48-744: The Group of the European Radical Alliance ( ERA ) was a heterogeneous political group with seats in the European Parliament between 1994 and 1999. It was formed by regionalist parties from the former Rainbow Group , although its largest and dominant member party was the French Energie Radicale . In 1989 the Rainbow Group split. The Greens went off to form the Green Group , whilst
96-477: A "No" vote would be tantamount to a vote of no confidence . PES leader Pauline Green MEP attempted a vote of confidence and the EPP put forward countermotions. During this period the two Groups adopted a government- opposition dynamic, with PES supporting the executive and EPP renouncing its previous coalition support and voting it down. In 2004 there was another notable break in the grand coalition. It occurred over
144-502: A Group must meet to qualify as a Group. The numerical criteria are 23 MEPs (at 3.3 percent, a lower threshold than in most national parliaments) but they must come from at least one-quarter of Member States (so currently at least seven). They must also share a political affinity and submit a political declaration, setting out the purpose of the group, the values that it stands for and the main political objectives which its members intend to pursue together. The requirement of political affinity
192-712: A dozen MEPs in the ninth Parliament) and the European Green Party (over 50 MEPs in the ninth Parliament) have, since 1999, felt they are stronger by working together in the European Greens–European Free Alliance Group than they would have as stand-alone groups (especially for the EFA, which would not otherwise have enough members to constitute a group). The same is true of the Renew Europe Group, most of whose members are from
240-483: A far-right Group called " Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty " (ITS). This generated controversy and there were concerns about public funds going towards a far-right Group. Attempts to block the formation of ITS were unsuccessful, but ITS were blocked from leading positions on committees, when members from other Groups declined to vote for their candidates, despite a previous tradition of sharing such posts among members from all Groups. These events spurred MEPs, mainly from
288-417: A female majority, so the scale stops at 50%). The results are also given in the table below. G/EFA, PES and ALDE were the most balanced groups in terms of gender, with IND/DEM being the most unbalanced. The Parliament does not form a government in the traditional sense and its politics have developed over consensual rather than adversarial lines as a form of consociationalism . No single group has ever held
336-880: A group acted on a specific vote, they provide little information on the voting patterns of a specific group. As a result, the only bodies providing analysis of the voting patterns and Weltanschauung of the groups are academics. Academics analysing the European political groups include Simon Hix ( London School of Economics and Political Science ), Amie Kreppel University of Florida , Abdul Noury ( Free University of Brussels ), Gérard Roland , ( University of California, Berkeley ), Gail McElroy ( Trinity College Dublin , Department of Political Science), Kenneth Benoit ( Trinity College Dublin – Institute for International Integration Studies (IIIS) ), Friedrich Heinemann , Philipp Mohl , and Steffen Osterloh ( University of Mannheim – Centre for European Economic Research ). Cohesion
384-512: A hypothetical generalised EU tax. The results for each Group are given in the adjacent diagram with the horizontal scale scaled so that −100% = totally against and 100% = totally for. The results are also given in the table below, rescaled so that 0% = totally against, 100% = totally for. G/EFA and PES were in favour of such a tax, IND/DEM and the Independents were definitely against, the others had no clear position. National media focus on
432-687: A majority in Parliament. Historically, the two largest parliamentary formations have been the EPP Group and the PES Group , which are affiliated to their respective European political parties , the European People's Party (EPP) and the Party of European Socialists (PES). These two groups have dominated the Parliament for much of its life, continuously holding between 50 and 70 per cent of
480-581: A single European political party (e.g. the European People's Party , the Party of European Socialists ) or they can include more than one European party as well as national parties and independents, such as the Greens–European Free Alliance group. Each group appoints a leader, referred to as a "president", "co-ordinator" or "chair". The chairs of each Group meet in the Conference of Presidents to decide what issues will be dealt with at
528-547: A staff allocation and financial subsidies. Majorities in the Parliament depend on how Groups vote and what deals are negotiated among them. Although most of the political groups in the European Parliament correlate to a corresponding political party, there are cases where members from two political parties come together in a shared political group: for example, the European Free Alliance (half
SECTION 10
#1732773172742576-399: Is a phenomenon that gained force especially in the legislatures during the 1990s, up to a maximum of 18% for the 1989–1994 term, with strong prevalence among representatives from France and Italy, though by no means limited to those two countries. There is a clear tendency of party group switches from the ideological extremes, both left and right, toward the center. Most switching takes place at
624-479: Is the exclusive responsibility of the parties. But there are other incentives for MEPs to organise in parliamentary Groups: besides the political advantages of working together with like-minded colleagues, Groups have some procedural privileges within the Parliament (such as Group spokespersons speaking first in debates, Group leaders representing the Group in the Parliament's Conference of Presidents), and Groups receive
672-487: Is the term used to define whether a Group is united or divided amongst itself. Figure 1 of a 2002 paper from European Integration online Papers (EIoP) by Thorsten Faas analysed the Groups as they stood in 2002. The results for each Group are given in the adjacent diagram with the horizontal scale scaled so that 0% = totally split, 100% = totally united. The results are also given in the table below. G/EFA, PES and ELDR were
720-457: The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party , but also includes a dozen from the small European Democratic Party . Both have also had independents and MEPs from minor parties also join their Group. For a Group to be formally recognised in the Parliament, it must fulfil the conditions laid down in the relevant European Parliament Rule of Procedure. This lays down the minimum criteria
768-717: The European Democratic Union Group. When Conservatives from Denmark and the United Kingdom joined, they created the European Conservatives Group, which (after some name changes) eventually merged with the Group of the European People's Party. The 1979 first direct election established further groups and the establishment of European political parties such as the European People's Party. The mandate of
816-590: The European Green Party (EGP), Volt Europa (Volt), part of the European Free Alliance (EFA) and the European Pirate Party (PPEU). Formed following the 1999 European elections for the 5th European Parliament , the group has generally limited its membership to progressive parties. These European parties are joined by MEPs from non-aligned national parties, which have included the Dutch Europe Transparent (2004–2009) and
864-575: The Swedish (2009–2014), German (2014–) and Czech (2019–) Pirate Parties . On 9 June 2019, following a pan-European vote of party members, Volt Europa chose to join the Greens–European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament. On 19 June 2024, the group elected Bas Eickhout , and re-elected Terry Reintke , as Co-Presidents of the group. On 25 June, the group elected the members of its bureau. The Greens/EFA group
912-453: The plenary session of the European Parliament . Groups can table motions for resolutions and table amendments to reports. EUL/NGL and G/EFA were the most left-wing groups, UEN and EDD the most right-wing, and that was mirrored in their attitudes towards taxation, homosexual equality, abortion, euthanasia and controlling migration into the EU. The groups fell into two distinct camps regarding
960-470: The " grand coalition " and, aside from a break in the fifth Parliament, it has dominated the Parliament for much of its life, regardless of necessity. The grand coalition is visible in the agreement between the two Groups to divide the five-year term of the President of the European Parliament equally between them, with an EPP president for half the term and a PES president for the other half, regardless of
1008-512: The EP usually constitutes the formal parliamentary representation of one or two of the European political parties (Europarty), sometimes supplemented by members from other national political parties or independent politicians. In contrast to the European political parties, it is strictly forbidden for political groups to organise or finance the political campaign during the European elections since this
SECTION 20
#17327731727421056-449: The EPP subgroup ( ) were centre-right Europhiles, whereas the ED subgroup ( ) were right-wing Eurosceptics. IND/DEM was also split along its subgroups: the reformist subgroup ( , bottom-center) voted as centrist Eurosceptics, and the secessionist subgroup ( , middle-right) voted as right-wing Euroneutrals. The reformist subgroup
1104-409: The European Parliament is becoming increasingly based around party and ideology. Voting is increasingly split along left-right lines, and the cohesion of the party groups has risen dramatically, particularly in the fourth and fifth parliaments. So there are likely to be policy implications here too. The dynamical coalitions in the European Parliament show year-to-year changes. Party group switching in
1152-417: The European Parliament is the phenomenon where parliamentarians individually or collectively switch from one party group to the other. The phenomenon of EP party group switching is a well-known contributor to the volatility of the EP party system and highlights the fluidity that characterizes the composition of European political groups. On average 9% of MEPs switch during legislative terms. Party group switching
1200-608: The Grand Coalition, they were not each other's closest allies, although they did vote with each other about two-thirds of the time. IND/DEM did not have close allies within the political groups, preferring instead to cooperate most closely with the Non-Inscrits . During the fifth term the ELDR Group were involved in a break in the grand coalition when they entered into an alliance with the European People's Party, to
1248-540: The MEPs and national parties of their own member state, neglecting the group's activities and poorly understanding their structure or even existence. Transnational media coverage of the groups per se is limited to those organs such as the Parliament itself, or those news media (e.g. EUObserver or theParliament.com ) that specialise in the Parliament. These organs cover the groups in detail but with little overarching analysis. So although such organs make it easy to find out how
1296-657: The PES. The EPP demanded that if Buttiglione were to go, then a PES commissioner must also be sacrificed for balance. In the end, Italy withdrew Buttiglione and put forward Franco Frattini instead. Frattini won the support of the PES and the Barroso Commission was finally approved, albeit behind schedule. Politicisation such as the above has been increasing, with Simon Hix of the London School of Economics noting in 2007 that Our work also shows that politics in
1344-686: The Regionalists stayed in the rump of Rainbow Group . The 1994 elections saw a considerable reduction in Regionalist representation in the Parliament, with only the Canary Isles autonomists , Lega Nord , the Scottish National Party (SNP) and People's Union (VU) keeping their MEPs. But Lega Nord had been suspended from the European Free Alliance following its decision to join the coalition Italian government alongside
1392-618: The Santer Commission . When the initial allegations against the Commission Budget emerged, they were directed primarily against the PES Édith Cresson and Manuel Marín . PES supported the commission and saw the issue as an attempt by the EPP to discredit their party ahead of the 1999 elections. EPP disagreed. Whilst the Parliament was considering rejecting the Community budget , President Jacques Santer argued that
1440-567: The actual election result. Table 3 of 21 August 2008 version of working paper by Hix and Noury gave figures for the level of cooperation between each group (how many times they vote with a group, and how many times they vote against) for the Fifth and Sixth Parliaments. The results are given in the tables below, where 0% = never votes with, 100% = always votes with. EUL/NGL and G/EFA voted closely together, as did PES and ALDE, and EPP-ED and UEN. Surprisingly, given that PES and EPP-ED are partners in
1488-406: The adjacent diagram. The vertical scale is the anti-pro Europe spectrum, (0% = extremely anti-Europe, 100% = extremely pro), and the horizontal scale is the economic left-right spectrum, (0% = extremely economically left-wing, 100% = extremely economically right-wing). The results are also shown in the table below. Two of the groups (EPP-ED and IND/DEM) were split. EPP-ED are split on Euroscepticism:
European Radical Alliance - Misplaced Pages Continue
1536-504: The dominant schools of European political thought and are the primary actors in the Parliament. The first three Groups were established in the earliest days of the Parliament. They were the "Socialist Group" (which eventually became the S&;D group ), the "Christian Democrat Group" (later EPP group ) and the "Liberals and Allies Group" (later Renew Europe ). As the Parliament developed, other Groups emerged. Gaullists from France founded
1584-568: The exclusion of the Party of European Socialists. This was reflected in the Presidency of the Parliament with the terms being shared between the EPP and the ELDR, rather than the EPP and PES as before. However, ELDR intervention was not the only cause for a break in the grand coalition. There have been specific occasions where real left-right party politics have emerged, notably the resignation of
1632-526: The further development of EU authority, with UEN and EDD definitely against and the rest broadly in favour. Opinion was wider on the CFSP , with different divisions on different issues. Unsurprisingly, G/EFA was far more in favour of Green issues compared to the other groups. Table 1 of an April 2008 discussion paper from the Centre for European Economic Research by Heinemann et al. analysed each Group's stance on
1680-416: The groups intend to vote without first inspecting the party platforms of their constituent parties, and then with limited certainty. The Greens%E2%80%93European Free Alliance The Greens/European Free Alliance ( Greens/EFA ) is a political group of the European Parliament composed primarily of green political parties. The group consists of four distinct European political parties , namely
1728-525: The largest two groups, to approve a rise in the threshold for groups to its current levels, having previously been even lower. This was opposed by many MEPs, notably from smaller Groups but also from the Liberal Group, arguing that it would be detrimental to democracy, whilst supporters argued that the change made it harder for a small number of members, possibly on the extremes (including the far right), to claim public funds. Groups may be based around
1776-496: The left-right spectrum, where 0% = extremely left-wing, 100% = extremely right-wing) Major changes compared to the period 2004–2009 were: Some of the groups (such as the PES and S&D Group) have become homogeneous units coterminous with their European political party, some (such as IND/DEM) have not. But they are still coalitions, not parties in their own right, and do not issue manifestos of their own. It may therefore be difficult to discern how
1824-590: The most united groups, with EDD the most disunited. The March 2006 edition of Social Europe: the Journal of the European Left included a chapter called "Women and Social Democratic Politics" by Wendy Stokes. That chapter gave the proportion of female MEPs in each Group in the European Parliament. The results for each Group are given in the adjacent diagram. The horizontal scale denotes gender balance (0% = totally male, 100% = totally female, but no Group has
1872-605: The nomination of Rocco Buttiglione as European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security . The EPP supported the appointment of Buttiglione, while the PES, who were also critics of the President-designate Jose Manuel Barroso , led the parties seeking Buttiglione's removal following his rejection (the first in EU history ) by a Parliamentary committee . Barroso initially stood by his team and offered only small concessions, which were rejected by
1920-474: The officially recognised parliamentary groups consisting of legislators of aligned ideologies in the European Parliament . The European Parliament is unique among supranational assemblies in that its members (MEPs) organise themselves into ideological groups, rather than national cleavages . Each political group is assumed to have a set of core principles, and political groups that cannot demonstrate this may be disbanded (see below ). A political group of
1968-549: The outset of legislative terms, with another peak around the half-term moment, when responsibilities rotate within the EP hierarchy. The political groups of the European Parliament have been around in one form or another since September 1952 and the first meeting of the Parliament's predecessor, the Common Assembly. The groups are coalitions of MEPs and the European parties and national parties that those MEPs belong to. The groups have coalesced into representations of
European Radical Alliance - Misplaced Pages Continue
2016-530: The previous European Parliament ran from 2004 and 2009. It was composed of the following political groups. Table 3 of the 3 January 2008 version of a working paper from the London School of Economics/Free University of Brussels by Hix and Noury considered the positions of the groups in the Sixth Parliament (2004–2009) by analysing their roll-call votes. The results for each group are shown in
2064-734: The right-wing National Alliance . Given this reduction in numbers, the weakened EFA were no longer able to maintain their own group. The French Energie Radicale were considered centrist enough to be possible members of the ELDR Group (their successors, the Radical Party of the Left , became observers in the ELDR Party in 2006) but instead they allied themselves with the members of the Pannella-Reformers List and
2112-586: The rump EFA to form the Group of the European Radical Alliance. The ERA stayed in existence until 1999, when a loss of support forced the European Free Alliance members of the ERA to rejoin with the Green Group to create the Greens–European Free Alliance (Greens/EFA) group. Political groups of the European Parliament The political groups of the European Parliament are
2160-474: The seats together. The PES were the largest single party grouping up to 1999, when they were overtaken by the centre-right EPP. In 1987 the Single European Act came into force and, under the new cooperation procedure , the Parliament needed to obtain large majorities to make the most impact. So the EPP and PES came to an agreement to cooperate in the Parliament. This agreement became known as
2208-401: Was able to pursue a reformist agenda via the Parliament. The secessionist subgroup was unable to pursue a secessionist agenda there (it's out of the Parliament's purview) and pursued a right-wing agenda instead. This resulted in the secessionist subgroup being less Eurosceptic in terms of roll-call votes than other, non-eurosceptic parties. UKIP (the major component of the secessionist subgroup)
2256-563: Was criticised for this seeming abandonment of its Eurosceptic core principles. Table 2 of a 2005 discussion paper from the Institute for International Integration Studies by Gail McElroy and Kenneth Benoit analysed the group positions between April and June 2004, at the end of the Fifth Parliament and immediately before the 2004 elections. The results are given below, with 0% = extremely against, 100% = extremely for (except for
2304-684: Was put to the test in July 1999, when a varied group of non-attached members, ranging from the liberal Bonino List in Italy to the French National Front , tried to create a new “Technical Group”, but Parliament decided that the new Group did not, by its own admission, meet the requirement for political affinity. This decision was challenged at the CJEU , which found in Parliament's favour. Further questions were asked when MEPs attempted to create
#741258