Would it not be easier if 'Brussels' simply dissolved the people and elected another?

In less than a month's time voters across the EU (that is those who decide to vote) will head to the polls to elect the new European Parliament. Ahead of the elections there has been a lot of speculation about the surge in support for a range of populist anti-EU, anti-austerity, anti-immigrant and anti-establishment parties and what this will mean.

Breaking the parties down into these sub-groups illustrates that the potential 'anti-EU vote' is a complicated phenomenon. In a new briefing published today, we estimate these parties could win as much as 30.9% of the vote in May, up from 24.9% in 2009. This will give them 218 out of 751 seats (29%), up from 164 out of 766 (21.4%) in the current parliament. (You can see our criteria for categorising the parties in the briefing).

These parties, loosely termed by Open Europe as the ‘Malcontents Block’, span the political spectrum and differ substantially from each other, ranging from mainstream governing parties to outright neo-fascists, and will not therefore form a coherent block. The largest increases are among the anti-establishment parties typified by Beppe Grillo's Five Star Movement in Italy and the anti-EU vote is largely driven by the rise of the Front National in France and UKIP in the UK. Having said this, we acknowledge that the European elections are in part used by anti-establishment parties to drive a domestic agenda, sometimes with limited links to "Europe". Still from free movement to the bailouts, European issues are now trickling through to voters' decisions.

Sources: Vote Watch Europe and Open Europe calculations

However, despite the strong performance of these anti-EU parties, the EP will continue to be dominated by parties which favour the status quo or further integration. The vote share of parties identified by Open Europe as being ‘critical reformers’ – parties which believe the EU needs fundamental reform if it is to survive – is set to go from 53 to 39 seats.

The net effect of the anti-EU vote could therefore ironically be to make the EP more integrationist: by crowding out critical reformers, by reinforcing the corporatist tendency of the two main groups who will want to freeze out the anti-EU MEPs, and by binding the EP and Commission closer together.

Source: Vote Watch Europe and Open Europe calculations

Another one to watch out for is voter turnout. If turnout is roughly the same this time around (43%), we estimate that 74.4% of all voters will have voted against the EU, for radical change, or not bothered to vote at all, with only 25.6% of all eligible voters actively turning out to vote in favour of status quo/more integration parties.

This is not to say that all 'non-voters' are anti-EU or anti-status quo - some have tried to put words in our mouth to that effect (somewhat predictably). However, it clearly reinforces the European Parliament's remoteness from voters and the thin democratic mandate that MEPs can rely on to push their agenda in the Parliament. Some may be tempted to see voter apathy as a 'net neutral' - we don't know how these voters would vote after all and they're voting for other things apart from Europe anyway. This is a familiar argument that has been used many times in the past as a pretext for pressing ahead with more integration. However, to conclude that voter apathy in fact means 'endorsement' is naive, intellectually dishonest - and outright dangerous as it'll only create even more fertile ground for an even more hostile response in future.

Source: Vote Watch Europe and Open Europe calculations

Worryingly for the UK and other liberal minded EU governments, the share of MEPs explicitly dedicated to free market policies is also expected to fall from 242 (31.6%) to 206 (27.4%).

Source: Vote Watch Europe and Open Europe calculations

All this means that the EP elections may be bad news for David Cameron. The EP has an effective veto over some of Cameron’s potential flagship reforms (outlined in his recent Sunday Telegraph article), including EU-US free trade talks, services liberalisation and rules on migrants’ access to welfare.

The consequence of giving the European Parliament more and more power under successive EU treaties is that these elections matter. MEPs now have equal status with national governments in the vast majority of EU policy areas from regulating working time to bankers' bonuses. Despite this, turnout has fallen in every European election so far and this time around we could see more anti-EU MEPs elected than ever before.

The usual response from the Brussels bubble to voter apathy is that people don't 'understand' the EU. Perhaps, this time politicians might spend more time trying to understand why the electorate is looking for alternatives to the likes of Schulz, Juncker and Verhofstadt or not bothering to vote at all.

MEPs endorse EU renegotiation (as long as it is on their terms)

This afternoon EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy appeared in front of MEPs to give his account of the deal struck by national leaders on the EU's next long-term budget. MEPs, many of whom have strongly resisted any budgetary discipline at the EU level were far from happy. Below are some reactions from the speakers on behalf of the four largest groups in the parliament.

Joseph Daul - European People's Party

#EPP Group Chairman Joseph #Daul tells Presidents #Barroso & van #Rompuy that this #EUBudget is not acceptable. @eppgroup @ep_budgets
— Siegfried Muresan (@SMuresan) February 18, 2013

Treaty law is 'supreme' says #epp Daul. #MFF deal lacks 'respect' for MEPs, 'not my vision,' he laments zzzz #EUbudget
— Bruno Waterfield (@BrunoBrussels) February 18, 2013

Hannes Swoboda - Socialists and Democrats

Socialist & Democrats Group Chairman Hannes Swoboda: This EU budget deal is unacceptable there will be no majority for it in this chamber
— Open Europe (@OpenEurope) February 18, 2013

Guy Verhofstadt - Alliance of Liberals and Democrats

Verhofstadt: This MFF cannot be accepted by Parliament, it must be renegotiated
— Open Europe (@OpenEurope) February 18, 2013

Isabelle Durant - Greens

MEP Isabelled Durant (Greens, Belgium) wants annual budgets for 2013, 14, and after EU election new budget to be negotiated #mff #euco
— Georgi Gotev (@GeorgiGotev) February 18, 2013

So a pretty united front - so much for pluralism and diversity in the EP (although Martin Callanan of the ECR - the fifth largest group - did broadly welcome the deal). We can only imagine what MEPs from Angela Merkel's CDU/CSU, Fredrik Reinfeld's Moderaterna, Helle Thorning-Schmidt's Social Democrats (and even Ed Miliband's Labour party which backed a cut in the HoC vote) or Mark Rutte's VVD must have made of their group leaders' speeches.

The full-throated desire of many MEPs to renegotiate what they see as a bad deal is also noteworthy as they tend to be the same people who can be counted upon to strike down any talk of national parliaments and/or governments from trying to get a better deal at the EU level as being not only impossible to achieve but also 'anti-European' by its very nature.

Double Standards & Flexible Principles

The row between the French government and the European Commission over the repatriations of Roma people has reawakened the debate about immigration policies, solidarity and racism. The topic is extremely complex, and some of the main questions could remain unanswered for a long time.

But the recent quarrel has also shown how the French government is guilty of double standards when it comes to respecting "European principles".

As we argue in this letter to European Voice today, for years France has lectured other member states on the need for "European solidarity" and to keep up the image of a happy family. However, now that it is accused of violating several key EU laws, the French government suddenly seems much less keen to abide by the principles it used to preach.

But Sarkozy is not the only one who has displayed the symptoms of "EU-hypocrisy" lately. As Dutch MEP Derk-Jan Eppink revealed during the last plenary session of the European Parliament, in 2002 Belgium was condemned by the European Court of Human Rights because, three years before, 74 Roma people had been "collectively expelled" and deported to Slovakia. And guess who the Belgian Prime Minister was at the time? None other than Liberal MEP Guy Verhofstadt (shaking hands with Sarkozy in the picture), the staunchest defender of euro-federalism and "European values".

Indeed, only last week, Verhofstadt was quick to join the rest of the European Parliament in condemning the French policy. He said,

"The reaction from several French government ministers to our criticism is regrettable. This is not a question of political diktat but an appeal to a better sense of judgement based on commonly shared European values for tolerance, non-discrimination and respect for free movement. The Roma are European citizens just like any other."

"Parliament this week was perfectly entitled to point out that bribing or forcing one ethnic group to return, en masse, to another member state, is not in conformity with EU laws, nor in the spirit of the treaties."

It's worth watching the video below right to the end of Eppink's speech. The look on Verhofstadt's face is a picture.

What guy?

Tony Blair’s memoirs, released earlier today, reveal that while Bush junior was in the White House he, like many others, found the EU hard to get his head around. The Telegraph reports that in a 2001 G8 summit in Genoa, Bush was confused by the presence of Guy Verhofstadt:

“He didn’t know or recognise Guy, whose advice he listened to with considerable astonishment,” Mr Blair writes.

“He then turned to me and whispered, ‘Who is this guy?’

‘He is the prime minister of Belgium,’ I said.

“Belgium? George said, clearly aghast at the possible full extent of his stupidity. ‘Belgium is not part of the G8’.”

Mr Blair explained to Mr Bush that Mr Verhofstadt was there as “president of Europe”. Belgium held the presidency of the EU council at the time.

Mr Bush responded: “You got the Belgians running Europe?” before shaking his head, “now aghast at our stupidity”, Mr Blair writes.

Bolkestein vs. Verhofstadt

Frits Bolkestein, the former Commissioner for the Internal Market and former leader of the Dutch liberals, isn't shying away from frank talk. Earlier this year he penned a dynamite article together with Roman Herzog, former German President and Luder Gerken, Director of German think-tank CEP, warning that the EU was at the risk of "completely breaking down" if it did not win back the support of its citizens.

Bolkestein has now taken aim at arch-federalist Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian leader of the liberal group in the European Parliament. In name, the two veterans are fellow "liberals", on policy, however (at least on EU policy), they're poles apart.

In an interview with Belgian magazine Knack on Friday (not online), Bolkestein takes the gloves off, calling Verhofstadt’s proposals for EU taxes and EU bonds “ridiculous”, saying “if they do that, then we don’t know where it will end”.

He goes on to say

Verhofstadt should shut up. I have told Hans Van Baalen, who leads the Dutch liberals in the EP, that he needs to resist [Verhofstadt’s proposals]. They should bring that up in the group, they should not let that happen. They need to tell Verhofstadt: you speak in the name of who? Then he will have to acknowledge that he is only speaking for himself.

On Greece and the Euro, Bolkestein says:

How is it possible that Greece has become member of the Eurozone? Who has been sleeping? I have done my best to keep the Italians out. I have pressed [former Dutch Finance Minister] Gerrit Zalm, although that didn’t take much. In Italy he was known as Il Duro, as Il Perfido. Ah, it hasn’t gone the right way.

Interestingly, he said that one of his three main achievements in politics was that “I have given a different turn to opinions on the EU. I was actually the first eurosceptic politician.”

Tough talk. But he's raising the ever so pertinent question - who are the EU federalists (of which there are many in the European Parliament) actually talking for?

We're eagerly awaiting round 2.