DOCSLIB.ORG

Reconnecting the European Parliament and Its People Is the Culmination of a Year Long E C O N

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reconnecting the European Parliament and Its People Is the Culmination of a Year Long E C O N R Reconnecting the European Parliament and its People is the culmination of a year long e c o n project between the Foreign Policy Centre and the European Commission n e c Representation in the United Kingdom. Edited by FPC Policy Director Adam Hug, the t i n g pamphlet includes contributions from Dr Richard Corbett, Dr Michael Shackleton, Liz t h e Atkins, Dr Adam Marshall, Cllr Flo Clucas, Dr Christian Kaunert and Kamil Zwolski. E u r o p e RECoNNECTINg ThE a The pamphlet argues that there is clearly room for improvement in the way MEPs and n P a the Parliament engage with the British public and a need to reform the electoral r l i a EURoPEAN PARLIAmENT system . The report seeks to provide positive recommendations for action that help m e n strengthen the bond between the European Parliament and the people it represents. t a n AND ITS PEoPLE d i t s P e o p Edited by Adam hug l e T h e F o r e i g n P o l i c y C e n t r e a The Foreign Policy Centre n d Suite 11, Second floor E u r 23-28 Penn Street o p London N1 5DL e a n United Kingdom C o www.fpc.org.uk m [email protected] m i s s © Foreign Policy Centre 2010 i o All rights reserved n R e p r ISBN-13 978-1-905833-18-4 e s e ISBN-10 1-905833-18-0 n t a t i o £4.95 n i n t h e U K Reconnecting the European Parliament and its People Edited by Adam Hug First Published in September 2010 by The Foreign Policy Centre Suite 11, Second Floor, 23-28 Penn Street London, N1 5DL United Kingdom www.fpc.org.uk [email protected] ©Foreign Policy Centre 2010 All Rights Reserved ISBN 13 978-1-905833-18-4 ISBN 10 1-905833-18-0 Cover Design by SoapBox Communications (www.soapboxcommunications.co.uk) Printed by InType Libra (www.intypelibra.co.uk) Disclaimer: The views expressed in this pamphlet are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Foreign Policy Centre or European Commission Representation in the UK 1 Acknowledgements The Foreign Policy Centre and the Commission Representation would like to thank our authors: Dr Richard Corbett, Dr Michael Shackleton, Liz Atkins, Dr Adam Marshall, Cllr Flo Clucas, Dr Christian Kaunert and Kamil Zwolski. We would also like to thank the speakers who participated in our four seminars around the country: Rt Hon Denis MacShane MP, Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory, Liz Atkins John Peet, Sajad Karim MEP, Dr Christian Kaunert, Jim Hancock, Val Stephens, Catherine Stihler MEP, Struan Stevenson MEP, Christopher Harvie MSP, Elspeth Attwooll, Professor Jo Shaw, (Lord)George Foulkes MSP, Rt Hon Rhodri Morgan AM, Derek Vaughan MEP, Dr Kay Swinburne MEP, John Bufton MEP, Jill Evans MEP and Dr Adam Marshall. The editor would especially like to thank FPC colleagues Anna Owen, Josephine Osikena, Stephen Twigg, Juliette Hurst, Nino Kereselidze and Verity Robins for their work in helping this project become a reality. Dominic Brett, Christine Harland-Lang, Neil Mitchison, Andy Klom and several other members of European Commission Representation in the UK have also been very supportive during the project. The editor would also like to thank: Dr Michael Shackleton, Simon Duffin, Prof Simon Hix, Owen Tudor, Dr Wilhelm Lehmann, Alistair Doherty, John Peet, Prof Anand Menon, Prof Ron Johnston and Prof Charles Pattie for their advice and expertise. Oli Henman, Ruxandra Ratiu, Jon Fitzmaurice, Kieran O'Keeffe, Nick Porter, Brian Duggan, Jenny Brown, James Temple-Smithson and Suzanne Richards gave help that was greatly appreciated. 2 Contents About the Authors 4 Key Recommendations 5 Introduction: ‘Do you know who your MEPs are?’ Adam Hug 7 Reconnecting the European Parliament and its People Dr Richard Corbett 18 After Lisbon: Creating more space for democratic debate Dr Michael Shackleton 26 Civil society and democracy in Europe Liz Atkins 32 The European Parliament and British business: Bridging the gaps Dr Adam Marshall 40 Reconnecting the European Parliament with local communities Cllr Flo Clucas 46 The European Parliament and the EU democratic deficit: The right solution to the wrong problem? Christian Kaunert and Kamil Zwolski 52 Conclusion: Reconnecting the European Parliament and its people Building trust at the EU’s democratic heart Adam Hug 60 Recommendations 79 3 About the authors Adam Hug is Policy Director at the Foreign Policy Centre and has led the Reconnecting the European Parliament and its People project. His previous publications have included work on Turkish membership of the EU and human rights in Georgia and Kazakhstan. Richard Corbett is a former MEP, serving from 1996-2009, and a renowned expert on the workings of the European Parliament. He is now a Cabinet member for the President of the European Council and is also an FPC Senior Research Associate. Dr Michael Shackleton is one of the leading academic experts on European Parliament issues and is Head of the UK Office of the European Parliament. Liz Atkins is the former Director of Public Policy at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and was on the panel for the project‟s London event. Dr Adam Marshall is the Director of Policy and External Affairs at the British Chambers of Commerce and was on the panel for the project‟s Cardiff event. Cllr Flo Clucas is President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) Group on the Committee of the Regions and was formerly Deputy Leader of Liverpool City Council. Her submission was kindly arranged by the Local Government Association. Dr Christian Kaunert is a lecturer in EU Politics and International Relations at the University of Salford and was on the panel for the project‟s Manchester event. Kamil Zwolski is a doctoral student at the University of Salford. 4 Our Key Recommendations This pamphlet seeks to make a positive contribution to the debate about how to improve public awareness of the work of MEPs and the European Parliament while making wider changes to the system to build a stronger connection with the electorate. Our headline recommendations are: Fundamentally reform the electoral system. The editor advocates the introduction of a Mixed Member Proportional system that creates individual local constituencies and ensures proportionality through a national top-up list. Connect better with the Media. Expand the capacity of the European Parliament‟s UK media team to engage editors, train MEPs‟ staff and get parliamentarians into the regional media. Bring the debate to UK Parliaments. Use rights under the Lisbon Treaty to strengthen UK Parliamentary scrutiny of EU draft legislation. Encourage individual Select Committees to look at EU legislation more regularly, strengthen cooperation between parliaments through COSAC and improve working with MEPs. Make the European Parliament more credible. Further reform expenses by requiring receipts for MEPs‟ general allowance spending and bring an end the migration to Strasbourg. Enable MEPs to nominate the Commission President and veto the appointment of individual Commissioners. Make debates more lively! Talk about the European Parliament in schools. Explore putting information about the European Parliament in the Key Stage 4 Citizenship curriculum. 5 Use civil society groups to reach their members. Improve the Parliament and MEPs engagement with key stakeholders in the voluntary sector, business and local government while strengthening the Citizen‟s Initiative and Agora processes. A full list of recommendations is available at the end of the pamphlet. 6 Introduction: ‘Do you know who your MEPs are?’ by Adam Hug “When has the European Parliament ever been connected to the people?” An oft-heard refrain from our four public seminars This pamphlet is the culmination of a year-long Foreign Policy Centre (FPC) and European Commission Representation in the United Kingdom project that sprang from the blank incomprehension expressed by many of the editor‟s friends and relatives to the seemingly simple question,” Do you know who are your MEPs are?”1. The editor would like to make clear from the outset that, both from the findings of the seminar series and from his own observations, the vast majority of the responsibility for this failure cannot be lain at the door of MEPs themselves. From experience most MEPs2 are hard working and highly capable legislators, toiling diligently, not only to shape EU legislation, but also to represent their constituents in the Parliament and the Parliament to their constituents. However, the system in which they operate is flawed and in need of urgent reform to ensure that the European Union‟s only directly elected institution gains an enhanced democratic legitimacy from an electorate who are starting to understand more about who and what they are voting for. This pamphlet brings together contributions of from some of the European Parliament‟s leading experts and its some of its key UK stakeholders. The introduction and conclusion seek to add to the mix some of the findings of the London, Manchester, Edinburgh and Cardiff seminars, the results of two surveys and some additional observations that are all 1 This project and pamphlet has primarily focused on the connection between the British public and the European Parliament and while some of its recommendations may have EU relevance it does not claim to be a comprehensive approach to the situation in all countries. 2 There are always going to be some exceptions in any institution. 7 focused on one important task: strengthening the connection between UK MEPs, the institution in which they sit, and the public that elects them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Differentiated Integration in the Eu
    DIFFERENTIATED INTEGRATION IN THE EU FROM THE INSIDE LOOKING OUT EDITED BY STEVEN BLOCKMANS CONTRIBUTORS STEVEN BLOCKMANS VÍT BENEŠ MATS BRAUN RICHARD CORBETT ELAINE FAHEY ESTER HERLIN-KARNELL THEODORE KONSTADINIDES ADAM ŁAZOWSKI CLAUDIO MATERA JUAN SANTOS VARA CSABA TÖRŐ CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (CEPS) BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The views expressed in this book are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed to CEPS, the European Union or to any other institution with which they are associated. This book is a compilation of papers presented by the authors at an EPIN seminar on “The External Dimension of a Multi-Speed, Multi-Tier European Union” in Brussels on 6 May 2013. The European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN) is a network of 37 think tanks from 26 countries, led by CEPS. EPIN aims to contribute to the debate on the future of Europe through expert analysis and commentary and benefits from the support of the EU under the European Commission’s ‘Europe for Citizens’ Programme. In the framework of this particular research project, EPIN cooperated with the Amsterdam Centre for European Law and Governance (ACELG), the Centre for the Law of EU External Relations (CLEER) and the Faculty of Law of the University of Copenhagen. Cover image: © Jonáš Vacek, 2014 ISBN 978-94-6138-373-0 © Copyright 2014, Centre for European Policy Studies and the authors. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence: the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union
    EUROPEAN UNION SELECT COMMITTEE The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union Oral and Written evidence Contents Dr Gavin Barrett, University College Dublin—Written evidence .................................................. 4 Professor Dr iur. Hermann-Josef Blanke, University of Erfurt, Germany—Written evidence . 7 Mr Mladen Cherveniakov, Chairman of the Committee on European Affairs and Oversight of the European Funds, National Assembly of Bulgaria—Written evidence ................................... 13 Mr Carlo Casini MEP and Mr Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez MEP, Vice-President, European Parliament—(QQ 125-136) ................................................................................................................... 15 Sonia Piedrafita, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS)—Written evidence ................... 16 Charles Grant, Director, Centre for European Reform, and Mats Persson, Director, Open Europe—Oral evidence (QQ 1-17) ..................................................................................................... 23 Dr iur Patricia Conlan, Member, Institute for the Study of Knowledge in Society, University of Limerick, Ireland—Written evidence ............................................................................................. 41 Dr Ian Cooper, University of Oslo—Written evidence ................................................................. 56 Dr Richard Corbett, Member of the Cabinet of the President, European Council—Written evidence .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Tier Europe Is a Reality
    Month 2012 Report title Subhead ReportBy Authors Nfromames, Separated the by CommasA multi-tiered Allianz-CER Europe? forum Cover imageThe here political FILE > PLACE Use FILL FRAME PROconsequencesPORTIONATELY of 21 NovemberDouble 2012 click this imagethe box to moveeuro content crisis Title text overlaid on image can be white or blue depending on the tone of the image Brussels by Katinka Barysch [email protected] | WWW.CER.ORG.UK Executive summary The November 2012 Allianz-CER forum discussed how the eurozone crisis was changing the shape of the EU. Participants took it for granted that we were already living in a multi-tier EU. They did not, however, agree on the number and nature of the emerging tiers. Some thought that the euro would be only one amongst several emerging clusters. Additional clusters would evolve around foreign policy or immigration, and they would all overlap. Other participants, however, were convinced that the EU would fall apart into a eurozone core and an increasingly marginalised group of euro ‘outs’. Many participants thought that the euro would require stronger economic governance to survive, including a fiscal union and a much bigger central budget. In such a scenario, the barriers to entry into the single currency would increase, turning euro pre-ins into permanent outs. Some participants thought that a banking union consisting of common supervision and a deposit insurance fund would be enough to make the euro sustainable. This minimal solution would have less severe implications for the structure of the EU. Many people at the event worried that in a multi-tier EU the single market would fragment, or that it might even be rolled back.
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEAN UNION – the INSTITUTIONS Subject IAIN MCIVER Map
    SPICe THE EUROPEAN UNION – THE INSTITUTIONS subject IAIN MCIVER map This subject map is one of four covering various aspects of the European Union. It provides information on the five institutions of the European 21 May 2007 Union. The institutions manage the way in which the EU functions and the way in which decisions are made. Scottish Parliament The other subject maps in this series are: 07/02 The European Union – A Brief History (07/01) The European Union – The Legislative Process (07/03) The European Union – The Budget (07/04) Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) Briefings are compiled for the benefit of the Members of the Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with MSPs and their staff who should contact Iain McIver on extension 85294 or email [email protected]. Members of the public or external organisations may comment on this briefing by emailing us at [email protected]. However, researchers are unable to enter into personal discussion in relation to SPICe Briefing Papers. If you have any general questions about the work of the Parliament you can email the Parliament’s Public Information Service at [email protected]. Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in SPICe briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes. www.scottish.parliament.uk 1 THE EU INSTITUTIONS The way the EU functions and the way decisions are made is determined by the institutions which have been established by the member states to run and oversee the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Innovation in the EU: the Presidency of the European Council (ARI)
    Area: Europe ARI 47/2010 Date: 16/3/2010 Institutional Innovation in the EU: The Presidency of the European Council (ARI) Carlos Closa * Theme: Herman Van Rompuy’s incumbency is likely to define the future content and scope of the position of President of the European Council.1 Summary: The short period of time that has elapsed since the designation of the first permanent President of the European Council makes it difficult to make any assessment so far. However, beyond the formal aspects, how the incumbent performs will be decisive for the posts future consideration. Furthermore, this initial moment is critical in that it will probably set the course to be followed in the future. How Van Rompuy manages is likely to affect the position’s definition and scope as much as Javier Solana’s incumbency shaped the post of High Representative. Analysis: The Organ’s Genesis Differently to other institutional innovations in the EU, the Presidency of the European Council established by the Treaty of Lisbon has not been long in the making. It appeared on the agenda at the beginning of the Convention on the Future of Europe. According to Peter Norman’s account of events (Norman, 2004, p. 138), Jack Straw was the first to moot the idea that rotating chairs at the European Council should be considered.2 Subsequently, in March 2002, Jacques Chirac mentioned for the first time a ‘President of the European Union’ (sic), arguing that the current system of rotating Presidencies would not be viable in an enlarged Union and, hence, that the EU’s leaders should
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Brief July 2021
    FEPS Policy Brief July 2021 A PROGRESSIVE APPROACH TO THE CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE OF EUROPE Summary About the author: The Conference on the Future of Europe is the widest process of engagement with citizens, besides elections, that the European Union has ever undertaken, but as such it has enormous potentials as well as risks. Richard Corbett The main risk will be to result in a big disappointment, if proposals supported by citizens will be not followed up by the European institutions. British politician and former Member of the However, it can also offer a great opportunity to progressives to introduce European Parliament (1996-2009 and 2014- 20) for the S&D Group largely-needed changes in the European construction, enhancing the European Union’s capacity to act and deliver in a number of cross-border sectors (from healthcare to climate change, from economic justice to migration), and strengthening its democratic accountability and transparency. This Policy Brief offers some proposals, among the many that could and will be discussed, that could be embraced by European progressives and that may help to make the European Union and its institutions increasingly understandable to European citizens. A progressive approach to the Conference on the Future of Europe Richard Corbett British politician and former Member of the European Parliament (1996-2009 and 2014-20) for the S&D Group Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lambeth LGBTQ+ History Month 2020
    Entertaining the Troops LGBT+ fair at the Library Queer Alphabet Soup – A Mosaic Youth Forum One of Them: From Albert Tuesday 11 February, 8pm Saturday 15 February, 11am to 4pm. evening of LGBT+ Spoken Word – Intergenerational Square to Parliament Square The Bread and Roses pub (Garden Bar) Tate South Lambeth Library Wednesday 19 February, 7pm Afternoon Tea with Michael Cashman 68 Clapham Manor Street. SW4 6DZ Arts, crafts, books and more at Tate Tate South Lambeth Library Thursday 20 February, 2pm Wednesday 26 February, 7pm. From 1979 to 1988 Consenting Adults South Lambeth Library’s LGBT+ Back for a second year! QAS is a series Location: On Application Brixton Library Tickets: Free – Booking in Public was one of the leading Lesbian Fair. The Friends of Tate of readings, poetry and performance Teens will have the opportunity to meet One of Them with Michael Cashman and Gay Theatre Companies in South Lambeth Library’s from literary queer novelists, poets, with older LGBT+ people, so if you are Lambeth LGBTQ+ England. While Gay Sweatshop battled own arts and craft fairs have performance artists and writers. Featuring 13 to 19 or over 50 this event is for you. Michael Cashman has lived many with the Arts Council for funding, this become a popular feature readings and performances from: You can share your story and hear others lives, all of them remarkable: as a Community Theatre group performed of the neighbourhood, this Adam Mars- telling theirs. beloved actor of stage and screen; as History Month 2020 plays, cabaret and musicals in theatres time with a gay flair! The Vauxhall a campaigner for gay rights; as an MEP Jones – Author of and for Student Unions and Gay Groups neighbourhood is, after all, famed for its More details visit: www.mosaicyouth.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to the European Parliament Concerning The
    A joint project of PETITION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF CITIZENS RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF BREXIT AND THE NEGOTIATION OF THE TERMS OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION PETITION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 20 AND 227 TFEU URGENT – FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION URGENT – FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION PETITION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF CITIZENS RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF BREXIT AND THE NEGOTIATION OF THE TERMS OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED KINGDOM FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION PETITION SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 20 and 227 TFEU Executive summary: 1. This Petition is submitted jointly by the EU Rights Clinic and other 80 signatories listed in Annex I. Further information on the main petitioner is contained in Section 1 of this complaint. 2. This Petition seeks to obtain urgent action from the European Parliament in order to remedy the gaps and omissions in the legal protection that have so far been negotiated by the European Commission in respect of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. 3. It has become apparent from our discussions with the European Commission and the Council of the EU that the draft Withdrawal Agreement which gives further expression to the Joint Report of 8 December 20171 will not fully cover the entire spectrum of rights which all EU citizens and family members presently enjoy in connection with residence, work and equal treatment under EU law. 4. In this respect, we therefore consider that the statement made by the Commission in its Communication of 8 December 20172 that “the Joint Report means that both Union citizens and United Kingdom nationals, as well as their respective family members can continue to live, work or study as they currently do under the same conditions as under Union law, benefiting from the full application of the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality” is not correct as a matter of law and fact.
    [Show full text]
  • Before-The-Act-Programme.Pdf
    Dea F ·e s. Than o · g here tonight and for your Since Clause 14 (later 27, 28 and 29) was an­ contribution o e Organisation for Lesbian and Gay nounced, OLGA members throughout the country Action (OLGA) in our fight against Section 28 of the have worked non-stop on action against it. We raised Local Govern en Ac . its public profile by organising the first national Stop OLGA is a a · ~ rganisa ·o ic campaigns The Clause Rally in January and by organising and on iss es~ · g lesbians and gay e . e ber- speaking at meetings all over Britain. We have s ;>e o anyone who shares o r cancer , lobbied Lords and MPs repeatedly and prepared a e e eir sexuality, and our cons i u ion en- briefings for them , for councils, for trade unions, for s es a no one political group can take power. journalists and for the general public. Our tiny make­ C rre ly. apart from our direct work on Section 28, shift office, staffed entirely by volunteers, has been e ave th ree campaigns - on education , on lesbian inundated with calls and letters requ esting informa­ cus ody and on violence against lesbians and gay ion and help. More recently, we have also begun to men. offer support to groups prematurely penalised by We are a new organisation, formed in 1987 only local authorities only too anxious to implement the days before backbench MPs proposed what was new law. then Clause 14, outlawing 'promotion' of homosexu­ The money raised by Before The Act will go into ality by local authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21St Century
    Serving Scotland Better: Better: Scotland Serving Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century Final Report – June 2009 Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century 21st the in Kingdom United the and Scotland Commission on Scottish Devolution Secretariat 1 Melville Crescent Edinburgh EH3 7HW 2009 June – Report Final Tel: (020) 7270 6759 or (0131) 244 9073 Email: [email protected] This Report is also available online at: www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk © Produced by the Commission on Scottish Devolution 75% Printed on paper consisting of 75% recycled waste Presented to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament and to the Secretary of State for Scotland, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, June 2009 Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century | Final Report – June 2009 Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century It was a privilege to be asked to chair a Commission to consider how the Scottish Parliament could serve the people of Scotland better. It is a task that has taken just over a year and seen my colleagues and me travelling the length and breadth of Scotland. It has been very hard work – but also very rewarding. Many of the issues are complex, but at the heart of this is our desire to find ways to help improve the lives of the people of Scotland. The reward has been in meeting so many people and discussing the issues with them – at formal evidence sessions, at informal meetings, and at engagement events across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • 1999 Election Candidates | European Parliament Information Office in the United Kin
    1999 Election Candidates | European Parliament Information Office in the United Kin ... Page 1 of 10 UK Office of the European Parliament Home > 1999 > 1999 Election Candidates Candidates The list of candidates was based on the information supplied by Regional Returning Officers at the close of nominations on 13 May 2004. Whilst every care was taken to ensure that this information is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility for any omissions or inaccuracies or for any consequences that may result. Voters in the UK's twelve EU constituencies will elect 78 MEPs. The distribution of seats is as follows: Eastern: 7 East Midlands: 6 London: 9 North East: 3 North West: 9 South East: 10 South West: 7 West Midlands: 7 Yorkshire and the Humber: 6 Scotland: 7 Wales: 4 Northern Ireland: 3 Eastern LABOUR CONSERVATIVE 1. Eryl McNally, MEP 1. Robert Sturdy, MEP 2. Richard Howitt, MEP 2. Christopher Beazley 3. Clive Needle, MEP 3. Bashir Khanbhai 4. Peter Truscott, MEP 4. Geoffrey Van Orden 5. David Thomas, MEP 5. Robert Gordon 6. Virginia Bucknor 6. Kay Twitchen 7. Beth Kelly 7. Sir Graham Bright 8. Ruth Bagnall 8. Charles Rose LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GREEN 1. Andrew Duff 1. Margaret Elizabeth Wright 2. Rosalind Scott 2. Marc Scheimann 3. Robert Browne 3. Eleanor Jessy Burgess 4. Lorna Spenceley 4. Malcolm Powell 5. Chris White 5. James Abbott 6. Charlotte Cane 6. Jennifer Berry 7. Paul Burall 7. Angela Joan Thomson 8. Rosalind Gill 8. Adrian Holmes UK INDEPENDENCE PRO EURO CONSERVATIVE PARTY 1. Jeffrey Titford 1. Paul Howell 2. Bryan Smalley 2.
    [Show full text]
  • European Parliament Elections 2009 RESEARCH PAPER 09/53 17 June 2009
    European Parliament Elections 2009 RESEARCH PAPER 09/53 17 June 2009 Elections to the European Parliament were held across the 27 states of the European Union between 4 and 7 June 2009. The UK elections were held concurrently with the county council elections in England on 4 June. The UK now has 72 MEPs, down from 78 at the last election, distributed between 12 regions. The Conservatives won 25 seats, both UKIP and Labour 13 and the Liberal Democrats 11. The Green Party held their two seats, while the BNP won their first two seats in the European parliament. Labour lost five seats compared with the comparative pre-election position. The Conservatives won the popular vote overall, and every region in Great Britain except the North East, where Labour won, and Scotland, where the SNP won. UKIP won more votes than Labour. UK turnout was 34.5%. Across Europe, centre-right parties, whether in power or opposition, tended to perform better than those on the centre-left. The exact political balance of the new Parliament depends on the formation of Groups. The UK was not alone in seeing gains for far-right and nationalistic parties. Turnout across the EU was 43%. It was particularly low in some of the newer Member States. Part 1 of this paper presents the full results of the UK elections, including regional analysis and local-level data. Part 2 presents summary results of the results across the EU, together with country-level summaries based on data from official national sources. Adam Mellows-Facer Richard Cracknell Sean Lightbown Recent Research
    [Show full text]