Mise en page 1 - VoteWatch Europe

Agreeing toDisagree

The voting records of EUMember States in theCouncil since 2009

VoteWatch Europe Annual ReportJuly 2012

Agreeing to Disagree

© 2012 VoteWatch Europe AISBL and VoteWatch CIC

�

This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

All Photos © European Union, 2004-2011 - The Council of the European Unionexcept microphones shot (above), Simon Hix(page 1) and series of numbers (page 4)

CONTENTS

01 FOREWORD02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY02 ABOUT VOTEWATCH EUROPE03 ACHIEVEMENTS 2011 - 201204 FINANCES05 POLICY FOCUS:

voting in the Council of MinistersIntroductionHow the Council legislative process worksWhat information can you find onvotewatch.eu?Which Council votes are included?Consensus versus controversyWinners and losersWhat were the divisive issues?Which coalitions were formed?

Dear friend,

In the first three years of its existence,VoteWatch has established itself as the 'go-to'source for information on the voting records ofMembers of the European Parliament. Throughour website, our publications, our public eventsand our media appearances we have reachedthousands of people in Brussels and beyond.

This year we are relaunching our website,www.votewatch.eu, with a completely newinterface, designed to make it even more user-friendly. The VoteMatch tool, which allows usersto compare their own political preferencesagainst those of MEPs, has been given greaterprominence. And for the first time we aremaking available in a searchable format thevoting records of Member States in the Councilof Ministers. Citizens, journalists, officials, privatesector stakeholders, NGOs and anyone elseinterested in the nuts and bolts of EU decision-making will now be able to see exactly howMember States voted on each item of legisla-tion - and how that compares to others.

The work does not stop here. Two years fromnow, in June 2014, Europe's voters will go tothe polls to elect a new European Parliament.

This will be followed by the nomination andconfirmation of a new European CommissionPresident and College of Commissioners. In thecurrent political climate, both events couldgenerate significant interest in both thevoting records and electoral promises of thecandidates.

Through our website and our other activities,VoteWatch will do everything it can to helpincrease awareness of the elections and toencourage participation. We are grateful toour sponsors, the Open Society Foundations,the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, Burson-Marsteller and White & Case, for making thispossible.

We look forward to working with you in the nextyear and beyond to promote better debates andgreater transparency in EU politics.

Best wishes,

FOREWORD

01The voting records of EU MemberStates in the Council since 2009

Dr Simon HixProfessor of European and Comparative Politics,London School of Economics and Political ScienceChair, VoteWatch Europe

02 Agreeing to Disagree

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ABOUT VOTEWATCH EUROPE

Since 2009 VoteWatch Europe has reportedevery six months on voting trends in theEuropean Parliament. This, our 2012annual report, is the first to look at votingtrends in the Council of the EuropeanUnion (‘the Council of Ministers’ or ‘theCouncil’). In the most comprehensive project of its kind todate, VoteWatch has collected data on howgovernment representatives of the 27 MemberStates voted in the Council from July 2009 tothe present.

For the first time ever, European citizens andothers interested in EU decision-making willnow be able to scrutinise the voting records ofboth branches of the EU legislature, whosedecisions have a direct impact on over 500million citizens.

Key findings:Despite the extension of qualified majorityvoting under the Lisbon Treaty, most Councildecisions continue to be taken by unanimity.Of all decisions taken under the qualifiedmajority voting rule since 2009, 65% wereadopted unanimously.Instead of voting against, Member Statesoften make 'formal statements' to signaltheir reservations about Council decisions.

Based on the number of items of legislationadopted following a formal vote, economic,environmental, transport and budget issueshave been top of the Council’s agenda in the last three years.Agriculture, environment, regional development and budget are the policyareas where Member States disagree themost. Of the 27 EU governments, the UnitedKingdom voted against the majority mostoften, whereas France and Lithuania alwaysvoted with the majority. The UnitedKingdom and Germany are the countrieswhich voted against each other most often.

All Council voting data is available onVoteWatch’s new-look website, which has beencompletely redesigned for this purpose:www.votewatch.eu.

New voting data is added as and when it ismade available by the Council secretariat. AllCouncil data is collected and processedmanually; errors may therefore occur. Any errorswill be corrected as soon as we are made awareof them.

VoteWatch Europe is an independentorganisation set up to promote betterdebates and greater transparency in EUdecision-making by providing easy accessto, and analysis of, the political decisionsand activities of the European Parliamentand the EU Council of Ministers. VoteWatchuses the EU Institutions' own attendance,voting and activity data to give a full over-view of MEP and Member State activities.VoteWatch publishes regular reports andnewsletters showing how MEPs and ministersvoted on key items of EU legislation and

organises regular debriefings on the plenarysessions of the European Parliament.

In addition to our regular, free-to-the-publicwork we also offer a number of paid services,such as trainings and tailor-made analyses ofvoting behaviour. The revenue from these activi-ties helps us maintain our core services. If youare interested in any of our services pleasecontact the VoteWatch team: [email protected].

We are a Community Interest Company (CIC)registered in the UK and an international not-for-profit association (AISBL/IVZW) registered inBelgium.


BOARD

STAFF

ACHIEVEMENTS 2011 - 2012

CHAIR: Dr Simon Hix (co-founder) Professor of European and Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Fellow of the British Academy.

VICE CHAIR:

Dr Sara Hagemann (co-founder)Lecturer in EU politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

A fully redesigned website with a more user-friendly interface.

The introduction of Council of Ministers voting records on our website, dating back to 2009.

A 15% increase in average monthly website traffic, with a spike of over 50.000 at the height ofthe public debate on the ACTA anti-counterfeiting treaty; average visit time of over 4 minutes -much higher than the internet average.

A campaign in support of the proposal by Andrew Duff MEP to make roll-call voting in EuropeanParliament committees mandatory on final legislative votes.

Publication of our annual report “Who holds the power in the European Parliament” in July 2011,launched at a public event with an all-MEP panel, including EP Vice-President McMillan-Scott.

Publication of a special report “The voting records of the declared candidates for EP President” inDecember 2011, in conjunction with European Voice.

Co-organisation, with European Voice, of the European Parliament Presidential debate in January2012, with over 500 attendees.

Widespread media coverage, including several articles in European Voice and many references innational and international media.

MEMBERS:Dr Abdul G. Noury (co-founder) Associate Professor of Political Economy at New York University (NYU-AD).

Sir Julian PriestleyChairman of the Board of Directors of EPPA(European Public Policy Advisers), formerSecretary-General of the European Parliament.

Ignasi GuardansCEO and co-founder of CUMEDIAE - Culture & Media Agency Europe AISBL, former Memberof the European Parliament (Spain, ALDE).

Doru Frantescu (co-founder) Policy director. Has worked extensively in civil society in Bucharest and Brussels. Expert in e-democracy tools.

Michiel van HultenManaging director. Former Council official, former Member of the European Parliament(the Netherlands, S&D).

Joan Manuel Lanfranco Pari Policy and events assistant, former MEP assistant.

Our achievements in the last 12 months include the following:


The introduction of new monthly post-Strasbourg European Parliament plenary debriefing sessionsat the Brussels Press Club.

A monthly newsletter sent to over 2.000 readers.

Participation (as the only EU-level NGO) in a Washington DC parliamentary conference on achie-ving greater transparency in legislatures.

Links to our website from the new European Parliament website and the website of the DanishPresidency of the EU Council of Ministers.

Renewed funding from the Open Society Institute and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust;continued in-kind sponsorship from Burson-Marsteller and White & Case.

Two new Board members: former European Parliament Secretary-General Sir Julian Priestley andformer Spanish ALDE MEP Ignasi Guardans.

The appointment of former Dutch Socialist MEP Michiel van Hulten as managing director.

New shared office space at the European Policy Centre in the Résidence Palace, the Brussels inter-national media hub.

The introduction of paid-for services designed to help pay for our core activities.

Registration in the EU Transparency Register, putting us on a par with other transparency organi-sations (registration number 56936517675-11).

Our achievements in the last 12 months (continued):

FINANCESOur budget for 2011 - 2012 amounted to justunder 280.000 euros. This included 45.000euros carried over from the previous year and205.000 euros in new grants (120.000 eurosfrom the Open Society Foundations and 85.000from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust), aswell as some income from paid services anddonations. We received generous in-kind supportfrom the Centre for European Policy Studies(office accommodation), Burson-Marsteller (PRsupport) and White & Case (legal advice).

Approximately 45% of our expenditure was onpersonnel costs. 35% went to IT, includingwebsite redesign, hosting and maintenance,software development and data collection. Theremaining 20% was spent on office rental (as of1 February 2012 we sublet a shared office at theEuropean Policy Centre), office expenses andVAT payments (we are registered for VAT inthe UK).

POLICY FOCUS: VOTING IN THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS


Introduction

VoteWatch was launched in 2009 to serveas an information source in the context ofthe European Parliament (EP) electionstaking place that year.

Since then, it has become the go-to source ofinformation for citizens, journalists, NGOs, interestgroups, politicians, civil servants, and anyoneelse interested in the policy positions, votingrecords and coalition formation trends ofMembers of the European Parliament (MEPs),European political groups and EP national partydelegations. In the run-up to the EuropeanParliament elections of 2014, the VoteWatchwebsite has been revamped to make this infor-mation even easier to access and understand.Using a one-stop-shop search box, users of thewebsite can browse voting data by MEP,nationality, key word or specific vote to find theinformation they need. They can also discoverwhich MEP's voting record most closely matchestheir own political preferences by using theVoteMatch tool.

From now on, VoteWatch will also publishdetails of the voting records of Member States inthe Council of the European Union (‘the Councilof Ministers’ or ‘the Council’) on its website. Forthe first time ever, the European public will beable to monitor the votes of MEPs and ministers

on the same item of legislation in both EU legis-lative chambers. Our team has collected data onthe voting records of all 27 EU Member Stategovernments in the Council from July 2009 tothe present. The data is continuously updated.

It should be noted that the Council currentlyreleases information only on final votes, atministerial level, on legislative and budgetaryissues. For this reason the data presented onvotewatch.eu is limited to these decisions. Thisreport covers the period from July 2009 toJune 2012 and includes 343 pieces of legislationadopted by a formal vote.

VoteWatch publishes the Council informationon its website as soon as it becomes available. Itis collected manually from the Council website(minutes, fiches de vote and summaries oflegislative acts) and PreLex. As the Council doesnot publish all of this information immediatelyfollowing the vote, it can take some time for fullinformation on a vote to be available on ourwebsite.

We hope the Council will soon move to publishvoting data in close to real time in a machine-readable format, as is already happening atthe European Parliament, and will continuediscussions with the Council secretariat to helpmake this possible.

As long as votes are processed manually, errorsmay occur. We will correct any errors as soon aswe are made aware of them.

How does the Council legislativeprocess work?

Decision-making in the Council is a carefullycontrolled but complicated affair. Indeed, 'theCouncil' is in reality not one group of people. Itmeets in ten different configurations, accordingto policy area. Each Council formation has toadopt legislation based on the applicablelegal basis of the policy proposal in question.The Commission decides which of the decision-

making procedures should apply to a proposalbefore presenting it to the Council for negotiation,based on the legal framework as stipulated inthe Treaties.

When a policy proposal has been initiatedand presented to the Council, it is usually firstdiscussed in specialised working groups, whereofficials from the Member States and theCommission meet. Gradually, proposals advancethrough the preparatory bodies closer to theCouncil. The most senior of the preparatory


committees are the Committees of PermanentRepresentatives (COREPER I and II) which sendproposals to the Council as either ‘A’ or ‘B’ agendapoints. In descriptions of Council decision-making1) it has been explained that at this stage‘A’ points have normally already been agreedupon and are therefore accepted without muchdiscussion in the Council. The more controver-sial agenda items are categorised as ‘B’ points.

When voting takes place, different rules applydepending on the policy area: unanimity isapplied to certain matters affecting the mem-bers’ fundamental sovereignty whereas otherdecisions are taken by a weighted qualifiedmajority (QMV) system. The key feature of thelatter is that all members have a seat but theirrespective number of votes varies, reflecting thedifferences in population shares.

Despite the complex voting system, the Councildoes not always vote in the formal sense of rai-sing hands. A proposal can be declared adoptedby the chairperson when she or he knows thatthere is a sufficient majority or unanimity in theCouncil. If the Council is not unanimous, thechairperson takes into account Member States’

positions and simply counts whether enoughMember States are on board to meet the thres-hold. In this way, it can be argued that althoughthe votes are not explicitly cast, decisions arestill made in ‘the shadow of the vote’2). There isone important difference between the unanimityand QMV systems, however. When the decisionrule is unanimity, abstentions do not count asvotes against a proposal. This means that deci-sions can be taken with only some countriesactually voting in favour, as long as no countryactively opposes it.

The opposite is true for QMV, where the highthreshold for a proposal to be adopted meansthat abstentions are in practice equivalent to‘no’ votes. Furthermore, if a proposal is accepted,members who wish to oppose, abstain or whohave serious concerns about the decision canrecord their views officially by making formalstatements. Formal statements are usuallymade immediately after a decision has beenadopted, and are either included directly in theminutes of the meeting or posted separately onthe Council website.

What information can you findon votewatch.eu?

The VoteWatch website shows all legislationpassed by the Council; how each governmenthas voted on each piece of legislation; whovoted on behalf of that government; as well asmore detailed information about the dossier(Council configurations in which it was debatedand voted on, number of readings, workinggroups involved in preparing the legislation,etc.)

Secondly, the data is aggregated to producestatistics on coalition patterns between

Member States, to compare, pair-wise, howfrequently governments voted against eachother, and whether or not individual governmentsoften find themselves in a minority.

Thirdly, the Council voting data is compared tovotes on the same piece of legislation in theEuropean Parliament, which allows the user tosee, for example, to what extent the policypreferences of a government were followed byMEPs from the governing party or coalition.

This report sets out a number of general trendswhich emerge when analysing the votes thattook place between July 2009 and June 2012. Forupdated statistics, please visit our website.

1. E.g. . Hagemann, Sara (2008) ‘Voting, Statements and Coalition-Building in the Council from 1999 to 2006’ in Unveiling the Council:Games Governments Play in Brussels, Helen Wallace and DanielNaurin (eds.) (2008), London/Palgrave Macmillan; Hayes-Renshaw,Fiona and Helen Wallace (2006), The Council of Ministers,Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

2. Golub, Jonathan. 1999. “In the Shadow of the Vote? Decision-making in the European Community. "International Organization53:733–64.

Fig 1NUMBER OF VOTES IN COUNCIL PER POLICY AREA(July 2009-June 2012)


Which Council votes are included?

The VoteWatch team has collected data coveringall decisions of the Council adopted since July2009 (to coincide with the start of the currentEP term). The findings presented in the followingsections cover the votes from July 2009 to June

2012. The Council has released information on343 pieces of legislation on which votes werecast during this period3. Most of these votes fallin the areas of economic and monetary affairs,environment and public health, transport andtourism and budget.

Figure 1 shows how many dossiers the Councilvoted on in each policy area.

3. The data covers the files voted in the ordinary legislative procedure,consultation and consent (all procedures in which the EuropeanParliament is taking part, though in different ways). However, dueto the impossibility of automating the collection of the data andthe Council’s delays in publishing information, it is possible thatsome decisions made by the governments in more recent Councilmeetings are not yet included in the VoteWatch dataset. Weupdate all data – both from the European Parliament and theCouncil – as soon as it becomes available from the institutions.

Economic & monetary affairsEnvironment & public healthTransport & tourismBudgetCivil liberties, justice & home affairsAgricultureJuridical affairsIndustry, research & energyInternational trade

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

01

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Internal market & consumer protectionEmployment & social affairsFisheriesRegional developmentForeign & security policyDevelopmentConstitutional and inter-institutional affairsCulture & education

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17


Consensus versus controversy

Many decisions in the Council are adopted byunanimity even when only a majority is required,as Member States prefer to shape the policy insuch a way that every participant can agreewith the final output - or at least appear to do

so. Of the 343 proposals put to the vote duringthe July 2009 – June 2012 period, 309 were votedon using the qualified majority rule (QMV)4,while the other 34 required unanimity.

Figure 2 shows how often each voting rule wasapplied.

Fig 2WHICH VOTING RULE FORMALLY APPLIED? (July 2009-June 2012)

90% Qualified majority

10%Unanimity

Fig 3ACTUAL USE OF QUALIFIED MAJORITY RULE IN THE COUNCIL(JULY 2009 - JUNE 2012)

However, within the set of 309 where QMV wasapplicable, 65% of the decisions were stilladopted unanimously, while 35% of the votessaw one or more Member States abstain oroppose the proposal.

Figure 3 shows how often unanimity was usedeven though the formal decision rule was QMV.

4. Qualified Majority is reached in the Council if at least a simplemajority of Member States (currently 14), holding at least 255 votes(out of 345) vote in favour.

65% QMV rule but unanimously adopted

35%QMV rule anddisagreement

recorded


Looking further into these trends, the datashows that some policy areas have proved morecontroversial than others.

Figure 4 shows how consensual each policy areahas been in the formal voting process:

As explained above, governments have thepossibility to state their positions on a policyproposal in formal statements made at the endof the vote. Previous research has shown thatMember States increasingly use this possibilityto voice reservations or to 'clarify' their decision

to support, oppose or abstain on legislation.These statements have been found to serveeither as a ‘signalling tool’ to domesticaudiences, or as a formal record of negotiationdetails, with a view to coming negotiations orimplementation processes5.

Fig 4VOTES CAST IN FAVOUR AS A % OF ALL POSSIBLE VOTES IN FAVOUR (July 2009 - June 2012)

International tradeIndustry, research & energyEconomic & monetary affairsForeign & security policyFisheriesDevelopmentCulture & educationCivil liberties, justice & home affairsJuridical affairs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Internal market & consumer protectionOverallEmployment & social affairsTransport & tourismConstitutional and inter-institutional affairsRegional developmentBudgetAgricultureEnvironment & public health

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

5. cf. Hagemann, Sara (2008) ‘Voting, Statements and Coalition-Building in the Council from 1999 to 2006’ in Unveiling the Council:Games Governments Play in Brussels, Helen Wallace and DanielNaurin (eds.) (2008), London/Palgrave Macmillan; Hagemann, Saraand Julia De Clerk-Sachsse. 2007. “Old Rules, New Game: Decision-Making in the Council of Ministers after 2004”. Special Report,Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels.

100

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

921 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18


Figure 5 shows the ratio between votes andformal statements in each policy area, and indi-cates that actual contest through formal votingonly constitutes the tip of the iceberg: onaverage, governments voice concerns about apolicy proposal 1.2 times per legislative actadopted by the Council. In the fields of envi-ronment, regional development, agriculture and

the internal market, this is even higher. Inthose areas, Member States submitted formalstatements indicating disagreement with theproposal (either in whole or in parts) 4.1, 1.7, 1.5and 1.4 times per legislative act respectively. Inreality policy proposals may therefore be morecontested than would appear, despite beingreported as ‘unanimously agreed’.

Fig 5NUMBER OF FORMAL STATEMENTS PER ACT ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL (July 2009 - June 2012)

Environment & public healthRegional developmentAgricultureInternal market & consumer protectionIndustry, research & energyTransport & tourismAverage for all actsEmployment & social affairsEconomic & monetary affairs

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Internal market & consumer protectionFisheriesForeign & security policyJuridical affairsInternational tradeBudgetConstitutional and inter-institutional affairsCulture & educationDevelopment

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18


Fig 6VOTES CAST IN FAVOUR BY EACH MEMBER STATE AS A % OF ALL POSSIBLE VOTES IN FAVOUR(July 2009 - June 2012)

FranceLithuaniaCyprusGreeceFinlandLatviaEstoniaLuxembourgBelgium

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

HungaryMalta SlovakiaRomaniaSloveniaSpainSwedenBulgariaCzech Republic

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

ItalyIrelandPolandPortugalNetherlandDenmarkAustriaGermanyUnited Kingdom

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

100

95

90

85

801 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

125 26 27

Winners and losersSometimes one or several Member States findthemselves defending a position that is so farremoved from the emerging consensus that acompromise proves impossible. Various anecdotesand hypotheses about which Member Statesare the most ‘difficult ones’ circulate amongpractitioners, the media and analysts. We knowfrom previous investigations6 that no distinctpatterns exist with regards to a government’slikelihood of formally opposing a proposal:while large Member States were the ones mostlikely to oppose legislation before the 2004 EUenlargement, this changed to a group ofmedium-sized members after May 2004. But nofurther characteristics – be it the geographicallocation, party political profiles or position asbudget recipients/contributors, etc. – servedto predict the choice of either supporting oropposing legislation.

When looking at the aggregate data presentedin this report, similar conclusions emerge. Whilewe do see some consistency in the behaviour ofa number of Member States, these trends do notpoint to a uniform pattern of trans-nationalmotivations for either opposing or supportingCouncil policies.

The Member State which voted against themajority most often is the United Kingdom. TheUK had a minority position in one out of tenvotes. Germany, Austria, Denmark and theNetherlands follow suit. At the other end, wefound that France and Lithuania always votedwith the majority, followed by Cyprus, Greece,Finland and Latvia.

Figure 6 shows how often each Member Statevoted with the majority.

6. Hagemann, Sara and Julia De Clerk-Sachsse. 2007. “Old Rules, NewGame: Decision-Making in the Council of Ministers after 2004”.Special Report, Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels.


While the percentages above are based on allvotes cast in the Council, including those whereunanimity was reached, if we base calculationsstrictly on the set of votes where real contro-versy was recorded at the moment of the vote(at least one Member State abstained or votedagainst), the figures become more instructive(there are 108 such votes).

Figure 7 shows how often each of the 27 MemberStates disagreed with the majority out of thevotes where some competition was recorded.

Figure 8 shows the number of reservationsexpressed through votes and through formalstatements for each of the Member States. Herewe find that United Kingdom, the Netherlandsand Germany submitted the most statements,while Slovakia, Romania and Luxembourg made

least use of this option. Newer Member States(with the exception of Poland) are less likelythan older EU Members to submit statementswhen voting, as shown in the graph below.

Fig 7% OF ALL NON-UNANIMOUS VOTES IN WHICH EACH MEMBER STATE WAS IN THE MINORITY(when at least one MS abstained or voted against, 108 votes)

United KingdomAustriaGermanyDenmarkNetherlandsPortugalPolandIrelandBulgaria

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Czech RepublicItalySwedenRomaniaSloveniaSpainBelgiumHungaryMalta

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Slovakia EstoniaLuxembourgFinlandLatvia GreeceCyprusFranceLithuania

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

125 26 27


Fig 8% OF VOTES PER MEMBER STATE FOR WHICH RESERVATIONS AND FORMAL STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED(July 2009 -June 2012)

United KingdomNetherlandsGermanyItalySwedenIrelandAustriaPortugalPoland

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SpainDenmarkFinlandFranceMaltaCzech RepublicGreeceBulgariaLatvia

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

SloveniaBelgiumLithuaniaCyprusEstoniaHungaryLuxembourgRomaniaSlovakia

% reservations (votes against + abstentions)% statements

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

10

8

6

4

2

01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

125 26 27


What were the divisive issues?

AgriculturePerhaps not surprisingly, various provisions ofthe Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) areamong the most contentious issues in theCouncil, as this is where around 40% of the EUfunding goes. For example, when it came tovoting on the Commission’s Proposal for aCouncil Regulation on amending the financingof the CAP as regards food distribution to themost deprived persons in the Community7,adopted in December 2011, three governmentsvoted against: the United Kingdom, Denmarkand Sweden, while the Czech Republic abstained.Sweden explained its disagreement in an officialstatement, saying that "Sweden is of the opinionthat the new proposal and the declaration by theCommission do not present enough guaranteesthat the program for distribution of food productsto the most deprived persons in the Union,will end definitely on the 31st of December 2013,and that the future Multi-Annual FinancialFramework 2014 – 2020 will be amendedaccordingly. Therefore Sweden cannot supportthis proposal and intends to vote against it."

Germany and France voted in favour, but releaseda joint statement to nuance their position: "[…]Recognizing the importance of the work ofcharity organizations in Member States usingthe current program, France and Germany agreeto continue the program for a transition periodending definitely on 31 December 2013 in orderto allow these organizations to take intoaccount this new situation. In this context,France and Germany welcome the on-goingexchange of views between their charity organi-zations. However, given the discussion in theCouncil, France and Germany consider that theconditions are not met for a proposal of a newprogram for a period post 2013 to be presentedby the Commission and adopted by the Council.This is why both countries can’t agree with legaland financial proposals by the Commission ofsuch a program in the future."

Sometimes countries actually use statements toexpress their support for a decision. In this case,the Belgian, Bulgarian, Greek, Spanish,

Hungarian, Italian, Lithuanian, Luxembourg,Latvian, Maltese, Portuguese, Romanian andSlovenian delegations issued a joint statementexpressing their full support for the Councildecision: "Over the last 25 years, the foodprogram for the most deprived persons of theEuropean Union has allowed to make visible theEuropean solidarity among more than 18 millionpersons in situation of poverty in 20 MemberStates. The Member States that support thisstatement consider that the European Unionshould keep the solidarity with the neediest andwith that aim declare that: They welcome thecontinuity of the program in 2012 and 2013under the Common Agricultural Policy. It isnecessary to ensure the future continuity of thedistribution program in the context of thefinancial perspectives for the period 2014-2020,as an element for fighting poverty and socialexclusion within the framework of the EU 2020Strategy."

The United Kingdom is the country whichdisagrees most with EU agriculture policy. Outof the 25 votes cast in this area, the UK votedagainst once and abstained four times (whilevoting in favour on the remaining 20). Ireland,Germany, Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlandsand Poland also voted against the majorityseveral times. Full statistics on agriculture votes can be accessed here:www.votewatch.eu/en/council-minority-votes-Agriculture.html

EU budgetNot surprisingly, the EU budget is anothercontentious area. Austria, the UK and Swedenvoted differently from the majority most often,followed by the Netherlands, Poland andPortugal.

For example, in March 2011 the Council voted ona proposal by the European Commission to use183 million EUR of its EU solidarity fund to dealwith the flooding that had taken place theprevious year in some of the countries in Centraland Eastern Europe (Poland, Slovakia, the CzechRepublic, Hungary, Romania and the candidatecountry Croatia)8. The proposal was adopted inthe Council by the narrowest of margins, 257

7. Full official name of the act is: “Proposal for a Council Regulationamending Regulation (EC) no 1290/2005 on the financing of thecommon agricultural policy and Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMORegulation) as regards food distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community”.

8. Draft amending budget n° 1 to the general budget for 2011 -Statement of expenditure by Section - Section III - Commission,Adoption of the Council's position.


votes (255 being the minimum required for aqualified majority). Austria, Belgium, Finland,Latvia and Sweden voted against, while the UK,Portugal and Slovenia abstained. Interestingly,during the vote on the same subject in theParliament, almost all MEPs from the governingparties in these Member States supported theCommission’s proposal. Full statistics on votes on budget can be accessed here:www.votewatch.eu/en/council-minority-votes-Budget.html

Civil liberties, justice and home affairsOn civil liberties, justice and home affairs, thegovernments of the UK, Ireland and Maltaoccasionally had reservations with regard tosome of the provisions being passed in theCouncil. For example, in March 2011 the Counciladopted the Regulation on the creation of animmigration liaison officers network. The UKand Ireland abstained, saying that they wouldtake part in this Regulation only to the extentthat it did not build on the Schengen acquis(which doesn't apply to them). Full statistics on the votes on civil liberties, justice and home affairs can be accessed here: www.votewatch.eu/en/council-minority-votes-Civil-liberties-justice-home-affairs.html

EnvironmentOn environment and public health, Denmark isclearly the Member State which has the leastreconcilable position. Out of a total of 36votes, Denmark voted three times against andabstained four times. For example, in September2011 Denmark was the only Member State tovote against the Proposal for a Directive ofthe European Parliament and of the Councilamending Directive 97/68/EC as regards theprovisions for engines placed on the marketunder the flexibility scheme.

In an official statement the Danish governmentexplained its position as follows: "Denmarkcannot accept an agreement at first reading toincrease the flexibility scheme from the present20 % to 37.5 %. Such an increase would meanthat an additional number of engines from non-road machinery which comply with old emission

limits could continue to be placed on themarket when new more stringent limit valuesare introduced. The Member States are finding itdifficult to observe the limits for air quality andthe proposal would increase the discharge ofNOx and particulates. For this reason, Denmarkrejects the proposal."

Regional developmentOn regional development issues, some of thenew EU Member States were in the minority acouple of times, but so were Germany and theUnited Kingdom. For example, in June 2010 theCouncil adopted, by a narrow margin (263 votesin favour), the Proposal for a Regulation ofthe European Parliament and of the Councilamending Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006concerning general provisions on the EuropeanRegional Development Fund, the EuropeanSocial Fund and the Cohesion Fund as regardssimplification of certain requirements and asregards certain provisions relating to financialmanagement. Six Member States abstained: theCzech Republic, the United Kingdom, Malta,Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia.

In a joint statement, Cyprus, the Czech Republic,Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia andSlovenia explained their positions saying, interalia, that “since in the 2007-2013 period theCohesion Fund may also contribute to measuresin the field of energy efficiency and renewableenergies, and not just through large-scaleinfrastructure investments, the above mentionedMember States oppose limiting the use of suchfinancial engineering instruments to thestructural funds. It should be stressed that, onthe basis of the current regulations, there are nosubstantial reasons why the Cohesion Fundshould not be allowed to also use financialengineering instruments for an objective it isalready contributing to. Furthermore, suchlimitation is also unfair to countries whereenergy efficiency measures are primarily financedfrom the Cohesion Fund and not the ERDF,which, at the current stage of implementationof the NSRF, can no longer be corrected”.


Which coalitions were formed?

In the period under scrutiny, there is a single pairof countries who have always voted on the sameside: France and Lithuania. These two countriesare also the only ones to have agreed to allitems put to an official vote in the Council. The

United Kingdom and Germany are the MemberStates which voted against each other mostoften (15% of times). Full statistics on coalition partners is available at:www.votewatch.eu/en/council-compare-votes.html

For further information:

Votewatch Europe AISBLc/o European Policy Centre4th floor, Résidence Palace,155 Rue de la Loi1040 BrusselsBelgium

VoteWatch CICc/o European Institute, LSEHoughton StreetLondon WC2A 2AEUnited Kingdom

[email protected]/VoteWatchEurope

VoteWatch.eu is sponsored by:

Documents

Mise en page 1 - VoteWatch Europe