Political groups on EU reform

Today we use the press release Let’s make the most of the momentum to shape an ambitious future in order to look at how political groups in the European Parliament reacted to president Jean-Claude Juncker’s speech about the state of the European Union (SOTEU) and the future of Europe, especially with regard to EU reform.

Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s Party (EPP) Group, hailed the European way of life in speech and press release, promising to renew the European social model, one of the main themes in Juncker’s speech. Weber highlighted the fight against illegal immigration and terrorism, called for an end to membership negotiations with Turkey and the establishment of a European Defence Union. With regard to terrorism, we note the press release from the EPP Group yesterday about the first meeting of the European Parliament’s new special committee on counter-terrorism (TERR).

For the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) Group, the leader Gianni Pittella greeted Juncker’s proposals and packed six minutes with demands for more resolute action by the European Union. Pittella offered clear responses on some key issues concerning a more democratic and capable EU:

We welcome Juncker’s acknowledgment of the equality between the EU member states – a multispeed Europe is not a sustainable option! Let's provide the eurozone with a real Finance minister, accountable to the European Parliament, with an appropriate fiscal capacity to be used for growth and development. Europe certainly doesn't need of a kind of watchdog along the lines of the Troika.

-----

People want to see democracy and the rule of law respected and not threatened by the governments in Hungary and Poland. We welcome Juncker’s words on this and call the Commission to act on it if needed. ECJ judgements must be respected and applied.

Last but not least the revision of EU governance. The real problem is the overwhelming weight of the Council and the detrimental use of the unanimity vote system. Let’s break the taboo. We must revise the dominant role of the Council and increase the use of the majority vote system. Only by a real democratisation of the institutional balance, with an enhanced role for the Parliament, can we finally ensure Europe is capable of meeting the challenges ahead.

In the same way, a joint president for the Commission and the European Council – selected by the Parliament through the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ system – could help make the EU more democratic and transparent.

Syed Kamall for the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) Group chose to focus on globalisation, free trade and entrepreneurship, against protectionism and regulation. A day earlier the group vice-president Hans-Olaf Henkel had opposed EU-wide lists in the elections to the European Parliament.   

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Group leader Guy Verhofstadt welcomed the vision and ambition of Juncker’s SOTEU address. People want a reformed European Union, asking for more European action. Good institutions make good policies. We need European level democracy, transnational lists:

That’s why I’m fighting for transnational lists, for a real European constituency. So that we lift our democracy to a continental scale. Europe is more than just the sum of 27 national democracies. Our European executive needs to be matched by a powerful parliament.

Our European executive needs to be matched by a powerful parliament that defends our European principles and values against governments in Poland and Hungary. “Alt-right governments”, who believe Trump is the example, Trump with his white supremacy. Or Putin or Erdogan who jail their democratic opponents.

Let’s make Europe the counterweight of all this. A beacon of openness, of freedom, of hope for the 21st century.

After a sombre portrait of EU from the European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) Group, the MEP  Patrick Le Hyaric wanted to turn Europe around to focus on social and environmental progress.

The leader Philippe Lamberts for the The Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) Group managed to paint a picture of Europe almost as dark as the one offered by the Left, before he arrived at reducing inequality and our ecological impact.  

Here are links to the speeches for the anti-EU groups, Nigel Farage for the EFDD and Harald Vilimsky on behalf of the ENF.

Ralf Grahn

EU future: Member states boon or bane?

The previous blog post covered the opening shots in the renewed, mainly inter-institutional debate about a more parliamentary or an intergovernmental European Union.

Even if the protagonists seem to address each other, the future solutions are far from arcane irrelevancies. They will determine our security and prosperity, the fate of 501 million Europeans in a globalising world.

We have reason to listen to what some protagonists had to say in the European Parliament Wednesday: Herman Van Rompuy, Martin Schulz and Rebecca Harms.

How should we interpret the silence of the European People’s Party (EPP)?

Can a look outside this one EP debate shed more light on Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn Bendit, and what does the commentator Stanley Crossick add?



Herman Van Rompuy



Two days after his speech in Paris, on 22 September 2010 the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, reported on the 16 September European Council meeting to the European Parliament. He presented his efforts to get the national governments to cooperate more effectively.

Van Rompuy remarked that the heads of state or government want more ownership by the European Council (themselves) in EU foreign policy.

With regard to economic governance, all heads of state or government want to continue the work and to keep the momentum. Van Rompuy will submit a draft of the global report to the Task Force consisting of the ministers of finance on September 27, with the aim to reach an understanding in the middle of October, so that the European Council can conclude in its meeting of the 28th and 29th October.

Later Van Rompuy returned to the discussion about the “Community method” versus “intergovernmental” coordination:

Dear colleagues, Mr President, meetings of the European Council should not be considered as "summits" but as regular -- even routine -- meetings of a Union institution.

Indeed, allow me to emphasise -- at this time of renewed debate in your Parliament about the "Community method" -- that the European Council is an institution of our Union and not a summit in the manner of the G8 or the G20. It is embedded in the institutional framework of the Union, but it brings to the Union inputs from the highest political level in the member states, and it gives to the member states a sense of ownership and participation in the Union and reinforces their commitment to its success.

Stanley Crossick

Van Rompuy rallied at least one enthusiastic supporter.



According to Stanley Crossick, on Stanley’s blog yesterday, there is no longer any space for an ideological confrontation between the Community method and intergovernmentalism. ‘Our’ approach should be pragmatic and there should be a mixture of the two approaches, depending on the circumstances. Herman Van Rompuy rightly seeks to bring cohesion within the European Council and between the EU institutions.

Crossick also supported Van Rompuy’s idea of downgrading the European Council summits, with EU leaders meeting more regularly in dialogue as an excellent one.



EPP group dilemma



I failed to find anything immediately relevant in group leader Joseph Daul’s or other press releases on the news page of the largest political group in the European Parliament: the 265 member EPP group.



As the centre-right European People’s Party likes to point out in its press releases:

The EPP is the largest and most influential European-level political party of the centre-right, which currently includes 73 member-parties from 39 countries, the Presidents of the Commission, Council, and Parliament, 15 EU and 6 non-EU heads of state and government, 13 members of the European Commission and the largest Group in the European Parliament.

Actually, they forgot to mention the president of the European Council (Herman Van Rompuy).

Mentioning the Council is more complicated: The prime minister of the caretaker government in Belgium, the current EU Council presidency, is the Christian Democratic and Flemish (EPP) Yves Leterme, although it is a coalition government, so representatives of different parties could be expected to chair various Council ‘configurations’.

In other words, it is somewhat uncomfortable for the EPP to come out strongly in public for or against one of the EU institutions, or most of member states’ governments for that matter.



Socialists and Democrats



I failed to find anything in the newsroom of the second largest political group: the Socialists and Democrats.



However, the S&D group leader Martin Schulz has few of the inhibitions of his EPP counterpart. The summary of the debate published by the EP press service tells us:

Socialist Martin Schulz said that…

…the Parliament is calling for the community method in terms of resolving problems. He said his group wanted it to be done at EU level in a community way and that the task of EP is to get the community method through.

Other political groups



The EP press summary was written mostly from the viewpoint of economic governance and the Roma issue, so the extracts concerning Guy Verhofstadt (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats ALDE), Rebecca Harms (Greens/EFA), Timothy Kirkhope (European Conservatives and Reformists ECR), Patrick Le Hyaric(leftist GUE/NGL) and Niki Tzavela (nationalist Europe of Freedom and Democracy EFD) do not enlighten us much in this respect.



I found no press release with more details from ALDE, but co-chair Rebecca Harms for the Green group clearly warned against the growing influence of member states in ‘very European’ issues, while it is the task of the Commission to defend the general interest of Europeans.



We do know that the ALDE group leader Guy Verhofstadt and co-chair Daniel Cohn Bendit (Greens) are among the members of the Spinelli Group for a federal Europe. The Spinelli Group network consists of the signatories of the manifesto, 1052 by now.

Are the member states indispensable for or the bane of an ever closer union?

We are still far from a definitive answer.




Ralf Grahn




P.S. In two days, Sunday 26 September 2010, people all over Europe celebrate the European Day of Languages, organised by the Council of Europe and the European Union as an inspiration to language learning.



For bloggers in Europe there is a special event, which takes place on the Internet: the Day of Multilingual Blogging. The blog post behind the link offers suggestions on how to participate, as well as information about the event, the Facebook page and the Twitter hashtag #babel. For a richer life, please join!

European Parliament: ECR & EFD groups online

About two weeks ago, we remarked on the lack of web existence for the two right wing nationalist groups in the European Parliament: the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) and the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD).



We then returned to the anti-EU ECR and the Europhobe EFD a few days later, but both political groups were still leading a nonline existence. There were still no traces of the ECR on 2 October 2009.

There have now been improvements.

***

Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFD)



The Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EDF) has now managed to produce a web site under construction, with a link to a list of its 32 members and what should have been a link to its political platform (but it did not work).

There was nothing about the activities and initiatives of the EDF.

The link from the box with Political groups on the European Parliament’s web site still does not work.

***

European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR)



The European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECR) has now produced a professional web site.

The contents are still slim, but approaching those of the other political groups in the European Parliament.

The link from the European Parliament’s main page does work.

The ECR pages exist only in English, whereas the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) offers a wide selection of languages, and the centre-left S&D group and the liberal ALDE have a selection of the most widely spoken languages.

***

Three months after the political groups were established, they have made their appearance on the web, although the presence of the EFD Group is almost theoretical and the profile of the ECR Group is monolingual.

The undoubted residual attraction of the 19th and 20th century main ideology, nationalism, should encourage further presentational improvements.

The groups have a total of 86 members, almost 12 per cent of the seats in the European Parliament (736), so there is surely wider European interest in what they are doing.

The EDF and the ECR should not let matters rest there.

***

EP political groups



By the way, here is a link to the overview web page of the European Parliament on the political groups. (It is undated, and instead of the “7th parliamentary term”, the editors could have used years, which every reader understands.)



Ralf Grahn

European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR)

As we noted about the political groups in the European Parliament, the anti-EU European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) seems to be practically inexistent on the web.



Jon Worth picked up the same ECR absence. I wrote a new blog post on the ECR’s lack of web presence, and Jon was seconded by Julien Frisch.



According to the Wikipedia article on the European Conservatives and Reformists, the group has 52 seats in the European Parliament, which makes it into the fifth largest group in the European Parliament.


In my view they are anti-EU nationalists.


The ECR group is the political home of the following national parties (Wikipedia): List Dedecker (Belgium), the Czech Civic Democratic Party (ODS), the Hungarian Democratic Forum (MDF), For Fatherland and Freedom/LNNK (Latvia), Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania (LLRA), the Christian Union (CU) (Netherlands), the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS), as well as the Conservative Party and the Ulster Unionist Party (United Kingdom).

Internally, the biggest contingents are the UK Conservatives of David Cameron and William Hague with 25 MEPs, the Polish Law and Justice Party of the Kaczynski twins with 15 representatives and the Czech ODS split between the present leader Mirek Topolanek and ex-leader Vaclav Klaus with 9 members of the European Parliament.

The ECR group is chaired by Michal Kaminski from Poland.

***

It is hard to know what the ECR group is up to, since it has no web pages with basic information and updated news. Only incidentally is the ECR group mentioned in news reports about issues in the European Parliament.

It is hard to do less for “greater democratic accountability”.


Ralf Grahn

Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD)

As we noted about the political groups in the European Parliament and in parallel with the anti-EU European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), the new home for Europhobes, the Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group is practically inexistent on the web.



According to the Wikipedia article on the EFD, the group has 32 seats in the European Parliament.

These hard line nationalists and/or religious arch-conservatives represent a motley collection of parties from the outer fringes of their countries: Dansk Folkeparti (Denmark), the True Finns (Finland), the Mouvement pour la France (which campaigned under the Libertas banner in France), the Popular Orthodox Rally LAOS (Greece), the separatist Lega Nord (Italy), the Lithuanian Order and Justice, the protestant Dutch Reformed Political Party, the ultra-nationalistic Slovak National Party and the secessionist United Kingdom Independence Party UKIP.

UKIP with 13 members of the European Parliament and the Lega Nord with 9 MEPs are the biggest parties within the EFD group. The rest have one or two representatives each.

Nigel Farage (UKIP) and Francesco Speroni (Lega Nord) chair the EDF group.


***


It is highly surprising that an official political group in the European Parliament is absent from the world wide web.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament political groups

The opening page of the European Parliament has a handy box with access to the political groups.

According to size, you find the centre-right EPP Group (European People’s Party), the centre-left S&D (Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats), ALDE (Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe), the Greens/EFA (Greens and European Free Alliance) – all with updated information.



***


We then proceed to the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists). The link for the anti-EU right leads nowhere.


***

The leftist GUE/NGL (European United Left – Nordic Green Left) features functioning web pages with news and information.



***


The link to the europhobe EFD (Europe of Freedom and Democracy) group leads nowhere.


***


The European Parliament was elected in June 2009, but the nationalistic parties on the right have been unable or unwilling to assemble working web pages with information to the public.


Ralf Grahn

European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECRG)

The UK Conservatives have announced the establishment of a new political group in the European Parliament: the European Conservatives and Reformists Group (ECRG).



At least the following Euroblogs have commented: Jon Worth, Nosemonkey, Julien Frisch, Coulisses de Bruxelles and La Oreja de Europa.



***

At the latest count the new group seems to have 56 MEPs, and it may pick up a few more before the inaugural session of the EP on 14 July 2009. The ECRG will probably be the fourth largest group in numbers.

There is no group in the European Parliament with enough votes to amend legislation on its own, so a majority of the component members (736) has to be sought over party lines. These coalitions will be formed among the four groups in the European mainstream.

According to the Wikipedia article European Parliament election, 2009 these probable groups and sizes are the following (latest update 23 June 2009):



• European People’s Party (EPP) 263

• Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (PASD) 183

• Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) 82

• European Greens-European Free Alliance (Greens-EFA) 53


The European Parliament is going to function through the mainstream groups. The British voters have backed only 29 MEPs (out of 72) who will exert real influence by sitting in the groups with power.

Opposition groups to the left and the right of the European mainstream will be able to table and to air their alternative proposals, or vote with the majority, but they are going to remain marginal.

British business interests and the US administration have seen the first omens of a future Conservative government led by David Cameron and William Hague.

***

By the way: Looking at the make-up, the addition of the word “Reformists” to the name of the ECRG expresses a profound sense of humour.


Ralf Grahn

To the Press service of the European Parliament

You have informed the public ahead of the European Parliament elections, and you continue to update the official results. I am grateful for your innovative and informative work.

We have now entered a new stage, where the political parties negotiate to establish the political groups. Officially, the formations are announced at the inaugural session on 14 July 2009.

There is still a month to go, and even longer before the announcements are published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

I wonder, could you do something to bridge the gap, by collecting unofficial announcements of the political groups and parties, and by publishing them in one place?

Could you add an unofficial page on the election results, with the anticipated group sizes, because as it is, “known” changes are not reflected on the official results page?

I understand that you cannot take responsibility for informal agreements or statements by players, but you could indicate the sources responsible.



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

EU Commission President: Facts and speculation Barroso vs Verhofstadt

If the European Council 18 to 19 June 2009 nominates José Manuel Barroso, by a qualified majority, to become President of the Commission, the matter appears before the newly elected European Parliament for approval.

Under the Treaty of Nice, still in force, the approval requires a simple majority (Article 214 of the Treaty establishing the European Community; TEC).

The political groups in the European are not fully formed yet, but with 264 MEPs the biggest group, the European People’s Party (EPP) is still far from a majority for Barroso.

The official Election results are somewhat behind the events with regard to the groups, but offer the main facts.




Rainbow coalition?

In principle, a rainbow coalition of the Left, ASDE (ex PES), the Greens and ALDE (Liberals) would now have 347 votes, after the Italian Partito Democratico joined the renamed Socialist Group.

This is fairly close to a majority of the representatives (369), but it still looks like a chimera, even if Barroso is seen as a weak choice by swathes of politicians and public opinion.

Many socialist and liberal MEPs belong to national parties led by heads of governments behind a re-election of Barroso.

British, Spanish and Portuguese PES representatives were among these long before the European elections. Only the Democrats part of ALDE has indicated that it will vote against Barroso. Other groups and individual MEPs might fall into line with the nomination by the European Council, possibly unanimous.

Without clear indications to the contrary, there is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow, although a secret ballot offers MEPs with reservations about Barroso the chance to defy their national party leaders by voting for Guy Verhofstadt.


EPP plus?

The ‘European Conservatives’ of the UK Tories, the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS) and the Czech ODS have 49 MEPs at the moment, but we are still waiting for the announcements on further recruitment among the remaining 76 MEPs (provisionally classified as Others, UEN, IND/DEM).

In theory, these presently unsorted MEPs could boost the EPP vote to 389, and it is possible that many among the 125 nationalists, anti-federalists and others prefer Barroso as the lesser evil.

However, some of them are rejectionists at heart, with scant inclination to vote constructively. For Barroso and the heads of state or government it would be an embarrassment to have the Commission President carried into office on the votes of ultra-nationalists, xenophobes and fascists.

Therefore, expect the members of the European Council to lean on MEPs to pre-empt a rainbow coalition.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament: Two mainstream majorities

The overall results of the European Parliament election results shifted only marginally yesterday, with the recount awarding one MEP to the Greens at the expense of the PES (provisional results 10 June 2009 12:20 CEST).



The European Citizen has written a thoughtful post on the power balance and prospects in: The Battle for the Commission Presidency (10 June 2009).



The results of the vote counting are probably almost final, so the potential changes will have to do more with how the political groups are formed.

Beyond the question of the vote for the Commission President and the various internal EP posts, the European Parliament needs a majority of its constituent members to amend legislative proposals: 369 out of 736 MEPs.

Let us assume that the mainstream groups prefer to work with each other, instead of courting the fringe groups (which have yet to materialise). In that case there would be one constant and two possible variations (with the numbers we have today).


Indispensable EPP

In each case, there is no going around the Group of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest political group with 264 representatives.


Grand coalition

The traditional “grand alliance” would add the Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PES), which is second largest with 161 members of the EP.

This alternative reflects the current coalition government in Germany, but there it seems to be in its dying days. It is also possible that the socialists, social democrats and Labour movements at European level feel the need to rebuild their political message, without being tainted by daily compromises.


Non-socialist coalition

It looks probable that the German voters will offer the Christian Democrats and the Liberals a mandate at the next election. In German terms this would be a black-yellow coalition, but in the EP blue-yellow (incidentally like the Swedish Council Presidency).

The problem is that in the European Parliament a coalition of the EPP and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) would fall short of the needed majority (by 25 votes at the present time; as it happens, the exact number of the emigrating UK Conservatives).

The Greens made a strong showing in the European elections, so it would be an acknowledgement of the vote to include them in a coalition. With the Greens on board, an EPP-ALDE-Green coalition would represent 397 votes, which attains the needed majority.

But the Greens have campaigned with a view to build a coalition with the PES. They have resisted the appointment of Barroso. A shift in alliances might not go down well with their MEPs or voters, despite the obvious advantages.


Jokers in the pack?

The decisive issue will be, where the EPP finds its future partners. For them the ideal would be to entice into their group a sufficient number from the ranks of nationalists and others, MEPs who at the present time are labelled as Others, UEN or IND/DEM. The second option might be a permanent understanding without group membership.

Here the EPP competes with the nationalist ‘European Conservatives’, who have already bagged 49 MEPs and are looking for representatives from at least four additional member states to be able to form a group.

Neither the EPP nor the ‘European Conservatives’ can contemplate recruiting the most xenophobic and fascistoid elements among the remaining 97 MEPs, so the remaining options are fairly slim for both of them.

We are still waiting for the fat lady to sing.


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

European Parliament: Forming political groups

The European Parliament’s web page Election results offers an update as of yesterday (provisional 9 June 2009 18:51 CEST)



If we sort the parties into rough categories, we get the following preliminary view of the balance of power in the European Parliament 2009 to 2014.

***

LEFT

Left 32 (4%)
• Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL) 32

***

MAINSTREAM


Centre-left 162 (22%)
• Socialist Group in the European Parliament (PES) 162


Centre 132 (18%)
• Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) 52
• Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) 80


Centre-right 264 (36%)
• Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) (EPP) 264

***


NATIONALISTS AND OTHERS


Nationalists and others 146 (20%)
• Others 93
• Union for Europe of the Nations Group (UEN) 35
• Independence/Democracy Group (IND/DEM) 18


***


The categories are mainly based on historical affinities, although the sub-group of European Democrats has been eliminated.

Theoretically 369 is a majority, but often it is needed in practice, when a majority of the component members is required. The total number of MEPs is 736.

The combined strength of the mainstream groups is 558 at this moment. This number will probably rise as others, like the Italian Partito Democratico and the Irish Fianna Fail, join the mainstream political groups.

***

The nationalists and others are most fascinating, because considerable movement is to be expected. The UK Conservatives, the Polish Law and Justice Party and the Czech Civic Platform (49 MEPs) will be joined by others to establish the announced nationalist and anti-federalist group, probably the fourth largest.

***

At this stage, the Independence/Democracy Group does not reach the threshold of 25 MEPs from seven EU member states. In its present incarnation, the Union for Europe of the Nations Group is doomed as well, because the Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS) will part with 15 MEPs.

Ultra-nationalists often serve their xenophobic and/or anti-EU views in similar populist packages, but their nationalisms tend to be mutually exclusive.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament election results (updates)

Reporting on the outcome of the elections to the European Parliament has changed during the cause of the events. In some cases it started with exit polls, then partial results and projections, later provisional counts etc.

The European Parliament’s web page Election results: towards the new Parliament follows the developments, so minor changes were noted yesterday (provisional 8 June 2009 17:19 CEST). Yesterday’s figure for turnout was 42.94%.



The official, final results will be confirmed later in the member states.

The politically interesting events will take place in the negotiations to form the political groups in the European Parliament, ahead of the inaugural session on 14 July 2009.

Changes can take place in any group, but especially the large group Others (93), UEN (35) and IND/DEM (19) are worth following.

From the beginning of the new term, a political group needs at least 25 MEPs from seven EU member states.

***

EP Rules of Procedure

The European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure are useful for those, who want to follow the decisions to be taken at the beginning of the new parliamentary term. The latest update posted on the EP’s web pages is of 6 April 2009.




Ralf Grahn

European elections 2009: What happens next?

The European Parliament election results are provisional, but almost final results can be expected during the day.

Four out of ten EU citizens voted in these elections (43.09%), continuing the downward trend in turnout.

***

Left failed

Politically, I find the weakening of the centre-left (PES) and left (GUE/NGL) parties most astounding for the long term. In the middle of a financial crisis and a deep economic recession, the mainly opposition left parties failed to put forward a candidate for the Commission Presidency and to convince voters on alternative economic and social policies.

Only one out of four (about 26.3%) voted left, although the PES will remain the second largest political group in the European Parliament (159 MEPs); GUE/NGL 33 seats.

Source: European Parliament: Results of the 2009 European elections (provisional 8 June 2009 03:07 CEST).



***

Governable EP

The mainstream centre-right group of the European People’s Party seems set to remain the dominant group in the EP, with 267 seats (36.3% of the total).

The new European Parliament is governable. Taken together, the “constructive” or mainstream groups – EPP, PES, ALDE, Greens – would total 558 seats, or more than three quarters of the MEPs (75.8%), based on historical affinities, but the gains were generally made by hard or extreme right parties.

***

New political groups

Before the new European Parliament convenes on 14 July 2009, intense negotiations are going to take place to form the political groups, which are the instruments for parliamentary work.

Changes will take place among the nationalist right.

Especially the large group Others (90 seats), which includes the UK Conservatives, and UEN (Union for Europe of the Nations), with 35 seats, and IND/DEM (Independence/Democracy Group), with 20 MEPs, will see considerable movement.

The anti-federalist coalition announced by the UK Conservative Party (24 MEPs according to the BBC), the ultra-conservative Polish Law and Justice Party (PiS, Kaczynski twins) with 16 seats and the Czech ODS (Topolanek, ex Klaus) with 9 MEPs, already has 49 MEPs in the bag. It will encounter no problems with the minimum size of a political group (25), but it needs members from at least four additional member states.

The anti-federalists will have to find their new friends among the remaining 96 MEPs, who represent a wide variety of national populist and protest parties, some of them fascist and racist.

For the sake of propriety, the British Conservatives have to draw a line somewhere, but they will probably take on board enough allies to get the group formed.

For the UK Conservative Party the European Parliament is of secondary importance. They are doing all they can to expedite the demise of Gordon Brown’s Labour government, and to win the next general election.

In government, the Tories can start to put European integration in reverse gear, by demanding repatriation of powers, rejecting the Lisbon Treaty and blocking progress. Nobody seems to doubt the outcome of the next UK general election, but the timing of the election and the possible entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon have profound consequences for Europe.

***

Barroso Commission

The EPP will have to look for support in order to secure a majority for José Manuel Barroso as the President of the Commission. Under the Treaty of Nice, a simple majority is enough, but the EPP is about 102 votes short if they want to be on the safe side.

On the other hand, it is difficult to know how many of the British, Portuguese and Spanish PES MEPs (and perhaps others) are going to vote for Barroso in line with their party leaders and members of the European Council, which will put forward Barroso, probably on 18 to 19 June 2009.

Even theoretically it would be difficult to build a sufficient anti-Barroso coalition, to say nothing about a constructive alliance for a specific alternative candidate, although Guy Verhofstadt and Mario Monti have been mentioned.


Ralf Grahn

European Alternatives and European Parliament elections

European Alternatives has published European elections 2009, a guide to the manifestos of the European parties and political groupings (32 pages).




The publication offers a European perspective on the contending movements and contents page a pre-view of the groups covered in the analysis:


European People’s Party Overview and Manifesto analysis
National Member Parties

Party of European Socialists Overview and Manifesto analysis
National Member Parties

Alliance of Liberals and Democrats Overview and Manifesto analysis
National Member Parties

Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance Overview and Manifesto analysis
National Member Parties

Confederal Group of the European United Left/Nordic Green Left Overview
National Member Parties

Independence/Democracy Group Overview
National Member Parties

Union for a Europe of the Nations Group
National Member Parties

Notes


***

Recommended reading for readers who want an accessible comparison before casting their ballots.


Ralf Grahn

European elections: New political group

Phobia is the common denominator: Europhobes join homophobes.

Small wonder that the UK Conservative Party and the Polish Law and Justice Party are going to form a political group in the European Parliament after the European elections. They will be joined by the Czech Civic Democrats (ODS), hovering between the Europhobia of President Vaclav Klaus and more pragmatic market oriented nationalism. They will probably attract some MEPs from nationalistic fringe parties in order to have representatives from at least seven EU member states.

The Group of the European People’s Party (EPP) will become a bit more coherent, but the main effect is that the new group rejects the European mainstream, including Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy and other national leaders, broadly supportive of British aims on the single market and world trade.

The other member states can hardly have missed the profound problems the Conservative European Election Manifesto, David Cameron and William Hague promise, if Britain stays on the inside of the European Union.

If UK government relationships with Europe have looked less than constructive until now, you ain’t seen nothing yet. We will just have to wait for the Conservative government to be voted in.

Demonstratively outside the European mainstream, Cameron will arrange his referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

Then he will try to woo sympathy to renegotiate the UK’s relationship with other EU member states, firmly committed to the Lisbon Treaty, possibly in force at the time.

The Tories’ policies on Europe have all the makings of a strategic disaster spiced with tactical blunders.

Why should the other leaders of Europe go out of their way to help Cameron? Shouldn’t he reap what he has sown?

After all, the (other) member states need a functioning European Union.


Ralf Grahn

European Parliament Political Groups

We are only two months from the European elections, to be followed by the forming of the (new) political groups in the European Parliament.

In the United Kingdom, the House of Commons Library has published a standard note authored by Vaughne Miller on the political groups in the European Parliament.

European Parliament Political Groups (SN/IA/5031; 26 March 2009; 10 pages) offers a brief view of the EP political groups. After an introduction and a look at the structure of the EP groups, the note deals with the various benefits connected with the groups (material, procedural, committee composition, decision-making using co-decision, a comment and a comparison with Westminster).



***


Higher hurdle after European elections 2009

On page 3, the note correctly quotes the existing minimum requirements for a political group. According to Rule 29(2) of the EP’s Rules of Procedure the current minima for the formation of a political group are:

Rule 29(2)

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


***

Given the proximity of the European elections and the formation of new groups, it would however have been helpful to mention the new rules entering into force at the first sitting of the new parliamentary term.

When the newly elected European Parliament convenes after the June 2009 elections, the requirements for forming a political group are going to be higher, according to the Decision on amendment of Rule 29 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure ─ Formation of political groups; Resolution P6_TA-PROV(2008)0351.

As voted by the EPP and the PES, MEPs from at least a quarter of the member states will be needed; seven instead of six. The minimum number of MEPs rises from twenty to twenty-five.



Therefore it will be harder for motley crews of MEPs to the right of the centre-right (EPP) and to the left of the centre-left (PES) to find enough soul-mates to form political groups after the European elections.

The new Rule 29(2) sets the following requirements:

Rule 29(2) amended

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.

***

One of the interesting questions after the European elections in June 2009 is going to be how the British Tories align themselves in the European Parliament, given the unquestionable importance of political groups in the running of the political business of the EP.


Ralf Grahn

Tories: Self-banishment from Europe

The British Conservative party has drawn the conclusions from its continuing trajectory towards the fringes of European politics by announcing its divorce from the European People’s Party – European Democrats (EPP-ED) group in the European Parliament.

The BBC reports ‘Tories leaving Europe’s EPP group’ (11 March 2009):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7938482.stm

Self-expulsion is the easy part, but what are the Tories going to do in European politics?

According to the amended Rule 29(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, which enters into force after the European elections in June 2009, the minimum requirements for a political group are:

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.

***

The Tories would have to find soul-mates from six other member states in order to form a political group, which is the prerequisite for effective work within the EP. By the looks of it, the ‘talent pool’ outside the constructive groups will be fairly unpalatable for people with some standards on political content and governance.

The alternative is to join the splinter groups and individual MEPs who are content to arrange dress-up charades and other silly pranks to demonstrate against the institution they have been elected to.


***

At a time when concerted European action is needed more than ever, what can we expect from a future Tory government?

They are absolutely not working for the interests of the citizens of the European Union, but can they even begin to explain how their self-ostracism serves the interests of British nationals?


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