chapter 12 - EP

Question 1

EP elections

Answer 1

until 1979 MEPs were nominated by national parliaments from among their members (->only pro-integrationist + they had little time for Eu responsibilities)

Article 138 EEC Treaty -> universal suffrage

fixed 5 year basis, but no uniform electoral system
*1999 elections UK used proportional -> proportional in all states in some form

differences EP electoral arrangements:

1. varying versions of proportional representation
2. voting not on the same day
3. variation in nr of citizens MEPs represent

voter turnout has been relatively low + declining. bc:

1. EP elections don’t offer prospect of a change of gov., switch in policy, making/unmaking political reputations, don’t stimulate popular interest or political excitement
2. election campaigns have little overall coherence or coordination (national contests of secondary sort)
3. individuals and political forces that focus attention on national electoral campaigns are more reluctant with EP elections

-> EP elections appear as being much less important than national elections -> limited media interest -> limited visibility

Question 2

ways for EP to influence nature/content of EU legislative output

Answer 2

1. pre-proposal legislative stage: participate in policy discussions with the Commission
2. adopt own ideas for suggested legislation:
   - adopt own initiative reports (Commission has agreed to follow up on them, if it does not have major objections)
   - Article 225 TFEU: EP can request (when there is an EP majority in favor) Commission to submit a proposal on an issue required for implementing the treaties
3. annual budgetary cycle -> opportunities to exercise legislative influence, requires that the Commission and the Council and the EP work closely together
4. EP can influence Commission’s annual work and legislative program:
   Commission adopts annual work program -> program is considered by appropriate EP committees -> resolution vote in EP plenary session
5. legislative powers vary according to legislative procedure applying (depends on what treaty article(s) the proposal is based)

Question 3

The EU’s legislative procedures

Answer 3

consultation procedure

• EP is asked for an opinion on Commission proposals for legislation -> Commission may decide no matter what the opinion was
• (EP can ask for amendments and threaten to delay consultation)

ordinary legislative procedure (before Lisbon Treaty: co-decision procedure)
=EP most power

• EP co-decision maker with the Council: power to veto legislative proposals -> more bargaining power
• three reading procedure: if Council and EP don’t agree on the first reading, there is a second reading where the Council must defend its common position, if there’s still no agreement there is a third reading with a Conciliation committee (in practice often happens)

consent procedure
(pre-Lisbon: assent procedure)

• EP must consider proposals at a single reading
• veto powers but NO amendments
• only used for special measures, e.g. citizenship-related issues

Question 4

Parliament and EU legislation - how big of an influence?

Answer 4

impossible to estimate the precise effect of EP deliberations on final legislative acts bc:

• much of EP persuading/lobbying is done informally, not via approving, rejecting and amending legislative proposals
• statistical analyses have problems to determine the extent to which EP amendments are incorporated into final legislation:
  hard to distinguish political/technical/procedural amendments + significance of EP amendments varies acc to circumstances + how to count when only a part of an amendment is accepted by the Council

still: EP is centrally involved with Council and Commission in making EU legislation (e.g. visible in the fact that conciliation stage is rare) + EP activity has significant impact on outcome of legislative processes (EP alters rather than blocks)

Question 5

three weaknesses EP as legislative influence

Answer 5

1. no full legislative powers = positive and negative powers are not complete
2. EP opinion can be reduced when the Council takes preliminary decisions or adopts common positions in principle or pending of opinion of the EP
3. no full powers over ‘administrative’ legislation (has been enlarged by Lisbon Treaty)

Question 6

EP and EU budget

Answer 6

making of MFFs: multiannual financial frameworks

• agreed every 7 years between Commission, Council and EP
• requires EP endorsement + Lisbon Treaty->consent power
• overall EP not that much power: key actors are the Commission and govs. of member states in the Councils
  bc its a hard topic -> long negotiations -> clock is ticking once the EP is reached + member state positions are rigid

making of annual budgets:
EP considerable powers:

• propose ‘modifications’ to compulsory expenditure (agriculture)
• propose ‘amendments’ to non-compulsory expenditure
• approval or rejection, with the Council, over the whole budget

Question 7

EP control and supervision of the executive - problems

Answer 7

• executives don’t want to be investigated -> protect themselves with constitutional/institutional/political defences
• parliamentarians lack information, specialist knowledge or resources

specific for the EP as parliament:

• policy implementation: Commission not the only/major executive body, also national agencies (reluctant to work with EP investigators)
• blurring roles Commission, Council and European Council (bigger executive role Council and European Council -> less supervisory power EP: has less powers in regards to the Councils)

Question 8

EP control and supervision of the executive - the Commission

Answer 8

8 main supervisory powers/channels

1. Commission President needs to be approved by EP (prior to Lisbon), take in consideration EP election results and needs to be elected by EP (after Lisbon)
   -> Spitzenkandidaten
2. Commissioner-designate is subject to a vote of consent by the EP (three hour personal grilling/hearing before confirmation vote College as a whole)
3. EP can dismiss the College (not individual Commissioners) by motion of censure (2/3 majority)
   - e.g. Santer College vote of censure failed, but Santer agreed to create special committee to investigate allegations fraud, nepotism and mismanagement -> critical report -> Santer College collectively resigned 1999
   - succeeding Commission Presidents have indicated to support EP request of dismissal of individuals
4. discuss the annual general report of the Commission (no significance)
5. Commission needs to submit annual accounts of preceding financial year to the EP and the Council, EP gives a discharge
6. remits of EP standing committees are broad enough to allow them to attempt to exercise supervisory functions if they choose (but little resources + Commission doesn’t encourage investigation)
7. EP can establish special committees and committees of interest on almost any subject
8. EP can ask the Commission questions

Question 9

EP control and supervision of the executive - the Council

Answer 9

EP less able to control/supervise the Council than the Commission:

1. Council is main meeting place member states gov., to make them responsible to the EP would be unacceptably supranational
2. diff to establish continuous relationship between Council and EP as the Council’s composition is ever changing
3. Council politicians often cautious about being open with the EP in sensitive policy areas (e.g. AFSJ, CFSP, EMU)

amount of access EP gets to the Council depends on attitude Council Presidency

set points of contact:

1. Presidency Council appears before EP plenaries at the beginning and end of term of 6-month office (=institutionalized with Lisbon Treaty)
2. ministers from the Presidency usually attend EP committees that deal with their spheres of responsibility at least twice during their country’s presidency
3. ministers from the Presidency regularly attend EP plenaries
4. EP can ask questions of the Council through the Presidency

Question 10

EP control and supervision of the executive - The European Council

Answer 10

= small control/supervision role: European Council largely outside TFEU framework, meets very little, intergov. nature

regular contact with EP only when:

1. opening session European Council meetings: EP resident addresses the summit to inform it of the views of MEPs on current issues
2. Head of Gov. of the Council Presidency appears before the EP at the ‘end of term’ European Council meeting (formalized by Lisbon Treaty)

=What this all adds up to is that the EP can exert
very little direct influence on the European Council,
let alone control over what it does.

Question 11

EP control and supervision of the executive - other bodies

Answer 11

• ECB: EP must be consulted on the nominees for Bank’s President, Vice-President, and Executive Board members (confirmation hearings)
• executive boards of some of the EU agencies, e.g. European Environment Agency, European Medicines Agency
• Court of Auditors: EP is consulted on the appointment of members (committee hearings and vote, but sometimes negative opinions EP have been ignored by the Council)
• European Ombudsman: appointed by the EP (Council no input at all)

Question 12

political parties and the EP

Answer 12

three main levels

1. transnational federations: loosely organised transnational federations grouped around general principles, based on affiliation by national parties (loose policy coordination, few joint activities EP elections)
   *Spitzenkandidat system to strengthen federations, has been strongly opposed by many national leaders
   - European People’s Party (EPP) = center-right
   - Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) = liberal parties
   - Party of European Socialists (PES) = center-left parties
2. political groups in the EP
3. national parties
   - most candidates are chosen by national parties (->reflect national party concern)
   - EP elections essentially national election campaigns by national parties
   - national party groups exist within the political groups of the EP

Question 13

political groups in the EP

Answer 13

rules now: at least 25 MEPs drawn from at least 1/4 member states necessary to form a group

groups bc: ideological identification + organisational benefits
(non-attached members are protected, but in practice can be disadvantaged)

• 7-9 groups
• group formation and composition is highly fluid
• political groups have significant internal divisions (ideological and national)
• there are also intergroups on particular issues

Question 14

factors making for looseness and limited ability of EP political groups to control/direct their members:

Answer 14

1. heterogeneity
2. national attachments
3. institutional setting: MEPs no for/against reaction bc no gov. to sustain or attack like national parliaments
4. structural: political groups are not as structured/united/cooperative/expected as political parties in national legislatures
5. MEPs have claims on loyalties and votes that can compete with claims of the political groups

still: political group membership is normally the most important factor correlating with how MEPs vote

Question 15

political balance EP history + significance

Answer 15

1979-1989: nominal center-right
1989-1994: nominal left-green
1994-1999: no nominal majority
1999-2014: center-right
2014-: centrist majority working against anti-establishment parties

significance is not as great as often in national parliaments bc:

1. important issues can divide groups
2. many matters that come before the EP cut across traditional left-right divisions
3. EP frequently attempts to avoid being divided along left-right lines when it votes (bc you often need absolute majority)
4. most EU decision making processes are characterised by bargaining and compromising -> MEPs used to cutting deals and compromising

Hix and Hoyland: ideological voting has increased, EP has come to vote more on ideological grounds than on national grounds

Question 16

political groups in the EP

Answer 16

• European People’s Party (EPP)
  center-right parties (originally European Christian Democracy)
• Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) = socialist group
  *some division: nature of commitment to socialism + diff opinion European integration + emphasis national interests
• European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR): UK Conservative Party, Polish Law and Justice Party, Czech Civic Democratic Party + populists and conservatives
  = antifederalist group on the right
• Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE): pro-integrationist + centrist
• European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL): left socialist and former communist parties + Nordic leftist Greens (europscepticism bc anti-capitalism)
• Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA): greens and regionalists (for the rest little homogeneous)
• Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy: eurosceptics (Europe of Sovereign Nation states, no further integration)
• Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF): racist tones and perceptions (Marine Le Pen)
• Non-attached (NA)

Question 17

Dual mandate EP

Answer 17

after 1979 elections ~30% MEPs also member national legislature
after that (+ during that term) decline dual mandates

from 1984: trend that dual mandates are discouraged + sometimes forbidden

advantage dual mandates: strengthening links EP and national parliaments

disadvantage dual mandates: reducing time and energy available for each post

2002 Council Decision abolished the dual mandate as from the 2004 EP elections (being MEP seen as fulltime job)

Question 18

Continuity EP

Answer 18

lack of continuity in membership -> less effective EP
- was problem after first elections 1979

effective MEPs = MEPs with policy interests and expertise in European affairs

turnover MEPs between parliaments is higher than in most national parliaments

Question 19

competence and experience EP

Answer 19

= idea they are less competent, second-rate parliamentarians bc EP is not high profile

• some truth: major national figures tend not to contest EP elections or not to complete their terms of office + some MEPs have transferred to national legislatures
• but: fierce competition to become MEP + most MEPs have much public experience + handful former prime ministers and senior ministers are normally elected

Question 20

gender EP

Answer 20

women proportionately under-represented (2014 ~ 37%)

Finland, Estonia, Sweden > 50% female MEPs
Italy, Czech Republic <20%

Question 21

EP organisation and operation

Answer 21

the multi-site problem: EP work spread out in 3 diff countries (Strasbourg, Brussels, Luxembourg) -> less effective, visible and influential

arranging parliamentary business

• relative independence: special institutional setting EP (Council not so concerned with what the EP does as national gov. is with what the national parliament does: has more powers+influence) + lack clear/consistent identification between EP and EU executive + EP is entitled to adopt own Rules of Procedure
• important organisational positions and bodies

Question 22

important organisational positions and bodies EP

Answer 22

most decisions operation/functioning not plenary, but delegated

• President of the EP elected to office for renewable 2.5 year term (directs activities EP)
• Bureau: President and 14 EP Vice-Presidents (elected for 2.5 years terms, traditionally distributed among political groups and member states), deals with financial and administrative matters
  *elected advisory ‘Quaestors’ also in Bureau
• Conference of Presidents: EP president and chairs political groups deal with organisational matters (e.g. seating arrangements)
  *consensus decisionmaking in general
• Conference of Committee Chairs: chairs of EP committees meet monthly to connect between committees
• Conference of Delegation Chairs: monthly discusses common organisational and planning matters (~ chairs of 35 EP delegations: inter-parliamentary (contact with non-EU countries), joint parliamentary committees (non-EU seeking membership) + delegations to multilateral assemblies

Question 23

committees of the EP

Answer 23

standing/permanent committees

• MEPs are assigned beginning and halfway thorough each 5-year term
• elected on basis proposals by Conference of Presidents to Parliament (designed to ensure fair representation member states and political views)
• various duties, most important: examine Commission proposals for legislation

ad hoc committees: to investigate specific problems/topics

Question 24

customary way of proceeding with Commission proposals for legislation

Answer 24

1. proposal is referred to appropriate committee (sometimes up to 3 committees, but one is the committee responsible)
2. rapporteur: responsible for drawing up committee’s report, can ask for assistance
   *appointed as result negotiations political groups
3. first draft for consideration by the committee responsible (4 parts:
   - Amendments to the Commission Proposal
   - Draft Legislative Resolution
   - Explanatory Statement
   - Annexes)
4. rapporteur acts as spokesperson when the report is considered in the plenary
5. second reading stage -> report:
   - Recommendations for the Second Reading (approval, rejection ammendments)
   - Justifications or Explanatory Statements
6. possible conciliation committee -> committee not directly concerned

Question 25

factors determining the influence of EP committees

Answer 25

1. significance of policy area within the EU system 2. extent of EU policy development (process of formation more influence than established policy) 3. power of the EP within the policy area (e.g. budgetary committee much power) 4. committee expertise 5 committee chairmanship (good leader -> good business) 6. committee cohesiveness

Question 26

EP plenary meetings

Answer 26

12 full plenary meetings (part-sessions) yearly in Strasbourg - not in August + one extra in autumn (annual budget) - Monday-Thursday + 6 mini-plenaries yearly (2 half-days) in Brussels President + Conference of Presidents in consultation with the Conference of Committee Chairs and EP Secretariat draft agenda little time -> strict rules (goal: restrict speakers to committee and political group spokesmen) 3 standard elements full plenaries: + possible agenda items (e.g. addresses by distinguished foreign guests) 1. consideration of reports from committees (-> resolutions embodying opinions or own initiatives) 2. debates on topical and urgent matters (-> adoption resolutions) 3. statements by Council and Commission + question times !plenary not really dynamic: - often poor attendance - political group leaders and committee spokespersons dominate speaking time - speaking time and order pre-arranged - translation limits spontaneity - votes in clusters at allocated voting times

Question 27

concluding remarks: is the EP a 'Proper' Parliament?

Answer 27

EP increased role: dual strategy: - incrementalist approach (using existing powers to the full, e.g. introducing spitzenkandidaten) + - maximalist approach (fundamental reform of inter-institutional relations, esp. Council-EP) still: view it is not a proper parliament: can't overthrow gov., weak formal legislative powers, in some areas only information-receiving and consultative roles *view is highlighted by EU crises: decisions taken by gov. on intergov. basis stilll: signficance EP should not be understated + EP has large informal capacities (in key respects it is comparable to national parliaments + in e.g. scrutinising legislative proposals EP has greater influence than national parliaments)