What do MEPs actually do

ewan whose army

Being from the UK you never really hear much about MEPs at all, which is partially to blame for the pathetic turnout for EU elections over there.

I am just wondering what they really do, why should I vote in May for them?

Scofflaw

ewan whose army wrote: »

Being from the UK you never really hear much about MEPs at all, which is partially to blame for the pathetic turnout for EU elections over there.

I am just wondering what they really do, why should I vote in May for them?

To quote the Parliament:

The European Parliament has been steadily gaining power over recent decades and now acts as a co-legislator for nearly all EU law. Together with the Council, the Parliament adopts or amends proposals from the Commission. Parliament also supervises the work of the Commission and adopts the European Union's budget.

The EP started life as a genuine "talking shop", with MEPs who were appointed by national governments, and who could only advise the Council and Commission on legislation.

Over the years, though, the treaties have steadily granted the Parliament more powers over legislation, and following Lisbon it has legislative powers equal to the Council in most areas of EU competence.

The actual legislative procedure is a convoluted as that of most parliaments, but in outline:

1. the Commission issues a proposal for legislation, either on its own initiative, at the request of one of the institutions (including the Parliament), or on foot of a Citizens' Initiative.
   
2. the proposal is studied by the relevant EP Committee, which draws up a report with amendments to the Commission proposal. The amendments and report are adopted in committee by simple majority. The report can also recommend the withdrawal of the legislation.
   
3. the report is discussed and voted on by the EP in plenary (full Parliament), again by simple majority. The position adopted is the "1st reading position of the Parliament".
   
4. the legislation now goes to the Council (member state ministers). They can accept the Parliament's position, in which case the legislation is now passed, or they can make their own amendments and send it back to the Parliament for a second reading. The position adopted is the "1st reading position of the Council".
   
5. the Parliament can accept, reject, or amend the Council's position. If it rejects it, that's that, the legislation has been rejected. If it accepts the EP position, then the legislation has passed. If it amends the legislation, then it goes back to the Council for a 2nd reading - but amendments at this stage are minimal, usually either restoring Parliament's previous amendments that the Council rejected, or reflecting a compromise position with the Council. The position adopted is the "2nd reading position of the Parliament".
   
6. Council can accept or reject the Parliament's position. If it accepts, the legislation is passed. If it rejects, then a Conciliation Committee is convened. The position adopted is the "2nd reading position of the Council".
   
7. a Conciliation Committee consists of equal numbers of MEP and Council representatives. It tries to create a compromise position acceptable to both houses. If it cannot do so, the legislation has failed. If it can find an acceptable compromise, the compromise text is sent to the Parliament and the Council for a 3rd reading.
   
8. Both the Parliament and the Council vote on the proposed text, without any amendment. If they both accept it, the legislation is passed - if either reject it, the legislation has failed.

You could view the EU legislative process in three parts - initiation, consideration, and negotiation. #1 is initiation, and the Commission does its own consultations there before ever issuing a proposal.

2-4 are the consideration phase, where the Parliament and the Council come to their own conclusions about the proposal, and propose their own preferred amendments.

5-8 are the negotiation phase, where differences between the Council and Parliament positions get resolved through a variety of mechanisms. As well as the formal mechanisms, there are also informal discussions between the Council and the Parliament, usually mediated by the Commission, called 'trialogues'. The negotiations can take place earlier, and tend to take place in parallel the whole way through.

Taking for example the recent Tobacco Products Directive, using the steps above:

• 1. the Commission adopted a proposal with pretty stringent regulation in December 2012.
  
• 2. the EP ENVI Committee adopted its position on the 10th June 2013. This accepted some of the Commission proposal (such as banning certain flavourings), but made several amendments, such as increasing health warnings to 75% of the package and adding that e-cigarettes should be available outside pharmacies as non-medical products.
  
• 2a. the Council issued a press release on the 21st June 2013. Their position preferred reducing packaging warnings to 65%, and stated that e-cigarettes should only be considered as non-medical products below a certain nicotine threshold.
  
• 3. the Parliament adopted its report in October 2013, and gave one of its MEPs a negotiating mandate to go to trialogue with the Council. The Parliament's position on e-cigarettes was:
  

  E-cigarettes should be regulated, but not be subject to the same rules as medicinal products unless they are presented as having curative or preventive properties. Those for which no such claims are made should contain no more than 30mg/ml of nicotine, should carry health warnings and should not be sold to anyone under 18 years old. Manufacturers and importers would also have to supply the competent authorities with a list of all the ingredients that they contain. Finally, e-cigarettes would be subject to the same advertising restrictions as tobacco products.

• 3a. Initially, there seemed little chance of agreement. A Commission compromise proposal from the trialogues - that is, a possible compromise between the two sides that the Commission thought might get adopted - was leaked in early December 2013. It was considered "draconian" by the vaping community, with the emphasis again on e-cigarettes qualifying as a medical product, and banning both tobacco flavouring and refillable cartridges.
  
• 4. on 18th December 2013, the Council approved the trialogue compromise with the Parliament, and what emerged was that e-cigarettes would be regulated as medical products only above 20mg/ml nicotine, tobacco flavouring was allowed, and the Commission to report on the health aspects of refillable cartridges within two years from the entry into force of the Directive.

The general view is that the Parliament did a reasonable job of sticking to its guns, and was bolstered in doing so by strong evidence of public support, particularly from the vaping community. The public debate was largely about whether vaping really helps stop people smoking, and/or whether it acts as a gateway to smoking. Currently, e-cigarette manufacturers are able to advertise their products the way cigarettes used to be advertised, and while they don't have the same health risks as tobacco, they do contain the same highly addictive drug.

So there you have it - the tl;dr version is that the Parliament amends and can reject legislation, so the point of voting for an MEP is the same as voting for an MP, within the bounds of the EU's competences. At least in theory, a vote this year also helps determine who heads the Commission, but nobody's exactly certain how that will work out.

More cynically, one can make the point that while you may not see the point in the Parliament, lobbyists evidently do. Oddly, though, it's common to describe the Parliament as powerless at the same time as condemning it as a hotbed of lobbyists. The lobbyists aren't there for the laughs, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

touts

Some MEPs do more than others. One way to judge it is to look at their voting record (i.e. actually turning up for work, not just clockling in and then heading off for the day as some former Irish MEPs were caught doing in the past). http://www.votewatch.eu/en/voting-statistics.html. Some Irish MEPs are very good at turning up for votes. Some are just shockingly bad. We only have 12 out of 764 MEPs in the parliament so we need every one in there fighting for our interests.

Scofflaw

touts wrote: »

Some MEPs do more than others. One way to judge it is to look at their voting record (i.e. actually turning up for work, not just clockling in and then heading off for the day as some former Irish MEPs were caught doing in the past). http://www.votewatch.eu/en/voting-statistics.html. Some Irish MEPs are very good at turning up for votes. Some are just shockingly bad. We only have 12 out of 764 MEPs in the parliament so we need every one in there fighting for our interests.

To be fair, unless there are specifically national interests at stake, which is rare, you're better off considering all MEPs as "your" representatives. In particular, the MEPs to hit on a given topic are the ones on the Committee, and at the stage of the Committee report (#2 above) rather than waiting for the plenary votes.

Obviously, an MEP will care most if you're a voter in his/her constituency (in Irish terms, although some countries have national lists), but joining up with a Europe-wide campaign is unsurprisingly the best way of influencing the European Parliament.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Annasopra

Scofflaw wrote: »

To be fair, unless there are specifically national interests at stake, which is rare, you're better off considering all MEPs as "your" representatives. In particular, the MEPs to hit on a given topic are the ones on the Committee, and at the stage of the Committee report (#2 above) rather than waiting for the plenary votes.

Obviously, an MEP will care most if you're a voter in his/her constituency (in Irish terms, although some countries have national lists), but joining up with a Europe-wide campaign is unsurprisingly the best way of influencing the European Parliament.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed and the European wide petitions now seem to be gaining in popularity

How many of our MEP's have actually been elected to their position? I can think offhand of two who were NOT elected, Phil Prendergast and Paul Murphy. I'm sure there is a third, who replaced Pronsios De Rossa? That makes 25% not elected. Why do people go forward for election if they change horses half way through? To the best of my knowledge, Paul Murphy wasn't even second or even third choice to replace Joe Higgins. It makes a mockery of the eloctions and the actual positions.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

How many of our MEP's have actually been elected to their position? I can think offhand of two who were NOT elected, Phil Prendergast and Paul Murphy. I'm sure there is a third, who replaced Pronsios De Rossa? That makes 25% not elected. Why do people go forward for election if they change horses half way through? To the best of my knowledge, Paul Murphy wasn't even second or even third choice to replace Joe Higgins. It makes a mockery of the eloctions and the actual positions.

It doesn't make a mockery of anything. It's just a different electoral system. People voted for Joe Higgins and they got Joe Higgins plus his replacement list. Same with Alan Kelly and Proinsias de Rossa. Lists are a very common system outside of Ireland.

View

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How many of our MEP's have actually been elected to their position? I can think offhand of two who were NOT elected, Phil Prendergast and Paul Murphy. I'm sure there is a third, who replaced Pronsios De Rossa? That makes 25% not elected. Why do people go forward for election if they change horses half way through? To the best of my knowledge, Paul Murphy wasn't even second or even third choice to replace Joe Higgins. It makes a mockery of the eloctions and the actual positions.

All our MEPs are elected to their positions. When voting in the EP elections here, voters cast their ballots for candidate X AND the list of all the potential replacements for candidate X, not just for candidate X in isolation as with domestic elections. And, yes, the lists for the replacements are available in the polling stations at the time (and possibly even on the ballot).

Personally, I dislike the system we use as it is neither a pure PR party list system (with a clear ordered replacement method - the next candidate down on the list) nor is it pure PR STV. Instead we here are using a horrible hybrid - an STV with a CANDIDATE list, rather than a party list, system.

That said that's the system the Oireachtas democratically adopted.

Manach

One positive aspect of MEPs has been their actions on copyright. Acting on a free vote, they have derailled the ACTA treaty. Whilst at first glance, this would seem to have a minumum impact on the public - the rather potential draconian oversights that would have been imposed to monitor ISP traffic had somewhat Orwellian overtones.