The starting gun for Europe's future was fired last Sunday, May 26. Following elections to the European Parliament across all 28 member states, the results indicate that the European Union may be entering into a more uncertain world.

Compared to the previous election in 2014, this year's elections generated both a larger turnout (over 50 percent) and a more fragmented European Parliament.

The biggest winners were the Greens and Liberal parties, who each won 26 and 11 more seats respectively than before.

The nationalist and far-right parties also increased their share of the seats, but not as much as was expected.

The biggest losers were the more established and traditional center-left and center-right groupings. They both lost around 50 seats each, which will have implications in the coming weeks and months.

The European Parliament doesn't have a lot of powers compared to the Commission or Council. The Commission initiates and implements legislation while the Council, made up of the leaders of the 28 members, provides the strategic direction.

The Parliament's role is mainly to review and amend legislation, debate the budget and provide oversight. But it does have one important purpose: When it meets for the first time in July, it will elect the next Commission President. He or she will need a majority in Parliament, which the Council will take into account when putting forward a candidate.

On May 28, the Council met to start those talks about who should be the next Commission President. Although the center-left and center-right political groupings are smaller than before, the center-right European People's Party remains the largest overall and is putting its candidate, the German Manfred Weber, in the driver's seat.

But while Weber has the support of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, he faces opposition from French President Emmanuel Macron, who has suggested several alternatives, including the center-left candidate, Frans Timmermans, or EU's French chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier.

The new president and Commission will also face a large file to deal with. In June, the Council will begin discussions about its work for the next five years.

According to the Clingendael Institute for foreign relations in the Netherlands, it will need to cover a wide range of challenges, including how to manage migration; tackling differences of opinion between western and eastern member states concerning the rule of law and standards of democracy; addressing divisions between northern and southern member states over the solidarity and the solidity of the Eurozone; resolving gaps in the European banking system and monetary fund; dealing with climate change and energy scarcity; and overcoming growing inequalities across Europe.

Several of these challenges are embodied in particular cases, which point to the way that the European Parliament and the recent elections may be relevant. In terms of financial issues, although the worst of the crisis which engulfed the Eurozone at the start of the decade and which nearly resulted in Greece's collapse seems over, the EU will need to revisit and revise its rules and ensure that bailout funds are sufficient.

Consequently, attention will certainly be paid to the appointment of the next President and Vice-President of the European Central Bank, which the European Parliament will also be responsible for.

Further afield, eyes will be on how the EU deals with the challenges presented by Hungary and its Prime Minister Viktor Orban. He is accused of hollowing out his country's institutions and media by putting loyalists in position – actions which go against the EU's commitment to democracy. At the same time, he has also been sharply critical of the EU over its migration policies, most notably during summer 2015 when hundreds of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers from Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere, were concentrated on the EU's eastern borders, including Hungary's.

Orban has the support of other nationalist leaders, like Italy's interior minister, Matteo Salvini. He opposes migrants crossing the Mediterranean and criticized the EU for leaving southern states like Italy and Greece to bear the brunt and associated costs.

Like the earlier financial crisis, the issue of migration is perhaps less acute than before. But the Council and Commission will be looking at ways to deal with future and unanticipated flows rather than reacting to events, as they did in 2015.

Undoubtedly, pro-Europeans will, therefore, welcome the relatively modest showing by the nationalists and far right. In February, the European Council for Foreign Relations suggested that if they gained a third of the seats in Parliament, they might serve as a disruptive force, ending sanctions on Russia and blocking the EU's foreign trade agenda and management of migration.

However, nationalists and the far right didn't achieve that result and instead increased their share of seats from 20 percent to 25 percent. Pro-Europeans believe that one of the reasons they didn't make the gains they expected was because of Brexit. They claim that the chaos associated with Britain's departure from the EU may have discouraged voters from voting for such parties.

Although the British government signed a withdrawal agreement with Brussels, it was unable to get it through Parliament before its scheduled departure on March 29. As a result, it had to request an extension and participate in the European elections.

A new anti-EU Brexit party campaigned on the demand that Britain leaves without a deal and won the most seats. But at the same time, other explicitly pro-remain parties also did well. The two traditionally largest parties, Labour and the Conservatives, both of which include leavers and remainers, were pushed into third and fifth place.

For those committed to the EU's effective functioning, Britain's experience is a warning. On the one hand, intransigence such as that presented by the Brexit party and other “no-deal leavers” provides both clarity and obstruction. But on the other hand, as pro-Europeans point out, such a stance offers neither a constructive alternative vision nor a way to work with others.

Consequently, the only choice is to work within the EU and arrive at a consensus, no matter how divided public opinion and political representation – as embodied in the new European Parliament – may be.