While some commentators might see the result of these elections, and the election of non-mainstream parties as a threat, I see them as a potential opportunity - an opportunity to listen, to change, and to look at developing new ideas for the future that challenge the current status quo.
My top priority in coming months as the new chair of parliament's ECR group will be to look at building an EU that is focused on the challenges we face as we head towards the 2050s, rather than defending decisions based on challenges faced by the founding fathers of the European community in the 1950s.
Over the past few years, the mantra of 'reform' in the EU has often been bandied about. It is a great success of the ECR that across the spectrum more and more realise that things need to change. For different people the word reform often means different things. Although my group was created to champion the cause of reform we do not have exclusive ownership over it. So in the coming years we want to work with those in the parliament that want to change how the EU does business.
How do we achieve that? First, we should take a step back and listen to our citizens. The recent disquiet is of course partly due to the tough economic times we have faced, but to simply dismiss these results would only stoke the fire of people's discontent. Let us have a proper discussion that reaches out well beyond the Brussels village. When citizens raise concerns about issues, we should try to understand them even if we do not see them ourselves. Dismissing their concerns might just send them into the arms of politicians talking their language on the wilder fringes.
Second, we need to create a forum where ideas and debate are encouraged. Not long ago my delegation cleared out its offices. Looking through press releases and briefings from 15 years ago it struck me how the debates, the issues, and the proposals were perhaps less advanced, but they were often basically the same. This is the problem: we are still playing out a debate from the 20th century. But are we doing enough to look at the challenges that will face our children? The commission - working with my colleague James Elles under the ESPAS project - has begun to chart what these challenges may be. Now we must look to a vision for how we will tackle them. In the 1950s, the idea of a telecoms market with private companies competing to offer services to eager customers was dismissed as a mad right wing ideology by so-called experts who saw telephony as a natural state monopoly provided by the national post office or PTT. They were wrong. No idea should ever be seen as heresy and no debate should ever be shut down. For centuries, Europe was the centre for new ideas, and it could be again. We need to move away from the idea that institutions of the EU that spend more taxpayers' money and pass more legislation are the answers to our problems. They are often the problem themselves.
Third, I believe we need a change in culture in the EU. The past five years have seen a power struggle between the parliament and the council, following the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. I hope that the next parliament will begin to focus on issues rather than institutional struggles. Whatever people may say about the European parliament, it does bring together a number of people from different backgrounds and with different perspectives and expertise. I fear that sometimes the parliament does not empower all 750 MEPs to carry out their primary function: namely to scrutinise legislation and hold the commission to account. Too many decisions are being made in trilogue for political expediency. Too many crucial decisions are made by political group leaders. That should change - the chamber of the parliament and parliament's committees should take a step back from the churn of new law and instead let's have more discussion on ideas.
I am proud to lead the ECR and I want to pay tribute to the outgoing leader of the group, Martin Callanan. Martin played an instrumental role in building a group that has shown there is another way that is not unbridled 'ever-closer union', nor is it about giving up. There is an alternative to this binary choice, that will start to look at the direction the EU should move in if it is to regain competitiveness, to regain relevance to people's lives, and face the challenges of tomorrow.
So as the incoming chairman of the ECR, my aims are to address practical challenges, seek innovative ideas for solving them, and attempt to build coalitions to deliver them. I want the EU to be fit for 2050, not looking back to 1950.