The political centre-right has vowed it will be “business as usual” following this weekend’s elections to the European Parliament in which they retained majority, despite significant threats from the far right.

With most of the ballots analysed, the centre-right group in the European parliament, as the European People’s Party (EPP), look set to gain 263 seats compared to their nearest rivals, the Socialists, who look set to return 163 members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

But despite this centrist core, these elections have been characterised by a fracturing of the traditional vote, with more votes going to smaller parties, mostly on the right of the political spectrum. This has caused much concern in the corridors of parliament.

The upshot of this appears to be that the main, longstanding political groups in the parliament, the EPP, the Socialists and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE), will embark on a renewed platform of cooperation born out of self-preservation. They are expected to agree tactics designed at marginalising the new far right MEPs, whose politics is abhorrent to them.

“One of the key signals for this new parliament,” says Wilfried Martens, president of the EPP group, “is that it will be the first time we see these kind of extremists, populists and eurosceptics. And the big lesson for the political groups, those that built Europe, the EPP, liberals and Socialists, those stretching back over the years, is that they now have an imperative, critical task.”

That “critical task”, according to Martens, is to preserve the “stable political force”, and “shoulder the responsibility” of European politics. “Those groups,” he said, “have to get together and apply new reforms to Europe.”

But many around parliament are not convinced that the emergence of these “extremists, populists and eurosceptics” can be so easily dismissed; and some are openly opposed to what they see as unnecessary emphasis on consensus at all costs. They say that important issues brought up during the campaign cannot simply be whitewashed over.

One of the reasons the so-called mainstream political groups may be on the defensive is that there now exists the very real possibility of a new right- wing political group being formed in the next few weeks, which will certainly gain publicity and could upset any status quo that the biggest groups may wish to preserve.

For the right, the elections were mixed. The far right parties based on extreme xenophobia and fascist leanings did not do as well as expected, despite some notable gains; in Hungary Jobbik (Better Hungary, whose members dress in distinctly Nazi-style uniforms) won three seats, while in Finland, Perussoumalaiset (True Finns) gained their first MEP.

Elsewhere, the Austrian Freedom Party, members of the short-lived Independence and Democracy group (ITS) in the last Parliament, gained a significant proportion of votes, as did the British Nationalist Party (BNP), who gained their first two seats.

In contrast, however, the far right in Belgium, Italy and especially France suffered a significant drop in support.

Not that this was the extent of right-wing voting over the weekend. Several parties that are billed as “anti-immigration” but would reject the far right tag also made gains.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party has taken four seats, while in Denmark the Danish People’s Party are up one, as are the Greek Popular Orthodox Rally (LAOS). In the UK, the eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), who made immigration one of their policy platforms, beat the ruling Labour Party into second place in the polls behind the main Conservative opposition.

The somewhat reduced expectations of the far right appear to have put a dampener on the chances of such a political alliance in the parliament emerging soon. But there remain strong indications that the creation of a right-wing, anti-immigration group is on the cards, prompted by the electoral success of the Freedom Party under leader Geert Wilders.

While Wilders himself will not be coming to Brussels as an MEP (he elected to place himself far down the party list), he retains a lot of behind-the-scenes pull within right-wing circles.

His first port of call may be the renewed UKIP, which in the past has maintained close links with the Dutch party. And despite Wilders being banned from entering the UK, staff members have privately admitted they have “no problem” with sitting in a group together. Should this alliance come to fruition, the Danes are likely to follow.

What is clear is that a large number of MEPs have this time campaigned actively on the immigration issue, and it is unlikely they will let it die out easily.

A parliament staff member working with the much-reduced Socialist group tried to put on a brave face against such a possibility. “We will see 24 hours of celebrations and anxiety,” he told IPS. “But then it will be business as usual. In reality, those that have always been in charge will be back in the driver’s seat.” Consensus-builders throughout the parliament are hoping this comes true.

As European Union citizens prepare to go to the polls to elect representatives to the European Parliament this weekend (Jun. 4-7), in Brussels there continues to be much speculation about the political make-up of the next five-year parliament.

With Europe in the midst of an economic crisis – with all the attendant social problems that creates – there are genuine fears that a nationalist, anti-EU backlash will prompt disillusioned voters to plump for far right parties; a prospect filled with obvious problems at both EU and member state level.

For those of a more optimistic bent, current dissatisfaction with the EU does not automatically favour the far right. Smaller, left of centre parties, particularly the Greens, are also hoping to benefit from those seeking an alternative to the mainstream, dominant political voices.

But however one views things, one thing looks certain: the next parliamentary term will throw up some unexpected personalities and unusual alliances.

Indeed, speculation about how the next five years will play out, and new permutations in the Parliament, continues to be the most popular political parlour game in Brussels right now: Who will get elected? What exactly does this mean for the very future of the European project?

The European Parliament is a strange beast. Not afforded the same legislative powers as the Commission (the EU’s executive, law-generating body), nor equipped with the political weight of the Council (which represents EU governments), it is nonetheless the only EU institution with directly elected officials, and as such gives its members (MEPs) a certain amount of democratic legitimacy.

Cynics and Eurosceptics, on the other hand, dismiss the Parliament as a “talking shop”, an ineffectual chamber divested of any real power; and it is this very attitude which may come to infiltrate proceedings after the ballot boxes have closed this Sunday.

Electoral victory is one thing; consolidating power within the Parliament is an altogether more difficult task. Lacking the traditional government-opposition structure of national parliaments, the European Parliament is instead divided into political groups of like minded parties and MEPs, the largest of which in the outgoing parliament was the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP- ED), followed by its main rival, the Socialists.

Other groups were the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats (ALDE), the Greens, and other centre-right and left wing groups. In order for a political group to exist – or a new one to be formed – it must have at least 25 members from seven member states.

Normally, the make-up of political groups is seen around Parliament as a dull, matter-of-fact process. However, two developments have meant that there is above average interest in how the groups will turn out after this election.

The first is the British Conservatives’ determination to withdraw from the EPP and form a breakaway centre-right group; the other is how the new far right MEPs who are expected to be elected will be accommodated in the Parliament’s political structure.

While the EPP is expected to retain a superior position after the election, the loss of the Conservatives will nonetheless be a hard blow for the group, in numerical terms if nothing else.

Conservative leader David Cameron has continuously stressed his desire for a split from the EPP; one of his first acts in Europe after becoming leader was to send his shadow foreign secretary, William Hague, to impress upon his MEPs the need to jump ship.

To this day, a split remains in the party’s European representatives, with those to the right pushing for defection from the EPP, and the more liberal wing arguing for remaining in the group, speaking of a loss of influence should they depart.

The split in the party is mirrored in the attitudes expressed by Conservative members working in the European Parliament. One such member, an advocate of staying in the EPP, told IPS that Cameron was guilty of playing the most basic of political tactics: “give the right what they want in Europe, and move the party to the centre at home”, alluding to the fact that Cameron is currently trying to compete for electoral gain in the UK’s fertile middle ground. “If they leave, I’ll be surprised.”

That view is not shared by those on the right, who advocate the tactics put forward by the so-called H-Bloc wing of the party – the Eurosceptic, libertarian Conservatives. They know how power in the European Parliament is realistically distributed; through stealthy infiltration of committees and secretariats, rather than through the more high-profile chairmanship positions within committees or delegations.

But, with the right-wing backlash against the EU expected to return a significant minority of MEPs, this internecine spat suddenly acquires more significance. If Cameron is to realise his goal of the Conservatives being at the centre of a new political group, then he needs to do deals with some unlikely people. He has already suggested that the Polish Law and Justice Party and the Czech ODS (Civic Democrats) would be allies, but beyond that, it is up for negotiation.

Enter Geert Wilders. Wilders, a Dutch politician, is the darling of the domestic right in the Netherlands. Should he get elected, and it seems likely, there are strong rumours that he might wish to start, in the words of one Parliament official, a “soft right-group to scupper any possible far right group.”

If he does so, then this poses a huge problem for Cameron. Wilders has been banned from entering Britain on account of producing a film considered Islamophobic. Cameron, therefore, is restricted from doing any sort of deal with Wilders, which brings them into a conflict over who is in the best position to spearhead a new group. Cameron looks to be in front right now, but Wilders has more European allies. The race is on.

Both men, though, are facing a rearguard action from the far right. In the UK, France, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Austria and Belgium, extreme right-of- centre parties are set to gain European seats. Should their numbers add up, a political group is certainly in the offing, recalling a short-lived group that briefly existed in the last parliamentary term.

This group, the ITS (‘Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty’) that fell apart after nationalist sentiment proved too hard to accommodate, was viewed as something of a joke by many, but it would be a mistake to dismiss the lessons of the past. One Parliament official told IPS that the reason for the premature demise of the ITS was that, in Bruno Gollinisch they lacked a disciplined leader.

“Don’t be surprised if Roberto Fiore emerges as a candidate to lead a new group,” was the official’s blunt assessment. Fiore succeeded Alassandra Mussolini as MEP, as member of the Forza Nuova, an Italian far right party. He has strong links to Austria’s far right Freedom Party, Vlaams Belang in Belgium and the British National Party (whose leader, Nick Griffin, met Fiore in London in April last year).

Wilders clearly sees a way of undermining any far right group in Europe by appealing to a part of its constituency. If he succeeds, then those remaining will have to languish in the non-attached members group, devoid of any real power, and cast off from political perks such as committee chairmanships and report authorships.

It certainly looks as if the right will emerge stronger after the weekend. The question is, can the so-called soft right coalesce to stop the far right gaining the sort of power and influence they crave in the European Parliament?

As NATO prepares to celebrate its 60th year, Europe’s somewhat fractured Afghanistan policy, which will feature large in discussions at the organisation’s anniversary summit this weekend, needs to improve significantly if it is to gain any credibility in the region, say policy experts in Brussels.

Furthermore, failure to establish a co-ordinated strategy for the future of the country could damage EU-U.S. relations at a time when the Union is striving for foreign policy credibility on the global stage.

For the EU, which, on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty will have its first foreign minister, Afghanistan represents the kind of make-or-break challenge that cannot be shied away from; but to achieve a workable policy, a significant increase in co-operation between member states is needed.

U.S. President Barack Obama set out his stall early; with the promise of extra troops being deployed on the ground, and with the appointment of Richard Holbrooke, a man with significant experience in the Balkans, as special envoy to the ‘AfPak’ region of Afghanistan and its neighbour Pakistan.

Now, the U.S. wants Europe to follow suit by strengthening the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has also suggested, however diplomatically, that Europe should be more involved in regional stability, while Canada has threatened to withdraw some of its personnel if Europe does not assist more.

Providing more assistance, however, is so far proving to be somewhat difficult. Although European members of NATO have sent troops to Afghanistan, most EU countries are unwilling to commit extra personnel to the country, fearing a political backlash for participation in what continues to remain an unpopular venture. Also, they see that the security situation has deteriorated beyond effective repair.

And while Europe might be able to point to a set of statistics that suggests ongoing commitment to the region, the basic problem, that no one wants to put extra soldiers on the ground, will not be allowed to pass unnoticed by its international partners.

On paper, certainly, the EU looks to be doing a lot. The combined EU aid budget for Afghanistan will have exceeded 7 billion euros by the end of next year, with an additional 610 million euros being earmarked for projects in the areas of reform of the justice sector, rural development and health.

Britain currently supplies a little under 9,000 troops, but is feeling the strain. This week, it began troop withdrawal from Iraq with the intention of moving extra soldiers to Afghanistan. Germany, France, Italy, Poland and the Netherlands have all either increased troop numbers over the last year, or have signalled an intention to do so in the near future. And, taking the lead from Holbrooke, several EU member states have appointed their own ‘AfPak’ envoys.

But despite these initiatives, Europe is still failing to make a strong impact in the region. In the run-up to the elections in August, security is becoming increasingly important, with reform the policing and justice sector of Afghanistan a key priority. In this regard, EUPOL, the EU’s police mission, currently engaged in reform of the Afghan police force, is still the Unions’ highest profile engagement in the country, and one which will undoubtedly see the EU judged by its efforts.

Unfortunately, problems of staff shortages have meant that the EU has drafted in outside help to boost its capacity, further diluting both its visibility on the ground, and its claim to be the leading actor in police reform.

Last December the EU pledged to increase the EUPOL staff to 400, but so far member states have yet to make these extra police officers available. In an effort to provide incentives, European foreign ministers are now even talking about tripling salaries for anyone prepared to go the Afghanistan. At the moment, however, serving with the EU police mission in Kosovo is seen as a more attractive proposition than Afghanistan, seen as a lawless and dangerous place.

As the U.S. pushes ahead with its AfPak strategy, assessing that stability amongst Afghanistan’s neighbours is a vital component of maintaining security in Afghanistan itself. The EU is coming under pressure to increase its efforts in the region. And NATO has expressed a wish for its European members to lift their national caveats, which specifically detail the conditions of engagement, so far with little success.

But despite this unwillingness to commit troops, either through the EU or within NATO, the EU still sees itself as playing a vital part in the future of Afghanistan, if not through military assistance, then at least through its ‘soft presence’. The Union has pledged to fund and monitor the August elections.

Europe, most definitely sees itself as the international actor best equipped to bolster Afghanistan’s civilian capabilities. However, if it is to keep its credibility at this crucial time, it is vital that a co-ordinated transatlantic policy be reached if the EU’s escalating foreign policy ambitions are not to be derailed.