. According to our estimates, the EFDD group could have claimed around €3.8 million a year (see here for more details).

As we noted in our previous blog posts, it was not obvious that Farage's group would see through the whole five-year term in the European Parliament - not least because of the differences between UKIP and the Five-Star Movement, the two biggest factions in the group. Still, today's announcement has come a bit out of the blue.

In any case, given UKIP's growing momentum in domestic politics (victorious in the Clacton by-election and riding high in the latest opinion polls), we doubt Farage will be crying into his pint over losing his group in the European Parliament.

It's hard to predict what will happen next. For the moment, MEPs from the dissolved EFDD group will sit as non-attached members - the same status as Marine Le Pen's Front National, Lega Nord and Geert Wilders's Freedom Party, who failed to form their own group during the summer.

Will they all start discussing a possible cooperation? Will any of the (former) EFDD parties look to join forces with Le Pen, allowing her to form a new group? Or will Farage manage to quickly find a substitute for Grigule and re-establish the EFDD group? Time will tell.

Juncker bitten by the hand that fed him as the European Parliament undermines his Commission

Juncker and Schulz in happier times...

The letter from European Parliament (EP) President Martin Schulz to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has now been published in full and contains an extensive list of questions for the UK’s Lord Hill, the Czech Republic’s Vera Jourová and Hungary’s Tibor Navracsics who have all been invited back for some form of second hearing early next week (whether or not these will be ‘full public hearings’ again remains to be seen).

While the EP is certainly entitled to ask questions and has a role to play in the vetting process, we think the whole situation is getting a bit out of hand and that the Commissioner-designates are being set an almost impossible task. Let us outline a few reasons why.

1) Politicians expected to have the knowledge of technocrats. The EP was the driving force behind increasing the politicisation of the Commission, mostly through the Spitzenkandidaten process. With a more political Commission those inside will ultimately be more politicised, as will decision making. Nearly all the candidates are politicians with little technical experience. However, the EP is subjecting them to a level of scrutiny which no national incoming minister would be expected to pass on a brief they have in most cases never overseen. They seem more akin to the hearings a new central banker would face – the arch technocrats.

At the same however, MEPs are very intolerant of any Commissioners holding – as they see it – the ‘wrong’ political views meaning nominees have to tread a tightrope and try to appease a range of competing interests, e.g. promoting trade while protecting social standards, maintaining budgetary discipline while allowing for ‘flexibility’, or cutting energy costs while pursing green policies. This has led to accusations of a lack of coherence on the part of some Commissioners. This confusion over the Commission’s role is largely of the EP’s own making and sets an almost impossible task for the candidates.

2) Trying to force Commissioners to commit to policies ex-ante. This is simply a bad way to make policy. Sure, the candidates should outline key priorities and ideas, however, asking them whether they will or won’t pursue numerous policy proposals or will rule out certain actions over their entire five-year term seems to be overstepping the mark. Ultimately, the proposals the Commission will take forward are the result of a combined decision with the EP and member states and will be subject to economic and political circumstance.

3) The EP has a legislative role in trialogue negotiations, not in these hearings. Following on from the above point, the EP does not have a right to try to restrict the policy options of the Commission ex-ante. The EP has a role in the trialogue negotiations around legislation and can influence and change Commission proposals there. It should not double up this role by trying to tie the hands of new Commissioners by forcing them to take a policy stance before they have even had a chance to get an overview of their brief.

4) Hearings caught up in political games. There is no doubt that the hearings have become embroiled in political games, mostly between the centre right EPP and centre left S&D. While political trade-offs and negotiations are expected, these should not spill over into the public hearings and hamper the assessment of the competence of Commissioners.

5) Judging Commissioners on different and conflicting criteria. It is also obvious that there is no clear consensus on what basis to judge Commissioners. Some have been opposed on the basis of political allegiances, some on the basis of their nationality and some on their experience/knowledge (or a mix of the above). This picking and choosing of criteria once again undermines the process and makes it impossible for the Commissioners to know on what level they are being assessed. This has led to attempts to try to please everyone further worsening the scrutiny process.

The Commission has always been about a balance between political and technical expertise – it both proposes laws and is responsible for upholding them. There are legitimate questions that can be asked about potential conflicts of interest and a basic grasp of the policy issues at hand nut the EP has hugely overstepped the mark by seeking to pin down Commissioners to particular political agendas.

The Spitzenkandidaten process was all about establishing greater political control over the Commission’s agenda (as we warned). The great mistake that EU leaders made over the appointment of Juncker (we’re not talking about Juncker himself, but giving into the EP over the process) has clearly had the effect of emboldening MEPs further. The Commission – and now the nominees – are the piggy in the middle in the increasingly fraught power battle between national governments and the EP. Throw in a large dose of intra-EP politicking and individual egos, and it is a recipe for chaos and one that is likely to further distance the EU institutions from electorates across Europe, particularly if the EP makes the running despite itself hardly securing a vote of confidence in May’s elections.

Updated: UK Commissioner called back for second hearing – what happens now?

A couple of developments since we posted the original blog below.

Importantly, the European Parliament’s Economics Committee failed to reach an agreement over Pierre Moscovici and has delayed a decision on whether to approve him or not until 9.30pm CET tonight. Given his clear knowledge and experience in the area as a former French Finance Minister, the objection is clearly being driven by a fundamental split between the EPP (led by the CDU) and the S&D (led by the French socialists) over whether he is the right man for the job given his political allegiances and the fact France has repeatedly missed the deficit targets agreed with the European Commission over the past few years.

As regards Lord Hill, @Brunobrussels points out that a letter will be sent by European Parliament President Martin Schulz to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker outlining some key questions for the UK’s nominee. It is unclear exactly what these questions will include, but the focus will be on his knowledge of issues such as the banking union, Eurobonds and financial regulation in general. There may also be questions around exactly what will be under his purview and his relationship with the Vice-Presidents. It also seems that concerns over Hungarian Commissioner Tibor Navracsics are growing, as we warned here. Overall, the process is at risk of descending into in-fighting and horse trading between the EPP and S&D (if it hasn’t already) – and Lord Hill has certainly got caught up in that.

 ********************* Original blog below **********************

UK Commissioner designate Lord Hill yesterday faced the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary affairs committee which has to judge if he is suitable for the proposed role of Commissioner for Financial Services, Financial Stability and Capital Markets Union. 

While Hill went out of his way to charm MEPs, in what the FT terms an “unprecedented move” the committee has recalled Hill for a second hearing early next week (likely Monday), reportedly due to concerns over his lack of detailed knowledge of the brief.

Having watched the hearing it was clear that Hill struggled on the minute details of some of the more technical questions from MEPs, some of whom have been dealing with this area for years. However, even some members of other UK parties have come to Hill’s defence. Labour MEP Richard Corbett wrote on his blog: 

“When all is said and done, he performed far better than many of the other candidate Commissioners.”

 Former Lib Dem MEP and Chair of the EP Econ committee Sharon Bowles tweeted this morning: 

“If you only give commissioners designate 2 weeks to prepare, on sensitive dossiers second hearings/written follow up inevitable.”

Having watched the other Commissioner hearings Hill is certainly not alone in struggling to come up to speed in such a short time. For example, the centre-right EPP group has issued a stark criticism of Commissioner-Designate for Regional Policy Corina Creţu for failing to provide details on how she will tackle the build-up of delayed cohesion payments. Employment Commissioner designate Marianne Thyssen has also taken flak for not knowing details of the posted workers directive, while proposed Digital Commissioner Gunther Oettinger was criticised for being too vague on surveillance, net neutrality and other specifics of his brief. In short, many Commissioners are struggling to tread the fine line of trying to please all sides in the European Parliament (thereby sticking to vague and uncontroversial answers).

Furthermore, let’s not forget that the outgoing Internal Market Commissioner Michel Barnier – who oversees financial services – had little to no experience of the area before he took over the post having been Agriculture Minister in France.

What happens next?

Hill’s second hearing will likely be early next week. Following the hearing another committee vote/discussion will be held on whether to approve him. These ‘votes’ are informal since the EP does not have direct say over each Commissioner, or which roles they fulfil, but only over the Commission as a whole. There are a few different scenarios over how this could play out:

1) The committee eventually approves Hill: The EP will then eventually have to decide whether to approve the whole Commission. As we have pointed out before, it seems likely that the EP will request that at least one or two of the suggested Commissioners are replaced (if only to flex its muscles). There will then be a negotiation until the EP and Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (and member states) reach an agreement.

2) The committee does not give Hill approval but he goes ahead anyway: Since the EP cannot veto specific people or roles, it is possible they could reach a deal on the overall Commission set up even without explicitly endorsing Hill. This would certainly hamper Hill in his role since he will be forced to engage with and report to MEPs, however, it should not stop him from fulfilling his brief.

3) The committee does not approve of Hill: In this instance, the committee would fail to approve Hill even after a second hearing and would request he be replaced when they negotiate with Juncker over the final approval of the whole Commission. This would be a difficult negotiation and would raise tensions between the UK and EU. Furthermore, even Cameron were to nominate someone else, it's not clear any UK candidate with direct financial experience/expertise would be more in line with EP thinking and sensitivities. Either way this would be a huge snub and would certainly play into the hands of UKIP and others who want the UK to leave the EU.

4) A re-shuffle: Hill is only one of several candidates who failed to impress MEPs - indeed none of the nominees so far have sailed through, with Spain's Miguel Arias Cañete and Hungary's Tibor Navracsics, both EPP, in trouble (as we predicted) and Slovenia's Alenka Bratusek also facing a tough inquisition. Meanwhile, the EPP could retaliate by blocking one S&D's nominees, with France's Pierre Moscovici the most likely victim. As such, the FT reports there are rumours in Brussels that a "major reshuffle" could be on the cards with the same personnel being moved to 'less problematic' posts. There is a precedent - in 2004, Barroso agreed to swap around a couple of his Commissioners to appease MEPs. Such an approach would fit with the concerns of MEPs which seem to be more centred around the UK having the financial services brief rather than Hill himself.

However, taking financial services away from Hill (even if he is compensated with another big post like Internal Market or Competition) would also be seen as huge slap in the face for Cameron, the City of London, and the UK as a whole. This would probably be the worst outcome in terms of trying to keep the UK in the EU and would play on many of the concerns raised by UKIP.

Ultimately, the most likely scenario remains that Lord Hill is approved albeit with added scrutiny. That said, it seems almost certain the Parliament will request some changes, as it has almost always done, it remains an open question upon whom they will ultimately focus their attention.

Malmström impresses in her hearing, but is she on the same page as Juncker on TTIP?

Cecilia Malmström during her hearing today

The European Parliament kicked off its hearings of Commission nominees today, with most of the attention focused on Sweden's Cecilia Malmström, the current Home Affairs Commissioner who has been handed the hugely important Trade portfolio. The hearing was eagerly anticipated due to the controversy around certain aspects of the EU-Canada (CETA) and EU-US (TTIP) free trade deals; specifically around investor safeguard clauses (ISDS).

Indeed, the hearing managed to make waves in Germany (where the issue is particularly sensitive), after Malmström's written response to initial questions from MEPs suggested that she rejected the need for ISDS in TTIP. German Green MEP Sven Giegold posted the relevant section on his website:

As the President-elect Juncker has committed himself to in his Political Guidelines..."no limitation of the jurisdiction of courts in the EU Member States will be accepted in [TTIP]; this clearly means that no Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism will be part of that agreement."

However, this version - sent out to MEPs on Friday - was subsequently re-called, and the new version published on the Commission's website now reads:

As the President-elect Juncker has committed himself to in his Political Guidelines... he will "not accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU Member States is limited by special regimes for investor disputes."

In other words, a clear change from ruling out ISDS altogether to a much more qualified acceptance. This change was subject to much speculation on Twitter, and Malmström herself claimed it was "simply the wrong version".

However, at today's hearing, Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake claimed that the Microsoft Word version sent out on Friday contained 'track changes' made by none other than Martin Selmayr, Jean-Claude Juncker's chief of staff (seemingly confirming rumours in Brussels about Selmayr's "Rasputin-like qualities"). Malmström replied that she had agreed to Juncker's office inserting a quote from Juncker and tried to brush off the affair as a "misunderstanding" and an "over-interpretation", basically denying that she and Juncker were at odds over the ISDS question.

In her opening remarks and in answers to questions, Malmström strongly endorsed the principle of free trade and TTIP specifically, which rather dominated the debate, while also defending European social and environmental standards (there is always something for everyone in the European Parliament). On ISDS, she defended the principle, while clarifying that she was committed to transparency and qualifications - such as protections for national parliaments to legislate in the national interest. She claimed that there was no need to renegotiate ISDS in CETA, as without it the deal could fall apart, that the EU itself would want to include ISDS in future agreements with other parties, but added that possibly it could be excluded altogether from TTIP - so far from a coherent line overall.

Malmström put in a solid performance - with the right mixture of assertiveness and reassurance - and it is certainly good to have a pro-trade voice in that role. However, as the shenanigans over her written answers demonstrate, there are questions over whether Malmström and Juncker are on the same page on TTIP.

European Parliament hearings of Commission nominees: Will MEPs claim any notable scalps?

Will Juncker's Commission survive unscathed?
(picture via @Gruene_Europa)

On Monday we will see the first hearings of European Commission nominees by the European Parliament committees responsible for their respective policy areas (full calendar here). The UK nominee, Lord Hill, will ironically be grilled by MEPs at the same time as David Cameron will be giving his closing speech to the Conservative party conference. 

MEPs are not able to strike down individual Commissioners but they do have a veto over the Commission as a whole and have in the past used this leverage to force member states to withdraw nominees that they did not like; Rocco Butiglione in 2004 and Rumiana Jeleva in 2009 (although Jeleva also faced considerable domestic opposition). There has also been a lot of speculation that one or more nominees to the Juncker Commission could also be 'taken out' by MEPs (Alex Barker of the FT has a good round-up here). There will certainly be a hell of a lot of posturing - but are any of the candidates at genuine risk? We asses the most 'problematic' candidates below:

Lord Hill - Financial Services (UK)

There has been a lot of speculation that MEPs will target Lord Hill (and some have already made it clear they will) but this is based less on reservations about his character or ability, and more to do with his record as a lobbyist, concerns about the UK being allocated the sensitive financial services portfolio, and hostility to the Conservatives' EU policies more specifically. While MEPs will not give Lord Hill an easy ride it is highly unlikely that he will face any major problems given that this would be seen as a huge and unnecessary provocation towards the UK (with no chance of Cameron backing down and putting forward somebody else). Juncker has further lessened the risk by transferring the contentious issue of bankers' bonuses from Lord Hill's remit into that of Vera Jourova, the nominee for the Justice brief. 

Prospects for survival = Strong

Pierre Moscovici - Economic and Monetary Affairs (France)

It is no secret that the appointment of former French Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici to this key portfolio is far from popular among conservatives in the European Parliament. Can Moscovici, whose country is consistently failing to meet the its EU deficit reduction targets, be credible enough to police eurozone countries’ budget policies? However, given that Moscovici will be effectively man-marked by two fiscally hawkish Vice-Presidents (Finland's Jyrki Katainen and Latvia's Valdis Dombrovskis), and also that it would be hugely unprecedented to reject such a high profile candidate from such a large member state (particularly given Francois Hollande's recent problems), he should be safe. The only serious threat to Moscovici would arise if the centre-left S&D group tried to veto one of the centre-right EPP candidates (see below) and the EPP decided to retaliate, and they've hinted that in that case they would target Moscovici. 

Prospects for survival = Strong

Karmenu Vella - Environment, Martime Affairs and Fisheries (Malta) 

European Voice suggests that Vella could also be in trouble as MEPs are unhappy at Juncker's decision to merge environment and fisheries and to give Vella a mandate for 'deregulation' in these areas, and also because Malta's track record in implementing EU environmental laws is poor. However, Vella himself is not responsible for the design of the Commission and it should suffice for him to assure MEPs he will give both parts of his role equal consideration. He may also face some awkward questions about long-standing allegations of "political thuggery, tax evasion and corruption" in his time in Maltese politics, but these have never been proved and so it is unlikely he will be placed under serious pressure.

Prospects for survival = Strong

Tibor Navracsics - Education, Culture, Youth and Citizenship (Hungary)

Hungary's nominee was always going to be controversial due to the strained relations between the EU and the Hungarian government headed by Viktor Orban who has been accused of anti-democratic practices such as undermining media plurality and the independence of the judiciary - particularly sensitive given the portfolio Navracsics has been given. Is is clear that Navracsics will face a hostile audience but with the backing of the EPP it remains to be seen whether enough other MEPs will actively try to see him axed from the Commission; in that case any Orban nominee would surely prove unacceptable, and this would trigger a wider political crisis. Moreover, as a former University lecturer Navracsics seems well qualified for this post and so we think that, ultimately, he will be safe.

Prospects for survival = At risk 

Miguel Arias Cañete - Climate Action and Energy (Spain)

Spain’s Cañete will come under fire for a number of reasons. In fact, it'll be open season. Firstly, there is his alleged bias towards fossil fuels compared with renewables. Secondly, there are concerns about alleged conflicts of interest; Cañete has sold his shares in two Spanish oil companies but Green MEPs have complained to Juncker that Cañete’s “wife, son and brother in law all remain as either shareholders or board members of these companies.” Furthermore, it has also been estimated that, during his time as Spanish Agriculture Minister, Cañete’s wife, Micaela Domecq-Solis and her siblings received around €1.8m in EU farm subsidies (though the same accusation could also embarrass some MEPs on the Agriculture Committee). 

Cañete will also very likely face questions about some remarks, widely interpreted as sexist, that he made after a TV debate ahead of the European Parliament elections in May. He said, “The debate between a man and a woman is very complicated. If you abuse [your] intellectual superiority, it looks as if you’re a machista and are cornering a defenceless woman.” There are enough ingredients for a lively hearing but as with Navracsics, the support of the EPP and the fact that he is a heavyweight figure within Partido Popular may be enough to see him through. However, he's definitely on the front line. 

Prospects for survival = At risk 

Alenka Bratušek - Vice President for Energy Union (Slovenia)

Where to begin? Former Slovenian PM Alenka Bratušek is seen by many as the weakest link in the new Commission and faces a raft of challenges. For a start, she nominated herself for the role as acting PM even though her party (appropriately named the Alliance of Alenka Bratušek) received a drubbing in the preceding parliamentary elections, picking up only 4.3% of the votes. The new centre-left coalition has launched in inquiry into her auto-nomination and would like to replace her with Tanja Fajon, one of their own MEPs (which would preserve the Commission's gender ratio).

Moreover, she has been allocated a hugely significant and sensitive role - Vice-President responsible for 'Energy Union' - despite having little experience in that area. As a member of the liberal ALDE group she lacks the protection of the two big centre-right and centre-left blocs (although ALDE's has joined the 'grand coalition' in the European Parliament). Her saving grace might be that not there will not be enough appetite in the European Parliament to reject the Commission outright, but if anyone will be substituted it is likely to be her.  

Prospects for survival = At risk

We will be covering the most significant hearings live so make sure to follow us on twitter @Open Europe.

It says it won’t accept a “gentlemen’s club” but how gender-balanced is the European Parliament itself?

Jean-Claude Juncker and his people have rightly expressed concern over the lack of female European Commission candidates put forward by member states. It’s raining men in Brussels as we put it recently.

Never slow to jump on a bandwagon, certain MEPs are now digging in as well, threatening a veto (remember the European Parliament has to approve the new Commission) should Juncker’s Commission not include enough women.

The European Parliament’s President Martin Schulz – the guy, remember, who lost to Juncker – said

"The European Parliament is very concerned that at present virtually all the potential candidates whose names are circulating are men. The European Parliament will not accept a gentlemen’s club." 

The head of the liberal ALDE group, Guy Verhofstadt – a man known for his strong views – added

"As liberals, we cannot support a commission with too few women."

Meanwhile, the head of the Socialists in the EP, an Italian gentleman named Gianni Pittella, said

"We will not support a European Commission with fewer women than today." 

Fine, these three men have a point. But let’s throw back the question: how gender-balanced is the European Parliament itself? Well, a rather mixed bag it turns out – with some depressing stats in particular:

• 20% of members in the Conference of Presidents – EP group leaders plus the EP President, i.e. the top dogs – are female 
• 22% of the leaders of the EP’s political groups are female 
• 37% of MEPs are female 
• 45% of the EP’s committee chairs are female (encouragingly up from 36% in the last Parliament) 

So whilst not exactly Whites or the East India Club – hardly a great beacon of gender balance either. As that old saying goes, start with the man (errr) in the mirror.

It's official: the 2014 European elections saw the lowest turnout ever

Remember how some tried to make a song and dance about the turnout in May's European elections having increased for the first time since direct voting was introduced in 1979? Having dropped from 62% in 1979 to 43% in 2009, the 2014 elections saw a staggering increase of 0.09%, thus reversing the trend. The always-available-for-BBC-interviews Guy Verhofstadt said this increase in turnout was “an endorsement of the European project”, whilst Viviane Reding, as usual, didn’t disappoint:

Well, courtesy of European Voice, we now learn that the final turnout figure has been revised down to 42.54% – i.e. the lowest turnout ever. The 43.09% figure was based on exit polls so was preliminary, and it has taken a month and half to establish the real figures.

So it’s official: voter turnout has dropped in every single European elections since 1979, whilst the EP’s powers have consistently increased. It’ll be interesting to see how the usual suspects try to spin this one.

This isn’t a cause for celebration. It’s just simply embarrassing.

It's raining men in Brussels: Juncker Commission at risk of humiliating veto by MEPs over lack of gender balance

We are now at the halfway point in terms of nominating the next Commission with 14 out of 28 member states having publicly announced their candidates. The line-up suggests we will have the most senior Commission to date with no less than four former Prime Ministers: Andrus Ansip (Estonia), Jyrki Katainen (Finland), Valdis Dombrovskis (Latvia) and Juncker (Luxembourg) himself. However, as the nifty graphic from EuropeDecides shows, there is a bit of a gender balance issue - only one of the nominees is female.

Notwithstanding the benefits of having a more balanced and representative Commission per se, the gender balance issue is important because the European Parliament - never slow to jump on a bandwagon or to give national governments a bloody nose - could veto the whole Commission if it contains too few women (even if the European Parliament's group leaders are themselves mostly male). European Parliament President Martin Schulz warned a couple of weeks ago that:

"Looking at the information currently available on the number of female candidates, the commission would not receive the backing of majority in the European Parliament."

The magic number is ten - one more than in the current Commission. This would require nine of the second group of 14 Commissioners to be female, which looks unlikely. Below we asses what the prospects are for the remaining member states to put forward female candidates.

Belgium: The good news for Juncker is that Marianne Thyssen, who has been an MEP since 1991, is among the front-runners for the post although Berlgium's current Commissioner Karel De Gucht has indicated he would like to stay on.

Bulgaria: It was reported that the outgoing socialist government would put forward Kristalina Georgieva, the current Bulgarian Commissioner international cooperation, humanitarian aid and crisis response, if she were to be given the position of High Representative even though she is from the centre-right GERB party. As such, it looks like Bulgaria will instead nominate current Foreign Minister Kristian Vigenin.

Cyprus: Androulla Vassiliou is rumoured to be retiring (she will be 71 in November) and in any case is from a different political party to the new government. No word yet on who Nicosia will send in her place.

Denmark: No news out of Copenhagen but the centre-left coalition government will likely want to replace Connie Hedegaard who is a conservative politician.

France: No formal announcement from Paris so far, but former Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici is the clear frontrunner. Former Europe Minister Élisabeth Guigou is still in the race, but she is broadly regarded as an outsider.

Hungary: Although it hasn't been formally announced, rumour has it that Orban will send Hungary's current Foreign Minister Tibor Navracsics to Brussels.

Italy: Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is still pushing for Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini as the new EU foreign policy chief. However, the Italian government would very likely put forward a different name if it became clear that Mogherini will not secure Baroness Ashton's job, and the new nominee may well be a man.

Netherlands: The most likely candidate is current Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem, although it is unclear if he would still go to Brussels if he were not to get the coveted Economic and Monetary Affairs portfolio - something Juncker is reportedly not too keen on.

Poland: Poland's two leading candidates are Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski and former Finance Minister Jan Vincent-Rostowski, although there is a lot of speculation that in order to balance the Commission Poland could instead put forward Danuta Hübner, an economist and MEP who already served as the Regional Policy Commissioner between 2004 and 2009.

Portugal: According to the Portuguese media, Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho is considering picking Carlos Moedas, the Secretary of State to the Prime Minister, as Portugal's nominee. However, Juncker is reportedly putting pressure for the choice to fall on Finance Minister Maria Luís Albuquerque instead. Therefore, Lisbon could potentially nominate a woman.

Romania: It appears Bucharest has re-nominated current Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos.

Spain: Former Agriculture Minister Miguel Arias Cañete is the only name doing the rounds in the Spanish media. No real alternatives have been floated.

Slovenia: No news out of Ljubljana, where the centre-left won early elections held a couple of weeks ago. A poll out today has found that a majority would like Janez Potočnik, the the incumbent Environment Commissioner, to stay on.

Sweden: When it comes to gender equality, you can usually rely on the Swedes. Although nothing has been confirmed, EurActiv reported recently that Cecilia Malmström, the current liberal Commissioner for Home Affairs, might be able to continue even if Sweden elects a centre-left government in September's general elections as looks likely.

Our quick headcount reveals that in addition to Vera Jourova from the Czech Republic, we anticipate Juncker can potentially count on another five women (from Italy, Belgium, Portugal, Poland and Sweden) which would only put him on six - still well short of the target. Possibly MEPs could accept a lower number if a woman were also appointed as President of the European Council but not this low. 

If the European Parliament were to follow through on its threat to veto the entire Commission it would set up an unprecedented row with member states, some of whom would have to back down over their preferred choice of Commissioner (although the UK would probably be safe given the appointment of Baroness Ashton to the current Commission).

Normally when the EP generates these kinds of threats and ultimatums (like over the MFF last year) some kind of backroom deal is usually stitched up allowing everyone to save face but it is increasingly hard to see where Juncker will get enough woman from to placate the European Parliament.

Will the real Jean-Claude Juncker please stand up?

This week, Jean-Claude Juncker conducted his tour of political groups in the European Parliament in a bid to get their support for him to succeed Barroso. On this occasion, German social democrat MEP Udo Bullmann stressed:

"Mr. Juncker will have to present concrete ideas over how he will address the massive investment gap, the creeping de-industrialisation of Europe and the social distortions. We will not be won over with empty phrases or with recycled ideas. There is too much at stake for people to do that."

We're not sure how confident Mr. Bullman can be, given that Juncker gave a masterful display of how to be all things to all men and women, finding the right things to say to placate everyone from conservatives to communists. Here is an overview of some of the highlights.

Juncker is not a federalist after all...

Juncker: Why do you call me a federalist? I am not a federalist. I do not believe in the United Staes of Europe.
— ECR Group (@ecrgroup) July 8, 2014

European people don't exist as nations do, EU doesn't tap into an identity, @JunckerEU critiques spitzenkandidaten idea further
— Bruno Waterfield (@BrunoBrussels) July 9, 2014

... but favours at the same time shifting more powers to Brussels:

"I am partisan of own resources to end eternal battle between Member States at every negotiation of financial framework." #ALDEasksJuncker
— ALDE Group (@ALDEgroup) July 8, 2014

#ALDEasksJuncker Juncker will push CCCTB (common tax base).
— Sophie in 't Veld (@SophieintVeld) July 8, 2014

#JunckerTest @JunckerEU the Commission must be open to using Article 7 if a member state breaches EU fundamental rights
— Greens in the EP (@GreensEP) July 9, 2014

He is is in favour of "budgetary rigour"... 

Juncker: I am not saying I am a proponent or opponent of austerity, but I do like budgetary rigour. You can't spend what you don't have.
— ECR Group (@ecrgroup) July 8, 2014

...but not "excessive austerity"       

.@JunckerEU : "for budgetary rigour, against excessive austerity" when does "excessive" start?
— Ska Keller (@SkaKeller) July 9, 2014

He promises the Socialists the Economic and Monetary affairs portfolio...

Juncker: stability pact will not become a flexibility pact, but it will be used with flexibility. A socialist commissioner will be in charge
— Valentina Pop (@valentinapop) July 8, 2014

...but then says it is still up for negotiation (according to ALDE)

"On the composition of the Commission, we note his statement during our hearing that no portfolio has as yet been attributed to any particular Commissioner or political family, not least the portfolio of economic and monetary affairs – in contrast to what has been reported as having been said to the S&D Group."

His manifesto argued for reducing energy dependency and ensuring affordability...

"We need to diversify our energy sources, and reduce the energy dependency of several of our Member States... we need to strengthen the share of renewable energies on our continent... It is, at the same time, an industrial policy imperative if we still want to have affordable energy at our disposal in the medium term."

...while opposing a "rush" towards "new technologies": 

#Juncker tells Greens he's wary of fracking because "I tend to be cautious even if that's old-fashioned. I don't rush into new technologies"
— David Charter (@DavidCharter) July 9, 2014

Juncker comes out against shale gas at Greens hearing. 'From a personal point of view I'm not in favour of promoting fracking'
— Dave Keating (@DaveKeating) July 9, 2014

He also endorsed EU enlargement to the Western Balkans while coming out against "any specific enlargements" within the next few years.

While his desire to build bridges is commendable, on many key issues he ended up either sitting on the fence or espousing outright contradictory positions. Will the real Jean-Claude Juncker please stand up?

European Parliament committees: more secret ballots and backroom deals?

EU democracy at work?

The European Parliament has announced the composition of its Committees, with MEP groups hard at work negotiating the final deals to see who will be Chair and Vice-Chair of the different bodies.

These Committees vary in importance, from the powerful ECON and IMCO committees which deal with Economic and Monetary affairs and the single market respectively - to more niche Committees such as the 'Petitions' Committee.

Looking through the lists of MEPs appointed, the first thing that strikes us is that all the Committees are gigantic - the Committee on Foreign Affairs has a ludicrous 71 members (almost 10% of the entire parliament)! It's not immediately clear why this is, but we can't help but wonder if the possibility for significant travel abroad is not a factor. But even the more serious Committees are of an unwieldy size - Trade (also with some travel perks) has 41 members, which is perhaps more justifiable as the EP now has a veto over free trade deals. It is worth remembering that under Parkinson's "coefficient of inefficiency" a committee of more than 20 members is less likely to make good decisions.

Secondly there are some interesting appointments:

• German neo-Nazi MEP Udo Voigt will sit on the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
• AfD leader Bernd Lucke is to be nominated as vice chair of the ECON committee - in charge of monetary union. Combine this with the fact that the Chair is likely to be an Italian Socialist MEP and some eurozone members might be concerned about this committee.

Under the EU's favoured D'Hondt formula, the different groups are allotted committee chairs according to their relative weights. The ECR group for instance, has secured an additional chair due to its increased size; it has gained Security and Defence on top of its existing Internal Market chair.

However nothing is settled in the EP until you have had the mandatory secret ballot. One potential secret upset could be an attempt to deprive the UKIP/M5S EFDD group of it sole Committee chair - the Petitions committee. Under a secret ballot it is entirely possible for the larger groups to block the EFDD group from chairing a committee.Whether or not you agree with their politics, there is no doubt that they are entitled to such a role, and even the Greens have come out saying as much. Another stitch up here would once again expose a lack of democracy and transparency at the heart of the European Parliament - and surely only play into the hands of those who want to leave the EU.

Flexibility and sloppy translations: Could the discussion on EU fiscal rules still endanger Juncker's election?

The Bundesbank attacks Renzi: "He tells us what to do". This is today's front page headline of Italian daily La Repubblica. According to Italian media, Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann yesterday had a go at Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi for telling everyone else in Europe what they have to do.

Well, that's not quite what Weidmann said. The full speech is available here. And the exact quote is:

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, for instance, likens the EU to 'an old, boring aunt, who tells us what we should do.'

In other words, Weidmann was simply quoting Renzi. Quite different from what has been reported by Italian papers, although Weidmann did say in his speech that structural reforms "should be implemented, not only announced" - a Bundesbank Leitmotiv.

A case of 'lost in translation'. Still, Renzi hit back less than an hour ago during his joint press conference with outgoing European Commission President José Manuel Barroso in Rome:

#Renzi: The task of the Bundesbank is not to take part in the Italian political debate.
— Vincenzo Scarpetta (@LondonerVince) July 4, 2014

Sloppy translations aside, this episode highlights that there are some unresolved issues when it comes to what different eurozone countries mean by the 'flexibility' of EU fiscal rules. This may well spice up the European Parliament vote on the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker as European Commission President, scheduled for 15 July.

A couple of Italian MEPs from Renzi's Democratic Party have said they want "clarity" from Juncker before supporting him. Similarly, the leader of French Socialist MEPs Pervenche Bérès told French daily Le Monde:

We are in a difficult equation. We criticise the [economic] policies of the right. But if we reject this candidacy, we will have no influence on the re-orientation of the policies that Juncker must pursue.

It is too early to tell how this story will end. Juncker is due to meet the centre-left S&D group on Tuesday precisely to discuss the priorities of the new European Commission. We will probably have a clearer idea after that. Indeed, one would assume that, if Renzi or François Hollande told their MEPs to vote for Juncker, MEPs would follow their leaders' instruction. Furthermore, the German and Italian governments are both playing down tensions.

That said, looking at the vote on Juncker in the European Parliament, the three groups expected to back him (EPP, S&D and ALDE) have 479 MEPs in total. The UK Labour Party already said it would vote against Juncker. If French, Italian and maybe Spanish centre-left MEPs did the same, along with the 12 Hungarian centre-right MEPs from Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party (who sit in the EPP group), support for Juncker would suddenly shrink to 389 MEPs.

The required majority is 376, so we would be looking at a much tighter vote. And it's going to be a secret ballot, which adds to the uncertainty. Time for Juncker to get worried? Maybe not yet, but he has already got a quite difficult job on his hands in pleasing everyone when it comes to using the 'flexibility' in the EU's Stability and Growth Pact to its full extent.

If Carlsberg did consolation prizes for 'losing' a 'Presidential' election...

Advocates of Pan-European Democracy, foremost among them the Socialist's 'Spitzenkandidat' Martin Schulz MEP wished to turn the recent European Elections into a quasi-'Presidential' election. The idea was that the 'winner' would be the 'lead candidate' from the leading political group. That turned out to be Jean-Claude Juncker, who is now the President-elect of the European Commission.

In the manner of a US presidential election, Schultz 'conceded' defeat. It might therefore come as a surprise that the self-proclaimed loser in the election has now been rewarded for his defeat by being given one of the other powerful EU presidencies - that of the European Parliament. Schulz was yesterday re-elected as EP President for the next two and a half years with the support of 409 out of the total 751 MEPs.

It's not entirely easy to find an equivalent to the EP President in national democracies: the position involves elements of the "Speaker" role, which exists in the UK, Sweden, Poland and Germany. Notably, the Speaker in these countries come from the largest group or is based on a nomination from the largest group (in the case of John Bercow, a Tory backed by Labour).

However, the EP President has far more power, due to the way 'executive' and 'co-legislative' functions are distrubted in the EU between the Commission, Council and EP. Schulz effectively wields the EP's co-legislative power in talks with other institutions, over issues such as the EU's long-term budget for example. Such positions are most definitely associated with the "winners" in elections.

So if Schulz was a loser on both these counts, why is he still running the European Parliament?

The answer: transnational "democracy". The vote follows the formation of a ‘grand coalition’ within the European Parliament between the centre-right EPP, the centre-left S&D and the Liberal ALDE groups. In other words, in the spirit of pan-European democracy, some representatives from the main groups agreed amongst themselves who should become EP President. In the spirit of transparency, the vote was then put to the full European Parliament via a secret ballot (so we're afraid we can't tell you who actually voted for Schulz).

Yet another reason why the Spitzenkandidaten process has turned out to be a charade. This is Brussels politics, business as usual.

Would Cameron have been able to block Juncker if the Tories were members of the EPP?

No major party in the UK backed Jean-Claude Juncker, or any other 'Spitzenkandidat'. It is therefore fair to say that the UK electorate had no influence over the course of what some describe as an 'election'.

The counter-charge is that David Cameron is to blame because he 'left' the main centre-right group - the European People's Party (EPP).  Former Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy made this point yesterday in the Commons - which was also alluded to by Labour MPs. If Cameron was a member, so the argument goes, he could have blocked Juncker's appointment as the candidate and then had some say over the 'election campaign' and associated deals. Critics are zooming in on the meeting of EPP-affiliated leaders in Dublin in early March, at which Juncker was selected (behind closed doors no less).

It may not be that simple though:

• The Conservative Party was never a member of the EPP. It was a member of the European Democrats (ED) that was linked to the EPP in the so-called EPP-ED. As such, the Tories didn't have offical 'voting rights' and therefore David Cameron would not have had a vote over Juncker's appointment. 
• It's also worth noting that the Labour Party, although being a member of the S&D group failed to block Martin Schulz as their group's Spitzenkandidaten.
• Likewise the Liberal Democrats failed to block Guy Verhofstadt as the ALDE candidate

There's an argument that Cameron could have used the political influence and clout garnered from being associated with the EPP to stop Jucnker, even absent a formal vote. However, other EPP leaders had limited influence on the EPP candidate. Sweden's Moderaterna were opposed but were over-ruled. Berlusconi failed to attend and Hungary's Orban was hostile.

In any case, we will never know.

The reason the Conservative Party left the EPP-ED is because they did not agree with the EPP's push for further integration. The wider problem for the UK political parties - and reform-minded parties in other countries too - is that their views are grossly under-represented in the main groups. This, in turn, links to to the fundamental problem with the European Parliament itself (as we argued here).

Note:

For the record this is how the EPP delegates voted to adopt Juncker, so Cameron's vote would have made little difference - but again, we won't know:

EPP delegate votes to adopt Juncker as candidate

Is Cameron the greatest pro-European of all EU heads of state and government?

As we've noted, the Juncker-hangover is already taking hold in parts of the German commentariat. In a hard-hitting piece, Lisa Nienhaus, the Economics Editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung argues that the EU "needs more Cameron, not less".

"Hang on a minute, how exactly [was Cameron's opposition to Juncker] a mistake? He only said publicly what many think. Juncker may well be a jovial, cheerful bloke, but he is also an example of political mediocrity, who represents more of the same, a lack of ideas. Whoever wants to change Europe, and above all the opaque, hyper-bureaucratic European Commission, needs someone else in that post."

"Cameron did exactly the right thing. He did not only win the hearts of Brits but also of citizens in many other countries who worry about what will ultimately remain of the European Union, a bureaucratic entity that offers occupational therapy and valediction opportunities for veteran politicians. In this sense, Cameron is the greatest pro-European of all the heads of state and government."

She continues that Juncker did not enjoy a democratic mandate from the German people, and that Angela Merkel made a mistake by backing him:

"The Germans, for example, did not vote for the European People’s Party (of whom Juncker was the leading candidate) but the CDU. Juncker did not feature on the posters, it was Merkel. It is not the case that voters would have driven crazy if Merkel had ultimately arranged that someone else would have become the Commission President. In doing so, she would have shown that she takes this post seriously. Now she has only shown that she doesn't really care who takes this job."

As we have been arguing as well, Nienhaus adds that the European Parliament (EP) does not have more democratic legitimacy than the European Council, and the appointment of Juncker is effectively a power grab by the Parliament. She calls on Germans who share this view to support the UK:

"The heads of state and government are ultimately at least as democratically legitimised as the European Parliament. After all, they won national elections in their respective countries." 

"We can only hope that Angela Merkel does not take offence at [Cameron's] 'No’. We need the Brits in Europe, also for other reasons. The belief of the Brits that freedom is good for the economy, and that not everything has to be regulated by the state, is exactly that what the EU is currently missing."

Nienhaus concludes that the UK is vital for the future of the EU, and that the EU debate is missing some of the UK's beliefs:

"The suspicion among the Brits that the powers that have won want to initiate a redistribution of powers and favour a super-powerful state is widespread. That does not appeal to the liberal Brits. Those in Germany who share this view – and there are many – has to support the UK playing a greater role in the EU. We need more Cameron, not less."

Neinhaus's line is not universally accepted in Germany of course. Others have been sticking the boot into Cameron. Nonetheless, Berlin will be aware that last week’s EU summit is a foretaste of what life in the EU could be if the UK were to leave. Without Britain in the EU, Germany would face a bigger risk of being cornered by a block of Southern eurozone countries lead by Italy and France: something that is absolutely not in its long-term interests.

Post-Juncker press conference round-up

We have been following the post-summit press conferences of EU leaders. Here is a round-up of the highlights, starting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

MOST IMPORTANT POINTS FROM #MERKEL #EUCO PRESSER: (1/3) "Ever closer union" does not mean one-speed Europe.
— Open Europe (@OpenEurope) June 27, 2014

MOST IMPORTANT POINTS FROM #MERKEL #EUCO PRESSER: (2/3) #spitzenkandidaten process will have to be discussed in #Council.
— Open Europe (@OpenEurope) June 27, 2014

MOST IMPORTANT POINTS FROM #MERKEL #EUCO PRESSER: (3/3) "flexibility" on fiscal pact does not mean member states get to re-write the rules.
— Open Europe (@OpenEurope) June 27, 2014

In his press conference, David Cameron took his defeat on the chin but noted that it would make his reform strategy harder:

“Today’s outcome is not the one I wanted. And it makes it harder, and the stakes higher…This is going to be a long, tough fight and sometimes you have to be ready to lose a battle to win a war. It has only stiffened my resolve to fight for reform in the EU, because it is crying out for it.”

Cameron was asked whether much more of this kind of thing would prompt him to recommend an ‘Out’ vote in a referendum. He declined the offer but did make the point that:

“And at the end of 2017, it will not be me, it will not be the House of Commons, it won’t be Brussels who decide about Britain’s future in the European Union. It will be the British people. It will be their choice, and their choice alone.”

He also pointed to the paragraph in the Council conclusions dedicated to the UK:

1. The UK raised some concerns related to the future development of the EU. These concerns will need to be addressed.  

In this context, the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further.  

Once the new European Commission is effectively in place, the European Council will consider the process for the appointment of the President of the European Commission for the future, respecting the European Treaties.

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi was particularly keen to claim victory on a more 'flexible' application of EU fiscal rules. Van Rompuy’s agenda for the next European Commission is “very very very good on substance. For the first time, the focus is on growth. Insisting on growth is a turning point for Europe,” he said.

“Those countries who implement structural reforms have the right to greater flexibility, which is the most important political point for us.”

Renzi also touched on other EU top jobs, and made clear that:

“The name of [former Italian Prime Minister] Enrico Letta for European Council Presidency has never been made”

As for French President François Hollande, he tried to wrap his battle for looser EU fiscal rules into a European flag:

“I did not intervene only to defend France. When I evoke the flexibility in the margins of the Stability Pact [EU fiscal rules], I defend a conception of Europe.” 

And as regards the next European Commission, he said France wants “an organisation around big Vice-Presidencies. I will demand a Vice-Presidency for France.”

Read our take on what Cameron's defeat means for the reform agenda here.

Farage suffers another defection: can he still put together a group in the European Parliament?

With the deadline for the registration of European Parliament political groups set to expire early next week (the European Parliament's equivalent of a transfer window), even the moves of individual MEPs can be decisive.

Nigel Farage suffered an unexpected blow yesterday, as Dutch MEP Bastiaan 'Bas' Belder (see picture) announced that he would leave UKIP's Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group and join the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) - the Tories' group.

This complicates things for Farage, who now needs MEPs from at least three more member states (other than UK, Italy, Czech Republic and Lithuania) to gain the seven countries needed to keep his EFD group alive.

Time is running out, but there are still a few options out there, including:

• The Sweden Democrats (who have also applied to join the ECR group); 

• German satirical party Die Partei; 

• Poland's Congress of the New Right (who are also in talks with Marine Le Pen);

• Bulgarian MEP Angel Dzhambazki of the Bulgarian National Movement (VMRO).

Meanwhile, there has been no news from the Le Pen-Wilders front this week. They also need two more countries to wrap up their group. Given that Farage and Le Pen have both ruled out joining forces with Golden Dawn, Jobbik and the German neo-nazi NPD, the room for manoeuvre is now narrower, and the two may well end up contending for the same MEPs. The next few days are going to be interesting.

Grillo joins Farage, but UKIP's group in the European Parliament is not a done deal yet

Now it's official: Italy's anti-establishment Five-Star Movement will try to form an alliance with UKIP in the new European Parliament. Beppe Grillo launched an online survey of Five-Star members and activists on his blog yesterday, and 78% of votes went for Nigel Farage's EFD group.

The survey has drawn criticism from the Italian press, but also from some Five-Star MPs, for a number of reasons:

• Only 29,584 votes were cast, a microscopic amount when compared to the almost 5.8 million votes the Five-Star Movement won in the European Parliament elections;

• The survey only offered three options: EFD (UKIP's group), ECR (the UK Conservatives' group) or non-attached. Other groups that could have been more natural allies of the Five-Star Movement, notably the Greens and the European Left of SYRIZA and Podemos, were not included;

• The three options were presented on Grillo's blog in a way that appeared to privilege Farage's group. The description of the ECR was shorter and less enthusiastic in tone. As regards the non-attached group, the blog warned that being part of it would mean "limited or no influence on the legislative activities of the European Parliament", and would therefore prevent the Five-Star Movement from pushing its political agenda in Europe. A fair point, although it can also be quite difficult to impose your views if you are sitting in a group where no-one agrees with you on certain issues.

Still, the verdict of la rete (the internet) is sacred for Grillo and the alliance with UKIP will go ahead. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Although they both emphasise the importance of referenda and direct democracy, the Five-Star Movement and UKIP are not exactly soulmates. Energy policy, EU farm subsidies, financial regulation, the financial transaction tax, GMOs and the EU-US free-trade deal (TTIP) are all issues on which the two parties do not see eye to eye.   

Indeed, the deal between Grillo and Farage is that their parties will sit in the same group, but will vote independently. This could help make the alliance sustainable in the longer term.

So where does this leave Farage with the formation of his group in the European Parliament? The bad news for UKIP is that they still need two national factions to wrap up the group. At the moment, parties from five EU countries are on board: UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Lithuania and the Czech Republic.

On the other hand, though, Farage is now ahead of Marine Le Pen when it comes to the number of MEPs in the respective groups. Farage has 45 MEPs on his side, Le Pen only 38 (42 if you count the Polish KNP party, whose participation has not yet been confirmed).

Will Le Pen and Farage both succeed in putting together a group? And whose will be the largest one? We will likely get the answer over the next couple of weeks.