MEPs, Parties, and Discipline: A Critique of the ‘Partisan Control Thesis’ Einion Dafydd Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of International Politics Aberystwyth University April 2014 This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not being concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signed ...................................................................... Date ........................................................................ This thesis is the result of my own investigations, except where otherwise stated. Where correction services have been used, the extent and nature of the correction is clearly marked in a footnote(s). Other sources are acknowledged by footnotes giving explicit references. A bibliography is appended. Signed ..................................................................... Date ........................................................................ I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for inter-library loan after the expiry of the bar on access, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations. Signed ..................................................................... Date ........................................................................ 2 A Summary of the Thesis This thesis presents a critique of the partisan control thesis, a common claim in the academic literature on the European Parliament that two partisan actors – domestic political parties and the European parliamentary groups (EP Groups) – influence how Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) approach representation. Specifically, it investigates whether domestic parties and EP Groups shape how MEPs think about and carry out representation, and what factors are linked to variation in the degree to which these partisan actors seek and achieve influence. Adopting a mixed-methods research design, this thesis analyses data from the 2010 EPRG survey of MEPs, and a body of original data gathered by conducting interviews with MEPs and officials. Three parties from Finland – KOK, the SDP, the PS – and three from the UK – the Conservatives, Labour, and UKIP – are selected as case studies. The MEPs examined are affiliated to one of four EP Groups, namely the EPP, the S&D, the ECR, and the EFD. This thesis finds that neither domestic political parties nor EP Groups exercise the degree of influence that the partisan control thesis suggests. Furthermore, it identifies that three factors are linked to the propensity of national parties to attempt to influence MEPs, and that a further three factors determine the desire and ability of EP Groups to influence MEPs. This thesis argues that although it is beneficial that MEPs are given the freedom by their parties to carry out their work according to their own judgment, the low levels of attention domestic parties pay to the activities of MEPs gives rise to concerns regarding the existence of an ‘accountability deficit’ in the EU. The pessimistic conclusion is that this deficit is unlikely to be addressed unless parties come to place greater value on goals that lie within the context of the EU’s political system. 3 Table of Contents A Summary of the Thesis 3 Acknowledgments 5 List of Figures 6 List of Tables 6 Abbreviations 9 Introduction 10 Chapter 1: Governance, Representation, and the European Parliament 31 Chapter 2: A Framework for Analysis 68 Chapter 3: Analysis of the 2010 EPRG MEP Survey 95 Chapter 4: Finland 148 Chapter 5: The United Kingdom 189 Chapter 6: Conclusion 237 Appendix A: Ordinal Regression Tables 267 Appendix B: List of Interviewees 279 Bibliography 281 4 Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to a number of people who supported me while undertaking my doctoral studies. My supervisors, Dr Anwen Elias and Dr Elin Royles, deserve special thanks for taking an active interest in the project and for providing valuable feedback, as does Professor Roger Scully, whose writings initially sparked my interest in these issues and whose later guidance is much appreciated. I am grateful to Professor Tapio Raunio for welcoming me as a Visiting Scholar to the School of Management and Politics, Tampere University. He and his colleagues made the visit to Finland a happy and fruitful adventure. A number of individuals deserve a special mention for their friendship during my time abroad, and in many cases for providing much-needed logistical support. These include (among many others) Amy, Anna, Clare, Graham, Julie, Laura and Pieter, Mikko, Petra, Sanna, Susana, Suvi, Saanamaria, and Tanya. It would not have been possible to undertake this research without the help of a number of individuals whom I have promised will remain anonymous. These include MEPs, party officials, and the assistants of MEPs, to whom I am particularly grateful for carving out time for my research. I would like to thank Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol for its very generous research funding over five years; UACES for providing financial support during the visit to Brussels; and the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, and its staff and graduate school, for their valued support. I am grateful to Oili for making me watch the coverage of the European election night on Finnish television during a visit to Tampere in 2009. At the time I was slightly puzzled by the interest that she took in the elections, and little did I realise that my own interest in Finnish MEPs would grow immeasurably soon thereafter. Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Dafydd and Rhiannon, and brothers, Gwyddno and Seiriol, for their constant love and support. It is greatly appreciated and I am very aware that I would not have been able to consider undertaking this project without them, let alone to prepare a manuscript for examination. 5 List of Figures 1. Voting with/against national parties and EP Groups in the fifth 54 parliament (1999–2004) List of Tables 1: The importance attributed to representing various groups 99 2: Correlations between the importance attributed to representing various groups 101 3: Basis of voting in cases of conflict 103 4: Views on loyalty towards EP Group in cases of conflict (I) 104 5: Views on loyalty towards EP Group in cases of conflict (II) 104 6: The importance attributed to undertaking various activities 106 7: Reasons for gaining EP committee membership 108 8: Time spent undertaking political work in home country 109 9: Regularity of contact with various groups 111 10: The role played by various party organs in candidate selection 113 11: Correlations of the values attributed to the importance played by different groups in candidate selection 114 12: The frequency of contact with various groups 117 6 13: The regularity with which MEPs receive voting instructions from various groups 119 14: The regularity of voting instructions from EP Group leadership 120 15: Views on the legitimacy of EP Group leaders enforcing discipline 121 16: Views on the degree of EP Group unity 121 17a: OLS regression models 1–4 of the regularity with which domestic party leaderships issue voting instructions 126 17b: OLS regression models 5–7 of the regularity with which domestic party leaderships issue voting instructions 127 18a: OLS regression models 1–4 of the regularity with which the leadership of national EP delegations issue voting recommendations 130 18b: OLS regression models 5–7 of the regularity with which the leadership of national EP delegations issue voting recommendations 131 19a: OLS regressions models 1–4 of the importance attributed to representing the national party 135 19b: OLS regressions models 5–8 of the importance attributed to representing the national party 136 20a: OLS regressions models 1–4 of the importance attributed to representing EP Groups 139 20b: OLS regressions models 5–8 of the importance attributed to representing EP Groups 140 7 21a: Ordinal regression models 1–4 of the regularity with which domestic party leaderships issue voting instructions 267 21b: Ordinal regression models 5–7 of the regularity with which domestic party leaderships issue voting instructions 268 22a: Ordinal regression models 1–4 of the regularity with which the leadership of national EP delegations issue voting recommendations 270 22b: Ordinal regression models 5–7 of the regularity with which the leadership of national EP delegations issue voting recommendations 271 23a: Ordinal regressions models 1–4 of the importance attributed to representing the national party 273 23b: Ordinal regressions models 5–8 of the importance attributed to representing the national party 274 24a: Ordinal regressions models 1–4 of the importance attributed to representing EP Groups 276 24b: OLS regressions models 5–8 of the importance attributed to representing EP Groups 277 8 Abbreviations ALDE Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe CA Common Assembly CDU The Christian Democratic Union of Germany CSU The Christian Social Union in Bavaria ECR The European Conservatives and Reformists Group ECSC The European Coal and Steel Community EEC The European Economic Community EFD Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group in the European Parliament EP The European Parliament EPP Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) EPP-ED Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats EPRG European Parliament Research Group EPLP The European Parliamentary Labour Party EU The European Union GUE/NGL European