Composition of the European Parliament after European elections in June 2009

Member State	Population  (1)   (in millions)	% of EU-27 population	Seats          until 2009	"Nice"   (2)         2009-2014	Report as adopted in plenary  (3)         2009-2014	Adopted report (4)
Germany	82,438	16,73%	99	99	96	-3
France	62,886	12,76%	78	72	74	2
United Kingdom	60,422	12,26%	78	72	73	1
Italy	58,752	11,92%	78	72	72
Spain	43,758	8,88%	54	50	54	4
Poland	38,157	7,74%	54	50	51	1
Romania	21,61	4,38%	35	33	33
Netherlands	16,334	3,31%	27	25	26	1
Greece	11,125	2,26%	24	22	22
Portugal	10,57	2,14%	24	22	22
Belgium	10,511	2,13%	24	22	22
Czech Rep.	10,251	2,08%	24	22	22
Hungary	10,077	2,04%	24	22	22
Sweden	9,048	1,84%	19	18	20	2
Austria	8,266	1,68%	18	17	19	2
Bulgaria	7,719	1,57%	18	17	18	1
Denmark	5,428	1,10%	14	13	13
Slovakia	5,389	1,09%	14	13	13
Finland	5,256	1,07%	14	13	13
Ireland	4,209	0,85%	13	12	12
Lithuania	3,403	0,69%	13	12	12
Latvia	2,295	0,47%	9	8	9	1
Slovenia	2,003	0,41%	7	7	8	1
Estonia	1,344	0,27%	6	6	6
Cyprus	0,766	0,16%	6	6	6
Luxembourg	0,46	0,09%	6	6	6
Malta	0,404	0,08%	5	5	6	1
EU-27	492,881	100,00%	785	736	750
(1)  Population figures as officially established on 7 November 2006 by the Commission in Doc. 15124/06 on the basis of Eurostat figures.
(2) "Nice": Distribution of Seats according to Art. 189 TEC as modified by Art. 9 of the BG/RO - Act of Accession.
(3)  "New": New Proposal on the basis of Art. 9A TEU new ( I-20).
(4) The new figures concerning Germany and Malta derive automatically from the draft reform treaty provisions.

 

The House debated its future composition on a basis of a report from Alain Lamassoure (EPP-ED, FR) and Adrian Severin (PES, RO). The allocation of seats follows the rules established by the June European Council, which invited the Parliament to present a proposal by October. The Council said that the EP is limited to a total of 750 seats. No Member State should have more than 96 seats or less than six. It also says that the distribution should respect the "degressive proportionality" principle.

The debate began with the two co-rapporteurs taking the floor.

 

Alain LAMASSOURE (EPP-ED, FR) said the future treaty would make the composition of Parliament a matter of secondary law to be decided unanimously by the Council on the basis of a proposal from - and with the assent of - Parliament itself.  The Council had asked Parliament to apply this provision ahead of time and "deal with this hot potato".  He welcomed the two thirds majority for the report at committee stage, which suggested the EP could rise to the challenge.

 

The time of dividing Member States into groups of extra large, large, medium and small and giving members of each group the same votes in Council and number of seats in Parliament was over.  Now the treaty would set a maximum size of Parliament at 750 members, with each Member State having no more than 96 and no fewer than 6 MEPs.  Parliament had been asked to define and apply the principle of "degressive proportionality" to the dividing up of seats.  This meant that MEPs from larger Member States should each represent more citizens than those from smaller ones.

 

By using the ceilings and floors in representation to the full, some current anomalies (like each Spanish MEP representing more citizens than each German one, despite Germany being more populous) could be eliminated.  It would also be possible to have no Member State lose any seats compared to the Nice Treaty arrangements - something Mr Lamassoure saw as politically essential to get unanimity in Council. 

 

"This is just an interim solution," he said. "It would have been better to come up with a mathematical solution which would have dealt almost automatically with future enlargements, but the short deadline made this impossible.  Still we have come up with a good proposal." He urged MEPs to act in the European interest, and not defend narrow national positions.  If the proposal was un-balanced in favour of smaller or larger states, it would not succeed in Council, he said.

 

Adrian SEVERIN (PES, RO) said that if adopted our proposals will mean no more artificial groupings. They are more representative of demographic realities, and will mean more solidarity between big and small, full legitimacy in relation to civic representation.  We the European Parliament are representative of the citizens and of the States at the same time. We are the Bundestag and the Bundesrat.  The concept of citizenship remains to be clarified.  The report is not provisional but transitional.  It is long-lasting but allows for progress to be made in the future.  We include revision clauses for flexibility, adaptability and to allow future progress.  No one is penalised.  No one loses, no one wins.  There is more legitimacy so everybody wins.  Some argue for less degressivity and more proportionality.  These are the bigger states who want more seats.  The smaller countries argue the opposite.  The report rejects both positions to promote an acceptable compromise. If we fail to adopt the report the message will go out that the European Parliament cannot decide for itself and that it always has to wait for the Executive to decide.  This could be a prelude to the total failure of the IGC. He concluded by saying that "I appeal to your sense of European responsibility and European solidarity."

 

 

Ingo FRIEDRICH (EPP-ED, DE) said that he was grateful for the report as it clarifies things.  He said "We are moving towards proportionality as less degressivity equals more legitimacy.  We need to have this debate.  How degressive is degressive?"  As  a German, he continued I have certain problems. "We Germans are the only ones who get less than Nice.  There is quite a debate in the German media on this issue currently.  We put up with it because we believe the European interest is the more important.  We should be working towards a logical system for the long-term and stop this endless debate", he stated.   He said that no matter what happens with the result of the vote of "controversial" amendments 2 and 3, the group will vote in favour of the final resolution, as we do not want to give an excuse to Council to renegotiate. "We need to send a clear message to the Council.  We have lived up to our responsibilities on this difficult issue."

 

Richard CORBETT (PES, UK)  said that his group supports this report which was adopted with a 70% majority in committee.  The rapporteurs, he said, have sensibly focused on correcting the main anomalies of current seat distribution rather than going for radical overhaul. 

 

"Some colleagues are trying to win more seats for their own Member State, arguing that their countries are bigger than Eurostat says; others say that for reasons of national prestige they have to have more seats.  I am surprised at the attitude of the Italian Government which has been arguing that they should have the same as France and UK in spite of the fact that they had accepted the principle of proportional degression in line with population. I have accepted that the UK should have one fewer than France; why should not Italy accept that they will have fewer seats than France for the same reason.  I am surprised that a government with such strong European commitment should argue on the basis of national prestige even though its population is less."

 

Andrew DUFF (ALDE, UK)  for the Liberal group also supported the proposal from the rapporteurs. "We need to send a strong clear message back to the European Council that we are able to take such a  sophisticated and brave decision in tune with the Reform Treaty", he said. 

 

"I too regret some national delegations seeking to improve their position on the league table but all such proposals are mutually contradictory.  I understand the Italians raise an interesting point on the statistical basis, and we should apply the distinction between nationality, citizenship, residency and voters but it is extraordinarily complicated and it treads firmly on national sovereignty for electoral law and citizenship and we cannot solve it in the space of a week before the end of the IGC.

 

Meanwhile let us give solid support to the proposal and send a solution rather than a problem to the IGC."

 

Brian CROWLEY (UEN, IE) said that "ultimately Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas so why would any MEP look to see their seat taken away and there are legitimate reasons to seek their own national numbers maintained. If we look back to changes since 1979 there have been phenomenal demographic and population changes, not least because of so much free movement since the 2004 enlargement of the EU."

 

When we look at the Eurostat figures being used,  out of 27 countries, 15 sets of figures from the national statistical offices are only provisional figures.  Yet this vote can have a lasting impact; and we also need to look at future enlargement to include Croatia, so I urge caution."

 

The Greens/EFA group would not approve the report, because it "breaches elementary principles of fairness and perpetuates historical inequalities", said Johannes VOGGENHUBER (Greens/EFA, AT)

 

Parliament "represents voters, not the socio-economic capacity of states. If there is no demos, then there is no parliament", he continued, stressing that citizens' rights to representation do exist - they are enshrined, for example, in the existing treaties, the Charter, Court of Justice decisions and electoral law.

 

"We failed once, when we were not consulted on Nice", he continued, and "should have used the intervening seven years to define arrangements for parliamentary representation", he concluded.

 

Personally, Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN (GUE/NGL, DE) felt that the report approached the issues in a truly European spirit, and that its proposals constitute a "balanced, easily-graspable system" that can accommodate future enlargement of the Union and takes account of each country's key concerns.

 

"Degressive proportionality will bolster cohesion" she affirmed, adding that that third-country nationals resident in EU countries should be entitled to vote.

 

"The usual thing in debates like this is to argue about how many seats each state should get - which shows that the 'European spirit' is a myth" said Bernard WOJCIECHOWSKI (IND/DEM, PL), citing "complaints" that Germany will lose seats, is the biggest net contributor to the EU, and should have its own seat on the UN Security Council.

 

"Only a Socialist from Yorkshire could accept that 2 + 2 = 5", he concluded.

 

Luca ROMAGNOLI (ITS, IT) said that the report "should be rejected with scorn as it ignored many facts".  Italy, he said, had contributed greatly to the development of the EU.  Why for example should Malta and Estonia have the same number of MEPs (6) even though Estonia's population is three times bigger?"

 

Irena BELOHORSKÁ (NI, SK)said the idea of  proportional degressivity should be also applied to employment in the EU institutions which would large increase in the number of people from the "new" EU Member States working in these institutions.

 

 

Proinsias DE ROSSA (PES, IE) stated that once we move away from strict proportionality in elections, we inevitably end up applying political compromise rather than pure mathematics. The democratic principle that all votes should have equal weight is something that cannot be applied until such time as the European Union becomes a fully federal system, he stated

 

Within the limits set by the Council, this political compromise by Mr Severin and Mr Lamassoure is a reasonable and well-balanced effort to achieve fair play and solidarity for all the people of the European Union. While Mr De Rossa supported it, he stated that he opposed the alternative systems that are being proposed as less fair and less balanced.

 

But, because, he said, some have approached this exercise as a national ego trip, it needs to be emphasised that we are dealing here with how citizens elect their representatives to this Parliament according to their political preferences, to act as a co-legislator with the Council. It is the Council that represents the state and not this House, he concluded.