The 2014 European Parliament Elections: Outcomes and Implications

The 2014 European Parliament Elections: Outcomes and Implications

The 2014 European Parliament Elections:
Outcomes and Implications
Updated July 24, 2014
Political Context
Between May 22-25, 2014, the 28 member states of the European Union (EU) held elections for the next
European Parliament (EP), a key institution that represents the citizens of the EU countries. Members of
the European Parliament (MEPs) serve five-year terms. The new EP, which began work on July 1, 2014,
has 751 MEPs from 186 national parties (for background, see CRS Report RS21998, The European
Parliament).
The recent EP elections are notable for several reasons. They were the first since the entrance into force of
the EU’s Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, which increased the power of the EP. The Treaty also
explicitly links the EP elections to the selection of the next President of the European Commission (the
EU’s executive). Although the leaders of the member states still decide on the next Commission
President, the treaty now requires that they take into account the results of the EP elections. Thus, for the
first time, five of the EP’s main political groups nominated candidates for Commission President.
Additionally, Europe’s recent economic and financial crisis has contributed to the rise of anti-EU or
“euroskeptic” parties in several EU countries. Many of these parties—which are predominantly
nationalistic, populist, and on the far right, although a few are on the far left—made gains in the EP
elections, with potential implications for the functioning of the EU and for certain issues in U.S.-EU
relations.
Election Outcomes
MEPs are organized into political groups, which caucus according to ideology rather than nationality and
must consist of at least 25 MEPs from a minimum of 7 EU countries. Like the previous Parliament, the
new EP has seven political groups, as well as a number of “non-attached” or independent MEPs. Political
groups give MEPs more influence as groups receive funding from the EP, more speaking time, and have a
formal role in EP decision making; the relative size of the political groups also helps to determine EP
leadership and committee posts.
The European Parliament (2014-2019)
751 Members
Political Group
Seats
European People’s Party (EPP; center-right)
221
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D; center-left)
191
European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR; right-wing/euroskeptics)
70
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE; centrist/liberals)
67
European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE-NGL; far-left/former communists)
52
Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA; greens/regionalists)
50
Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD far-right/euroskeptics)
48
Non-attached
52

The two traditionally largest groups in the Parliament retained their dominant positions, with the center-
right EPP securing 221 seats and the center-left S&D winning 191. Compared to the previous Parliament,
however, the EPP lost a considerable number of seats (-53) due to voter dissatisfaction with economic
austerity measures and the appeal of far-right euroskeptic parties. As the largest group still, the EPP was
best positioned to influence the decision of the EU member states on the next Commission President.
Despite a contentious process and British opposition, in late June 2014, member states nominated the EPP
candidate put forward during the campaign—former Luxembourg prime minister Jean-Claude Juncker—
as the next Commission President; Juncker was confirmed by the Parliament in mid-July.
While euroskeptics are not an entirely new phenomenon in the Parliament, up to 25% of seats in the new
EP appear to have been won by MEPs opposed to further EU integration. This percentage includes a wide
range of euroskeptics, from those that advocate for EU reforms and greater member state sovereignty to
those that call for an end to the EU’s single currency or even to the EU itself. The relatively moderate
euroskeptic ECR emerged as the third largest group in the new EP; despite losses for one of its leading
national parties, the British Conservatives, the ECR was able to gain MEPs from other right-wing parties
across the EU. Hardline euroskeptics were unable to form a political group given their disparate outlooks,
competing nationalist agendas, and diverse personalities.
Potential Implications
Ahead of the EP elections, some EU officials expressed concerns that the formation of a far-right,
hardline euroskeptic group could help block legislation and hinder EU decision making, especially if such
a group forged a united front with other euroskeptic groups (such as ECR and EFDD). While many EU
policymakers are relieved that that hardline euroskeptics failed in forming a political group, analysts point
out that hardliners in the new EP could still have consequences for the EU:
 Hardliners could use the Parliament as a venue from which to espouse their anti-EU
views—possibly further eroding public support for the EU—and as a platform from
which to advance themselves in national politics in their home countries;
 Euroskeptic parties could shift certain EU policies if they prompt mainstream EP political
groups and established EU leaders to embrace similar positions, possibly producing a
greater emphasis in the EU on promoting economic growth, tightening immigration
policies, and slowing further EU enlargement and integration.

Observers also suggest that the increase in euroskeptic MEPs could have ramifications for U.S. interests,
including the following:

Congressional Research Service
3

 The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Although many MEPs
support this proposed U.S.-EU free trade agreement, far-right and far-left MEPs opposed
to free trade or fearful that it might dilute national brands could heighten reservations in
the Parliament, which must approve any eventual TTIP agreement for it to take effect.
 U.S.-EU Counterterrorism Information-sharing Agreements. The increase in far-right
MEPs at the expense of the center-right EPP group could weaken support for renewing
U.S.-EU accords on tracking terrorist financing and sharing airline passenger data. The
EPP has been a key backer of these agreements, which have long been controversial
because of data privacy concerns and opposed by many left-leaning MEPs.
Relations with Russia. Several far-right euroskeptic parties have taken pro-Russian stances on a range of
issues, from energy to the conflict in Ukraine and Crimea. Some analysts are concerned that these parties
could enhance support for Russia in the Parliament and across the EU.

Author Information

Kristin Archick

Specialist in European Affairs

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN10065 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED