mise en page 1 - robert schuman...vo tes ha s hap ed t positions of european groups and national...

votes that shaped the

Positions of European groupsand national party delegations

VoteWatch Europe AnnualReport July 2013

European Parliament

10 7th

Report_v3_2013:Mise en page 1 04/07/2013 16:12 Page 2

10 votes that shaped the 7th European Parliament

TABLE OF CONTENTS

01 FOREWORD BY THE CHAIRMAN OF VOTEWATCH EUROPE02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY02 ABOUT VOTEWATCH EUROPE03 ACHIEVEMENTS 2012–201304 FINANCES05 SPONSORS AND MEMBERSHIP06 POLICY FOCUS: 10 VOTES THAT SHAPED THE 7TH EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstonia

FinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItaly

LatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMaltaThe NetherlandsPolandPortugal

RomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpainSwedenUnited Kingdom

© 2013 VoteWatch Europe AISBL

�

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

Photos of the hand inserting card (cover), raising hand (page 9, 25) and numbers (p23)© European Union, 2004-2012

METHODABBREVIATIONSTHE EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE:HOW DID THE EUROPEAN POLITICAL GROUPS VOTE?THE NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: HOW DID THE NATIONAL PARTY DELEGATIONS VOTE?

I.II.III.

IV.


Dear friend,

Since 2009 VoteWatch has looked at how membersof the European Parliament have voted in all recorded votes, making this information available tothe public via our website. Throughout this 7th EPterm we have reported regularly on key votes castin the European Parliament through our newslettersand our post-Strasbourg debriefing sessions.

Less than one year from now, in May 2014, newelections to the European Parliament will be held,at a time of economic crisis and democratic upheaval.VoteWatch believes that democracy and debate atthe EU level can be strengthened by increasing thetransparency of the EU decision-making process. Webelieve that, in order to encourage EU citizens tovote, citizens do not just need to be aware ofwhat decisions the EU institutions make. They alsoneed to know how EU decisions are arrived at. Ifpoliticians want citizens to play an active role inthe political process, they need to be informedabout the party political activity that shapes decision making in Brussels and Strasbourg. Theyneed to know about different approaches and solutions put forward by each party group toaddress challenges faced by the EU.

This report is intended to provide ammunition fordebate by examining the voting records of theseven European political groups and each national party delegation represented in the European Parliament, in what we have identified as the tenmost important issues debated and voted on sincethe last elections in 2009.

This report is the first of several VoteWatch productsdesigned to help make the 2014 elections more interesting, more political and, therefore, more democratic. Much more is to follow in the run-up tothe elections, including special country reports produced in cooperation with national think tanks,high-level debates, and special websites and onlinecommunication tools to reach a wider Europeanaudience.

I look forward to working with you in the excitingelection year ahead and beyond, to promote betterdebates and greater transparency in EU politics.

Best wishes,

FOREWORD

01Positions of European groups and national party delegations

Dr Simon HixProfessor of European and Comparative Politics, Lon-don School of Economics and Political ScienceChair, VoteWatch Europe


02 10 votes that shaped the 7th European Parliament

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ABOUT VOTEWATCH EUROPE

The main purpose of this report is to kick offthe 2014 European electoral campaign.Firstly, this report shows the importance ofdecisions made by the European Parliament.Secondly, it reveals who stood for what inBrussels and Strasbourg. Each of the tenvotes presented here gives an overview ofanswers proposed by the seven politicalgroups to some key challenges faced by theEuropean Union.Some readers will view the results in the report from a European angle, and will lookat the positions taken by European politicalgroups as a whole. Others will be more interested in specific countries. They can lookat the results from a national angle, focussingon how national party delegations voted ina particular Member State. Key findings:The number of cases in which the Parliament has managed to leave its footprint on EU legislation is certainly higherthan in the previous term. It is very much thespecific political and ideological compositionof the Parliament which shapes the impact it has on legislation.

In most votes in the European ParliamentMEPs rally according to their ideology andpolitical family. As a result, voting tends tofollow two dimensions: (1) the classic left-right dimension (e.g. on tax on financialtransactions, tax on CO2 emissions, and freetrade); and (2) a pro-/anti-further Europeanintegration dimension (e.g. on the budget,and Eurobonds);However, on issues where there are major social, economic, cultural or regulatory differences between the EU Member States(e.g. on maternity leave, nuclear energy, agri-cultural subsidies), some MEPs deviate fromEuropean political group lines.

All EP and Council voting data are available on VoteWatch’s website: www.votewatch.eu.

New EP voting data are added after each voting session. Council voting data are added as and whenit is made available by the Council Secretariat. AllCouncil data are collected and processed manually; errors may therefore occur. Any errorswill be corrected as soon as we are made aware ofthem.

VoteWatch Europe is an independent organisation set up to promote better debates 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. Vote-Watch uses the EU institutions’ own attendance, voting and activity data togive a full overview of MEP and MemberState activities.VoteWatch publishes regular reports and newslettersshowing how MEPs and ministers voted on keyitems of EU legislation and organises regular debriefings on the plenary sessions of the EuropeanParliament.

In addition to our regular free-to-the-public work,we also offer a number of paid services, such astraining sessions and tailor-made analyses of voting behaviour. The revenue from these activitieshelps us maintain our core services. If you areinterested in any of our services, please contact theVoteWatch team: [email protected]

We are an international not-for-profit association(AISBL/IVZW) registered in Belgium.



BOARD

CHAIR: Dr Simon Hix (co-founder)Professor of European and Comparative Politicsat the London School of Economics and PoliticalScience. 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.

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 (Eu-ropean Public Policy Advisers), former Secretary-General of the European Parliament.

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

Ms Kathalijne Buitenweg Board member of the Dutch Institute for HumanRights, former Member of the European Parliament(Greens/EFA, Netherlands)

Mr Mikołaj Dowgielewicz Vice-governor for target group countries at theCouncil of Europe Development Bank, formerSecretary of State for European Affairs in the Po-lish Government.

STAFF:Doru Frantescu (co-founder)Policy director. Civil society expert in EU affairs, e-democracy and e-communication 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 officer, former MEP assistant.

ACHIEVEMENTS 2012–2013

Our achievements in the last twelve months include the following:

Launch of a fully redesigned website with a more user-friendly interface.

Publication of our annual report ‘Agreeing to Disagree: The Voting Records of EU Member States in the Council since 2009’, launched at a public event in July 2012 with a panel discussion including Joonas Bering Liisberg, Deputy Permanent Representative of Denmark to the EU.

Introduction of new paid-for services, such as master classes on how to use the VoteWatch website and voting data for campaigning, lobbying and explaining the work of the EP and the Council. This included a training seminar for NGOs working on anti-racism and anti-xenophobia in Europe, organised in Brussels by the Open Society Foundations.

Introduction of policy events on specific issues voted or to be voted on by the EP and the Council. The first eventwas dedicated to prospects for a Free Trade Agreement between the EU and US.



Development of a VoteWatch widget which can be embedded on websites to show voting records of MEPs, European political groups, national delegations and policy areas. Its free version is currently used by several MEPs.

Development of the VoteWatch MEP feed on Facebook which shares information on the daily activities of MEPs (questions, speeches, reports, amendments, votes) via users’ Facebook walls).

Publication in January 2013 of a special report ‘Bicameral Politics at the EU level. How the Votes of MEPs Compare to those of Member States’, launched at a public event.

Publication in March 2013 of a policy brief on ‘Regulating Banks and their Bonuses: can the UK Block a Compromise?’

Widespread media coverage, including several articles in European Voice and many references in national andinternational media.

Mentions in academic and other publications. A report by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the UK Parliamenton The Future of the European Union: UK Government Policy quotes our 2012 Annual Report.

Continued monthly post-Strasbourg European Parliament plenary debriefing sessions at the Brussels Press Club.

A monthly newsletter sent to over 2,500 subscribers.

Increased social media presence: over 2,500 followers on Twitter and 1,200 on Facebook.

Successful fundraising strategy to secure the sustainability of our core services for the 2012–2015 period. We have also secured project funding for the first phase of our European elections project, aimed at young voters.

New three-year operating grants from the Adessium Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

Continued in-kind sponsorship from Burson-Marsteller and White & Case.

New supporting membership scheme to complement and diversify our sources of revenue. First supportingmembers: the House of Dutch Provinces and ONE Campaign.

Two new Board members: former Dutch Green MEP Kathalijne Buitenweg and former Polish Secretary of Statefor European Affairs Mikołaj Dowgielewicz.

Formation of a strategic partnership with the European Youth Forum’s League of Young Voters in the run-up to the 2014 EP elections.

Participation in the launch of the League of Young Voters during the 2013 YO!Fest in Brussels.

Our achievements in the last twelve months (continued):

FINANCESThe 2012 budget of VoteWatch Europe AISBLamounted to €123,573. This included a grant of€114,273 from the Open Society Foundations andincome from paid services of €9,300. As the AISBLonly became operational in the fourth quarter of

2012, most of these funds (€88,626) were placed inreserve for use in 2013. Of the €34,947 spent in 2012,90% went on personnel costs and the remaining10% on rent and other administrative overhead.


SPONSORS AND MEMBERSHIP


VoteWatch Europe AISBL is an independent,non-partisan, not-for-profit organisation.We are funded through a combination offoundation grants, in-kind sponsorship,paid-for services, membership contributions

and individual donations. All sponsors,supporting members and donations areacknowledged on our website. Our currentsponsors and supporting members are:

Sponsors

Supporting members

In the run-up to the 2014 European Parliamentelections we expect interest in our data, analysesand online tools to surge. In order to be able tomeet the expected demand and improve the dissemination of our research, we are looking forindividuals, companies and organisations willingto invest in our future by becoming supportingmembers of our association.

Supporting members are non-voting members ofour general assembly who receive privileged accessto a special range of VoteWatch Europe activitiesand services. If you are interested in becoming aVoteWatch Europe sponsor or supporting member,please visit our website for more information:

www.votewatch.eu/en/sponsor.html

ONE Campaign

House of the Dutch Provinces



POLICY FOCUS: 10 VOTES THAT SHAPEDTHE 7TH EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

I. METHOD

The first four years of the 2009–2014 term haveshown an increasing strength of the European Parliament in relation to the Council and the Commission. The powers provided to the Parliament bythe Treaty of Lisbon were soon been picked up bymembers of the European Parliament, who wantedto make the voice of citizens heard. Perhaps themost notorious demonstration of force by the EPwas the rejection of the Anti-Counterfeiting TradeAgreement (ACTA) in July 2012. While this may bethe most prominent example due to the publicity itreceived, the number of cases where the Parliamentmanaged to leave its footprint on EU legislation iscertainly higher than in the previous term. In thisreport we show that the political and ideologicalcomposition of the Parliament ultimately decidesthe extent and direction of the Parliament’s footprint.

For this report we have selected ten votes that emphasize not only some of the big issues the EPhas decided, but also how the ideological balance of power in the chamber has influencedthe outcome of these decisions. Moreover, thesevotes show how the national background of theMEPs has influenced some key decisions.

Choosing the “most important” ten votes out of apool of over 4,000 so far recorded (roll-call) votesin the seventh term of the European Parliament isnot an easy endeavour. We have inevitably had tomake some choices with which some people will disagree. In making this selection we have appliedthree main criteria:

That the piece of legislation being voted onhas a very high impact;

That the subject matter is relatively easy tounderstand for the general public; and

That the issue generated controversy both inthe EP and in the public sphere and that, inconsequence, the political groups in the Parliament took different positions on theissue.

The second difficult choice we had to make was totranslate the technical language of each legislativeproposal or relevant paragraph or amendment intoa language that would be easy to understand by ageneral audience. As a result, the titles of the votespresented in this report are conscious oversimplifi-cations of complex decisions, designed to make iteasier to comprehend what the decisions wereabout.

For a full explanation and understanding of thevotes, readers should refer to our website and to thefull text of the proposals that were voted on.



II. ABBREVIATIONS

ALDE

EC

ECR

EFD

EP

EPG(s)

EPP

EU

Greens/EFA

GUE-NGL

MEP(s)

NI

S&D

Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

European Commission

European Conservatives and Reformists Group

Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group

European Parliament

European Political Group(s)

Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats)

European Union

Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance

Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left

Member(s) of the European Parliament

Non-attached Members

Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament

III. THE EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE: HOW DID THE EUROPEAN POLITICAL GROUPS VOTE?

MEPs sit in the European Parliament according totheir ideology positions, and not according to theMember State where they were elected. Analysis ofthe voting data shows that political group membership is usually a stronger determinant ofMEP voting than nationality.

Consequently, voting trends in the European Parlia-ment have to be analysed primarily by looking atthe votes cast by European political groups. Thesegroups generally follow two main patterns: a classical left-right pattern, and a pro-/anti- deeperEuropean integration pattern.

In the first part of this report we look at the positionstaken by the seven European political groups. Eachof the pillars in the graphs represents one political

group, while the size of each pillar is proportionalto the size (number of seats) of each group. The proportion of the pillar coloured in green shows theproportion of votes “in favour” inside a group, thered refers to votes “against”, the yellow to “abstentions”, and the grey represents MEPs whodid not take part in a vote.

Also, where there are important splits inside one ofthe (big) political groups, we show the voting break-down by national party delegations. This enablesthe reader to see where, and for whom, nationalityplayed a role. In the subsequent section of the report,we look at data strictly from a national perspective,showing the positions of each national party dele-gation from each country in the ten key votes.



1. European Parliament legislative resolution of 20 October 2010 onthe proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of theCouncil amending Council Directive 92/85/EEC on the introduction ofmeasures to encourage improvements in the safety and health atwork of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birthor are breastfeeding.

1. Should the minimum length of the maternity leave on full pay be extended from 14 to 20 weeks?

Dossier: Improvement in the safety and health atwork of pregnant workers and workers who haverecently given birth or are breastfeeding, Amendment12=38, October 2010 EP plenary session.

In October 2010, the European Parliament adopted bya narrow majority its first reading position on theDirective on Maternity Leave. The text 1 provided for theextension of maternity leave from 14 to 20 weekson full pay, and contained a number of other measures favourable to mothers and pregnant women,as well as more generous paternity leave.

The centre-left supported the amended proposal,arguing that its provisions would ensure greaterprotection of women and encourage demographicgrowth. The centre-right groups, on the other hand,generally opposed it. They argued that such provi-sions would lead to significant extra costs, particu-larly for small businesses, and would cause indirectdiscrimination of women in the labour market, as

employers would avoid hiring young women witha right to extended paid maternity leave.

The key vote we selected from this report was onamendment 12=38, regarding the extension of maternity leave on full pay from 14 to 20 weeks. Thevote passed with 327 MEPs in favour to 320 against.The centre-left groups – Socialists and Democrats(S&D), Greens/EFA and the radical left (GUE-NGL) –succeeded in gathering a majority with the help of82 MEPs from the EPP, primarily from Poland, Italy,Hungary and Lithuania. The Council’s first readingis currently at a standstill, with a significant numberof Member States (mainly with centre-right govern-ments) opposed to the Council reaching a commonposition on the issue.

Fig 1IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK OF PREGNANT WORKERS AND WORKERS WHO HAVE RECENTLY GIVEN BIRTH OR ARE BREASTFEEDINGDraft legislative resolution: Text as a whole - 20 weeks, amendment 12=38ordinary legislative procedure, first reading. Power table by EPGs

For Against Abstentions Non voters

100

0

200

-100

-2001 GUE-NGL Greens/EFA S&D ALDE/ADLE EPP ECR EFD NI

100

0

200

-100




Fig 2IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK OF PREGNANT WORKERS AND WORKERS WHO HAVE RECENTLY GIVEN BIRTH OR ARE BREASTFEEDINGDraft legislative resolution: Text as a whole - 20 weeks, amendment 12=38ordinary legislative procedure, first reading. Power table within EPP

AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFrance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

GermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgMalta

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

NetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaSlovakiaSloveniaSpain SwedenUnited Kingdom

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


-50

-25

0

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26-50

-25

0

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26



Fig 3IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK OF PREGNANT WORKERS AND WORKERS WHO HAVE RECENTLY GIVEN BIRTH OR ARE BREASTFEEDINGDraft legislative resolution: Text as a whole - 20 weeks, amendment 12=38 ordinary legislative procedure, first reading. Power table within S&D


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

30

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26

2. Should nuclear energy be phased out?

Dossier: Framework Programme of the EuropeanAtomic Energy Community for nuclear research andtraining activities, Amendment 36, November 2011EP plenary session.

In November 2011, a majority of MEPs adopted theEP’s position on the proposal for a Council decision onthe Framework Programme of the European AtomicEnergy Community (Euratom) for nuclear researchand training activities.2 Only the Greens/EFA and theGUE-NGL groups voted against in the final vote. TheEuratom Framework Programme determines the different research activities in nuclear energy and radiation protection, as well as the budget allocatedto them.

The key vote we look at in this report was onamendment 36, which was drafted by theGreens/EFA group and which aimed to commit theEU to renounce nuclear energy. The amendmentwas supported by GUE-NGL and Greens/EFA MEPs,as well as by two-thirds of the S&D members andalmost half of the ALDE MEPs. However, this coalitionfailed to reach a majority, as the EPP (except for theAustrian delegation), ECR, and EFD groups, as wellas most of the ALDE MEPs, voted against. Amendment36 fell by 210 votes in favour to 356 against.

2. European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 November 2011 on the proposal for a Council decision concerning the Framework Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community for nuclear research and training activities (2012–2013).




Fig 4FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES Draft legislative resolution: Annex I, part II, section 2, paragraph 1 , amendment 36 - consultation.Power table by EPGs

0

100

200

-100

-200


0

100

200

-100

-200




Fig 5FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES Draft legislative resolution: Annex I, part II, section 2, paragraph 1 , amendment 36 - consultation.Power within S&D

-20

-10

0

10

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

20

-20

-10

0

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26



Fig 6FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME OF THE EUROPEAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES Draft legislative resolution: Annex I, part II, section 2, paragraph 1 , amendment 36 - consultation. Power table within ALDE/ADLE

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

10

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

3. Should the Eurozone countries pool their public debts by creating Eurobonds?

Dossier: Feasibility of introducing stability bonds, finalvote, February 2012 EP plenary session.

In February 2012 the EP gave its first reaction to the European Commission's Green Paper proposing Eurobonds. The non-binding resolution3 was largelysupportive of the initiative, arguing that Eurobondsare needed as part of the solution to the Eurozone’scurrent financial problems. The S&D and Greens/EFAgroups, as well as the majority of MEPs from the EPPand ALDE groups, voted in favour of the resolution.However, 29 EPP members from Germany andSweden voted against, while 19 ALDE MEPs, alsomainly from Germany, abstained. There also was

opposition from the ECR group and most MEPs fromthe GUE-NGL and EFD groups.

If introduced, Eurobonds (or Stability Bonds as theyare referred to in the European Commission’s GreenPaper) would lead to the pooling “of sovereign debtissuance among EU Member States and the sharingof associated revenue flows and debt-servicing costs”. 4

3. European Parliament resolution of 15 February 2012 on the feasibilityof introducing stability bonds.

4. European Commission Green Paper on the feasibility of introducingstability bonds, Brussels, 23 November 2011, COM(2011) 818 final, p. 2.




Fig 7MOTIONS FOR RESOLUTIONS - FEASIBILITY OF INTRODUCING STABILITY BONDSMotion for a resolution: vote: resolution. Power table by EPGs

200

100

0

300


200

100

0

300


Fig 8MOTIONS FOR RESOLUTIONS - FEASIBILITY OF INTRODUCING STABILITY BONDSMotion for a resolution: vote: resolution. Power table within EPP

-40

-20

0

20

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

40

-40

-20

0

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27





4. Should there be a European tax on financial transactions?

Dossier: Common system for taxing financialtransactions, final vote, May 2012 EP plenary session.

In May 2012, a large majority of MEPs supported atax on financial transactions (FTT), to be levied byEU Member States.5 MEPs backed the tax by 487votes, but disagreed on where the money should goto. A significant minority of 152 MEPs, from ECR, EFD,and ALDE (with the exception of the French, Italianand Finnish members), voted against the proposal.20 EPP members, from Malta, Cyprus, Sweden andLatvia, and 6 S&D members, from Malta and Cyprus, also voted against.

Note: following this vote, the Member States failedto reach an agreement on the FTT, which, as a tax-related issue, requires unanimity in the Council.As a result, the Council authorised in January 2013the initiation of an enhanced cooperation procedureamong eleven Member States (Belgium, Germany,Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal,Slovenia and Slovakia) that wanted to go aheadwith the FTT.

5. European Parliament legislative resolution of 23 May 2012 on theproposal for a Council directive on a common system of financialtransaction tax and amending Directive 2008/7/EC.

Fig 9COMMON SYSTEM FOR TAXING FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONSDraft legislative resolution: vote: legislative resolution - consultation. Power table by EPGs

200

100

0

300


200

100

0

300





-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

10

-15

-10

-5

0

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26

Fig 10COMMON SYSTEM FOR TAXING FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONSDraft legislative resolution: vote: legislative resolution - consultation. Power table within ALDE/ADLE


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


5. Should the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) be ratified?

Dossier: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement betweenthe EU and its Member States, Australia, Canada,Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, NewZealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the UnitedStates of America, Final vote, July 2012 EP plenarysession.

In July 2012, the EP voted not to ratify the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) betweenthe EU and its Member States and Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland andthe USA. MEPs rejected ACTA6 by 39 votes in favour,478 against and 165 abstentions.

Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty,the EP is required to approve or reject trade agreements,although it cannot amend them. As a result of thisvote, neither the EU nor any individual EU MemberState can join ACTA. MEPs raised concerns relatedto data protection, fundamental freedoms, opennessand transparency of ACTA negotiations. Most EPgroups voted against ACTA, while a majority of EPPand ECR members abstained.

6. European Parliament legislative resolution of 4 July 2012 on the draftCouncil decision on the conclusion of the Anti-Counterfeiting TradeAgreement between the European Union and its Member States, Australia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the United MexicanStates, the Kingdom of Morocco, New Zealand, the Republic of Singapore, the Swiss Confederation and the United States of America.



Fig 11ANTI-COUNTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EU AND ITS MEMBERSTATES, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, JAPAN, THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, MEXICO, MOROCCO, NEW ZEALAND, SINGAPORE, SWITZERLAND AND THE USADraft legislative resolution: vote: consent vote: consent. Power table by EPGs

Fig 12ANTI-COUNTERFEITING TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EU AND ITS MEMBERSTATES, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, JAPAN, THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, MEXICO, MOROCCO, NEW ZEALAND, SINGAPORE, SWITZERLAND AND THE USADraft legislative resolution: vote: consent vote: consent. Power table within EPP

0

-100

100

-200


0

-100

100

-200


-40

-20

0

20

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

40

-40

-20

0

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27




6. Should there be an increase in the EU’s multi-annual budget for the next 7 years?

Dossier: EP’s position on the multi-annual financial framework (MFF) agreed among the Member States,final vote, March 2013 EP plenary session.

In March 2013, MEPs adopted a resolution7 criticisingthe cuts in the EU’s multi-annual financial frameworkfor the 2014–2020 period, which had been agreed byHeads of State and Government in February 2013. According to the resolution, MEPs will only consent tothe MFF if it allows for consolidation of the EU’s ownsystem of resources, and if it permits more flexibility inthe budget, between budget lines, and budget years.The EPP, S&D, ALDE, Greens/EFA, and GUE-NGL groupssupported the resolution. A significant number of MEPsvoted against the group line in the EPP, mainly fromCentral and Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania) and the Nordic countries (Denmark, Sweden,Finland).

Within the S&D group, the British, Swedish and Danishdelegations voted against the EP resolution.

Following the EP vote, informal negotiations havetaken place between Parliament, Council and theCommission. The EP will then vote formally on whetherto give its consent. If no agreement is reached bythe end of 2013, the EU will operate on the basis ofyearly budgets at the level of the 2013 ceilings, adjusted for inflation.

7. European Parliament resolution of 13 March 2013 on the EuropeanCouncil conclusions of 7/8 February concerning the Multiannual Financial Framework.

.

200

100

300

0


200

100

300

0



Fig 13MULTIANNUAL FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK - MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION Vote: resolution (as a whole). Power table by EPGs



Fig 14MULTIANNUAL FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK - MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION Vote: resolution (as a whole). Power table by within EPP

Fig 15MULTIANNUAL FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK - MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION Vote: resolution (as a whole). Power table by within S&D

-40

-20

0

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26-40

-20

0

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

30

-20

-10

0

10

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27




7. Should the agricultural subsidies remain a budgetary priority for the EU?

Dossier: Decision on the opening of, and mandatefor, interinstitutional negotiations on financing,management and monitoring of the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP), Final vote, March 2013 EPplenary session.

In March 2013, the EP adopted a motion for a resolution8 on the Common Agricultural Policy reform. Currently around 40% of the EU budget isspent on CAP-related payments. The documentadopted by the EP largely favours maintaining thecurrent state of affairs. The motion passed with 474votes in favour to 172 against. All Greens/EFA MEPsand most of GUE-NGL members voted against, aswell as 56 S&D ‘rebel’ MEPs (of which 20 were fromGermany and 12 from the UK).

The Lisbon Treaty extended the ordinary legislativeprocedure (co-decision) to several areas, includingagricultural policy. This placed the EP on equal footing with the Council on CAP reform. However,the financial provisions of the CAP are entangledwith the MFF negotiations, and therefore cannotbe determined until agreement has been reachedon the latter (see above).

8. European Parliament decision of 13 March 2013 on the opening of,and on the mandate for, interinstitutional negotiations on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of theCouncil on the financing, management and monitoring of the CAP.

.

200

100

0

300


200

100

0

300



Fig 16DECISION ON THE OPENING OF, AND MANDATE FOR, INTERINSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS ON FINANCING, MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING OF THE CAPMotion for a resolution. Vote: proposal for decision. Power table by EPGs



Fig 17DECISION ON THE OPENING OF, AND MANDATE FOR, INTERINSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS ON FINANCING, MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING OF THE CAPMotion for a resolution. Vote: proposal for decision. Power table by within EPP

Fig 18DECISION ON THE OPENING OF, AND MANDATE FOR, INTERINSTITUTIONAL NEGOTIATIONS ON FINANCING, MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING OF THE CAPMotion for a resolution. Vote: proposal for decision. Power table by within S&D

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26-20

-10

0

10

20

30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26

-40

-20

0

20

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

40

-40

-20

0

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27




8. Should a proposal to increase taxes on CO2 emissions be rejected?

Dossier: Clarifying provisions on the timing of auctions of greenhouse gas allowances (ETS back-loading), motion to reject the EC proposal and tosend it back to the parliamentary committee(Amendment 20), April 2013 EP plenary session.

In April 2013, the centre-right groups narrowly defeated9 (334 votes in favour to 315 against) a proposal by the European Commission to boost theprice of EU "polluter's permits" within the EmissionsTrading Scheme (ETS). This proposal, also known as‘backloading’, was mainly opposed by the EPP. Theyargued that the increase in prices is counter-productiveat a time of economic downturn, as this would raisecosts for industry and would result in higher energyprices for consumers.

The centre-left supported the reform, saying thatmore efforts are needed to fight pollution and climatechange, and that renewable sources of energyshould receive greater benefits at the expense ofconventional energy sources that pollute more. Following rejection by the EP, the proposal was sentback to the responsible EP committee (Environment, Pu-blic Health and Food Safety).

9. European Parliament draft legislative resolution on the proposal fora decision of the European Parliament and of the Council amendingDirective 2003/87/EC clarifying provisions on the timing of auctionsof greenhouse gas allowances.

.

100

0

200

-100


100

0

200

-100



Fig 19CLARIFYING PROVISIONS ON THE TIMING OF AUCTIONS OF GREENHOUSE GAS ALLOWANCESDraft legislative resolution: Proposal to reject the Commission proposal, amendment 20 - ordinary legislative procedure, first reading. Power table by EPGs.



Fig 20CLARIFYING PROVISIONS ON THE TIMING OF AUCTIONS OF GREENHOUSE GAS ALLOWANCESDraft legislative resolution: Proposal to reject the Commission proposal, amendment 20 - ordinary legislative procedure, first reading. Power table by within EPP.

-20

0

20

40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

40

-20

0

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26

-30

-20

-10

0

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

10

-30

-20

-10

0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27


Fig 21CLARIFYING PROVISIONS ON THE TIMING OF AUCTIONS OF GREENHOUSE GAS ALLOWANCESDraft legislative resolution: Proposal to reject the Commission proposal, amendment 20 - ordinary legislative procedure, first reading. Power table by within S&D




Fig 22CLARIFYING PROVISIONS ON THE TIMING OF AUCTIONS OF GREENHOUSE GAS ALLOWANCESDraft legislative resolution: Proposal to reject the Commission proposal, amendment 20 - ordinary legislative procedure, first reading. Power table by within ALDE/ADLE

-20

-10

0

10

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

20

-20

-10

0

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



9. Should the location of the official seat of the European Parliament be reviewed as part of a future Treaty change?

Dossier: 2011 Discharge, EU General Budget: EuropeanParliament, Amendment 4 to paragraph 10, April2013 EP plenary session.

In April 2013, a majority of MEPs (370 to 281) supported an amendment to a resolution accom-panying the final approval of the 2011 EP accounts10,urging “the Member States to revise the issue ofParliament’s seat and working places in the next re-vision of the Treaty”. The opposition to the amendment– in other words, the MEPs who did not want theissue of the seat of the EP to be raised – camemainly from the French delegation in the S&Dgroup, as well as from the EPP group, with the exception of the Swedish and Dutch delegations.

The European Parliament has three places of work:Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg, as defined byProtocol 6 of the Lisbon Treaty. Luxembourg is hometo the administrative offices (the EP ‘General Secretariat’). Plenary sessions take place in Strasbourgand in Brussels. Committee meetings are also heldin Brussels. A modification of this arrangementwould require a Treaty change. Since the entry intoforce of the Lisbon Treaty, the EP has the right topropose treaty changes.

10. European Parliament decision of 17 April 2013 on discharge in respectof the implementation of the general budget of the European Unionfor the financial year 2011, Section I – European Parliament.

Fig 232011 DISCHARGE: EU GENERAL BUDGET, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTMotion for a resolution: Paragraph 10, amendment 4. Power table by EPGs.

0

100

200

-100

-200


0

100

200

-100

-200






Fig 242011 DISCHARGE: EU GENERAL BUDGET, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTMotion for a resolution: Paragraph 10, amendment 4. Power table by within S&D

-20

-10

0

10

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2713 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

20

-20

-10

0

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 274 25 26


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18


19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



10. Should the EU create a free trade area with the United States of America?

Dossier: EU trade and investment agreement nego-tiations with the US, Final vote, May 2013 EP plenarysession.

In May 2013, a large majority of MEPs backed theproposed EP position on negotiations for a freetrade agreement with the US.11 Only the GUE-NGLand Greens/EFA groups, as well as most non-attachedMembers (who are mostly on the radical right),were opposed. French MEPs in the S&D and ALDEgroups abstained. MEPs also voted to ask the Commission and the Council to exclude culturaland audio-visual services from the negotiatingmandate, including those provided online.

However, a number of other references to potentialobstacles to an EU-US FTA, such as GMOs and labour and environmental standards, were voteddown. The EU Treaty stipulates that internationaltrade agreements are negotiated by the EuropeanCommission on behalf of all EU Member States,based on a negotiating mandate adopted by theCouncil. To enter into force, though, trade agreementsmust be ratified by a majority vote in the EuropeanParliament.

11. European Parliament resolution of 23 May 2013 on EU trade and investment negotiations with the United States of America..

Fig 25EU TRADE AND INVESTMENT AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE USMotion for resolution: vote: resolution (as a whole). Power table by EPGs.

200

100

0

300


200

100

0

300




IV. THE NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: HOW DID THE NATIONAL PARTY DELEGATIONS VOTE?


This part of the report looks at the votes from a national perspective. Here we show the position ofeach national party delegation, country by country,on the same 10 issues. The position of a nationalparty delegation has been determined by lookingat how the plurality (but not necessarily all) of theMEPs from each national party voted.

Consequently, in some cases, some MEPs belongingto a national party voted differently from the national party positions shown in these tables.

To see how each individual MEP voted, readers cancheck the full voting lists on our website.

Note: the tables do not include independent MEPs.Their voting records can be found on our website.

1. Extension of maternity leave2. Phase out of nuclear energy3. Create Eurobonds4. Financial transaction tax5. ACTA ratification6. MFF increase for 2014-20207. Financing of the Common Agricultural Policy8. Capping CO2 emissions’ price9. Revision of EP's official seat location10. EU-US free trade agreement

Party

Legend

EPpolitical group

AUSTRIAÖVP

EPP

-+++o+++-+

+-on/a

The majority of this national party delegation voted in favour. The majority of this national party delegation voted against. The majority of this national party delegation abstained.A political line could not be identified, either because there were no votes, or because there were equalnumber of MEPs voting in two different ways.

Grünen

Greens/EFA

++++-+--+-

FPÖ

NI

-+-+---+--

Dr. Martin

NI

++o+----+-

SPÖ

S&D

-+++-+-o++

BZÖ

NI

n/an/a----+++-

Acronym

ÖVPGrünenFPÖDr. MartinSPÖBZÖ

Party

Österreichische VolksparteiDie Grünen – Die Grüne AlternativeFreiheitliche Partei ÖsterreichsListe "Dr. Martin - für Demokratie, Kontrolle, Gerechtigkeit"Sozialdemokratische Partei ÖsterreichsBündnis Zukunft Österreich


Acronym

cdHCD&VEcoloGroenLDDMR


PartyEPpolitical group

BELGIUMcdH

EPP

+-++-++--+

CD&V

EPP

--++o++-++

Ecolo

Greens/EFA

++++-+--+-

Groen

Greens/EFA

++++-+--+-

LDD

ECR

-n/an/a-o-n/a+++

MR

ALDE

--++-++-++

N-VA

Greens/EFA

o-oo-o-+++

VLD

ALDE

-++--++-++

PS

S&D

++++-++-o-

sp.a

S&D

++++-+--++

Party

Centre démocrate humanisteChristen-Democratisch en VlaamsEcologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes OriginalesGroenLibertair, Direct, DemocratischMouvement réformateur

Party

Nieuw-Vlaamse AlliantieOpen Vlaamse Liberalen en DemocratenParti socialisteSocialistische Partij AndersVlaams Belang

VB

NI

+------++-

Acronym

N-VAVLDPSSP.AVB




CYPRUSDIKO

S&D

+++--++o+-

DISY

EPP

n/a-+--+++-+

EDEK

S&D

o++--++oon/a

AKEL

GUE-NGL

++oo-+--o-

Acronym

SKGERBKBNDPDPSNDSVPROUD/CPDS



BULGARIASK

EPP

--++-+++-+

GERB

EPP

--++-+++-+

KB

S&D

+n/a++-+++-+

NPD

NI

n/an/an/an/a-n/an/a+n/an/a

NVDS

ALDE

+++n/a-++n/a++

PROUD/CPDS

EFD

n/an/an/an/an/a+n/a++n/a

Party

Синята коалиция / Blue CoalitionГраждани за европейско развитие на България / Citizens for European Development of BulgariaКоалиция за България / Coalition for BulgariaНационал-демократична партия / National-Democratic PartyДвижение за права и свободи / Movement for Rights and FreedomsНационално движение за стабилност и възход / National Movement for Stability and ProgressГражданско Обединение за Реална Демокрация / Консервативна Партия Движение на УспехаPeople for Real, Open and United Democracy / Conservative Party for Democracy and Success

Party

Δημοκρατικό Κόμμα / Democratic PartyΔημοκρατικός Συναγερμός / Democratic RallyΚίνημα Σοσιαλδημοκρατών ΕΔΕΚ / Movement for Social Democracy EDEK Ανορθωτικό Κόμμα Εργαζόμενου Λαού / Progressive Party of Working People

Acronym

DIKODISYEDEKAKEL


Acronym

ČSSDKSČMKDU-ČSLODS



CZECH REPUBLICČSSD

S&D

+n/a++-++-++

KSČM

GUE-NGL

+-o+-++oo-

KDU-ČSL

EPP

--+*-+++-+

ODS

ECR

----o-++++

Party

Česká strana sociálně demokratickáKomunistická strana Čech a MoravyKřesťanská a demokratická unie – Československá strana lidováObčanská demokratická strana

Acronym

DFKFFBSDSFVDLP



DENMARKDF

EFD

on/a-----o++

KF

EPP

n/ao--+---++

FB

GUE-NGL

++-+-+--+-

SD

S&D

+++oo+--++

SF

Greens/EFA

++++-o--++

VDLP

ALDE

--o--++-++

Party

Dansk FolkepartiDet Konservative FolkepartiFolkebevægelsen mod EUSocialdemokratietSocialistisk FolkepartiVenstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti

Acronym

ERIRLSDE



ESTONIAER

ALDE

-n/ao--+++-+

IRL

EPP

+n/a+--+++-+

SDE

S&D

-o++-++-++

Party

Eesti ReformierakondErakond Isamaa ja Res Publica LiitSotsiaaldemokraatlik Erakond




Party

Kansallinen Kokoomus

Perussuomalaiset

Suomen Keskusta

Suomen kristillisdemokraatit

Suomen Sosialidemokraattinen Puolue / Finlands Socialdemokratiska Parti

Svenska folkpartiet

Vihreä liitto

Acronym

KokPSKeskKDSDPSFPVihr



FINLANDKok

EPP

--++o+++-+

PS

EFD

------++++

Kesk

ALDE

---+-n/a+n/a++

KD

EPP

---oo-++++

SDP

S&D

+n/a++-+n/a-n/a+

SFP

ALDE

--o--++++n/a

Vihr

Greens/EFA

++++-+n/a-+-

Acronym

CAP21EEFDGFNUDIUMPPR



FRANCE

Party

Citoyenneté Action Participation pour le 21ème siècleEurope ÉcologieFront de gauche pour changer d’EuropeFront nationalUnion des Démocrates et IndépendantsUnion pour un Mouvement PopulaireParti Radical

Acronym

LAOMMODEMMPFNCPSPNC

Party

Liste "Alliance des Outre-Mers"Mouvement DémocrateMouvement pour la FranceNouveau CentreParti socialistePartitu di a Nazione Corsa

CAP21

ALDE

++++-+--o-

EEGreens/EFA

++++-+--+-

FDGGUE-NGL

+n/a-+-+----

FN

NI

---o---+--

UDI

EPP

n/an/an/an/an/a++--+

UMP

EPP

--++++++-+

PR

EPP

n/an/a+++++---

LAOMGreens/EFA

n/an/a-+-+-o--

MODEM

ALDE

-+++-++--o

MPF

EFD

n/an/a----o+n/an/a

NC

EPP

--++o++n/a-+

PS

S&D

+-++-++--o

PNCGreens/EFA++++-+--+-

Acronym

B90/GrünenCDUCSU



GERMANYB90/Grünen

Greens/EFA

++++-+--+-

CDU

EPP

---+o+++-+

CSU

EPP

---+n/a+++-+

Linke

GUE-NGL

++o+-+----

FDP

ALDE

--o-o+++++

SPD

S&D

-+++-+--++

Party

Bündnis 90/Die GrünenChristlich Demokratische Union DeutschlandsChristlich-Soziale Union in Bayern e.V.

Acronym

LinkeFDPSPD

Party

Die Linke.Freie Demokratische ParteiSozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands



Party

Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας / Communist Party of GreeceΣυνασπισμός Ριζοσπαστικής Αριστεράς / Coalition of the Radical LeftΔράση / ActionΟικολόγοι Πράσινοι / Ecologist GreensΝέα Δημοκρατία / New DemocracyΠανελλήνιο Σοσιαλιστικό Κίνημα / Panhellenic Socialist MovementΛαϊκός Ορθόδοξος Συναγερμός - Γ. Καρατζαφέρης / Popular Orthodox Rally - G. Karatzaferis

Acronym

CPG

SYRIZA

DA

OP

ND

PASOK

LAOS



GREECECPG

GUE-NGL

+--n/a---++-

SYRIZA

GUE-NGL

++n/a+n/a+n/an/an/an/a

DA

ALDE

n/a++--o-n/a+-

OP

Greens/EFA

n/a+++-+--+-

ND

EPP

--++o+++-+

PASOK

S&D

++++-++on/a+

LAOS

EFD

++n/a+n/a+++++

Acronym

FIDESZ-KDNPJOBBIKMDFMSZP



HUNGARYFIDESZ-KDNP

EPP

+-++-++--o

JOBBIK

NI

o--+-++n/a+-

MDF

ECR

-n/a--n/a--+++

MSZP

S&D

++++-++n/an/a+

Party

Fidesz-Magyar Polgári Szövetség-Keresztény Demokrata NéppártJobbik Magyarországért MozgalomMagyar Demokrata FórumMagyar Szocialista Párt



IRELANDFF

ALDE

-++--n/a+-++

FG

EPP

--+oo++-n/a+

LP

S&D

+o++-++-++

SP

GUE-NGL

++-n/a-+-o+-

Party

Fianna Fáil PartyFine Gael PartyLabour PartySocialist Party

Acronym

FFFGLPSP



LPP/LC

ALDE

-n/ao--+++++

Acronym

CSRFDI-CDNFLIPdLALIIdV



ITALYCSR

ECR

+-++o-++n/a+

FDI-CDN

EPP

+-++-+++-n/a

FLI

EPP

+n/a++o+++-n/a

Party

Conservatori e Social RiformatoriFratelli d'Italia - Centrodestra NazionaleFuturo e Libertà per l'ItaliaIl Popolo della Libertà"Io amo l'Italia"Italia dei Valori - Lista Di Pietro

Acronym

LNPDSVPUDCUDEUR

Party

Lega NordPartito DemocraticoSüdtiroler Volkspartei (Partito popolare sudtirolese)Unione dei Democratici cristiani e dei Democratici di CentroUnione Democratici per l'Europa

Acronym

LPP/LCPCTVLSCTB/LNNV



LATVIAPCTVL

Greens/EFA

++++-+-o+-

SC

GUE-NGL

+n/ao+-o--o-

TB/LNNK

ECR

---n/ao++-++

V

EPP

--+-o+++-+

Party

Latvijas Pirmā Partija/Latvijas CeļšPar cilvēka tiesībām vienotā LatvijāPolitisko partiju apvienība "Saskaņas centrs"Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNKVienotība

PdL

EPP

+-+--+++-+

ALI

EFD

-n/an/a-+--++-

IdV

ALDE

++++-++-++

LN

EFD

+-+o-+++++

PD

S&D

++++-++-++

SVP

EPP

--++o+++-+

UDC

EPP

+-++n/a+++-+

UDEUR

EPP

+-+n/a-n/an/a+-n/a



LITHUANIADP

ALDE

o-++n/a++n/an/an/a

AWPL

ECR

-n/a----++++

LRLS

ALDE

--++-o+-++

LSDP

S&D

+o++-++-++

TT

EFD

+n/an/a+-on/ao++

LKD

EPP

+-++o++--+

Party

Darbo partijaAkcja Wyborcza Polaków na Litwie/Lietuvos lenkų rinkimų akcijaLietuvos Respublikos liberalų sąjūdisLietuvos socialdemokratų partijaPartija Tvarka ir teisingumasTėvynės sąjunga - Lietuvos krikščionys demokratai

Acronym

DPAWPLLRLSLSDPTTTS-LKD



PL

S&D

+++--n/an/a-n/a+

Acronym

DG/LV CSV/PCSDPLSAP



LUXEMBOURGDG/LV

Greens/EFA

++++-+--+-

CSV/PCS

EPP

--+n/a-+++-+

DP

ALDE

-+++o-++-+

Party

Déi Gréng - Les VertsChrëschtlech Sozial Vollekspartei / Parti chrétien social luxembourgeoisDemokratesch Partei/Parti démocratiqueLëtzebuerger Sozialistesch Aarbechterpartei / Parti ouvrier socialiste luxembourgeois

Acronym

PLPN



MALTAPN

EPP

--+--n/an/a+-+

Party

Partit LaburistaPartit Nazzjonalista

LSAP

S&D

+-++-+++++



NETHERLANDSCDA

EPP

--++-++-++

CU

ECR

n/a---o-+-++

D66

ALDE

--+--+--++

PvdA

S&D

++++-+--+n/a

PVV

NI

-------++-

SP

GUE-NGL

n/a+-+-+--++

SGP

EFD

------+-++

VVD

ALDE

--o-n/a+n/a+++

GL

Greens/EFA

++++-+--+-

Party

Christen Democratisch AppèlChristenUnieDemocraten 66GroenLinksPartij van de Arbeid

Acronym

CDACUD66GLPvdA

Party

Partij voor de VrijheidSocialistische PartijStaatkundig Gereformeerde PartijVolkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie

Acronym

PVVSPSGPVVD



Bloco

GUE-NGL

+n/ao+-+--+-

Acronym

POPJNPSLPiS



POLANDPO

EPP

+-++--++-+

PJN

ECR

------++++

PSL

EPP

--++--++-+

Party

Platforma ObywatelskaPolska Jest NajważniejszaPolskie Stronnictwo LudowePrawo i Sprawiedliwość

Acronym

SLDSPUP

Party

Sojusz Lewicy DemokratycznejSolidarna PolskaUnia Pracy

Acronym

BlocoPCPPPPSDPS



PORTUGALPCP

GUE-NGL

+o-+---o+-

PP

EPP

+-+n/ao++on/a+

PSD

EPP

+-++-++o-+

PS

PS

++++-++-++

Party

Bloco de EsquerdaPartido Comunista PortuguêsPartido PopularPartido Social DemocrataPartido Socialista

PiS

ECR

------++++

SLD

S&D

+-++-+++++

SP

EFD

---n/a--++++

UP

S&D

++++-+++-+



ROMANIAPD-L

EPP

--++o-++-+

PNL

ALDE

--+--+++++

PRM

NI

++++-+++++

PSD+PC

S&D

+-++-+++++

Party

Partidul Democrat-LiberalPartidul Naţional LiberalPartidul România MarePartidul Social Democrat + Partidul ConservatorUniunea Democrată Maghiară din România/Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség

Acronym

PD-LPNLPRMPSD+PCUDMR

UDMR

EPP

+-++o++--o



LDS

ALDE

+-+--++-++

Acronym

KDHĽS-HZDSSDKÚ–DSSNSSMER-SDSMK-MKP



SLOVAKIAKDH

EPP

--n/an/ao++--+

L’S-HZDS

ALDE

--+--++o+n/a

SDKÚ–DS

EPP

--+n/ao++n/a-+

Party

Kresťanskodemokratické hnutieĽudová strana - Hnutie za demokratické SlovenskoSlovenská demokratická a kresťanská únia - Demokratická stranaSlovenská národná stranaSMER-Sociálna demokraciaStrana mad'arskej komunity- Magyar Közösség Pártja

Acronym

LDSNSiSDSSDZARES



SLOVENIANSi

EPP

+E++-++--+

SDS

EPP

n/a-++o+++-+

SD

S&D

+n/a++-++-++

ZARES

S&D

o++--++o++

Party

Liberalna Demokracija SlovenijeNova Slovenija - Krščanska ljudska strankaSlovenska demokratska strankaSocialni demokratiZARES-Nova Politika

SNS

EFD

o-----o+n/a+

SMER-SD

S&D

+-++-++-++

SMK-MKP

EPP

--++n/a++--n/a



SPAINBNG

Greens/EFA

n/an/a++n/ao--+-

CDC

ALDE

--++-++-++

ERC

Greens/EFA

+n/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/an/a

IU

GUE-NGL

+n/a-on/a+--+-

PNV

ALDE

+-++-+++++

PP

EPP

o-++o++o-+

PSOE

S&D

++++-++o++

PSC

S&D

++++-++-n/a+

UDC

EPP

n/an/a++o+++n/a+

UPyD

NI

+-++-+o-++

ICV

Greens/EFA

++++-+--+-

Party

Bloque Nacionalista GalegoConvergència Democràtica de CatalunyaEsquerra Republicana de CatalunyaIniciativa per Catalunya VerdsIzquierda Unida

Acronym

BNGCDCERCICVIU

Party

Partido Nacionalista VascoPartido PopularPartido Socialista Obrero EspañolPartit dels Socialistes de CatalunyaUnió Democràtica de CatalunyaUnión, Progreso y Democracia

Acronym

PNVPPPSOEPSCUDCUPyD


BNP

NI

------o++n/a

Acronym

SAPCFPKDMP



SWEDENSAP

S&D

+o++----++

C

ALDE

n/a++---+-++

FP

FP

--+---+-++

Party

Arbetarepartiet- SocialdemokraternaCenterpartietFolkpartiet liberalernaKristdemokraternaMiljöpartiet de gröna

Acronym

MPPV

Party

Moderata SamlingspartietPiratpartietVänsterpartiet

Acronym

BNPConservativesDUPGPLabourLibDem



UKConservatives

ECR

----o-++++

DUP

NI

------+++n/a

GPGreens/EFA

++++-+--+-

Labour

S&D

--+o----++

LibDem

ALDE

-++--++-++

P. CymruGreen/EFA

++++-+--+-

SNPGreens/EFA

-++--o--+n/a

SFGUE-NGL

++n/a-++-+-

UCU-NF

ECR

----o-++++

UKIP

EFD

-------++o

WDAR

EFD

-n/a-----+n/an/a

Party

British National PartyConservative PartyDemocratic Unionist Party (Northern Ireland)Green PartyLabour PartyLiberal Democrats Party

Acronym

P. CymruSNPSFUCU-NFUKIPWDAR

Party

Plaid Cymru - Party of WalesScottish National PartySinn FéinUlster Conservatives and Unionists-New ForceUnited Kingdom Independence PartyWe Demand a Referendum

KD

EPP

o---o++--+

MP

Greens/EFA

o+o+----+-

M

EPP

----o--+++

PP

Greens/EFA

++++-o--+-

V

GUE-NGL

++-+-o--+-



Votewatch Europe AISBLAvenue de Tervueren 32-34, Box 11040 Brussels — Belgium

Telephone: +32 2 318 11 87Skype: votewatcheuropeEmail: [email protected]

www.votewatch.euFacebook: /VoteWatchEuropeTwitter: @VoteWatchEurope

VoteWatch Europe is supported by:

Burson-Marsteller Adessium Foundation Fondation Charles Léopold Mayer / Citizens for Europe Open Society Foundations Joseph Rowntree Charitable TrustWhite & Case


mise en page 1 - robert schuman...vo tes ha s hap ed t positions of european groups and national...

Documents