This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/world/europe/eu-to-meet-in-wake-of-election-setbacks.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
E.U. Leaders to Meet in Wake of Election Setbacks E.U. Leaders Meet in Wake of Election Setbacks
(about 7 hours later)
BRUSSELS — European Union leaders are set to meet in Brussels on Tuesday evening under intense pressure to reform the way the bloc is run after upstart populist parties on the right and left surged in four days of legislative elections ending at the weekend. BRUSSELS — European Union leaders met here Tuesday night under intense pressure to reform the way the bloc is run after populist upstart parties on the right and left surged in four days of legislative elections ending Sunday.
Many of the groups that handed a drubbing to mainstream rivals in the voting for the European Parliament are seeking to diminish, or even dismantle, the six-decade effort to integrate the Continent. Looming over a dinner attended by the leaders was the drubbing handed to mainstream parties in the voting for the European Parliament by groups like the National Front in France and the United Kingdom Independence Party, which are seeking to diminish, or even dismantle, the six-decade effort to integrate the Continent.
The dinner will be the leaders’ first meeting after four days of balloting, ending Sunday, that boosted upstarts in Britain, Denmark, France and Greece. Insurgent groups from the far right — and, in Greece’s case, also from the radical left — badly rattled the established political parties. The main issues at the dinner, the leaders’ first meeting after the balloting, which ended Sunday, are expected to be how to craft future European Union policies in the face of such anti-European election results, and how soon to choose a new president of the European Commission to replace the departing one, José Manuel Barroso.
Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and President François Hollande of France are among those under the greatest pressure to retake the initiative from populist parties that emerged strengthened and self-confident from the elections. Selecting the next head of the commission, the bloc’s main policy-making arm, marks “a critical moment for the E.U. in terms of signaling how leaders are responding to the rise in populist anti-E.U. sentiment,” said Simon Hix, a professor at the London School of Economics.
Mr. Cameron spent much of Monday on the telephone to his counterparts, including to Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, to push for new leadership of the European Commission, the bloc’s main policy-making arm. Mr. Cameron is promoting a streamlined version of the union in hopes of countering the threat from the U.K. Independence Party, led by Nigel Farage, which won the British part of the European poll. But the dinner could mark the start of another potential crisis for the union over the issue of who gets the right to choose the candidates who run the day-to-day affairs of the union, including the president.
The dinner on Tuesday seems to be a venue for the kind of conversation that often makes little progress through the maze of conflicting national agendas that often confounds European decision-making. But Mr. Cameron intended “to show it cannot be business as usual,” according to British government officials. For the first time, the leading parties in the European Parliament have formally put forward their own candidates for that job.
In France, after his Socialist Party finished third, far behind the far-right National Front, which rails against immigration and promises to zealously guard French national sovereignty, Mr. Hollande took to the airwaves on Monday night to blast the European project for having become “remote and incomprehensible.” One of those is Jean-Claude Juncker of the center-right European People’s Party, which won 213 seats. Mr. Juncker is expected in coming days to try to form a majority. The runner-up group in the polls was the center-left Socialists and Democrats group, with 190 seats.
Mr. Hollande also said that he wanted a Europe that would “withdraw from where it is not necessary.” “If you want to respect the new democratic way of choosing commission presidents, you’d pick Juncker, but Juncker looks very much business-as-usual when it comes to responding to growing public opposition to Europe,” said Professor Hix. “So it’s a very tricky dilemma.”
Another leader arriving in Brussels in a weakened position is Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt of Denmark, where victory by the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party challenged her Social Democrats, who have traditionally supported closer integration with Europe. The commission presidency is a powerful role, and the bid by the Parliament to decide the post marks a sharp break with the past, when it was assumed that government leaders would assign the top European Union jobs behind closed doors.
The outcome across Europe reflected a toxic mix of resentments at issues including immigration, the austerity budgets imposed since the financial crisis of 2008 and widespread unemployment, as well as a broader disaffection with the once unchallenged orthodoxy that Europe should aspire to “ever closer union.” The president, who will eventually need the approval of the Parliament, gets to set the tone at the top of a body that proposes legislation in a huge number of areas, including European Union migrants’ rights to social security and bankers’ bonuses, and gets to represent the bloc jointly with the president of the European Council, the body representing European Union leaders, at important international gatherings.
The fringe forces will now have a broader platform to promote their hostility to the bureaucracy in Brussels and to immigrants in their home countries. Importantly for national governments, the president also plays a key role in allocating important portfolios like trade, competition, financial services, monetary affairs and digital policy at the top of the commission’s hierarchy.
Even so, in terms of political arithmetic, the rise in support for populist groups has not broken the grip of mainstream coalitions on the 751-member European Parliament. With a low average turnout of around 43 percent, the outcome favored protest votes in a way that national elections generally do not. But there are deep misgivings, particularly in Britain, about whether Mr. Juncker — a former prime minister of Luxembourg who has strong federalist leanings — could deliver the kind of changes to the European Union that would enable Prime Minister David Cameron to persuade voters to keep Britain in the bloc in a promised national referendum on the issue in 2017.
In Britain, voter participation was even lower — about 36 percent — while Slovakia seemed supremely indifferent, with voter participation at about 13 percent. Yet another factor weakening the claim by the Parliament to name the commission president is that both Mr. Juncker’s group and the Socialist group, which has put forward the current president of the Parliament, Martin Schulz, as its candidate for the commission, lost seats in the election.
Ms. Merkel is in a stronger position than her chastened French and British colleagues since her Christian Democrat party came in comfortably ahead of all challengers in the vote, with about 35 percent. Even so, other leaders on Tuesday, including Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy of Spain and Chancellor Werner Faymann of Austria, expressed some support for Mr. Juncker.
“The point is to win those voters back,” Ms. Merkel said, referring to the populist trend in other countries.
Another leader arriving in Brussels in a relatively strong position is Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy, whose center-left Democratic Party won more than 40 percent of the vote in a robust victory over both the Five Star Movement led by the actor and comedian Beppe Grillo and the center-right Forza Italia led by Silvio Berlusconi.
The leaders are expected to spend some time on Tuesday evening discussing the outcome of elections in Ukraine — but the main issue is likely to be a discussion of policy priorities following the election and the choice of a new president of the European Commission to replace the departing José Manuel Barroso.
For the first time, the leading parties in the European Parliament have formally put forward their own candidates for the job. One of those is Jean-Claude Juncker of the center-right European Peoples’ Party, which won 213 seats. Mr. Juncker is expected in coming days to try to form a majority. The runner-up group in the polls was the center-left Socialists & Democrats, with 190 seats.
The attempt by the Parliament to name the European Commission’s president marks a break with the past, when it was assumed that government leaders would assign the top European Union jobs behind closed doors.
But there are deep misgivings, particularly in Britain, about whether Mr. Juncker can deliver the kind of change that would enable Mr. Cameron to convince voters to keep Britain in the union in a promised national referendum on the issue in 2017.
Government leaders must only take “into account” the result of the election when naming their candidate, and the Parliament can only “elect” that candidate once government leaders make their nomination, according to European Union rules.
As in the past, the leaders will probably agree on the nominee by consensus, but that could take time.As in the past, the leaders will probably agree on the nominee by consensus, but that could take time.
One expected outcome of the dinner on Tuesday evening is that leaders will give Herman Van Rompuy, the head of the European Council, the body that represents government leaders, a mandate to negotiate with the leaders of the main parties in the Parliament to find an acceptable president of the commission. One expected outcome of the dinner on Tuesday evening is that leaders will give Herman Van Rompuy, the head of the European Council, a mandate to negotiate with the leaders of the main parties in the Parliament to find an acceptable president.
That process is also likely to determine other top jobs, including replacements for Mr. Rompuy himself and a new chief of European Union foreign policy to replace Catherine Ashton of Britain. Among the center-right alternatives to Mr. Juncker discussed in recent weeks are Jyrki Katainen, the Finnish prime minister; Enda Kenny, the prime minister of Ireland; and Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister. Some diplomats have also suggested that nominating a woman to the post might break a looming deadlock with the Parliament. That has generated speculation about the prospects for Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund; Dalia Grybauskaite, the newly re-elected president of Lithuania; and Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the Danish prime minister.
The process of selecting the commission president is also likely to determine candidates for other top jobs, including replacements for Mr. Van Rompuy himself, a new chief of European Union foreign policy to replace Catherine Ashton of Britain, and a new head of the so-called Eurogroup of finance and economy ministers from countries that are part of the 18-member currency bloc.
The biggest decision maker is Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who will first need to strike consensus at home to prevent any decision from unsettling her coalition with the Social Democrats, according to Mujtaba Rahman, the director for Europe at the Eurasia Group, a political risk consulting firm.
But some commentators have emphasized that ignoring the result of the elections by choosing an outside candidate could create further resentment of Brussels.
The people have been told that they are voting indirectly for the next commission president, said Corina Stratulat, a senior policy analyst at the European Policy Center, a research organization in Brussels. “So how will you be able to justify in the end not going for one of the candidates?” said Ms. Stratulat. “If this time, it didn’t lead to what was promised, then why would people engage with it next time?”