1

How much influence does Britain have in

the European Parliament?

BfB Briefing Note 5

Defenders of the status quo tend to hold the European Parliament up as an example of the

European Union’s democratic credentials and a body through which the UK can wield its

influence. Here, British MEPs are sent to debate motions, vote on them, and ultimately

defend the interests of the voters who elected them. However, new research from Business

for Britain has revealed a system badly in need of reform, with British MEPs currently holding

only limited power to steer legislation without making large, impractical alliances.

This report analyses each instance in which a majority of British MEPs opposed a motion in

the 2009-14 European Parliament.1 Our research shows that British MEPs were unable to stop

the majority of proposals they opposed from being passed by the European Parliament.

Our research finds:

In the last term, 1,936 motions were put before the European Parliament. 576 of these motions were against British interests and were voted against by the majority of British MEPs. However 485 of these motions still passed. This is a failure rate of 84 per cent.

In party terms, the Conservatives failed to block 87 per cent of the motions they opposed, Labour failed to stop 53 per cent, Liberal Democrats 36 per cent and UKIP 95 per cent.

Looking at all 1,936 motions put before the European Parliament, only 7 per cent were rejected.

On current trends the UK, already one of the most underrepresented states in the European Parliament for its population size, will suffer a further reduction in influence over the next six years.

To arrange broadcast interviews or for more information, please contact:

Robert Oxley, Campaign Director, Business for Britain

robert.oxley@forbritain.org | 07544 933 215

1 A “majority” was defined as more British MEPs voting for a motion than against it, a system recognisable from other legislative bodies

such as the UK House of Commons.

2

Unable to defend the UK’s interest

Over the last European Parliamentary term (2009-14), a majority of British MEPs (across UK

party lines) opposed 576 motions out of a total 1,936 that were put before the Parliament.

Of those 576 motions, 485 were nonetheless approved by the rest of the Parliament despite

the opposition of a majority of British MEPs. This is a failure rate of 84 per cent.

This ‘failure rate’ is defined as the number of times a majority of British MEPs opposed a

motion deemed to be against British interests, but were unsuccessful in preventing it being

passed. This inability to block proposals is often due to the small number of seats the UK has

in the European Parliament, which means British MEPs are often outvoted and unable to stop

legislation passing into European and British law.

Motions that were opposed unsuccessfully by British MEPs include the proposals for the

Financial Transaction Tax and bans on short selling (despite the UK being outside the

Eurozone, the Financial Transaction Tax alone is expected to cut 0.2 per cent from Britain’s

GDP).2

Table 1 below shows the overall number of motions put before the European Parliament, the

total number of motions opposed by the UK (both passed and blocked) and the total number

of motions a UK majority unsuccessfully opposed (with the ‘failure rate’ as a percentage). The

table is arranged by how British MEPs voted under the European Parliament’s own

classification of policy areas and ordered by the highest failure rate first.

2 ‘Common system for taxing financial transactions’, Votewatch Europe, found at <http://www.votewatch.eu/en/common-system-for-taxing-financial-transactions-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-legislative-resolu.html#/##vote-tabs-list-4> ‘Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps’, Votewatch Europe, found at

<http://www.votewatch.eu/en/short-selling-and-certain-aspects-of-credit-default-swaps-draft-legislative-resolution-amendments-

by.html#/##vote-tabs-list-4> London Economics, The Impact of the proposed financial transaction tax on European households’ savings, found at <http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/business/economic-research-and-information/research-publications/Documents/Research-2014/Effects-of-a-financial-transaction-tax-on-european-households-savings.pdf>

3

Table 1: Total motions opposed by a majority of UK MEPs by policy area

Policy area

Total motions before

Parliament

Number of motions opposed

by UK majority (as % of total)

Number of motions opposed

by UK majority that still passed

(as % of opposed / ‘failure rate’)

Regional development 53 16 (30%) 16 (100%)

Petitions 7 1 (14%) 1 (100%)

Budget 205 127 (62%) 124 (98%)

Budgetary control 169 92 (54%) 90 (98%)

Constitutional and inter-institutional affairs 56 26 (46%) 24 (92%)

Agriculture 70 11 (15%) 10 (91%)

Employment & social affairs 65 33 (50%) 30 (91%)

Legal affairs 91 11 (12%) 10 (91%)

Economic & monetary affairs 168 53 (31%) 47 (89%)

Gender equality 36 16 (44%) 14 (88%)

Environment & public health 138 22 (15%) 19 (86%)

Culture & education 30 11 (36%) 9 (82%)

Development 35 5 (14%) 4 (80%)

Fisheries 68 5 (7%) 4 (80%)

Industry, research & energy 91 10 (11%) 8 (80%)

Transport & tourism 68 24 (35%) 18 (75%)

Internal market & consumer protection 68 4 (5%) 3 (75%)

Civil liberties, justice & home affairs 143 30 (21%) 22 (73%)

Foreign & security policy 238 44 (18%) 22 (50%)

Internal regulations of the EP 8 6 (75%) 3 (50%)

International trade 129 24 (18%) 7 (29%)

Total motions 1936 576 (30%) 485 (84%)

Split by policy area, British MEPs were least successful in the areas of Regional development

and Petitions, with failure rates of 100 per cent in each policy area. However, what is more

significant is that a majority of British MEPs opposed 127 of the 205 ‘Budget’ motions put

forward in the Parliament. The European Parliament still passed 124 of these, a failure rate of

98 per cent for the British MEPs. British MEPs also opposed 92 of the 169 motions put forward

under the heading of ‘Budgetary control’, yet the European Parliament still passed 90 of

these, again a 98 per cent failure rate in another important policy area. In addition, British

MEPs have very high failure rates in other policy areas such as ‘Constitutional affairs’,

‘Employment and social affairs’ and ‘Agriculture’.

4

Voting across party lines

Table 2: Number of MEPs by party in the European Parliament 2009-14

Party Number of MEPs

Conservative3 27

Labour 13

Liberal Democrat 12

UKIP 8

Greens 5

Sinn Fein 1

Non Aligned 7

At first glance it would appear that the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties have a lower

failure rate than others. However, this ignores the fact that these two parties rarely vote

against any motions, tending to vote with the pan-European Parliamentary majority. The

Liberal Democrats famously did this when they voted for the Financial Transaction Tax.4 On

the other hand, UKIP and the Conservatives opposed more motions, but (despite the

Conservatives being the largest British party in the 2009-14 European Parliament) still found

it difficult to exert their will and prevent motions passing. This is not a failure on their part;

but a product of the system. Figure 1 below indicates the performance of majorities of MEPs

by party in the UK block. 5 Table 2 shows how many MEPs each party had during the 2009-14

Parliament.

The poor rate of success when even a majority of British MEPs combine in opposition is

difficult to blame on any given party; it is practically inevitable when the UK has such a low

number of seats. Even with all the British parties combined, the UK group would constitute

only around 10 per cent of votes; not nearly enough to block a motion. It is an uphill challenge

for a member state to protect its interests in the European Parliament at all.

3 Includes Ulster Unionist MEP (see above footnote). 4 ‘Motion for a resolution - Taxation of financial transactions’, Votewatch Europe, found at <http://www.votewatch.eu/en/motion-for-a-resolution-taxation-of-financial-transactions-motion-for-a-resolution-paragraph-7.html#/##vote-tabs-list-4> 5 The Conservative “ECR” grouping includes the Ulster Unionist Party (of which there is one MEP). The parties entered into a pact in 2009 before the European Parliamentary elections. The pact dissolved in 2010 but the Ulster Unionists still sit with David Cameron’s ECR in the European Parliament.

5

Figure 1: Number of motions parties voted against: successfully and unsuccessfully

European Parliament ideology The European Parliament has, since its inception, been dominated by two parties committed

to further European integration; the left-leaning Socialist and Democrat Party and the centre-

right European People’s Party. Despite the tendency of the European Parliament to allow

smaller parties a voice, the two parties remain effectively unchallenged. They are committed

to “ever closer union” and interpret the Lisbon treaty along federalist lines, presuming in 2013

to nominate candidates for the Commission Presidency.6

In the last Parliament (2009-14), the two parties together constituted 458 seats; 60 per cent

of those available.7 Both tended to act as champions of European integration, supporting

almost every measure advanced by the European Commission. Our research shows that in

the last parliament a mere seven per cent of motions were ever rejected (139 out of 1,936)

and that international trade related motions were the most likely to be defeated in the

European Parliament as a whole.

Apart from this seven per cent, there is appeared to be an unofficial consensus between the

two main groups. In the last term, the Socialist and Democrat Party and the European People’s

6 ‘Joint declaration by the EPP Group, S&D Group and ALDE Group on the election of the president of the European Commission’, Group of Progressive Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, found at <http://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/joint-declaration-epp-group-sd-group-and-alde-group-election-president-european-commission> ‘Speaking points - Press Briefing from Jean-Claude Juncker, lead candidate for the European People’s Party for Commission President in the European elections in May 2014’, Jean-Claude Juncker, found at <http://juncker.epp.eu/press-releases/speaking-points-press-briefing-jean-claude-juncker-lead-candidate-european-people%E2%80%99s> 7 ‘Composition of Parliament’, European Parliament / About Parliament, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/004a50d310/Composition-of-Parliament.html>

Unsuccessful485 (84%)

Unsuccessful656 (87%)

Unsuccessful105 (53%) Unsuccessful

66 (37%)

Unsuccessful1423 (95%)

Successful 91 (16%)

Successful99 (13%)

Successful93 (47%)

Successful114 (63%) Successful

73 (5%)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

UK Majority Conservatives Labour Liberal Democrats UKIP

No

. of

Mo

tio

ns

6

Party voted the same way 74 per cent of the time.8 This goes some way to explaining the very

low number of motions being rejected by the Parliament as a whole.

In reaction, British parties have distanced themselves from the two main groups. David Cameron famously took the Conservatives out of the European People’s Party in 2009 to form his own group; the European Conservatives and Reformists.9 Similarly, Labour refused to endorse the Socialist and Democrat presidential candidate for the Commission in the last election and supported David Cameron in rejecting Jean-Claude Juncker.10

Sources and Methodology

In order to work out how much power the UK has in the EU, Business for Britain undertook

original research to investigate the ability of the UK to block harmful laws in the European

Parliament. The Research Team did this by going through all publically available Parliament

information and highlighting proposals made in the Parliament which a majority of UK MEPs

opposed. A majority was defined as more British MEPs voting for a motion than against it or

vice-versa, a system recognisable from other legislative bodies such as the UK House of

Commons. The Research Team then investigated to see how many proposals the UK was able

to block. All facts and figures were found by using Votewatch Europe, a source recommended

by the European Parliament.11 Records of public votes were analysed to build up a collection

of all publically available voting records between 1 July 2009 and 5 June 2014 (the complete

archive of motions for the most recent parliamentary term).

Development of the European Parliament

Beginning as the purely consultative body of the European Coal and Steel Community, the

Common Assembly (renamed “European Parliament” in 1962) was originally made up of

nominated representatives from national parliaments with little or no power, its only official

role being to “express European public opinion”.12

Unofficially however, it scrutinised legislation in a wide range of policy areas. Today it carries

on this duty in an official capacity, with greater powers of consultation and amendment. The

first direct elections to the European Parliament took place in 1979 and elections have been

8 Open Europe, The European Parliament: A failed experiment in pan-european democracy?, found at <http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/140513_European_Parliament_briefing.pdf> 9 ‘Brief History of the ECR Group’, European Conservatives and Reformists Group, found at <http://ecrgroup.eu/about-us/the-ecr-in-the-european-parliament/brief-history-of-the-ecr-group/> 10 N. Watt, ‘Labour rejects left's candidate for next European commission president’, The Guardian, 1st March 2014, found at <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/01/labour-european-commission-president-martin-schulz> N. Watt, ‘Labour opposes Jean-Claude Juncker as next European commission president’, The Guardian, 9th June 2014, found at <http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/09/labour-opposes-jean-claude-juncker-european-commission-president> 11 European Parliament / Plenary, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/home.html> To find the link, click on ‘More’ in the top right corner and see ‘Votewatch’ under the list of other sources. 12 The European Parliament: Historical Background, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_1.3.1.pdf> ‘The European Parliament’, Centre virtuel de la connaissance sur l'Europe, 2014, found at <http://www.cvce.eu/obj/european_parliament-en-ad6a0d57-08ef-427d-a715-f6e3bfaf775a.html> http://www.cvce.eu/obj/negotiations_on_the_ecsc_treaty-en-dde9a336-6df6-40f5-902a-417ecda702e0.html

7

repeated every five years since.13 In 1999, reforms introduced proportional representation to

the UK’s system of European Parliamentary elections, with seats allocated to parties relative

to their share of the vote. In the European Parliament itself, the number of seats per state is

designed to be ‘degressively proportional’, which means that ‘the more citizens a member

state has, the more seats it will get’.14 However, there is no precise mathematical formula

which is used to work this out, meaning that larger states get more MEPs, but never in

numbers reflective of the populations.

Today the European Parliament’s code states explicitly that a Member of the European

Parliament’s (MEP) job “is to represent your interests and those of your city or region in

Europe… by listening to people with local and national concerns.”15 Moreover, according to

the institution’s Vice President of Communications, the Parliament is supposed to be the

“citizens’ voice in the EU decision-making process.”16

Despite being directly elected, European Parliamentary elections have shown an unsettling

trend; a gradual decline in voter turnout over a number of decades (see Figure 2). This raises

concerns over the Parliament’s legitimacy (despite positive initial results, the most recent

election in 2014 failed to stem this decline in turnout).17

13 European Parliament / About Parliament, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/009cd2034d/In-the-past.html> 14 ‘Battle for seats: which countries will have to give up MEPs in 2014?’, European Parliament / News, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20130214STO05853/html/Battle-for-seats-which-countries-will-have-to-give-up-MEPs-in-2014> 15 ‘What do MEPs do?’, found at <http://www.europarl.org.uk/en/your_meps/what_do_they_do.html> 16 ‘European Parliament launches information campaign towards 2014 elections’, European Parliament News, 10th September 2013, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20130906IPR18827/html/European-Parliament-launches-information-campaign-towards-2014-elections> 17 European Parliament / About Parliament, <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/000cdcd9d4/Turnout-(1979-2009).html> European Parliament / Results of the 2014 European elections, 2014, found at <http://www.results-elections2014.eu/en/election-results-2014.html>

8

Figure 2: European Parliamentary Elections (1979 – 2014)18

Today the Parliament can approve, amend and reject laws in an increasing number of new

policy areas, including agriculture, justice and home affairs. It also has a veto over

international agreements such as the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment

Partnership with the USA.19

Since the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, MEPs can also approve and amend the long- and short-term

EU budgets. This is a highly controversial subject among British MEPs, with Labour and

Conservatives frequently rebelling against the European group whip to protect the UK

Rebate.20

Defenders of the current system such as Danny Alexander MP tend to stress instead that: “As

the European Parliament has grown in power and influence, the role of MEPs has become

increasingly important. That is why it is vital that we elect as many … people who we can trust

to fight Britain’s corner effectively.”21

18 Figures are EU-wide. European Parliament / About Parliament, <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/000cdcd9d4/Turnout-(1979-2009).html>. European Parliament / Results of the 2014 European elections, 2014, found at <http://www.results-elections2014.eu/en/election-results-2014.html>. 19 European Parliament / Legislative Observatory, ‘EU – US trade agreement, 6th September 2013, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/thematicnote.do?id=2052000&l=en> 20 ‘Multiannual financial framework for the years 2014-2020’, Votewatch Europe, found at <http://www.votewatch.eu/en/multiannual-financial-framework-for-the-years-2014-2020-interim-report-vote-resolution-as-a-whole-co.html#/%23%23vote-tabs-list-2> 21 Danny Alexander, ‘Danny Alexander: The European elections are crucial for British jobs and prosperity’, Liberal Democrats, found at <http://www.libdems.org.uk/danny_alexander_the_european_elections_are_crucial_for_british_jobs_and_prosperity>

62.059.0 58.4

56.7

49.5

45.543.0 42.5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014

% t

urn

ou

t

9

By contrast, Eurosceptics often argue that despite the increase in the influence of the

European Parliament, it still lacks real power. According to the leader of UKIP, Nigel Farage;

“It’s [still] the only parliament the world has ever invented that can’t initiate, propose or even

repeal legislation.”22

Britain’s declining influence in the European Parliament

Despite the ambitious rhetoric of some, even the UK delegation (the third largest, level with

Italy) has to form alliances to be able to block motions.23 With every stage of the EU’s

expansion, Britain’s influence has suffered a decline; today the UK has 73 MEPs out of 751.24

In 1979, Britain had 20 per cent of seats in the European Parliament; today it has only 10 per

cent. In relation to this, it is worth noting that a House of Commons report put the UK

population at 12 per cent of the EU population in 2013).25 The same House of Commons

report also stated that British administrators made up only 6 per cent of the administrative-

grade staff in the European Parliament in 2013.26

Figure 3 below demonstrates Britain’s decreasing share of the seats in the European

Parliament and its representation expressed as a percentage.

22 Nigel Farage, ‘Nigel Farage: Who are you?’, Channel 4, first aired 31st March 2014. 23 ‘MEPs by Member State and political group’, European Parliament / MEPs,<http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/crosstable.html> 24 The total number of MEPs has adjusted over time to accommodate new member states while keeping the Parliament a sensible size. The 2014 elections saw the reduction of the total from 766 to 751. ‘Battle for seats’, European Parliament / News, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20130214STO05853/html/Battle-for-seats-which-countries-will-have-to-give-up-MEPs-in-2014> 25 House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, The UK staff presence in the EU institutions: Second Report of Session 2013-14, 25th June 2013, found at <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmfaff/219/219.pdf> 26 House of Commons, The UK staff presence in the EU institutions, found at <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmfaff/219/219.pdf >

10

Figure 3: UK Representation in the European Parliament27

For comparison, Figure 4 illustrates representation of Eurozone countries (who have similar

monetary and economic concerns). The Eurozone, despite a slight dip, has recently increased

in size and has never held less than 50 per cent of the seats. It is worth noting that on every

enlargement, new member states are expected to join the Euro, this suggests that the

Eurozone share of the Parliament will grow perpetually relative to the UK’s share, as shown

by estimated 2025 figures.28 The graph begins at 1999 since this is the year that the Euro was

introduced as a paper currency.29

27 ‘Battle for seats’, European Parliament / News, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20130214STO05853/html/Battle-for-seats-which-countries-will-have-to-give-up-MEPs-in-2014> 28 ‘Who can join and when?’, European Commission, found at <http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/who_can_join/index_en.htm> 2020 figures are estimates, assuming total number of seats remains the same in the European Parliament and taking into account countries who explicitly state they will adopt the Euro by 2020. 29 ‘What is the euro area?’, European Commission, found at <http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/adoption/euro_area/index_en.htm>

81 81 81

87 87

78

72 73 73

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 (est.)

Nu

mb

er o

f U

K S

eats

in t

he

Euro

pea

n P

arlia

men

t

% S

har

e o

f U

K S

eats

in

th

e Eu

rop

ean

Par

liam

ent

% Share of UK Seats Number of UK Seats

11

Figure 4: Representation in the European Parliament (1999 – 2014)30

In addition, it is important to highlight how disproportionately MEPs are shared out among

the populations of the various member states. For countries with large populations such as

France and the UK, the number of voters per MEP approaches close to a million, while for

smaller nations such as Luxembourg, the number can be as few as 100,000. Table 2 below

shows the population per MEP in each member state. The number of voters per MEP for each

country was calculated by dividing the country’s population by the country’s number of MEPs.

This can be used as a measure of the relative influence an individual voter has across the

member states and shows the UK voter’s relative lack of influence.

30‘Number of Members per Member State’, European Parliament / About Parliament, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0005bfbc6b/Number-of-Members-per-Member-State.html> Eurozone figures are adapted for each period, accounting for expanding Euro membership.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 (estimate)

% S

har

e o

f Se

ats

in E

uro

pea

n P

arlia

men

t

Eurozone UK

12

Table 3: Number of MEPs per voter in each member state

Country Population31 MEPs32 Influence (Population per

MEP)

Malta 425,400 6 70,900

Luxembourg 549,700 6 91,617

Cyprus 858,000 6 143,000

Estonia 1,315,800 6 219,300

Latvia 2,001,500 8 250,187

Slovenia 2,061,100 8 257,637

Lithuania 2,943,500 11 267591

Croatia 4,246,700 11 386,064

Slovakia 5,415,900 13 416,608

Ireland 4,604,000 11 418,545

Finland 5,451,300 13 419,331

Bulgaria 7,245,700 17 426,218

Denmark 5,627,200 13 432,862

Hungary 9,879,000 21 470,429

Austria 8,507,800 18 472,656

Sweden 9,644,900 20 482,245

EU Average 18,122,029 27 486,102

Portugal 10,427,300 21 496,538

Czech Rep 10,512,400 21 500,590

Greece 10,992,600 21 523,457

Belgium 11,204,000 21 533,524

Romania 19,942,600 32 623,206

Netherlands 16,829,300 26 647,281

Poland 38,495,700 51 754,818

Italy 60,782,700 73 832,640

Germany 80,780,000 96 841,458

Spain 46,507,800 54 861,256

United Kingdom 64,308,300 73 880,936

France 65,856,600 74 889,954

31 Figures for population are taken from 1st January 2014. ‘EU28 population 507.4 million at 1 January 2014’, Eurostat News Release, found at <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/3-20112013-AP/EN/3-20112013-AP-EN.PDF> 32 ‘Texts Adopted: Composition of the European Parliament with a view to the 2014 elections’, European Parliament, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2013-0082+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN>

13

Table 4: Change in population per MEP up to 2020 in each member state

Country Population at

202033

Influence (Population per

MEP) at 2020

Per cent change in population per MEP 2014-2020

Malta 438,166 73,028 3.0

Luxembourg 632,529 105,422 15.1

Cyprus 890,982 148,497 3.8

Estonia 1,284,459 214,077 -2.4

Latvia 1,880,087 235,011 -6.1

Lithuania 2,671,108 242,828 -9.3

Slovenia 2,086,779 260,847 1.2

Croatia 4,198,876 381,716 -1.1

Bulgaria 6,975,188 410,305 -3.7

Slovakia 5,414,527 416,502 0.0

Ireland 4,610,198 419,109 0.1

Finland 5,618,852 432,219 3.1

Denmark 5,773,812 444,139 2.6

Hungary 9,799,790 466,657 -0.8

Portugal 10,139,999 482,857 -2.8

Austria 8,793,916 488,551 3.4

Czech Rep 10,644,858 506,898 1.3

Sweden 10,138,157 506,908 5.1

Greece 10,703,417 509,687 -2.6

Belgium 11,824,225 563,058 5.5

Romania 19,686,804 615,213 -1.3

Netherlands 17,132,291 658,934 1.8

Poland 38,390,693 752,759 -0.3

Germany 80,637,413 839,973 -0.2

Spain 45,794,180 848,040 -1.5

Italy 61,961,266 848,784 1.9

United Kingdom 66,693,272 913,606 3.7

France 67,658,927 914,310 2.7

It is worth noting that the United Kingdom’s population is one of the few in Europe that is

growing at a significant rate. Between 1 January 2011 and 1 January 2014, the UK’s population

increased by an average of 428,600 inhabitants per year, comparable only with France (on

average 292,600 per year), the only other member state to record growth of over 100,000

inhabitants per year.34 By 2020 the population of the UK is projected to have increased by

33 Eurostat, ‘Main scenario - Population on 1st January by sex and single year age’, found at <http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=proj_13npms&lang=en> 34 Eurostat, ‘Population on 1 Jan’, found at <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tps00001>

14

some 2.3 million. Given that the number of seats in the European Parliament has been capped

at 751, the UK cannot officially be allocated any more MEPs to accommodate its population

growth (to nearly a million inhabitants per MEP), a scenario that will result in a dramatic loss

of influence for individual voters in the UK, widening the so-called democratic deficit.35 By

contrast, several member states will record decreasing populations, notably Germany and

Spain. It is in these larger countries that the political effects of population change on the

European Parliament are likely to be most obvious as by 2020, Germany and Spain will have

risen above Italy in the table of influence, while the UK and France sink further. On these

projections, the UK will reach the bottom of this table by the mid-2030s.

Possible Solutions

A failure rate of 84 per cent for British MEPs trying to protect the UK’s interest shows that the

current system in the European Parliament is inadequate. It is very hard for British MEPs to

block laws because their share of the seats is simply too small to have a significant effect on

the outcome of the overall vote. The two largest pan-European groups are unabashedly

integrationist, so steering legislation is difficult.

Even when trying to build alliances, the UK tends to have interests that diverge from those of

the rest of the member states. This is demonstrated usefully in a report produced by Policy

Network and Votewatch Europe. The report shows that the Conservatives voted with the EPP

(their former partners) on 59 per cent of motions.36 In contrast, the Liberal Democrats were

loyal to their pan-European whip 96 per cent of the time.37

British MEPs are often stuck with a choice of two options: the first is to vote fruitlessly against

every proposal; the second is to try to influence things behind the scenes or vote with the

pan-European group, agreeing to measures that go against the national interest in an attempt

to win favour at a later date.

There is clearly a need for new safeguards within the voting process to prevent the particular

interests of member states from being sidelined. It is unreasonable to expect a member state

to have to comply fully with European rules that a majority of its MEPs voted against.

Renegotiation should look at this, and should look at ways of strengthening the say of national

parliaments in the decision making process. A successful renegotiation should ensure that

member states within the European Parliament aren’t continuously overruled.

A number of interesting ideas have been put forward to address this. During a recent

interview, former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw recommended: “going back to the system we

had before which worked perfectly satisfactorily, where the European Parliament was

composed of representatives of national parliaments.” London Mayor Boris Johnson agrees

with this view: “Instead of holding these ludicrous pseudo-elections… we should appoint the

35 ‘Battle for seats’, European Parliament / News, found at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20130214STO05853/html/Battle-for-seats-which-countries-will-have-to-give-up-MEPs-in-2014> 36 R. Thillaye, Policy Network, British Political Parties in Europe, 2 April 2014, p.16, found at <http://www.policy-network.net/publications/4616/British-Political-Parties-in-Europe> 37 Thillaye, British Political Parties in Europe, p. 10, <http://www.policy-network.net/publications/4616/British-Political-Parties-in-Europe>

15

British delegation of 73 from our already sizeable stock of parliamentarians.” The need for

greater powers for national parliaments in European decisions has even been acknowledged

by the European Commission in its latest strategic report.38

It’s too early to be prescriptive, but this research clearly strengthens the case for a form of

veto for member states or at least allowing national parliaments greater influence in the EU

decision making process.

38 European Commission, Strategic agenda for the Union in times of change, 23 June 2014, found at <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10919833/The-EUs-strategic-agenda-until-2020-leaked-document.html>