Mid-Term Assessment of the European Parliament's

POLICY PAPER European issues n°224 Mid-term assessment of the th 10 January 2012 European Parliament’s 7th legislature The European Parliament takes By Charles de Marcilly Robert Schuman Foundation Manager action to tackle the crisis. in Brussels, Pierre Thibaudat Project Manager at the Robert Schu- man Foundation in Brussels, INTRODUCTION tizens’ rights, including those of the consumer, Jan Wilker the traveller and the patient. former student at the Collège d’Europe, Often berated but never equalled … since July student at the Ecole Nationale d’Administration 2009, MEPs have tabled 11,446 amendments This new institutional framework and the need in plenary (not to mention those made during for rapid response, have helped to attenuate parliamentary committee sittings), they have the Eurosceptic voice in terms of legislative voted 7,490 times, approved 322 legislative procedures and have guided most of the MEPs procedures, 705 non-legislative procedures, work. submitted 1092 direct questions to the Euro- pean Commissioners and representatives of the Council who came to sit with them![1] I - A RESHAPED PARLIAMENT, BOTH POLITICALLY AND INSTITUTIONALLY The 736 MEPs, whose number grew at the be- a. After the elections in June 2009 ginning of December 2011 by 18 new MEPs that were planned for in the first review of the The European elections that took place from 4th Lisbon Treaty[2], are now midway through their to 7th June 2009 resulted in a clear victory for mandate. Firstly, over the first 30 months MEPs the centre-right. However the three main poli- became aware of the European Parliament’s tical groups lost votes, firstly the Social Demo- new prerogatives and of its ability to position crats (S&D), but also the Liberals (ALDE) and itself as a united, strong player in the face of the the European People’s Party (EPP); the latter other institutions. The second part of this paper notably lost votes due to the departure of some notes that in view of the number of decisions, British and Czech conservatives, who created votes and legislations, output is sustained but the European Conservatives and Reformists more focused than in the previous legislature. Group (ECR)[3]. Ultimately, this departure wea- Moreover, the institution’s political bipolarisa- kened the Eurosceptics’ as far as their influence tion has grown under the pressure of time, was concerned. 1. Figures set on 10/10/2011, source http://www.europarl. and the centre now stands as a true arbiter. europa.eu/sed/statistics.do In addition to this we note that middle sized, In spite of the rightwing victory and even 2. http://www.europarl. but well integrated EU States, are significantly with the Liberals (349 seats out of 736), the europa.eu/news/fr/pressroom/ influential in terms of their work in compari- EPP did not achieve an adequate majority. content/20100223BKG69359/ html/Parlement-le-processus- son with the founder States or the most recent Hence cooperation with the S&D was ne- de-ratification-de-18- d%C3%A9put%C3%A9s- new comers. The last part of the study endea- cessary to elect the President of Parliament suppl%C3%A9mentaires-prend-fin vours to illustrate the major trends of the 7th and to confirm the appointment of the Com- See the annexed table with the new comers per country legislature. Work has focused on crises - more mission’s president; in exchange the chairs specifically the financial ones and the imple- of several major parliamentary committees 3. http://www.ecrgroup.eu/ecrg- and-eu3.asp mentation of the single market, increased ci- were granted to the socialists which has led European policies FONDATION ROBERT SCHUMAN / EUROPEAN ISSUES N°224 / 10TH JANUARY 2012 Mid-term assessment of the European Parliament’s 7th legislature The European Parliament takes action to tackle the crisis. to this legislature being called the “grand coali- cated, illustrated by the probable election of Martin tion”[4]. In January 2012 the second part of the Schulz (S&D, DE) as President of the European Par- legislature will start and in this series of negotia- liament, in replacement of Jerzy Buzek (EPP, PL), in 02 tions, the so-called “key” posts are due to re-allo- office since 14th July 2009. European Election Results in 2009 Political Group No. of seats Score in % PPE 265 36 S&D 184 25 ALDE 84 11.4 VERTS/EFA 55 7.5 ECR 54 7.3 GUE/NGL 35 4.8 ELD 32 4.3 NA 27 3.7 Source : European Parliament • EPP : European People’s Party Group (Christian De- mocrats) (hereafter “EPP”) • S&D : Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Demo- crats at the European Parliament (hereafter “S&D”) • ALDE : Alliance of Democrats and Liberals for Europe (hereafter “ALDE”) • GREENS/ EFA : Greens/European Free Alliance (hereafter “Greens”) • ECR : European Conservatives and Reformists (hereafter “ECR”) • GUE/ NGL : United European Left/Nordic Green Left (hereafter “GUE”) • EFD : European Freedom and Democracy Group (hereafter “EFD”) • NA : Non-Affiliated Turnout: 43% (45.5 in 2004) 4. HIX, Simon, http://www. Number of women MEPs: 35% (31% in 2004) sieps.se/sites/default/files/561- 2009_8epa.pdf; http://www.europarl. b. Powers increased by the Lisbon Treaty a strengthening of the European Parliament’s influence europa.eu/sides/getDoc. do?language=en&type=IM-PRESS in the decision making process, that goes hand in hand &reference=20090911STO60546 First and foremost the Lisbon Treaty strengthened the with greater political legitimacy, with one mutually lea- 5. BERTONCINI, Yves & CHOPIN, Parliament as an inevitable legislator in the European ding to the other. Article 289 of the Treaty on the Func- Thierry, Politique européenne. Etats, pouvoirs et citoyens de decision making process. It has confirmed a trend that tioning of the European Union (TFEU) establishes this l’Union européenne, Paris, Presses started in 1979 with the election of the European Par- development, stipulating that “the ordinary legislative de Sciences Po/Dalloz, 2010, p. 192 liament by universal suffrage[5]. This trend comprises procedure (formerly the co-decision procedure) shall European policies FONDATION ROBERT SCHUMAN / EUROPEAN ISSUES N°224 / 10TH JANUARY 2012 Mid-term assessment of the European Parliament’s 7th legislature The European Parliament takes action to tackle the crisis. consist in the joint adoption by the European Parliament a qualitative and quantitative point of view, which and the Council of a regulation, directive or decision on is different from the previous legislature. a proposal from the Commission.”[6]. The Parliament is therefore acknowledged as a co-legislator in its own As an example 322 legislative acts have been right with the Council – in any event with regard to voted since July 2009, whilst during the same 03 issues that are not subject to the exception rule. period in the first half of the 6th legislature, 661 acts were registered and an average 323 reports Furthermore the Lisbon Treaty has extended the Par- were registered in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Howe- liament’s competences. The number of areas in which ver this has been compensated for in the present legislative acts are subject to co-decision has almost legislature by the number of non-legislative pro- doubled, rising from 45 to 89[7] of the 120 areas defi- cedures voted in plenary which has increased by ned in the Treaty. Competences in terms of the internal 18.47% in comparison with the previous legisla- market and consumer protection, amongst many others, ture (699 against 590). have been completed, for example with those pertaining to asylum and immigration, the common agricultural The study of the number of amendments reveals policy (CAP) and the common trade policy[8]. Notably, that there is greater cohesion early on within in terms of the budget, progress has been remarkable the parliamentary committees, which reduces due to the abolition of the distinction between obliga- the possibility and temptation of making further tory and non-obligatory spending[9], thereby placing amendments in plenary. During the first half of the European Parliament on an equal footing with the the legislature 10,798 amendments were tabled Council with regard to the EU’s main budgetary posts, against 23,044 in the same period in the pre- which were partly closed to it previously: the CAP and vious legislature. 52.8% of the amendments put 6. TFEU, article 289 § 1, http:// eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ the Cohesion Fund[10]. In addition to this, if there is forward by the parliamentary committees were LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083 disagreement with the Council, the European Parliament accepted in plenary, in comparison with 34.1% of :0047:0200:FR:PDF has the final word: if the Parliament rejects the budget those put forward by political groups since July 7. BERTONCINI Y. & CHOPIN T., it has to be revised but if the Council rejects it, Parlia- 2009 (47.1% of all amendments tabled, were ac- op.cit., tableau 14 ment can adopt it anyway (if certain majority conditions cepted). This shows that political splits within the 8. TIILIKAINEN, Teija, “The are met, which supposes strong internal cohesion at parliamentary committees still exist in the hemi- empowered European Parliament”, FIIA Briefing Paper, n°91, the European Parliament.)[11]. However a conciliation cycle during the final vote. Indeed, it is easier to 11.2011, p. 3 http://www.fiia.fi/ en/publication/224/ committee, involving the representatives of both insti- agree in the committee sitting, when there is a tutions, is convened first in the event of disagreement smaller number of MEPs, who also know and see 9. BERTONCINI Y. & CHOPIN T., op.cit., p. 198 and this is intended to lead to a compromise, thereby each other regularly, than during plenary in which guaranteeing a certain balance between the Parliament MEPs sit according to their political groups.

Load more