European political parties on social market economy

If the treaty based aim of the European Union is a highly competitive social market economy, how do the political parties at European level deal with this objective?

I skim a few documents with political principles from the main Europarties.

The 2012 manifesto of the European People’s Party (EPP) begins by presenting the values of the party, then concludes:

The only political system in which these values can thrive is in a pluralist democracy, in which citizens accept responsibility. The best economic concept to safeguard them is the Social Market Economy based on environmental sustainability in which competitiveness and entrepreneurial freedom are balanced with social justice. The appropriate framework for this is a strong European Union, which provides the best answers to the challenges of our times.

The 2011 declaration of principles of the Party of European Socialists (PES) does not mention the words ‘social market economy’, but the elements seem to be there:

A society based on our values means a new economy that embodies them. Values-driven growth, means that environmental sustainability, human dignity and well being are fundamental to wealth creation. This new economy must foster social progress that raises living standards, secures homes and creates jobs. The public sector plays an essential role in this new economy.

The election manifesto (2014) of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) offered classical liberal fare: to develop the single market, competitiveness and free trade in order to solve social challenges.

According to the Reykjavik declaration, the Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE) is committed to the spread of free commerce and open competition, in Europe and globally.

Without using the words ‘social market economy’, the 2014 election manifesto of the European Green Party (EGP) emphasised a social Europe:

Europe must be built on a foundation of social justice and yet, for an increasing number of people, social hardship has become the reality. European Greens believe in policies that tackle growing levels of inequality and are adamant that there should be no second-rate citizens in the EU. It is therefore essential that social impacts such as inequality and poverty are taken into account.

The political document from the 2016 Party of the European Left congress (EL) rejects the liberal treaty aims and politics of the European Union, but the word ‘social’ crops up everywhere.

***

According to this rough outline of principles (not practical politics), the European People’s Party seems to the only main Europarty to tie itself to the mast of a social market economy.  

The Party of European Socialists and the European Green Party seem to prefer other terms to promote their vision of a social Europe.

Out of 751 MEPs, the EPP Group has 217, the S&D Group 189 and the Green Group 51 (457 MEPs in all).

ALDE (68) and ACRE (74) proclaim functioning internal and global markets, rejected by the European Left (52).

Ralf Grahn

The European Citizen and better Euroblogging

Can independent Eurobloggers make a mark? Yes, if they deal with relevant issues and produce original content.



Conor Slowey aka Eurocentric, who writes The European Citizen blog, is a case in point. His thoughts on the state(s) of the Old Continent range from the (high) politics of the European Union to justice and home affairs (area of freedom, security and justice).

His blog entries are based on relevant sources, and his conclusions are measured.

As an example, read the latest series of blog posts by The European Citizen on the record of the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) elected from Northern Ireland, one year on from the election.



Eurocentric dedicates a detailed blog post to each of the three MEPs: James Nicholson, Bairbre de Brún and Diane Dodds.



The European Citizen then provides readers with an overview in the blog entry: Northern Ireland’s MEPs: One Year On.

Relevant content, good writing, facts, figures and analysis are the hallmark of The European Citizen.

Without being the first to look at MEPs’ records, Eurocentric is on to something which could – even should - be replicated across the European Union. Admittedly, numbers on various activities are crass, they still offer a basis for value judgments.

My blog entry is not meant to be a panegyric. I have tried to keep excessive praise out of the text, but The European Citizen deserves to be read and to be used as a schoolbook example for better Euroblogging.



Special case NI (& UK)

If other bloggers follow up on their (national) MEPs, there are a few things to keep in mind. The electoral politics and the relationship to the European Union of the United Kingdom in general, and Northern Ireland in particular, have their own characteristics.

Northern Ireland elected three MEPs, but none of them belongs to one of the mainstream political groups which actually run the show in the European Parliament (European People’s Party, Socialists and Democrats, Liberals and Democrats, possibly Greens/EFA).

Besides influence in the political group and EP bodies, the drafting of committee reports (and opinions to other committees) would in my view constitute a crucial element when evaluating the influence of an MEP. There are huge differences in importance between reports, so here qualitative analysis is called for, and it is feasible due to the low number of significant reports and opinions drafted even by a well respected and connected MEP.

With the Northern Ireland MEPs mainly outside the EP “power loop”, Eurocentric has had to analyse parliamentary questions, which are easy to concoct and usually lead to inconclusive replies. In other words, more lightweight stuff.

The opinion climate and the electoral system leading to the election of less influential Members of the European Parliament in Northern Ireland (and United Kingdom) are interesting questions in their own right. But that’s another story, Kipling would have said.




Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Rules on political groups (from July 2009)

During the coming days and weeks, the existing political groups in the European Parliament and various national parties with elected members of the EP negotiate to form the political groups, which are central to parliamentary work.

As always, knowledge of the rules is a key element for an appreciation of the game, is sports as well as in politics.

The European Parliament has amended its Rules of Procedure, with changes taking place from the beginning of the new parliamentary term (version: 7th parliamentary term, July 2009).

Here are the provisions on the political groups in the European Parliament for the new parliament:




POLITICAL GROUPS



Rule 30
Formation of political groups

1. Members may form themselves into groups according to their political affinities.

[Interpretation: Parliament need not normally evaluate the political affinity of members of a group. In forming a group together under this Rule, Members concerned accept by definition that they have political affinity. Only when this is denied by the Members concerned is it necessary for Parliament to evaluate whether the group has been constituted in conformity with the Rules.]

2. A political group shall comprise Members elected in at least one-quarter of the Member States. The minimum number of Members required to form a political group shall be twenty-five.

3. Where a group falls below the required threshold, the President, with the agreement of the Conference of Presidents, may allow it to continue to exist until Parliament's next constitutive sitting, provided the following conditions are met:

- the members continue to represent at least one-fifth of the Member States;

- the group has been in existence for a period longer than one year.

The President shall not apply this derogation where there is sufficient evidence to suspect that it is being abused.

4. A Member may not belong to more than one political group.

5. The President shall be notified in a statement when a political group is set up. This statement shall specify the name of the group, its members and its bureau.

6. The statement shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.



Rule 31
Activities and legal situation of the political groups

1. The political groups shall carry out their duties as part of the activities of the Union, including the tasks allocated to them by the Rules of Procedure. The political groups shall be provided with a secretariat on the basis of the establishment plan of the Secretariat, administrative facilities and the appropriations entered for that purpose in Parliament's budget.

2. The Bureau shall lay down the rules relating to the provision, implementation and monitoring of those facilities and appropriations, as well as to the related delegations of budget implementation powers.

3. Those rules shall determine the administrative and financial consequences in the event of the dissolution of a political group.



Rule 32
Intergroups

1. Individual Members may form Intergroups or other unofficial groupings of Members, to hold informal exchanges of views on specific issues across different political groups, drawing on members of different parliamentary committees, and to promote contact between Members and civil society.

2. Such groupings may not engage in any activities which might result in confusion with the official activities of Parliament or of its bodies. Provided that the conditions laid down in rules governing their establishment adopted by the Bureau are respected, political groups may facilitate their activities by providing them with logistical support. Such groupings shall declare any external support in accordance with Annex I.



Rule 33
Non-attached Members

1. Members who do not belong to a political group shall be provided with a secretariat. The detailed arrangements shall be laid down by the Bureau on a proposal from the Secretary-General.

2. The Bureau shall also determine the status and parliamentary rights of such Members.

3. The Bureau shall also lay down the rules relating to the provision, implementation and auditing of appropriations entered in Parliament's budget to cover secretarial expenses and administrative facilities of non-attached Members.



Rule 34
Allocation of seats in the Chamber

The Conference of Presidents shall decide how seats in the Chamber are to be allocated among the political groups, the non-attached Members and the institutions of the European Union.


***


The significant thresholds for political groups have changed to at least 25 MEPs, elected in at least one-quarter of the member states (now 7).

The MEPs who fail to form or to join a political group, or who decide to stay on the sidelines, are called non-attached members (NI = non-inscrits).



Ralf Grahn

Political groups in European Parliament: Nationalists and others

Here is an invitation to a virtual collaborative effort. We need the help from readers who know the various national parties, which made it into the European Parliament 2009.


At least temporarily outside the mainstream groups in the European Parliament 2009 are the MEPs from domestic parties I have bunched together as nationalists or others.

At this point there are 146 MEPs (20%), distributed among the unspecified collection Others (93), Union for Europe of the Nations Group (UEN) (35) and Independence/Democracy Group (IND/DEM) (18).


***

Others


The nationalist anti-federalists will reduce the Others group by at least 34 MEPs: UK Conservatives 25 and Czech ODS 9.

The Italian Partito Democratico (21) will probably join the PES group (or ALDE).

The Swedish Pirate Party (1) aims to sit with the Greens or the Liberals.

There isn’t going to be a Libertas group, so Timo Soini of the True Finns (Perussuomalaiset) will have to look for a new option.

These moves would leave 37 members to join some political group if they want to avoid the fate of non-attached representatives (NI). Where are they going to end up?


Others
• Belgium 3 (Vlaams Belang 2, List Dedecker 1)
• Bulgaria 2 (National Union Attack - Ataka 2)
• Czech Republic 9 (Civic Democrats - ODS 9)
• Estonia 1 (I. Tarand Independent 1)
• Ireland 1 (Socialist Party - SP 1)
• Spain 1 (Union, Progreso y Democracia - UpyD 1)
• France 4 (Front National 3, Alliance des Outre-mers 1)
• Italy 21 (Partito Democratico 21)
• Cyprus 1 (Dimokratiko Komma - DI KO 1)
• Latvia 2 (Saskanas Centrs - SC 2)
• Lithuania 1 (Lietuvos lenku rinkimu akcija - LLRA 1)
• Hungary 3 (Jobbik 3)
• Netherlands 4 (Freedom Party - PVV 4)
• Austria 5 (Liste Dr Martin 3, Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs - FPÖ 2)
• Romania 3 (Paridul Romania Mare - PRM 3)
• Slovakia 1 (Ľudová strana - Hnutie za demokratické Slovensko - LS-HZDS 1)
• Finland 1 (True Finns 1)
• Sweden 1 (Pirate Party 1)
• United Kingdom 29 (Conservatives 25, British National Party - BNP 2, UUP 1, DUP 1)


***

UEN

When the Polish Law and Justice Party, PiS, of the Kaczynski twins leaves for the new nationalist group, the current UEN fails to reach the country and membership thresholds to establish a political group, without recruiting new members.

The battered Irish Fianna Fáil will join ALDE.

Is the new nationalist Tory-PiS-ODS group going to welcome the populist Danish People’s Party?

What else is going to happen?


Union for Europe of the Nations Group UEN
• Denmark 2 (Dansk Folkeparti - O 2)
• Ireland 3 (Fianna Fáil FF 3)
• Italy 9 (Lega Nord - LN 9)
• Latvia 3 (Pilsoniska Savieniba PS 2, Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK TB/LNKK 1)
• Lithuania 2 (Partija Tvarka ir teisingumas - TT 2)
• Poland 15 (Law and Justice Party - PiS 15)
• Slovakia 1 (Slovenská národná strana - SNS 1)


***

IND/DEM


The IND/DEM group is well below the needed seven member states and 25 MEPs, so it is not viable as a group without hefty recruitment.


Independence/Democracy Group IND/DEM
• Greece 2 (Popular Orthodox Rally - LA O S 2)
• France 1 (Libertas MPF-CPNT 1)
• Netherlands 2 (ChristenUnie-SGP 2)
• United Kingdom 13 (UKIP 13)

***

Will xenophobic and fascistoid parties be able to form a group of their own, or to join one?

***

If you know what the EP “loose ends” are going to do, please share your knowledge in the comments section.


Ralf Grahn

Richard Corbett MEP

These things happen, when people vote from other motives than securing the best possible representation in the European Parliament. Dr Richard Corbett, MEP, loses his seat when the newly elected EP convenes on 14 July 2009.

Corbett was one of the foremost representatives for the PES and Labour in the European Parliament, and he drafted many of the EP’s reports and opinions on institutional affairs, with Europe-wide significance.

He was also a frequent blogger, although the absence of comments and discussion was a sad indication of the quality of the EU debate in Britain.. His Blog – Richard Corbett MEP explained the workings and the issues of the European Parliament in reasoned terms.



Britain’s troubled relationship with Europe seems to be about to take a turn for the worse. Whatever happens, Dr Richard Corbett’s knowledge and capacity will be needed during the trying times ahead.


Ralf Grahn

European elections: Four constructive choices

Most of the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) we vote into office in the European elections 4 to 7 June 2009 are going to work in and with the political groups, which form the backbone of EP work.

Inside the European Parliament, the mainstream political groups run the show, so a vote for a fringe group serves little beyond promoting protest and antics.


The sensible choice is therefore to vote for a candidate or party, which is serious about the work of the European Parliament during the next five years: legislation, budget and scrutiny, as well as initiatives on the future of Europe and selected important issues of general concern.

The Treaty of Lisbon would improve the directly elected EP’s role in legislative and budgetary work (although the member states still hoard important policy areas, and we are far from a parliamentary EU level government).

In my view, there are four constructive choices (despite my critical opinion of internal EP reform).

Here are the four responsible political groups:



EPP

The centre-right Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) will probably be the largest political group in the European Parliament, even after the UK Conservatives, the Czech ODS (Topolanek) and the Polish Law and Justice Party (Kaczynskis) and a few others split to form an anti-Federalist group on the right.

One can hardly blame the EPP for fielding the only candidate to become President of the Commission.






PES

The Socialist Group in the European Parliament (Party of European Socialists; PES) is the second largest political group in the European Parliament, a wide coalition like the EPP. It contains different centre-left shades, from ardent socialists to Labour and social democrats.

In the United Kingdom, the “duck-house scandal” threatens to cause collateral damage among honourable and hard-working Labour MEPs, which would be a pity (as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, despite a probable Conservative government around the corner).






ALDE

Although a coalition like the rest of the groups, the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) is perhaps the most pro-European and it has a good record on openness.

For thinking British voters, left without an attractive European home when the Tories split from the mainstream right to the hard right, the Liberal Democrats offer a sensible choice (together with the Greens and Labour).






The Greens/European Free Alliance

The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) are not alone in professing the virtues of sustainable development and the importance of environmental, cultural and democratic rights, but they have a certain credibility in this area, and are widely seen as a constructive force. The press for a New Green Deal.

In common with ALDE, the Greens have a good record on transparency.




***

You can agree or disagree with my suggestions, but shouldn’t it be self-evident that we vote the right person for the job at hand?


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure: Amendments under way

After looking at completed procedures to amend or interpret the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, we turn procedures still unfinished shortly before the June 2009 European elections.


***

MEPs maternity or paternity leave


Procedure REG/2006/2025 has led to a draft report drafted by Iñigo Méndez de Vigo: PE374.264. The draft was tabled on 12 July 2006 and the subject matter is the rules applying to Members in the event of maternity or paternity.

The report is still awaiting the blessing of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) and debate by the full Parliament.


***

Petitions process


In procedure REG/2006/2209 the rapporteur Gérard Onesta drafted a report on revision of the Rules of Procedure with regard to the petitions process. The report A6-0027/2009 was adopted by AFCO 27 January 2009, and is awaiting debate in the chamber.

The proposal is described as fine-tuning the petitions procedure, but a number of Rules would be affected.


***

General review of Rules of Procedure


A general review of the EP’s Rules of Procedure is under way. We have presented the areas of interest in the Corbett draft report in an earlier blog post, so here our intention is mainly a quick update.

The procedure file REG/2007/2124 is still waiting for a future AFCO vote. The report comprises questions related to the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon as well as amendments to the Rules of Procedure intended to take effect at the beginning of the new parliamentary term.



Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Questions to the Council

The previous blog post looked at the rules when the Council is heard by the European Parliament. The “silence procedure” laid down in Article 12(2) of the Council’s Rules of Procedure was also presented.

This post adds a few remarks on questions by MEPs to the Council. (The internal EP rules have been discussed earlier.)


A fresh practical example (in French) is Council document 7290/09 from the Council Secretariat to Coreper with references to draft answers by the Council to written questions by MEPs:



http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/fr/09/st07/st07290.fr09.pdf


***

Questions and answers


For a view of various types of questions by members of the European Parliament to the Council (and the Commission) you can go to the European Parliament’s web page Parliamentary questions:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/QP-WEB/home.jsp?language=en



If you choose Written questions – Questions with answers, you gain an insight into how the Council replies, but first and foremost how much more popular questions to the Commission are. I encountered the first question with answer from the Council on page 18:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sidesSearch/sipadeMapUrl.do?PROG=WQ&L=EN&SORT_ORDER=D&REF_WQ=2009-*&F_REF_WQ=*/2009&WITH_ANSWER=Y



Ralf Grahn

BNP flouting MEPs’ independence?

I just came across an interesting blog entry on Kirklees Unity ‘BNP MEPs would not serve full term’ (3 March 2009):

http://kirkunity.blogspot.com/2009/03/bnp-meps-would-not-serve-full-term.html

If the allegation is true that British National Party members of the European Parliament would have to step down after four years, it is not only a question of political morals.

The so called MEPs’ Statute, officially the Decision 2005/684/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, declares such agreements null and void.

Article 2 of the MEPs’ Statute (published in the Official Journal of the European Union 7.10.2005 L 262/1) reads like this:

Article 2

1. Members shall be free and independent.

2. Agreements concerning the resignation from office of a Member before or at the end of a parliamentary term shall be null and void.


***


Is it clear enough for everybody? Even for the BNP?


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: MEPs and political groups

The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (16th edition, October 2008) make the political groups instrumental in many respects. Thus, a member of the European Parliament (MEP) needs his or her political group for effective action.

Here are a few additional examples:

A political group can table amendments, as in Rule 62 on amendments to the Council’s common position.

The delegation to the Conciliation Committee is composed on the basis of the size of the political groups and the members are appointed by the political groups (Rule 64).

A political group can propose a debate with the Commission and the Council before accession negotiations with an applicant state commence (Rule 82).

On the proposal of a political group the European Parliament can ask the Council not to issue a mandate for negotiating an international agreement before the EP has been able to state its position (Rule 83).

A political group can put questions to the Commission or the Council (Rule 108).

Political groups are crucial in allotting speaking time (Rule 142) as well as in procedural matters.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Composition of committees

In the European elections candidates are heavily dependent on their national parties, especially where they have to be in an electable position on a closed list. Theoretically every member of the European Parliament is elected by the citizens, but in practice the battles decide a few marginal seats (and individual fates) between the political parties.

Once elected, the member of the European Parliament (MEP) depends on his or her political group to get ahead in the game. Despite being loose coalitions ideologically, the political groups handle the levers of power.

The EP committees offer one example.


The political groups in the European Parliament are central to the composition of the committees, where the preparatory political work takes place. The political groups and the non-attached members submit nominations.

The Conference of Presidents, where the EP President and the chairs of the political groups meet, submits proposals to Parliament (plenary), striving to reflect the composition of the Parliament.

The full Parliament can overturn the Conference proposals only on the basis of amendments tabled by at least forty members (which happens to be more than the number of non-attached members).

This means that the individual MEPs depend on the support of their political group if they want to land coveted committee memberships.

The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament (16th edition, October 2008):


Rule 177 Composition of committees

1. Members of committees and committees of inquiry shall be elected after nominations have been submitted by the political groups and the non-attached Members. The Conference of Presidents shall submit proposals to Parliament. The composition of the committees shall, as far as possible, reflect the composition of Parliament.

-----

Official explanation: When Members change political groups they shall retain, for the remainder of their two and a half year term of office, the seats they hold in parliamentary committees. However, if a Member's change of political group has the effect of disturbing the fair representation of political views in a committee, new proposals for the composition of that committee shall be made by the Conference of Presidents in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraph 1, second sentence, whereby the individual rights of the Member concerned shall be guaranteed.
-----

2. Amendments to the proposals of the Conference of Presidents shall be admissible only if they are tabled by at least forty Members. Parliament shall vote on such amendments by secret ballot.

3. Members shall be deemed to be elected on the basis of the proposals by the Conference of Presidents, as and where amended pursuant to paragraph 2.

4. Where a political group fails to submit nominations for membership of a committee of inquiry pursuant to paragraph 1 within a time limit set by the Conference of Presidents, the Conference of Presidents shall submit to Parliament only the nominations communicated to it within that time limit.

5. The Conference of Presidents may provisionally decide to fill any vacancy on a committee with the agreement of the persons to be appointed and having regard to paragraph 1.

6. Any such changes shall be placed before Parliament for ratification at the next sitting.


***

Substitutes


The political groups appoint the substitutes even more directly:



Rule 178 Substitutes

1. The political groups and the non-attached Members may appoint a number of permanent substitutes for each committee equal to the number of full members representing them on the committee. The President shall be informed accordingly.

These permanent substitutes shall be entitled to attend and speak at committee meetings and, if the full member is absent, to take part in the vote.

2. In addition, in the absence of the full member and where no permanent substitutes have been appointed or in their absence, the full member of the committee may arrange to be represented at meetings by another member of the same political group, who shall be entitled to vote. The name of the substitute shall be notified to the chair of the committee prior to the beginning of the voting session.
-----
The rest of the text is probably meant to be an official explanation in its entirety despite the inconsistent use of italics:

Paragraph 2 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to the non-attached Members.

The advance notification provided for in the last sentence of paragraph 2 must be given before the end of the debate or before the opening of the vote on the item or items for which the full member is to be replaced.

The provisions of this Rule encompass two concepts which are clearly defined by this text:

- a political group may not have more permanent substitutes for a committee than it has full members;
- only political groups are entitled to appoint permanent substitutes, on the sole condition that they inform the President.

To conclude:

- the status of permanent substitutes depends exclusively on membership of a given political group;
- where the number of a political group's full members in a committee is altered, the maximum number of permanent substitutes which it can appoint to that committee is altered accordingly;
- Members who change political groups may not keep the status of permanent substitute which they had as members of their original group;
- a committee member may not under any circumstances be a substitute for a colleague who belongs to another political group.


***


A few more examples will follow on the role of the political groups.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Price tag 2009

At roughly two million euros per member, multilingual trans-national democracy does not come cheap.

The EU 2009 budget the appropriations for the European Parliament add up to 1,529,970,930 euros. A budget has to be forward-looking, so when doing your own calculations be gracious enough to divide the sum by the 751 MEPs who would be elected under the Treaty of Lisbon (instead of 736 under the modified Nice Treaty). On the other hand, during the first half of this year the number of MEPs is 785, so the Lisbon number is an average of sorts.

Details are presented in the 2009 budget of the European Union (Volume 2; Section 1 European Parliament), available here:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/LBL2009_VOL2/EN/Vol2.pdf

The following rounded figures give an indication of the different costs for the casual reader:

MEPs and staff 810 million

Buildings, furniture and equipment 294 million

General functions 133 million

Special functions 256 million

Other expenditure 37 million

***

The price tag of representative democracy is easy to fix; output or value for money much harder.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Political groups

At the present stage of development, in the absence of a real European party statute, the political groups of the European Parliament are mainly coalitions of representatives from different national political parties, but they are still vital to the conduct of political business.

***

Overview

Those who want an overview of the history until the present situation can read the Wikipedia article Political groups of the European Parliament (latest modification 27 February 2009):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament


***

Political groups

The 785 members of the European Parliament are spread across seven political groups, but some MEPs are non-attached. The membership numbers of the groups are from the Wikipedia article. I have added the web addresses.

The lengthy names are an indication that the political groups (and the political parties) at European level are still mainly coalitions of more or less likeminded national political parties.

EPP-ED

The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats (EPP-ED) is the largest political group with 288 members of the European Parliament:

http://www.epp-ed.eu/home/en/default.asp


PES

With 215 MEPs the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PSE) is the second largest:

http://www.socialistgroup.eu/gpes/



ALDE

Third in size is the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) with 101 MEPs:

http://www.alde.eu/



UEN

Union for Europe of the Nations (UEN) has the fourth largest group, with 44 members:

http://www.uengroup.org/home.html



Greens─EFA

The Group of Greens─European Free Alliance (Greens─EFA) has a group of 42 MEPs:

http://www.greens-efa.org/index.htm


GUE─NGL

The Confederal Group of the European United Left─Nordic Green Left (GUE─NGL) has 41 members:

http://www.guengl.eu/showPage.jsp


I/D

Independence/Democracy (I/D) houses 24 MEPs:

http://indemgroup.org/


NI

There are now 30 MEPs outside the political groups, classified as Non-Inscrits (NI).


***

In the following post we look at how the EP’s Rules of Procedure make the political groups the lifeblood of parliamentary business.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: MEPs’ assistants

The so called Assistants’ Statute has now been published. Officially it is Council Regulation (EC) No 160/2009 of 23 February 2009 amending the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities; Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 27.2.2009 L 55/1.

The Regulation enters into force after the European elections in June 2009. It lays down basic rules on ‘accredited parliamentary assistants’, employed at one of the European Parliament's three places of work under the specific legal arrangements adopted on the basis of Article 283 of the Treaty and whose contracts are concluded and administered directly by the European Parliament. These assistants will be employed directly by the European Parliament.

The European Parliament will adopt implementing rules.

Local assistants will still work on contracts concluded according to the applicable national laws, but subject to the implementing provisions to be issued.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: “Trust us ─ we are clean (soon)”

It is a promising sign. The European Parliament has reacted to reports on wide-spread sleaze.

But the statement is an almost blanket denial. The issues are serious enough to merit space. First, let the EP speak.

Then we try to evaluate the measures and trust of the European Parliament.


***

European Parliament press statement

On 24 February 2009 the European Parliament issued the following press release:


Getting the facts straight on MEPs’ allowances

Institutions - 24-02-2009 - 10:34

Recent media reports in some Member States have given a false impression of the situation on MEPs’ expenses. In fact, following an Internal Audit Report made one year ago, the European regulatory framework was subject to a major change last December when Parliament and Council approved a new statute for Parliamentary Assistants.

Moreover, effective controls have already taken place: 99.5 per cent of the payments made by Parliament to Members' assistants in years 2004-2007 under the rules governing parliamentary expenses and allowances has now been cleared as regular based on extensive checks of the relevant documentation.

These checks have been carried out by Parliament’s services for all Members, whether or not they have been subject of reporting in the media and whether or not payments made to their assistants were mentioned in the Internal Audit Report. The checking of the payments relating to parliamentary assistance made in 2008 is currently ongoing.

Major reforms of systems for employment of assistants and travel expenses

Various claims have been made relating to an Internal Audit Report, which found a number of weaknesses in the system for the employment of MEPs’ assistants. The aim of Internal Audit Reports is to enable problems to be fixed, and this report was one of the factors behind Parliament’s decision essentially to replace the system governing the payments of parliamentary assistance allowances with a new European and common regime.

From July this year, Brussels-based assistants are being added on to the employment system for EU officials, with those based in the MEPs’ Member State being handled by qualified paying agents chosen by the Institution, guaranteeing tax and social security arrangements in the relevant Member State. The practice of Members employing close relatives as assistants is being phased out with new contracts no longer allowed.

A major reform of MEPs’ travel expenses will see, from July this year, expenses refunded on the basis of documented costs incurred rather than on a flat-rate basis as is the current practise.

Effective controls in place

Parliament’s services have undertaken and undertake a variety of checks on the various payments made to MEPs' assistants and request further information where doubts arise. If it has turned out that funds have been improperly claimed, the relevant sums have been recovered from the payments concerned. Where there has been and is good reason to suspect fraud, Parliament’s services can, and do, call in the EU’s anti-fraud investigations office, OLAF. This can ultimately lead to cases being passed to the relevant national prosecutors.


***

The EP press release is available at:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/008-50236-054-02-09-901-20090224IPR50235-23-02-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm

***

Documentation

The European Parliament offers supporting documentation, available through the same web page.

‘Allowances paid to Members of the European Parliament’ offers basic information about the amounts paid to MEPs.

There is a link to Decision 2005/684/EC, Euratom of the European Parliament of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament, published in the Official Journal of the European Union 7.10.2005 L 262/1.

There is also a link to the so called Assistants’ statute, European Parliament legislative resolution P6_TA-PROV(2008)0606 of 16 December 2008 on the proposal for a Council regulation amending the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities, awaiting final approval and publication.

In addition, there is an explanatory press release of 16 December 2008 ‘New employment and payment system for MEPs' assistants’.


***

Evaluation

It is indeed a positive sign that the European Parliament engages in a discussion about its practices. But can the case it presents be likened to more than white-wash?

The European Parliament offers no excuses for the notorious misuse of public funds by elected representatives, for the lack of controls and action against culprits, or for the active suppression of available evidence.

Only the belated reforms undertaken serve as an indirect admission of guilt.

We are now told to trust the European Parliament that the 99.5 per cent of MEPs’ expenses currently cleared as regular are indeed in order. How can we verify that? Are we offered any credible proof? Has the EP decided to publish audit reports?

The European Parliament has placed itself in the unenviable position of having forfeited the trust it might have had.

There is but one remedy to the credibility problem on past history and existing practices: earning back trust by extreme openness. Publish every audit report and invite new ones, open the books for outside inspection and take action against the sinners.


***

Promised reforms

Unrepentant and secretive about the past and present, the European Parliament lets us understand that it is going to become virtuous in July 2009, after the European elections.

The MEPs’ Statute seems to plug one gaping hole, since Article 20 foresees reimbursement or actual travel expenses only, from July 2009. Other allowances can still be flat-rate.

Late in the day, some changes were made to the status of MEPs’ assistants by way of a Bureau decision on 9 July 2008 on Implementing Measures for the Statute for the Members of the European Parliament. (Where are these Implementing Measures on the EP’s web pages?)

If the 16 December 2008 resolution on the so called Assistants’ Statute enters into force, accredited assistants at the EP’s places of work would be paid by the Parliament.

The Assistants’ Statute seemed less clear about the salaries of local assistants in MEPs’ home countries, but perhaps the following sentence in the press release should be interpreted as a promise of implementing measures (reforms) to come:

“The larger package of measures includes not only a European statute for assistants working in Brussels but also the handling of contracts of and payments to assistants working in the Member States by qualified and duly recognised payroll organisations in those countries.”


***

Let me get the facts straight: The European Parliament’s grudging reforms and recent press statement are still a long way off from a public relations success, especially from an institution which profiles itself as a watchdog with regard to how taxpayers’ funds are spent by other EU bodies and member states.


Ralf Grahn

Members of the European Parliament: Regulations and general conditions

Parts of the rights and duties of members of the European Parliament are covered by the Statute laying down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of MEPs, finally approved and set to enter into force after the European Parliamentary elections on 4 to 7 June 2009.

How much the Statute cleans up the unsavoury practices concerning MEPs’ expenses depends on detailed rules set by the European Parliament and the control exercised by the EP in the future.


***

Current treaty

Article 190(5) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) gives the European Parliament some autonomy in devising the rules governing the performance of the duties of its Members (MEPs).

The EP’s initiative is subject to checks and balances. The Commission issues an opinion and the approval of the Council is needed.

Article 190(5) TEC as published in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/132:

Article 190(5) TEC

5. The European Parliament, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council acting by a qualified majority, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty



The substance remains the same if the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force. Taxation of MEPs and former MEPs still requires unanimity within the Council.

Article 223(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) takes over and rephrases paragraph 5 of Article 190 TEC, OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/149:




Article 223(2) TFEU


2. The European Parliament, acting by means of regulations on its own initiative in accordance with a special legislative procedure after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.


***


Problems

The lack of a common Statute for the members of the European Parliament has led to gross iniquities between MEPs from different member states, with huge differences in remuneration tied to salaries of national parliamentarians.

On the other hand, reimbursement of travel and other expenses based on theoretical flat-rate amounts in combination with poor control resulted in a murky culture of MEPs lining their pockets and those of family members.

Cleaning the Augean stables proved to be a long and arduous task. Only after protracted efforts were the European Parliament and the Council able to reconcile their views.

***

Statute

Finally the Decision of the European Parliament 2005/684/EC, Euratom of 28 September 2005 adopting the Statute for Members of the European Parliament was able to introduce uniform rules concerning some aspects of the rules and general conditions applicable to the exercise of MEPs’ mandates.

The old rules apply until the end of the present term of the EP. The Statute enters into force only after the June 2009 European elections, on the first day of the European Parliament parliamentary term beginning in 2009 (Article 30), but there are transitional provisions for old members who might lose out (Articles 25 to 29).



The MEPs’ s Statute is much less than a comprehensive act on the rights and duties of members. Article 1 gives the scope of the Statute:


Article 1

This Statute lays down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of Members of the European Parliament.


***

Overview

Many of the provisions refer to the EP’s Rules of Procedure (which will be presented in a later blog post). Here is a ‘telegraphic’ list of the contents of the Articles of the Statute:

Article 2: Freedom and independence of MEPs; agreements on resignation void.
Article 3: Individual and personal vote; binding mandate prohibited.
Article 4: Only tabled documents regarded as EP documents.
Article 5: Right to table proposals for Community acts.
Article 6: Right to inspect EP files (but not personal files and accounts).
Article 7: Translation of documents and speeches into all official languages.
Article 8: Forming political groups.
Article 9: Right to appropriate salary, transitional end-of-service allowance and pension. Survivor’s pension.
Article 10: Salary 38.5 % of the basic salary of a judge at the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Article 11: Salary from another parliament is offset against EP salary.
Article 12: Salary subject to Community tax, but abatements not. National tax takes Community tax into account.
Article 13: Amount of transitional allowance at the end of office.
Article 14: Amount of old-age pension from the age of 63.
Article 15: Invalid pension.
Article 16: Choice between transitional allowance and invalid pension.
Article 17: Survivor's pension for the spouse and dependent children.
Article 18: Reimbursement of the costs incurred as a result of sickness, pregnancy or the birth of a child.
Article 19: Insurance cover.
Article 20: Reimbursement for expenses subject to rules laid down by the EP.
Article 21: Right to personal staff and expenses met by the EP.
Article 22: Right to the EP's office facilities, telecommunications equipment and official vehicles.
Article 23: All payments from EU budget.
Article 25: Old system optional for re-elected members.
Article 26: Notification of choice of old system.
Article 27: Voluntary pension fund remains for old members.
Article 28: Old national pension entitlements remain in force.
Article 29: Member states’ transitional rules.
Article 30: Entry into force on the first day of the parliamentary term 2009.


***

Allowances paid to MEPs

The European Parliament offers information about the current Allowances paid to Members of the European Parliament, including the general expenditure allowance (4,052 euros per month), the flat-rate travel allowance, the annual travel allowance (EUR 4,000) for other than official meetings, the subsistence allowance (EUR 287 per day) for participation in official business and remuneration of MEPs’ assistants (EUR 16,914 per month plus costs):

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/expert/staticDisplay.do?id=39&pageRank=1&language=EN

The web pages also refer to the coming detailed rules based on the Statute.


***

Detailed rules

The coming detailed rules concerning the amounts, payment and control of expenses are only referred to in the Statute, but the ingrained practices have been an eyesore for too long.

According to the web page referred to above the work on the new rules is unfinished.


***

EP Rules of Procedure

For those who want to look at the conduct of EP business the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure (16th edition, October 2008) are available here:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+RULES-EP+20081022+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN

But it is somewhat bewildering to find that Eur-Lex refers to the European Parliament ─ Rules of Procedure 16th edition July 2004 (OJEU 15.2.2005 L 44/1), which seems to be the last version officially published and I failed to find the 2008 version through the Publications Office.

Clarifications from readers are invited. We are going to return to the EP’s Rules of Procedure in a later blog post.


Ralf Grahn

Members of the European Parliament: Privileges and immunities

My third Valentine’s Day post goes out with my best wishes to all readers and commentators as well as my fellow Eurobloggers and the aggregators of the Euroblogosphere at Bloggingportal.eu.

***

After this outburst of sentimentalism, a quick return to the bricks and mortar of European integration.

Starting from the normal presentation of the current treaties and the Lisbon Treaty, this short detour began from the provisions on the European Parliament. The European elections are coming up in June 2009, so I wanted to look at the available official information about the basics concerning these largest supra-national elections in the world, with almost 400 million potential voters.

After the background and the general provisions concerning the European Parliament, we now look at what Protocol (No 36) on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/318, has to say about the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs):

CHAPTER III
MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT


Article 8

No administrative or other restriction shall be imposed on the free movement of Members of the European Parliament travelling to or from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

Members of the European Parliament shall, in respect of customs and exchange control, be accorded:

(a) by their own government, the same facilities as those accorded to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official missions;

(b) by the government of other Member States, the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions.


Article 9

Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.


Article 10

During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:

(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

(b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.

Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.

***
Comment

These EU-wide parliamentary rights and immunities resemble those applicable nationally to parliamentarians in the member states, and they seem necessary for the functioning of the European Parliament.

Still, I am doubtful if provisions tying the members to the legal rules concerning the immunities accorded at national level are the right solution. If we think that the citizens of the European Union should be represented equally, the rules pertaining to their representatives (MEPs) should be the same, to the extent possible, shouldn’t they?


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Privileges and immunities (background)

In some nightmares and some dreams the European Union may be a super-power or even a super-state, but its feet are firmly stuck in public international law. States are members, treaties form the foundations, the European Communities are international organisations and diplomatic relations are maintained inside and out.

***

Diplomatic relations

Do you want to experience the public international law roots of the European Communities and the European Union?

For comparison and before you advance, read the ‘global’ codification of diplomatic law, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, available for instance here:

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf


***

Current treaty

The general reference to the privileges and immunities of the European Community is Article 291 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), in the latest consolidated version of the treaties OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/172:

Article 291 TEC

The Community shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of its tasks, under the conditions laid down in the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. The same shall apply to the European Central Bank, the European Monetary Institute, and the European Investment
Bank.


***

Protocol currently

Annexed to the EC and Euratom treaties we find Protocol (No 36) on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/318.


***

Lisbon Treaty

Despite the existing add-ons of supranational decision-making and representative democracy somewhat enhanced, the Treaty of Lisbon still stands firmly on the foundations of treaty law and diplomatic relations, far from a federal basic law.

The Treaty of Lisbon would replace the European Community by the European Union and it would drop the historic European Monetary Institute from the text, but the substance of the treaty provision on privileges and immunities is found alive and well in Article 343 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), OJEU 9.5.2008 C 115/194.

In the consolidated Lisbon Treaty the protocol has drawn a new number, and it appears slightly updated as Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union (page 266 ff).

If anybody still needs convincing, the newest version of the Protocol still starts with the words ‘The High Contracting Parties’, hardly part of a federal vocabulary.


***


Overview: Privileges and immunities

The Lisbon Treaty may enter into force during the legislative term from 2009 to 2014, but the European Parliament elections between 4 and 7 June 2009 are going to take place under the current Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC).

We continue our presentation of EU electoral law and the status of the European Parliament and its members (MEPs) with themes that seem a bit neglected by the member states and even by the EU institutions.

Ahead of the European elections it feels natural to proceed on the basis of the Protocol in force (although normally this blog dedicates more space to the Lisbon Treaty provisions than to the existing ones).

We start with a brief overview of Protocol (No 36) on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities, OJEU 29.12.2006 C 321 E/318.

The ‘raison d’être’ of the privileges and immunities is functional:
… these Communities and the European Investment Bank shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of their tasks …


Here are the Chapter headings for a cursory glance at the contents:

Chapter I Property, funds, assets and operations of the European Community
Chapter II Communications and laissez-passer
Chapter III Members of the European Parliament
Chapter IV Representatives of the Member States taking part in the work of the institutions of the European Communities
Chapter V Officials and other servants of the European Communities
Chapter VI Privileges and immunities of missions of third countries accredited to the European Communities
Chapter VII General provisions


***

With the European elections in June 2009 in mind, we advance towards the status of the European Parliament and the MEPs in the following posts.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament composition under Lisbon Treaty

What happens if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, when the European Parliament has been elected under the modified Nice Treaty rules? Here are some suggestion for discussion.


***


On 4 to 7 June 2009 the citizens of the European Union elect the members of the European Parliament for the term from 2009 to 2014 according to the Treaty of Nice as amended by the 2003 Act of Accession. The total number of MEPs will be 736 and yesterday’s blog post “European Parliament: Number of MEPs 2009” presented how many members will be elected from each member state.

The uncertain fate of the Treaty of Lisbon complicates the life of the EU institutions. In case the amending treaty enters into force, a number of questions have to be decided for the treaty to take full effect. This means that implementing decisions have to be prepared.

This uncertain state of affairs is disturbing with regard to the appointment of the Commission President and the rest of the new Commission. It also affects the composition of the European Parliament.


***

Consolidated Lisbon Treaty

The basic provision of the Treaty of Lisbon on the European Parliament is Article 14 of the Treaty on European Union (TEC). The provision was published in the consolidated (readable) version of the treaties in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 9.5.2008 C 115/22─23:



Article 14 TEU

1. The European Parliament shall, jointly with the Council, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall exercise functions of political control and consultation as laid down in the Treaties. It shall elect the President of the Commission.

2. The European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union's citizens. They shall not exceed seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President. Representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State. No Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats.

The European Council shall adopt by unanimity, on the initiative of the European Parliament and with its consent, a decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament, respecting the principles referred to in the first subparagraph.

3. The members of the European Parliament shall be elected for a term of five years by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot.

4. The European Parliament shall elect its President and its officers from among its members.


***

European Parliament composition

Paragraph 2 of Article 14 TEU lays down the main parameters for the composition of the European Parliament.

The maximum number of representatives is 751, although the member states chose to ‘respect’ the maximum number of 750 by expressing it as ‘seven hundred and fifty in number, plus the President’. (Declaration No 4 attributes the additional seat to Italy.)

In June 2009 the citizens elect 736 MEPs, but if the Lisbon Treaty enters into force during the legislature, their number jumps to 751, an addition of 15.


***

European Council decision

The more exact distribution of seats would not remain in the treaty. Article 14(2) TEU mentions the total maximum, the minimum and maximum per country and the “principle” of degressive proportionality.

The Lisbon Treaty fails to present an objective formula, but it manages to avoid the need for a treaty revision and ratifications by entrusting the decision to the European Council.

A unanimous decision by the European Council is required. The decision is taken on the initiative of the European Parliament, and it needs the consent of the EP.



***

European Parliament resolution

Originally the Lisbon Treaty was meant to enter into force on 1 January 2009, ahead of the European Parliament elections.

On this basis the European Council requested and received an ‘initiative’ from the European Parliament.

The European Parliament adopted a resolution on 11 October 2007 on the composition of the European Parliament,), P6_TA(2007)0429, available here:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2007-0429


The resolution was based on a report by Alain Lamassoure and Adrian Severin, A6-0351/2007. The report set out the number of seats to be allocated for the 2009─2014 parliamentary term in the form of a draft decision by the European Council, based on the coming Article 9a TEU in the coming Treaty of Lisbon (Article 14 TEU in the consolidated treaty).

In practice, the European Parliament distributed the additional seats to achieve an improved balance with regard to population numbers. Here is the text of Article 2 of the adopted resolution:


Article 2

Pursuant to Article 1, the number of representatives in the European Parliament elected in each Member State is hereby set as follows, with effect from the beginning of the 2009-2014 parliamentary term:

Belgium 22
Bulgaria 18
Czech Republic 22
Denmark 13
Germany 96
Estonia 6
Greece 22
Spain 54
France 74
Ireland 12
Italy 72
Cyprus 6
Latvia 9
Lithuania 12
Luxembourg 6
Hungary 22
Malta 6
Netherlands 26
Austria 19
Poland 51
Portugal 22
Romania 33
Slovenia 8
Slovakia 13
Finland 13
Sweden 20
United Kingdom 73

***

Winners and losers

We compare with the numbers actually in force for the 2009 European elections. Germany was the only loser because of the maximum allocation of 96 seats (now 99 representatives). Bulgaria, Latvia, Malta (because of the raised minimum), the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and the United Kingdom stood to gain one seat each, France, Austria and Sweden two seats each and Spain would receive four additional seats.


***

European Council

The Lisbon Treaty Declaration (No 5) on the political agreement by the European Council concerning the draft Decision on the composition of the European Parliament promised that the European Council will give its political agreement on the revised draft Decision of the composition of the European Parliament for the legislative period 2009─2014, based on the proposal from the European Parliament.

The European Council gave its political blessing to the proposal of the European Parliament, with the addition that Italy was allocated the extra seat as agreed during the intergovernmental conference (Presidency Conclusions 14 December 2007; Council document 16616/1/07, point 5):

5. In accordance with Declaration No 5 annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference, the European Council gives its political agreement on the draft Decision establishing the composition of the European Parliament which the European Parliament politically approved on 11 October 2007, as revised in accordance with Declaration No 4 annexed to the Final Act. Accordingly, the wording of whereas clauses Nos 2 and 3 of the draft Decision will be adapted to reflect the wording in Article 9 A(2) of the EU Treaty as amended by the Lisbon Treaty and, in the table contained in Article 2, the figure relating to Italy will be "73". This Decision will be adopted as soon as possible after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 9 A(2) of the EU Treaty as amended by the Lisbon Treaty. The European Council invites the Member States to adopt the necessary domestic measures as soon as possible so that, when this Decision comes into force, the national legislation necessary for its implementation is in place in time for the European Parliament elections for the 2009-2014 parliamentary term.


***

United Kingdom?

Nothing in the political agreement of the European Council changed the draft presented by the European Parliament, with the exception of the additional seat allocated to Italy.

This means that the United Kingdom would have 73 seats under the Treaty of Lisbon (one more than in the June 2009 elections).

Still Priollaud and Siritzky, in Le traité de Lisbonne (page 64) present the number as 74 (plus 2).


If someone has better information either way, I am grateful for comments.


***

Transitory measures

Because of the embarrassing situation concerning the Lisbon Treaty, the European Council agreed on some principles to be followed in case the treaty enters into force. One of them was the attached Declaration on transitional measures concerning the composition of the European Parliament (Presidency Conclusions 11 and 12 December 2008; Council document 17271/08, page 14):


Declaration of the European Council

Treaty of Lisbon – Transitional measures concerning the composition of the European Parliament

In the event that the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force after the European elections of June 2009, transitional measures will be adopted as soon as possible, in accordance with the necessary legal procedures, in order to increase, until the end of the 2009-2014 legislative period, in conformity with the numbers provided for in the framework of the IGC which approved the Treaty of Lisbon, the number of MEPs of the twelve Member States for which the number of MEPs was set to increase. Therefore, the total number of MEPs will rise from 736 to 754 until the end of the 2009-2014 legislative period. The objective is that this modification should enter into force, if possible, during the year 2010.


***

Necessary legal procedures

Additional seats

In June 2009 Europeans elect 736 MEPs. If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force during the legislative term, the eleven countries gaining seats according to the EP resolution plus Italy would be entitled to additional seats for the rest of the term.

Since the European Council has only been able to give its political blessing, the legally binding decision would be made as soon as possible, when the European Council can make one under the new treaty rules.

Internally the situation is complicated. These countries have to devise national rules to elect potential representatives in June or plan later extraordinary elections (by-elections) to fill the extra seats, taking into account the electoral districts.


Disappearing seats

The German situation is interesting, too. Under the existing rules, three more MEPs are going to be elected than provided for under the Lisbon Treaty. The European Council points to this by obliquely mentioning to the provisional rise in the number of MEPs, above the maximum allowed by the Lisbon Treaty.

The European Council is up against the maximum number 751. It does not specify how to achieve this objective, but it hopes that this modification can enter into force during 2010.


This is but one of the many implementing issues, where the Council (Secretariat) should enter into open dialogue on alternative solutions. Lacking that, here are my tentative views on the options:

Germany is the least favoured nation in relation to population size as it is, and one can symphatise with the European Council’s wish to facilitate the election procedures there and to avoid sending home three elected representatives.

The European Union has a tradition of exceeding the maximum numbers in enlargement cases, where the accession treaties have modified the numbers temporarily. The accession treaties have been concluded unanimously and ratified by all member states.

In principle, the European Union could latch on to an accession agreement, which has to be ratified anyway. This would be expedient, since the substance requires one short sentence, but the timing may prove to be problematic.

When does the Lisbon Treaty enter into force (if it does)? When is the following accession agreement ready to be signed and when does it enter into force?

I am inclined to think that the most elegant way would be a separate agreement between the member states amending the Lisbon Treaty for the rest of the legislature.

The amendment procedure (Article 48 TEU) would have to be followed, but I am not aware of any legal obstacles to a conditional amendment right away. This would save time.

If the member states wait until it is known that the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, there will be little time to complete the procedures.

If the European Union waits even longer, until the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force, they need to follow the treaty revision procedures of the amended Article 48 TEU.

There are clear references to entry into force of treaty amendments after ratification by all member states according to their constitutional provisions. I doubt if provisional application before entry into force could be used by analogy with Article 300 TEC or .Article 218(5) TFEU.


***

My suggestion for discussion is that the member states start the procedures to convene an intergovernmental (mini)conference without undue delay in order to have the provisional amendment enter into force on the same day as the Lisbon Treaty (if it does).


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Number of MEPs 2009

We have gone through a bewildering array of numbers of the members of the European Parliament in the media during these last years. Proposals by the European Convention, intergovernmental conferences leading to the Constitutional Treaty and the Treaty of Lisbon, ten new EU member states in 2004 and two newcomers in 2007. And then back to the Treaty of Nice, when the Lisbon Treaty was stalled, and the accession treaty.


***


Where do we stand ahead of the European elections in June 2009?

Since the Lisbon Treaty has not entered into force, we have to look at the current treaties, last published in a consolidated (readable) form in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 29.12.2006 C 321 E.

Article 189 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) reads like this (page 130):


Article 189 TEC

The European Parliament, which shall consist of representatives of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community, shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty.

The number of Members of the European Parliament shall not exceed 732.


***

Fine, but …

The correct number of members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to be elected is 732, right?

But why does the Wikipedia article European Parliament election, 2009, tell us that elections to the European Parliament will be held in the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) between 4 and 7 June 2009. 736 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will be elected by proportional representation to represent some 500,000,000 Europeans, making these the biggest trans-national elections in history?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009


If we believe the Wikipedia article, we would unlawfully elect four more MEPs than the mximum number allowed by the treaty.

We can soon see that the Wikipedia number is no typo “while 736 MEPs will be elected under the Nice rules, this number would have increased to 751 if the Lisbon Treaty were in force”. Even the charts below give the total number as 736.


***

Try to verify

A general reference to the Treaty of Nice does not bring us very far, so we have to look around for explanations.

The following treaty provision is Article 190 TEC, with a discrete footnote telling us: Article amended by the 2003 Act of Accession. See Appendix at the end of this publication.

Article 190(1) TEC tells us that the representatives in the European Parliament of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community shall be elected by direct universal suffrage.

The second paragraph of Article 190 TEC looks more promising, starting with the words:
The number of representatives elected in each Member State shall be as follows: ---

If we are alert, we find 25 member states mentioned. We just have to be steadfast enough to count, have a memory good enough to realize that Bulgaria and Romania are missing, and humble enough to follow the hint to look up the Annex (in a consolidation published three days before the latest accession).


***

Voilà !

Trudge to the end of the consolidation and there you find the Appendix on page 325. Two pages later the text begins under the heading Amendments to primary legislation further to the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, followed by:

Further to the entry in force of the Treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, the following articles shall be amended as set out below.

We do not have to proceed far to find the following point of interest:

3. With effect from the start of the 2009-2014 term, in Article 190(2) the first subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:

‘2. The number of representatives elected in each Member State shall be as follows:


***

Rejoice!

Having found a possible solution to the problem of four surplus MEPs, we are not even going to quibble that the Appendix left the misleading maximum number in place.

For the benefit of more seriously inclined EU citizens we are going to show our gratitude towards public communications official by presenting our own consolidation of the consolidated version of Article 190 TEC.

This is how it should look in everybody’s books ahead of the European elections for the 2009 to 2014 term:





Article 190 TEC as amended by the 2003 Act of Accession

1. The representatives in the European Parliament of the peoples of the States brought together
in the Community shall be elected by direct universal suffrage.

2. The number of representatives elected in each Member State shall be as follows:

Belgium 22
Bulgaria 17
Czech Republic 22
Denmark 13
Germany 99
Estonia 6
Greece 22
Spain 50
France 72
Ireland 12
Italy 72
Cyprus 6
Latvia 8
Lithuania 12
Luxembourg 6
Hungary 22
Malta 5
Netherlands 25
Austria 17
Poland 50
Portugal 22
Romania 33
Slovenia 7
Slovakia 13
Finland 13
Sweden 18
United Kingdom 72.

In the event of amendments to this paragraph, the number of representatives elected in each Member State must ensure appropriate representation of the peoples of the States brought together in the Community.

3. Representatives shall be elected for a term of five years.

4. The European Parliament shall draw up a proposal for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.

The Council shall, acting unanimously after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

5. The European Parliament, after seeking an opinion from the Commission and with the approval of the Council acting by a qualified majority, shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. All rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members shall require unanimity within the Council.


***

Think about it ─ The truth is out there

We have now repeated the experiment of arriving at the same number of MEPs to be elected in June for the 2009 to 2014 term, despite the misleading treaty number. Our individual numbers for each country tally with those of Wikipedia.

More importantly, we have demonstrated the blessings of living in societies dedicated to the rule of law, openness and transparency.

Basic information and final decisions at least are usually found somewhere, if we care to dig. Globally we are among the lucky ones, although public information could be more accessible at times.

***

Remaining doubt

We could marry the Princess and live happily ever after, if not bothered by the doubt that our heads of government or state had cooked up something at their December 2008 powwow …


Ralf Grahn


P.S. Even if I think that public information should offer the hard facts first, such as laws, regulations, decisions, proposals, I understand that most people are interested in what happens in the real world. For the European election campaigns you can turn to Julien Frisch for coverage:
http://julienfrisch.blogspot.com/