The European Parliament
Kristin Archick
Specialist in European Affairs
Derek E. Mix
Analyst in European Affairs
January 26, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS21998
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
The European Parliament
Summary
The European Parliament (EP) is one of the three key institutions of the 27-member European
Union (EU), and the only EU institution whose members are directly elected. The current EP has
736 members. The most recent EP elections were held on June 4-7, 2009. Members of the
European Parliament (MEPs) serve five-year terms.
Once limited to being a consultative assembly, the EP has accumulated more power over time. It
performs important functions in the EU’s legislative and budgeting processes, and exercises a
degree of supervision over the two other main EU institutions, the Council of the European Union
(Council of Ministers) and the European Commission. Although the EP does not formally initiate
EU legislation, it shares “co-decision” power with the Council of Ministers in many policy areas,
giving it the right to amend or reject proposed EU legislation. The recently ratified Lisbon Treaty
increases the EP’s role further, giving it amendment and veto authority over the vast majority of
EU legislation (with some exceptions, such as tax matters and foreign policy). Moreover,
supporters argue, as the only directly elected EU institution, the EP increasingly plays an
important checks-and-balances role on behalf of Europe’s citizens.
Members of the European Parliament caucus according to transnational groups based on political
affiliation, rather than by nationality. No single group has ever held an absolute majority in the
European Parliament, making compromise and coalition-building important elements of the
legislative process. Following the June 2009 election, the center-right Group of the European
People’s Party (EPP) and the re-named center-left Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists
and Democrats in Europe (S&D) remain the two largest political groups. Every two-and-a-half
years (twice per parliamentary term), MEPs vote to elect a President of the European Parliament
to lead and oversee its work and to represent the EP externally. The EP has 20 standing
committees that are key actors in the adoption of EU legislation and 36 delegations that maintain
international parliament-to-parliament relations.
Although supporters point to the EP’s growing institutional significance, the European Parliament
faces several challenges of public perception. Some skeptics contend that the EP lacks the
legitimacy of national parliaments and exercises little real power. Other analysts observe that the
complexity of the EU legislative process contributes to limited public interest and understanding
of the EP’s role, leading in turn to a trend of declining turnout in European Parliament elections.
Another issue is whether MEPs reflect national or European interests—many MEPs tend to
campaign on national rather than European issues and many voters view EP elections as a
national mid-term election. Criticism has also been directed at the costs incurred by what many
consider duplicate facilities—while much of the work of the EP takes place in Brussels, monthly
plenary meetings are held in Strasbourg, France, and administrative sections of the EP Secretariat
are based in Luxembourg.
Ties between the EP and the U.S. Congress are long-standing, and the Transatlantic Legislators’
Dialogue—the formal mechanism for EP-Congressional exchanges—is expected to continue its
activities during the second session of the 111th Congress. Also see CRS Report RS21372, The
European Union: Questions and Answers, by Kristin Archick and Derek E. Mix.
Congressional Research Service
The European Parliament
Contents
Role of the European Parliament ................................................................................................. 1
Legislative Process................................................................................................................ 1
Budgetary Process................................................................................................................. 2
Supervision and Oversight Responsibilities ........................................................................... 3
Organization of the European Parliament .................................................................................... 4
Political Groups .................................................................................................................... 4
The EP President................................................................................................................... 7
Committees........................................................................................................................... 7
Delegations ........................................................................................................................... 7
Administration ...................................................................................................................... 8
Location................................................................................................................................ 8
Languages............................................................................................................................. 8
Challenges .................................................................................................................................. 8
The European Parliament and the U.S. Congress ......................................................................... 9
Tables
Table 1. Political Groups and Seats in the European Parliament: Results of the
2009 Election........................................................................................................................... 5
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
The European Parliament
Role of the European Parliament
The European Parliament (EP) is one of the three key institutions of the European Union (EU).
The EU is a treaty-based, institutional framework that defines and manages economic and
political cooperation among its 27 member states (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom). The EP is the only EU institution whose current 736
members are directly elected. Once limited to being a consultative assembly, the EP has
accumulated more power over time. Analysts observe that the EP and its advocates have
consistently sought to expand its role and responsibilities in the EU policy process. Many believe
that successive EU treaties have granted enhanced powers to the EP in order to increase
democratic accountability in EU policy-making.
The European Parliament performs important functions in the EU’s legislative and budgeting
processes, and exercises a degree of supervision over the two other main EU institutions, the
Council of the European Union (Council of Ministers) and the European Commission. However,
the EP does not initiate legislation. In most cases, that right rests with the Commission, which
functions as the EU’s executive and guarantor of the EU’s treaties. The Commission implements
and manages Council decisions and common policies, ensuring that member states adopt and
abide by the provisions of EU treaties, regulations, and directives.1 The Council, the EU’s main
decision-making body, is composed of ministers from the national governments and enacts
legislation based on Commission proposals.2 In most cases, the Council’s adoption of legislation
occurs jointly with the Parliament, in a process called “co-decision.”
Legislative Process
The role of the European Parliament in the legislative process has expanded steadily over time as
the scope of EU policy has grown. Initially limited to offering non-binding opinions and
proposing amendments (“consultation procedure”), the EP gained more power to affect EU
legislation in the “cooperation procedure” of the 1986 Single European Act. The Maastricht
Treaty of 1992 (which entered into force in 1993) substantially increased the EP’s role, mostly in
areas related to the EU’s common internal market, with the introduction of the “co-decision
procedure.” In the “co-decision procedure,” the EP and the Council share legislative power and
must both approve a Commission proposal for it to become EU law. The Amsterdam Treaty of
1997 (which entered into force in 1999) simplified the “co-decision procedure” and extended it to
many additional policy areas (ranging from the environment to social policy). As more decisions
within the Council of Ministers have become subject to qualified majority voting (rather than
unanimity) to allow for greater speed and efficiency of decision-making, the Parliament’s power
1 The European Commission is composed of 27 Commissioners—one from each EU member country—who serve a
five-year term. The head of state or government of each member country nominates their country’s Commissioner.
Commissioners, however, do not serve national interests, but rather represent the interests of the EU as a whole. One is
selected to lead and represent the Commission as the Commission President. The others hold a distinct portfolio (e.g.,
agriculture, energy, external relations), similar to U.S. department secretaries and agency directors, and are responsible
for overseeing legislation and member state compliance, and for representing the Commission, on that issue. Five
Commissioners are double-hatted as Commission Vice Presidents in addition to their portfolio.
2 Meetings of the Council of Ministers are configured according to the subject under consideration (e.g., foreign
ministers would meet to discuss the Middle East, agriculture ministers to discuss farm subsidies).
Congressional Research Service
1
The European Parliament
of “co-decision” has come to be viewed as playing an increasingly important checks-and-balances
role at the European level to the Commission and Council.3
On December 1, 2009, the Lisbon Treaty—the
The “Co-decision Procedure”
EU’s latest institutional reform effort—went
The EU’s “co-decision procedure” can be summarized as
into effect. The Lisbon Treaty roughly doubles
follows: (1) if Parliament and the Council of Ministers
the Parliament’s right of “co-decision” to 80
agree on a Commission proposal, it is approved; (2) if
policy areas, including agriculture and justice
they disagree, the Council forms a common position; the
and home affairs issues such as immigration
EP can then either accept the Council’s common
and police cooperation. In doing so, the
position, or reject or amend it, by an absolute majority
of its members; (3) if the Council cannot accept the EP’s
Lisbon Treaty gives the EP a say in most all
amendments, a conciliation meeting is convened, after
legislation passed in the EU. Tax matters and
which the EP and the Council approve an agreement if
foreign policy, however, are among the areas
one can be reached. If they are unable to agree, the
in which EU member states retain decision-
proposal is not adopted.
making authority and to which the “co-
decision procedure” does not apply (the Parliament may give a non-binding opinion).
Additionally, in the “assent procedure,” the EP must, by a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ majority, approve
the accession of new EU member states and the conclusion of all official agreements with third
parties, such as association and trade agreements with non-member states. If the Parliament does
not consent, such agreements cannot enter into force.
Budgetary Process
The EP and the Council exercise joint powers over allocation of the EU’s annual budget, such as
the amount of funding dedicated to infrastructure as opposed to education.4 It is similar to the
way that the U.S. House and Senate Budget Committees allocate the President’s budget request to
various programs. However, neither the EP nor the Council can affect the size of the EU budget—
that amount is fixed through percentages contributed from member states’ gross national incomes
(GNI) and value added tax (VAT) revenues, as well as from external customs duties.
The budgetary procedure begins with the Commission proposing a preliminary draft budget to the
Council. The Council examines the preliminary draft budget and establishes the draft budget,
which is then sent to the EP for a first reading. The EP may approve the draft budget or vote to
attach proposed amendments or modifications, returning it to the Council for a second reading.
After a conciliation meeting with Parliament representatives, the Council then votes whether to
take account of the Parliament’s proposed amendments and modifications and returns the draft
budget as amended to the EP for its second reading. The EP must then vote to adopt the budget in
order for it to become operational. If disagreements persist at this stage, the EP can reject the
entire draft budget.
3 In qualified majority voting in the Council of Ministers, countries are allotted a number of votes in rough proportion
to their population size. Passage of a measure currently requires at least half of the member states (two-thirds if not a
Commission initiative) and 255 out of the 345 total votes, representing at least 62% of the total EU population. Under
the Lisbon Treaty, a simplified formula for qualified majority voting will be introduced in 2014 but not fully
implemented until 2017.
4 The EU’s 2009 budget is EUR 133.8 billion (approximately $187 billion).
Congressional Research Service
2
The European Parliament
Until recently, the EP had the last word on “non-compulsory” expenditures, such as development
aid, but the Council had the final say on “compulsory” expenditures, such as spending related to
agriculture or international agreements. The Lisbon Treaty eliminates the distinction between
“compulsory” and “non-compulsory” expenditures, and thus gives the EP the right to decide on
the entire budget jointly with the Council. Of particular importance, the EP gains more control
over agricultural spending, which accounts for over a third of the EU budget. The EP’s budgetary
power is considerably greater than that exercised by most parliaments in EU member states, and
this “power of the purse” gives the EP significant institutional weight in the EU.
Additionally, the EP examines the Commission’s implementation of previous budgets through the
“discharge procedure.” In order to close the budget books of a given year, the EP must vote to
grant “discharge” based on reports of the EU Court of Auditors and a recommendation of the
Council. In cases of fraud or mismanagement, the EP may postpone or refuse discharge pending a
resolution. With its decision, the EP also presents the Commission with binding recommendations
and observations regarding implementation of the budget.
Supervision and Oversight Responsibilities
The Parliament plays a supervisory role over the European Commission and the Council of
Ministers. As described above, the Parliament’s co-decision and budgetary powers grant it a
degree of control over the Commission and the Council in many areas. The EP also monitors the
management of EU policies, can conduct investigations, inquiries, and public hearings, and may
submit oral and written questions to the Commission and the Council.
The EP must approve the Council’s nomination for Commission President—thus, the relative
strengths of the political groups in the EP (see below for more information) can affect who is
nominated by the member states to this post. The member states and the EP’s largest political
group, which is center-right in political orientation, supported the re-appointment of 2004-2009
Commission President José Manuel Barroso for the 2009-2014 term. Barroso is a former
conservative Portuguese prime minister. However, the support of other political groups was
needed in order to achieve the majority necessary to approve the nomination. After a series of
meetings during which Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) scrutinized and questioned
Barroso’s draft program of “political guidelines” for the next five years, the EP voted on
September 16, 2009 to confirm his new mandate as Commission President, by a vote of 382 to
219 (with 117 abstentions).
The EP also has the power to accept or reject a newly proposed Commission as a whole (rather
than individual nominees). Since 1995, the EP has held U.S. Senate-style confirmation hearings
for newly designated Commissioners, who are nominated by the member states for five-year
terms. Commission nominees for the term ending in 2014 are currently going through the EP
confirmation process.5 In mid-January 2010, the proposed Bulgarian nominee to the Commission
withdrew her candidacy following a contentious hearing before the European Parliament; some
MEPs expressed serious concerns about her past financial dealings and questioned her
competence for her portfolio. 6 A similar situation occurred in 2004, when MEPs essentially
5 Although a new Commission was supposed to have been in place by November 2009, the process was delayed
because the Lisbon Treaty did not take effect until December 1, 2009. The 2004-2009 Commissioners continue to serve
as caretakers until the new Commission is confirmed.
6 Bulgaria quickly named a new nominee for its Commission post; her confirmation hearing is expected to be held in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
The European Parliament
forced the initial Italian nominee to the Commission to withdraw due to concerns about his views
on homosexuality and women’s rights. Some observers view these episodes as signs of the EP’s
growing confidence and institutional clout.
The EP also has the power to dismiss the entire Commission (although, again, not individual
Commissioners) through a vote of censure. To date, the EP has never adopted a motion of
censure. However, in 1999, the entire Commission opted to resign rather than face a formal
censure by the EP over alleged corruption charges.
Organization of the European Parliament
Members of the European Parliament serve five-year terms, and have been directly elected since
1979. 7 Voting for the EP takes place on a national basis, with the number of MEPs elected in each
country based on population size. Germany, for example, has the largest number of MEPs (99),
while Malta has the smallest (5).
The most recent EP elections were held on June 4-7, 2009, with 736 seats at stake.8 Roughly 375
million European citizens were eligible to cast a ballot in 2009. In EP elections, EU citizens may
vote—or run for a seat—in their country of residence, without necessarily holding citizenship in
that country. Turnout has declined in every EP election, from 63% in 1979 to a new low of 43%
in 2009. Although the overall number is comparable to turnout in U.S. mid-term elections,
analysts observe that relatively low voter participation compared to national elections indicates a
lack of awareness and understanding in the EU about the EP.
Political Groups
Once elected, Members of the European Parliament caucus according to transnational groups
based on political affiliation, rather than by nationality. A political group must consist of at least
25 MEPs from a minimum of seven EU member states. As in the last EP, there are seven political
groups—containing over 100 individual political parties—in the new EP, plus a number of “non-
attached” or independent members. Many group arrangements proved relatively stable and
carried over from the previous term. However, numerous national parties shifted their group
allegiance; one previous group collapsed; one new group was formed; and, reflective of shifting
composition, two groups changed their name.
Each group appoints a chair or co-chairs, and maintains a bureau and secretariat to manage its
internal organization. Prior to a vote, MEPs within each group study the legislative proposals in
question with the support of committee reports, discuss prospective amendments, and seek to
(...continued)
early February 2010, and the European Parliament will likely hold its vote on the entire incoming Commission on
February 9, 2010. “Barroso has no plans to reshuffle portfolios,” Europolitics, January 21, 2010.
7 Prior to direct elections, MEPs were appointed by their national parliaments.
8 There were 785 seats in the European Parliament of 2004-2009; under the EU’s 2001 Nice Treaty, which entered into
force in 2003, this number was reduced to 736 for the parliamentary term 2009-2014. The Lisbon Treaty sets the
number of MEPs at 751 starting in 2014. With the Lisbon Treaty now ratified, it is expected that 18 additional MEPs
will be added to the EP, temporarily raising the number of MEPs for the current term to 754.
Congressional Research Service
4
The European Parliament
arrive at a consensus group position. National and partisan divisions within groups routinely
impact this process—and individual MEPs are not bound to vote according to the group position.
Table 1. Political Groups and Seats in the European Parliament:
Results of the 2009 Election
(736 seats total)
Total Seats
%
European People’s Party [Christian Democrats] (EPP; center-right)
265
36
Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in Europe (S&D; center-left/socialists)
184
25
Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE; liberals)
84
11.4
Greens/European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA; greens and regionalists)
55
7.5
European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR; right-wing, anti-Federalist)
54
7.3
European United Left/Nordic Green Left (GUE/NGL; far-left and former communists)
35
4.8
Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD; euroskeptics)
32
4.3
Non-attached members
27
3.7
Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/archive/elections2009/en/index_en.html.
Note: Percentages are rounded.
No single group has ever held an absolute majority in the European Parliament, making
compromise and coalition-building important elements of the legislative process. Some analysts
assert that distinct ideological definitions between groups are becoming more complicated, as
voting blocs form increasingly according to specific issues and interests. Nevertheless, the two
largest groups have tended to dominate the Parliament historically.
In the 2009 elections, the Group of the European People’s Party [Christian Democrats] (EPP)
retained its position as the largest political group in the EP. The EPP is center-right in political
orientation and contains MEPs from Germany’s Christian Democratic/Christian Social Union
(CDU-CSU), France’s Union pour un Mouvement Populaire (UMP), Spain’s Partido Popular
(PP), Italy’s People of Freedom, Poland’s Civic Platform, and numerous other Christian
Democratic, conservative, center-right, and centrist national parties. The chair of the EPP is
French MEP Joseph Daul.
In relative terms, the strength of the EPP in the 2009 elections increased significantly due to a
sizeable drop in support for center-left parties. Although circumstances and issues differed in each
EU member state, some analysts interpreted these results as indicating greater public preference
for the approaches of conservative and center-right parties in the handling of the global financial
crisis and recession.9
The Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in Europe (S&D) is the EP’s
second largest political group. The S&D is center-left in political orientation and includes
Germany’s Social Democratic Party (SPD), France’s Socialist Party, the UK Labour Party,
Spain’s Socialist Party, and numerous other Socialist, Social Democratic, and center-left parties.
The chair of S&D is German MEP Martin Schulz.
9 “Voters steer Europe to the right,” BBC News, June 8, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
5
The European Parliament
The EPP and the S&D have a history of cross-ideological legislative partnership, and cooperated
in a “Grand Coalition” in the 2004-2009 EP (S&D was then called the PES—the Socialist Group
in the European Parliament). Critics argue that the consensus-seeking of the Grand Coalition
makes politics in the European Parliament stale and paradoxical. Other observers note that
maximizing consensus and unity lends the European Parliament greater institutional weight. As a
general rule, most MEPs prefer consensus outcomes that are endorsed by a large and broad
majority. It appears that another EPP-S&D Grand Coalition is likely for 2009-2014.
The third largest group is the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
(ALDE). ALDE is centrist and liberal in political orientation. In European political terminology,
“liberal” connotes an emphasis on free market economics, individual rights, social equality and
equal opportunity, and de-centralized government. ALDE includes the UK Liberal Democrat
Party, Germany’s Free Democrat Party (FDP), and Ireland’s Fianna Fail. The chair of ALDE is
Belgian MEP (and former Belgian Prime Minister) Guy Verhofstadt.
The Greens/European Free Alliance Group (Greens-EFA) is largely comprised of Europe’s
numerous Greens—leftist in political orientation with a strong emphasis on pro-environment
politics and human rights—and several independent or regional parties (e.g., Scottish, Welsh,
Basque, and Catalonian) with a leftist or center-left outlook. The co-chairs of the Greens-EFA are
French MEP Daniel Cohn-Bendit and German MEP Rebecca Harms.
The UK Conservatives, increasingly uncomfortable with the strong pro-integration stance
represented by the EPP, broke with the EPP in 2009 and formed a new European Conservatives
and Reformists Group (ECR). The UK Conservatives’ major partners in the ECR are Czech Civic
Democrats and Poland’s Law and Justice Party. The group is right-wing in political orientation
and strongly opposed to a “federalist” Europe. The chair of ECR is Polish MEP Michal Kaminski.
The European United Left/Nordic Green Left Group (GUE-NGL) consists of parties that are
strongly leftist in orientation, some with a Green emphasis. Member parties include Germany’s
Die Linke, the French Communist Party, and the Irish party Sinn Fein. The group is pro-EU and
pro-integration, but strongly critical of existing EU structures, policies, and overall direction. The
chair of GUE-NGL is German MEP Lothar Bisky.
The members of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group (EFR) are “euroskeptics” and
critics of the EU who oppose further European integration and demand greater transparency in the
EU. Its largest contingents are from the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which advocates UK
withdrawal from the EU, and Italy’s Lega Nord. The co-chairs of EFR are British MEP Nigel
Farage and Italian MEP Francesco Enrico Speroni.
Many of the “non-attached” or independent members of the EP hail from far right extremist
parties, which made gains in the 2009 EP elections in a number of countries, such as the
Netherlands, Austria, and Hungary. However, these far right MEPs still hold a relatively small
number of seats and appear to have little cohesion among themselves. Analysts note that they
have been unable to form a political group and as a result are likely to have minimal impact in the
current EP; membership in a political group gives MEPs more influence as groups receive more
funding and more speaking time in the EP than do non-attached members.10
10 “Euro MPs build new alliances,” BBC News, July 2, 2009; Stephen Castle, “Far right is left out at EU’s assembly,”
International Herald Tribune, July 15, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
6
The European Parliament
The EP President
Every two-and-a-half years (twice per parliamentary term), MEPs vote to elect a President of the
European Parliament. The majority coalition in the EP (previously and usually an EPP “Grand
Coalition” with the Socialists) has traditionally agreed to split the position of EP president over
each five-year term. At the opening session of the new EP in mid-July 2009, Members elected
Polish MEP Jerzy Buzek of the EPP as the new President of the European Parliament. Buzek, a
former prime minister of Poland, is the first ever EP President from one of the central and eastern
European member countries that joined the EU in 2004. Martin Schulz of S&D is expected to
take over as EP President for the second half of the EP’s current term.
The President of the EP represents the EP externally, and in relations with the other EU
institutions. The President oversees the work of the Parliament and is responsible for ensuring
that its rules of procedure are followed. The President is assisted in managing the Parliament’s
internal organization and affairs by a Bureau composed of 14 Vice-Presidents and six Quaestors
drawn from across the EP’s political groups. The signature of the President is the final step in
approval of the EU budget, and the President co-signs, together with the President of the Council,
legislation adopted under the co-decision procedure. In addition, the President seeks to affect
broader EU policies by promoting a few key issues as EP priorities. Since his election in July
2009, Buzek has stressed employment, energy security and the environment, foreign policy and
human rights, and EP reform as priorities for his presidency.11
Committees
The EP has 20 standing committees. These committees are key actors in the adoption of EU
legislation. Each committee appoints a chairman, three vice-chairmen, and has a secretariat. The
appropriate committee (e.g., the Committee on the Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety
would deal with legislation on pollution) appoints a Member as “rapporteur” to draft a report on
the Commission proposal under consideration. The rapporteur submits a draft report to the
committee for discussion, which is then voted on and possibly amended. The committee’s report
is then considered in plenary, amended, and put to a vote. The EP thus adopts its position on the
issue. In terms of their importance and strength, EP committees rival those in the U.S. Congress
and surpass the role of committees in most national European legislatures. Ad hoc committees
may also be established to investigate or oversee specific issues. For example, in 2006, the EP
formed a Temporary Committee that examined the role of EU member states in hosting secret
CIA detention facilities and aiding CIA flights related to the rendition of terrorism suspects.
Delegations
The European Parliament plays a role in the EU’s international presence through its 36
delegations, each composed of about 15 MEPs. These delegations maintain parliament-to-
parliament contacts and relations with representatives of most countries around the world. For
example, the EP has interparliamentary delegations for relations with the United States and the
NATO Parliamentary Assembly, as well as with Iran, Israel, the Palestinian Legislative Council,
and the Korean Peninsula.
11 For more information, see the website of the EP President, http://www.ep-president.eu.
Congressional Research Service
7
The European Parliament
Administration
A Secretariat of approximately 5,000 non-partisan civil servants provides administrative and
technical support to the Parliament. In addition, MEPs have their own staff assistants and political
groups also have their own staff.
Location
Strasbourg, France is the official seat of the EP; plenary sessions are held there for one week a
month. For two weeks a month, the EP’s standing committees meet 300 miles to the northwest in
Brussels, Belgium, where the European Commission and the Council of Ministers are located.
Generally, there is also one “part plenary” session (two days) in Brussels each month. One week
is set aside for meetings of the political groups, which are usually held in Brussels. MEPs must
have offices and lodgings in both cities. Meanwhile, administrative services sections of the EP’s
Secretariat are based in Luxembourg, about mid-way between Strasbourg and Brussels. Most EP
staff, however, live in Brussels and either commute to France or communicate via telephone or e-
mail during full plenary sessions. The costs of having three addresses are high in terms of both
time and money, and continue to be a contentious issue (see below).
Languages
Simultaneous interpretation of all parliamentary and committee debates is provided in the EU’s
23 official languages. All parliamentary documents are translated into and published in 21 of
these languages (Irish and Maltese are sometimes excepted), and some documents must be
translated into all 23. Such extensive translation services represent a significant administrative
cost.
Challenges
The European Parliament faces several challenges of public perception. Some skeptics contend
that the EP, despite being a directly-elected body, lacks the legitimacy of national parliaments and
exercises too little power relative to the other EU institutions. Such observers characterize the EP
largely as a debating chamber with little binding influence on EU policy. Others maintain that the
legislative process of the EU is overly complex and often deals with highly technical issues,
leading to a lack of public understanding about the role and significance of the EP. Limited public
awareness and understanding of the EP’s activities, they argue, is reflected in the consistently
declining turnout in European Parliament elections since 1979. Low voter participation, in turn,
feeds back into skepticism of the EP’s legitimacy as a representative institution, and fuels wider
charges of a democratic deficit and a lack of transparency in EU policy-making.
EP advocates observe that “co-decision” and its institutional supervisory roles have substantially
enhanced the Parliament’s influence. The Lisbon Treaty, in effect, gives the EP veto authority
over the vast majority of EU legislation. Moreover, supporters argue, as the only directly elected
EU institution, the EP increasingly plays an important checks-and-balances role on behalf of
Europe’s citizens. Supporters also claim that the EP’s influence is growing even in strictly
consultative areas, such as the EU’s common foreign policy, where the “co-decision procedure”
does not apply. They assert that the EP has become a forum for debate on international issues, and
Congressional Research Service
8
The European Parliament
uses its power of assent on cooperation accords with third parties, as well as Parliamentary
resolutions, to promote issues such as human rights. Yet, critics counter that EP views on
international relations may have little effect because EU foreign policy decisions rest with the
member states.
Closely related to the question of the EP’s legitimacy is the issue of whether MEPs reflect
national or European interests. The Parliament claims to represent the people of Europe, while the
Council speaks for the national governments, and the Commission represents the interests of the
EU as a whole. Some analysts observe that the political groups of the EP represent a nascent form
of EU-wide politics. Studies on voting behavior in the EP have shown that ideology holds greater
influence than nationality, with MEPs voting with their party groups almost 90% of the time.12 On
the other hand, some observers contend that MEPs often promote parochial national interests.
Past examples include Italian and Spanish MEPs defending olive growers, and British and Irish
MEPs joining forces to oppose tax harmonization measures. And some point out that many MEPs
campaign on national rather than European issues. With 27 different national elections for the EP,
European citizens vote based on a wide array of different issues. Many voters essentially view EP
elections as a national mid-term election—an indication of voter opinion as to the performance of
the national government—rather than as a vote on Europe-wide issues.
Another major concern is costs, which the EP has long been under public pressure to reduce. The
fact that MEPs and their staffs regularly shuttle between three cities leads to travel and hotel bills
that, in the past, have consumed roughly 15-20% of the EP’s budget. Yet, the suggestion that the
EP should consolidate its operations in one city has met with strong opposition in the host
countries of France, Belgium, and Luxembourg, which fear the loss of symbolism and prestige, in
addition to jobs and other economic benefits. Strasbourg was originally chosen as the seat of the
EP to serve as a symbol of peace between France and Germany, and both countries argue it
should continue to do so. Construction of multi-million dollar buildings in Brussels and
Strasbourg in the late 1990s to accommodate the growth in MEPs following EU enlargement also
stirred controversy.
After many years and several failed attempts, MEPs succeeded in 2005 in reforming the
Parliament’s salary and expense regime. Some MEPs had long complained about pay disparities
because they received the same salary as members of their respective national parliaments. For
example, Italian MEPs had earned roughly three times more than their Spanish counterparts.
Previous efforts to reform the pay system had foundered on the concerns of some member states
about the costs of the reforms. Under the new deal, which began in 2009 with the new EP, all
MEPs will be paid the same amount in exchange for instituting a reimbursable system for
business and travel expenses; previously, MEPs received a flat-rate travel allowance that did not
require receipts and contributed to what some consider the Parliament’s “gravy train” image.
The European Parliament and the U.S. Congress
Ties between the EP and the U.S. Congress date back to 1972, when a U.S. Congressional
delegation first visited the EP in Brussels and Luxembourg. Since then, with a few exceptions,
Congressional-EP exchanges have taken place twice a year, and have provided the opportunity for
12 See Simon Hix, Abdul Noury, and Gerard Roland, How MEPs Vote (Brighton, UK: Economic and Social Research
Council), 2002.
Congressional Research Service
9
The European Parliament
sustained dialogue. The U.S. Congress-EP exchange is the oldest and widely considered the most
prestigious of the EP’s interparliamentary dialogues.
In 1999, the EP and the U.S. Congress launched the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD) as
their official response to the U.S.-EU commitment in the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda to
enhance parliamentary ties between the EU and the United States. With the TLD, the two sides
have committed to regular meetings twice a year to discuss a wide range of topical political and
economic issues. The EP’s Delegation for Relations with the United States represents the EP in
the TLD and is led by a chairman, who is elected by the delegation’s members and has
responsibilities equal to those of a committee chair. The most recent TLD meeting took place in
December 2009 in New York City (the venue for the TLD usually alternates between the United
States and Europe). Congress and the EP have also conducted video conferences on specific areas
of mutual concern. However, some American analysts observe that the TLD remains relatively
obscure, with ambiguity regarding which U.S. members actually belong, and no role given to the
U.S. Senate.13
Many MEPs would like to enhance cooperation with the U.S. Congress even further. In March
2009, the EP adopted a resolution, which among other measures, asserted that the U.S. Congress
and the EP should promote closer ties between legislative committees and should create a
reciprocal legislative “early-warning” system to identify potential legislative activities that could
affect relations between the United States and the EU. In January 2010, the EP also deployed two
staffers to Washington to establish a EP-Congress liaison office; these EP staffers will seek to
keep the EP better informed of legislative activity in the U.S. House and Senate by attending
hearings, following legislation, and establishing working relationships with Members of Congress
and their staffs. The EP also hopes that the U.S. Congress will consider the possibility of setting
up a similar Congressional liaison office in Brussels.14
Author Contact Information
Kristin Archick
Derek E. Mix
Specialist in European Affairs
Analyst in European Affairs
karchick@crs.loc.gov, 7-2668
dmix@crs.loc.gov, 7-9116
13 For more information, see the European Parliament’s website on the Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue,
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/intcoop/tld/default_en.htm. Also see the section on the TLD in CRS Report RL34735,
Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation: A Possible Role for Congress, by Raymond J. Ahearn and Vincent Morelli.
14 European Parliament resolution (A6-0114/2009), adopted March 26, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
10