Winners and losers of the EP Plenary November 2017

The latest plenary session of the European Parliament featured heated Parliamentary debates, “odd” voting behavior by EU Parliamentarians (MEPs) and European groups splitting on the most controversial issues. This report highlights the political dynamics underlying the most important decisions from the November EP plenary session, revealing how political groups and individual EU Parliamentarians aimed at shaping these decisions. Here are some of our findings:

- MEPs fought tooth and nail on a report outlining additional instruments to fight against increasing income gaps in the EU. Some of the decisions were passed by just a few votes, with one proposal even being rejected by a tie. One of the key provisions passed due to the support of the French Republicans, which went against their political group, the EPP, on this occasion.

- Visegrad MEPs rejected the asylum reform proposed by the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. The fiercest opposition came from two of these national delegations, as none of their MEPs cast a vote in favour of the negotiating position of the EP.

- Some members of Angela Merkel’s CDU disagreed with their party over the decision to trigger an infringement procedure against Poland for its alleged violations of EU fundamental values.

-The chair of the ALDE group, together with many other members of the Liberals and Democrats group, rejected the use of cohesion policy instruments to reduce the population outflows from the EU most disadvantaged regions.

Some Danish MEPs rejected an increase in the funding for East StratCom Task Force, an EU instrument that aims at countering Russian propaganda and which proactively promotes EU policies in the Eastern Neighbourhood.

Interested to discover which EU Parliamentarians have been decisive in swinging the outcome of key decisions or had an odd behavior? Would you like to learn how to use the dynamics underlying EU's decisions to your advantage? Ask for a trial subscription to VoteWatch Intelligence PRO* and have a 1-month free access to our special reports (at [email protected]).

This analysis is part of VoteWatch Intelligence PRO content. To read the full analysis you need to log-in with a PRO account. If you don't have one, contact us at [email protected]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*