Global Development Programs: What the EU elections mean for global development- by Richard Jones

lthough summer may (belatedly) have arrived in Brussels, Shakespeare’s “Now is the winter of our discontent” may be a more appropriate apothegm — at least for Europe’s voters, if the results of last week’s European parliamentary elections are anything to go by.

In what was the second biggest democratic exercise on the planet — some  400 million people were eligible to cast their vote for a new European Parliament — the estimated 43.1 percent of eligible European voters that went to the polls across the European Union have returned a very different set of representatives to the bloc’s parliament.

From the perspective of Europe’s mainstream parties, at least, things did not go quite according to plan. Indeed, although mainstream politics still predominate, there were significant gains for euroskeptic and populist parties across the political spectrum in many of Europe’s 28 member states, with notable success for France’s far-right Front National and the United Kingdom’s UKIP.

In the face of what French Prime Minister Manuel Valls dubbed a “political earthquake,” European Council President Herman Van Rompuy acknowledged — following a gathering in Brussels on Wednesday — that voters had sent “a strong message” and that EU leaders would need to re-evaluate the bloc’s agenda.

But what impact will the makeup of the 751 MEPs taking up their seats in July have on the regional bloc’s international development cooperation? What might the results mean for the EU’s footprint abroad as it engages in an increasingly complex world, negotiates a new global development framework and navigates the choppy waters of climate change, governance, conflict and immigration from non-EU countries? And will the fallout from last week’s electoral earthquake cause long-lasting reverberations?

Although the EU’s multiannual financial framework — which cements international relations, especially with the global south, as a “top priority” — has been agreed to in principle, it is not yet set in stone. Eloise Todd, international advocacy director at the ONE Campaign, cautioned that the 2016 budget, which will be released, negotiated and voted upon next year, will be telling.

“It’s a big moment — an opportunity to make some revisions. Although the broad parameters are set, there’s always a bit of ‘push-pull’ year-on-year as to which priorities get how much money,” Todd said.

Therein lies the danger for the aid community, and we should therefore expect significant lobbying from civil society groups in the coming year to galvanize support around development. The global development community knows that it is often last in line when it comes to budget allocations, or top-ups in the case of shortfalls — as was seen in the recent aid funding crunch at ECHO, the European Commission’s humanitarian aid and civil protection arm.

Read more: International Development News | What the EU elections mean for global development