The VoteWatch.eu team members publish research and analyses on EU politics and governance on a regular basis. Click here for the latest publications on politics in the European Parliament
How Deva, Schulz and Wallis voted in the past two years
European Voice, 21.12.2011
Of the three candidates for the presidency of the European Parliament, Nirj Deva has the worst record of attendance at votes in plenary.
VoteWatch, an organisation that analyses data provided by the Parliament, looked at how many roll-call votes in plenary the three candidates took part in between September 2009 and November 2011. Schulz attended 1,790 roll-call votes, while Wallis took part in 1,789, or 75% of the 2,401 roll-call votes. Deva took part in 1,670 votes, a 70% attendance rate.
An examination of the voting records suggests little difference between Schulz and Wallis on many EU policies, notably the environment, public health, regional development, and foreign and security policy. They disagree most on economic and monetary policy and on agricultural issues. In all, they hold similar positions nearly 80% of the time.
Deva differs most from Schulz on gender equality and budgetary issues, but also on economic and monetary policy. Wallis and Deva differ consistently on employment and social affairs, gender equality and constitutional affairs. Consumer protection and internal market policies are the areas where the three tend to agree most.
Contentious votes
The report looked in particular at the stance of the three candidates on ten contentious Parliament votes. Schulz voted against the EU regulation bolstering budgetary surveillance – part of the ‘six pack' legislation on economic governance. Deva also voted against, but Wallis voted in favour of the regulation, backing her group's position.
Schulz's vote reflected the S&D group's complaint that the regulation failed to take into account economic growth measures that it wanted included.
Doru Frantescu of VoteWatch said that it was difficult to measure how disciplined the candidates were in following their group positions. He said, however, that on a number of select votes analysed for this report, Wallis proved to be the most likely to oppose her group. He pointed to her vote backing a call that the EU should move toward a “non-nuclear economy”, which was officially opposed by her group. However, Frantescu said that this was a rare example, because ALDE take a group line less often than the other groups, because of differences between national delegations.
Frantescu said the results showed that Schulz's political views were “solidly in the middle” of his own group, while Wallis tends to find herself more to the right within her group. Deva is well on the right of his European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, he said.
Parliament under pressure to release more data on how it makes decisions.
The European Parliament has come under increased pressure to release more data on how it makes decisions, notably in releasing information on how MEPs vote. VoteWatch.eu, which provides online monitoring and analysis of the Parliament's voting data, has called for all voting by MEPs, whether in plenary or in committees, to be recorded and made public.
Doru Frantescu of VoteWatch.eu says that the Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Ministers should do more to make their work more transparent – especially with details of how votes are carried out.
The Parliament publishes roll-call votes only on legislative reports. Other votes, either electronically, which record results but not MEPs' individual choices, and voting by a show of hands, continue on non-legislative resolutions such as on the deal to supply banking data to the US, or on France's expulsions of Roma.
These motions provoked wide attention, including on how MEPs voted, says Frantescu. “The image of the Parliament was badly shaken by this,” he says, pointing to a lack of political will as the main cause for the slow progress.
An eight-member working group of MEPs set up in September tasked with making the Parliament's plenary work more attractive, will study possible extensions of roll-call voting to all issues. Frantescu says that the Parliament's committee work, while already televised via the internet, should also ensure that it publishes clear data on how MEPs vote on each item. While most votes are recorded, roll-call votes are traditionally only conducted on final votes on reports.
VoteWatch.eu has also called on the Council to provide data on governments' decisions, as well as more up-to-date minutes of meetings, and has urged the Commission to provide more detail on who sits on its working groups and when they meet.
Politica continentale sotto la lente del web, grazie al sito che pubblica il tasso di presenza, di ribellione rispetto al gruppo di appartenenza, le interrogazioni e gli interventi tenuti in plenaria.
Nell’Italia in cui la trasparenza degli eletti non rappresenta più un valore fondante del mandato elettorale, l’etica politica si affievolisce e gli unici a dover parare il colpo pagandolo con la sfiducia tout court sono i cittadini. Ma in Europa alcuni deputati dei 27 paesi membri ritengono il rispetto dei propri elettori ancora la cartina tornasole del loro successo o fallimento alle urne.
Brussels caught in middle as MEPs flex muscles over budget
BELGIUM’S NEWLY installed rotating presidency of the EU is bracing for a scuffle with MEPs over the EU’s 2011 budget. Take note. The looming confrontation is but the latest illustration of the European Parliament’s growing might.
In this context, the balance of power within the parliament itself is all the more important. So where does it lie? A report on voting trends since the first plenary session of the current parliament a year ago from a non-partisan agency VoteWatch is instructive. It notes that Fine Gael’s centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) group is a little bigger in relative terms than in the previous parliament, but finds it is “on the winning side less often than before”.
Les coalitions varient en fonction des sujets au Parlement européen
Le positionnement des trois principaux groupes politiques au Parlement européen varie largement en fonction des sujets, selon une étude du site web indépendant d'analyse VoteWatch. Si le Parlement penche à droite sur les questions économiques, il est plutôt à gauche sur plusieurs enjeux sociétaux.
A la différence d'un parlement national, l'assemblée européenne ne fonctionne pas sur base d'une majorité claire appuyant l'action d'un gouvernement. Il existe des accords dits techniques entre les grandes familles politiques pour voter la confiance la Commission au début de la législature, mais chaque famille politique vote ensuite en ordre dispersé. Selon VoteWatch, qui a analysé la première année de la législature actuelle, il existe "une coalition stable entre le PPE (démocrate-chrétien, ndlr) et l'ADLE (libéral, ndlr)" en matière économique. L'ADLE - troisième groupe politique, qui fait souvent pencher la balance entre la gauche et la droite - "a voté à 91% avec le PPE, mais seulement à 51% avec le groupe S&D (socialiste)".
VoteWatch.eu is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organisation. Our goal is to increase transparency in EU decision-making by making information on decision-making by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers available in a user-friendly format that can be easily accessed and digested by citizens, the media, NGOs, the private sector and anyone else interested in EU affairs.
VoteWatch.eu believes that by making it easier for voters to follow the activities of the EU's legislative bodies, they will gain a better understanding of, and greater interest in, how EU politics affects their daily lives.
VoteWatch.eu is a Community Interest Company (CIC) registered in London. We rely largely on grants and donations to finance our activities. A small proportion of our income is derived from paid-for activities.
Help us to maintain and improve our service by making a donation, however small. We accept donations by credit card or PayPal transfer. Donations are not tax-deductable.
If like our existing sponsors you are interested in supporting VoteWatch.eu on a structural basis, please contact Michiel van Hulten, managing director. Email: michiel@votewatch.eu.
Disclaimer
VoteWatch.eu presents information about the political records of the Members of the European Parliament in a comprehensive and user-friendly manner.
All information on this website relating to MEP parliamentary activity is drawn from official European Parliament sources by means of an automated process.
If you are an MEP and you believe that the information displayed here is factually different from the information available from the European Parliament’s sources, please contact us and we will investigate the issue. Any errors will be corrected as soon as possible. If the information on this website correctly reflects the information available from the European Parliament, the only way to change the information displayed on VoteWatch.eu is through a change in the information displayed on the EP website. For reasons of consistency and transparency, VoteWatch.eu will not display factual information that differs from the information available through the EP official website.
If you are a user, please note that VoteWatch.eu only displays the quantitative, factual information relating to MEP activity that is made publicly available by the European Parliament. In addition to that, where appropriate official European Parliament documentation has been provided to us, VoteWatch has taken into consideration factors such as absence due to maternity leave or illness, or absence due to official European Parliament business.
VoteWatch.eu believes that the performance of MEPs cannot be measured by statistical indicators alone and encourages its users not make value judgements based solely on these quantitative data, but rather to see them as one of several elements that can be used to assess MEP activity and performance. VoteWatch.eu also encourages citizens to assess MEPs’ records by comparing how you would have voted on some of the same issues, via our interactive tool VoteMatch.
