This document analyzes the compatibility of Irish political parties with their European Parliament political groups by examining voting records of Irish MEPs. It finds that Fianna Fáil votes against their group, ALDE, relatively regularly on social issues like gender equality and civil liberties, with a disloyalty rate as high as 22% on gender equality issues. Fine Gael is relatively compatible with their group, the EPP, though they disagree at times on economic issues and civil liberties. The Labour party has nearly a 98% loyalty rate to their group, S&D, making them the most compatible Irish party. The study aims to determine if Irish parties fit ideologically with their European parliamentary groups.
Irish Political Parties' Compatibility with EU Parliament Groups
1. The Compatibility of Irish Political
Parties with their Political Groups in
the European Parliament
Cillian Griffey
Master of Arts in European
Politics and Governance
2012
2. Title Page
Title: The Compatibility of Irish Political Parties with their Political
Groups in the European Parliament.
Name: Cillian Griffey
ID No: 0730955
Degree: Master of Arts in European Governance and Politics.
Supervisor: Dr. Rory Costello
Submission Date: 3th September 2012
I declare that all work is the authors own and is submitted in accordance
with the requirements of the European Governance and Politics Degree at
the University of Limerick.
Signed: ______________________
i
3. Abstract
Our elected MEPs are voted in every five years but do we know anything about the groups with
which they affiliate to and are they suitable? This study examines the compatibility of Irish
political parties in their European groupings and draws on roll-call votes in the Parliament to
measure compatibility indirectly by looking at the behaviour of MEPs. The normal party system
evident in most EU Member States follows the left- right spectrum and is based on ‘party
families’. The Irish party system is different. For example during the 1990s 70% of support went
to the centre right parties in Ireland, while this compares to 40% in other European countries.
The Irish case is an interesting case and one that warrants study. Through the use of
sophisticated statistical methods developed by political scientists at VoteWatch Europe and
through analysis of European Parliament speeches, the analysis to measure compatibility was
undertaken. The findings suggest that tensions do exist to a great extent between Fianna Fáil and
ALDE especially on the Civil Liberties and Gender Equality policy areas and thus overall
disloyalty with their group amounts to 10.29%. The study shows that the Labour party are very
compatible with S&D with 98.28% loyalty. Finally Fine Gael’s compatibility was questioned on
Economic and Monetary policies and also Civil Liberties with a 4.80% overall disloyalty rate.
Fine Gael are compatible overall with the European People’s party.
ii
4. Table of Contents
Title page .................................................................................................................... i
Abstract .....................................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................ vi
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................vii
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ viii
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Area of Investigation ...................................................................................... 3
1.2 Interest in Topic ............................................................................................. 5
1.3 Research Methodology ................................................................................... 6
1.4 Brief Summary of Findings ............................................................................ 7
1.5 Structure of Study ........................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review ......................................................................................... 9
2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................. 10
2.1 European Parliament Group Membership ................................................... 11
2.2 European Parliament Party Systems ............................................................. 16
2.3 Irish Party System......................................................................................... 18
2.4 Expectations ................................................................................................. 21
Chapter 3: Methodology .............................................................................................. 23
3.0 Introduction .................................................................................................. 24
iii
5. Table of Contents
3.1 Research Question ........................................................................................ 24
3.2 Context of Research ..................................................................................... 25
3.3 Research Methods ........................................................................................ 25
3.4 Research Design ........................................................................................... 25
3.5 Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 26
3.6 Limitations of Research ................................................................................ 26
Chapter 4: Research Findings and Discussions ...................................................... 28
4.0 Introduction .................................................................................................. 29
4.1 Foreign and Security Policy ......................................................................... 32
4.2 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs .................................................... 36
4.3 Gender Equality ............................................................................................ 41
4.4 Economic and Monetary Affairs .................................................................. 45
Chapter 5: Conclusion ............................................................................................. 51
5.0 Restatement of objective .............................................................................. 52
5.1 Summary of Findings ................................................................................... 52
5.2 Relevance of Findings .................................................................................. 56
5.3 Main Issues identified in the Research ......................................................... 57
5.4 Recommendations ........................................................................................ 57
Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 59
Appendix ................................................................................................................ 67
iv
6. List of Figures
Figure 1 (a): All Policy Areas Percentage Disloyalty ................................................. 29
Figure 1: Irish Political Party Disloyalty in the European Parliament......................... 30
Figure 2: Foreign and Security Policy ......................................................................... 32
Figure 3: Civil Liberties ............................................................................................... 36
Figure 4: Gender Equality Policy ................................................................................ 41
Figure 5: Economic and Monetary Affairs ................................................................. 45
v
7. List of Tables
Table 1.0: Disloyalty by percentage by policy area in figures ..................................... 67
Table 1.1: Loyalty by percentage by policy area in figures ......................................... 67
vi
8. Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Rory Costello, my research
supervisor, for his patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and useful critiques
of this research work. A Lecturer’s time is precious and I recognise that and I want to
thank him sincerely for his help.
My grateful thanks are also extended to my friends who have put up with me
discussing my projects progress and for being understanding. Finally, I wish to thank
my parents for their support and encouragement throughout my study.
vii
9. Abbreviations
ALDE Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
CAP Common Agricultural Policy
CCCTB Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base
DIRT Deposit Interest Retention Tax
ECR European Conservatives and Reformists
EFA European Free Alliance
EFD Europe of Freedom and Democracy
ELDR The European Liberal Democrat and Reform party
EP European Parliament
EPP European People’s Party
EU European Union
FF Fianna Fáil
FG Fine Gael
GUE European United Left
LAB The Labour Party
LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community
MEP Member of the European Parliament
MNC Multinational Corporation
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NGL Nordic Green Left
OSCE Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
PES The Party of European Socialists
PM Prime Minister
S&D The Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats
viii
11. 1.0 Introduction
The majority of Irish people’s awareness of the European party groupings,
which the Irish parties fit into, is limited. A disconnect is still apparent with the
European institutions even though there is a lot of publicity relating to them presently.
I undertake this study to determine the extent to which Irish political parties
ideologically fit with their European groupings. The research question asks the
question: “Are Irish political parties compatible with their European Parliament
groupings? This will be analysed through looking at MEPs behaviour based on roll-
call votes.
There is practical importance to my research. The attitude abroad to the Irish
political make up tends to ask the question why are the two largest political parties in
Ireland (before election 2011) both centre right parties? It is practically important to
find out reasons whether the groups they are members with at a European level are
suited ideologically. The societal importance of the research is that when the Irish
people go to the polls at the next European Parliament elections in 2014 they should
be fully informed as to whom they are voting for. People should be interested in the
findings of my study to further their own opinions on the people they elect to Europe,
the issues they vote on and what values and opinions their fellow group members
represent in the Parliament.
2
12. 1.1 Area of Investigation
There has been little research looking at the Irish case in particular in relation
to this area. This research is of relevance academically because it adds to the existing
body of literature. Previous studies stopped short on analysing the Irish political
parties role in their groupings and if their national party identities get clouded in the
busy and crowded European Parliament structure.
For example questions were asked around why a centre right Fianna Fáil party
went into Government with the Green party and now we see another centre right Fine
Gael party in Government with a centre left Labour party. The perceived simple
answer is that it all comes back to civil war politics. Fianna Fáil’s decision in 2009 for
instance to join the Liberal grouping ALDE came as a shock to some. The group
would be considered pro-abortion by some and in support of embryonic stem cell
research and euthanasia and known for its hostility to the Common Agricultural
Policy. (CiNews 2009)
When the job of President of the European Council came up, the Taoiseach at
the time, Brian Cowen was stuck in a bad place because neither of the two candidates
that he supported for the position were ELDR/ALDE members or of the liberal
leaning. He threw his weight behind former Taoiseach and EPP member, John Bruton
and also Former British PM and PES member, Tony Blair. Then moving on to
proceedings in the European Parliament and a motion was put forward by ALDE,
which criticised the freedom of information laws in Italy. Fianna Fáil’s abstention
meant that the Liberal-origin resolution was tied with 338 votes in favour and 338
votes against, infuriating Liberal group leader, Guy Verhofstadt. (EU observer 2009)
3
13. Every other party in the ELDR (group in ALDE) has a long-standing tradition
of liberalism. It is odd that Fianna Fáil were admitted to this grouping in the first
place. If we look to the 1980s and their stances, which opposed divorce, contraception
and the Anglo-Irish Agreement, it begs the question why they joined with the group.
Perhaps a shift in ALDE to the European Democratic Party might be fitting. They
would get the benefit of affiliation at an international level with centrist US
Democrats through the Alliance of Democrats, which would stand them in good
stead.
Briefly looking at the resolutions that were passed by ELDR at their congress
in the run up to the 2009 European elections and an interesting point appears under
the heading ‘Women’s entitlement over their own bodies’. It states that: “ Several
European countries are, for example, violating women’s rights to control over their
own bodies. Among others, Poland, Ireland, Portugal and Malta have enforced
restrictive, conservatively founded, regulations regarding the legalisation of abortions.
As a result, many women die after being forced into seeking illegal and unsafe
abortions.” (ELDR 2008) This was printed in their document in 2008, a year before
Fianna Fáil joined them. This was a scathing attack on the country and a government
party at the time being affiliated with this grouping was sure to raise eyebrows.
The months prior to the 2009 European election was an interesting time for
Fine Gael also. The draft of the EPP manifesto in 2009 included details of their plans
to abandon their opposition to euthanasia, eugenics and cloning and also support for
traditional marriage. (Kelly, 2009) This draft manifesto was a large step backwards
from a pro-life and family viewpoint in comparison with the previous EPP manifesto
in 2004. Fine Gael staged their opposition to this and said that they were confident
4
14. that the EPP would accept amendments on pro-life and pro-family before the
elections took place. All five FG MEPs backed moves to amend the draft version of
the manifesto to reflect earlier positions. After a lot of debate, the EPP congress in
Warsaw met and agreed the final version and Fine Gael MEPs got there way and the
manifesto was fully pro-family, pro-life and pro-religion. If the earlier proposals were
included Fine Gael could have been badly impacted on polling day due to its groups
stance on the issues.
The Labour party has not had any major events like the two aforementioned
mainly because they haven’t been as many Labour MEPs in S&D. From 1999 to 2004
Proinsias De Rossa was the only Labour MEP elected and joined S&D and the same
happened for the 2004-2009 term. This current EP term sees 3 Labour MEPs elected
and all three have issues they want to prioritise. However, their reluctance to join with
the other Irish delegations in voting against CCCTB and moves towards tax
harmonization have raised eyebrows.
1.2 Interest in Topic
The power of the institutions has noticeably increased because of the financial
difficulties so many European countries find themselves in. An institution that is the
recipient of minimal Irish media coverage is the European Parliament. This has to be
reflective of the Irish people’s interest in European politics. This argument has been
relatively vindicated in the turnout of many European referenda in the years preceding.
The spotlight needs to be put back on the Parliament due to the work they do
and the issues they tackle and vote on every day. There is a disconnect between the
people and the work that MEPs do in the Parliament and on the issues they vote on,
5
15. on our behalf. Politics is sadly no longer a subject of interest for most young people
due to disinterest or disillusionment due to scandals and corruption. By bringing the
Irish political parties relationship with their European colleagues to the fore, we aim
to reopen the discussion that European politics plays in Ireland.
1.3 Research Methodology
My data collection techniques will involve analysis of roll-call voting records
to uncover whether the MEPs have been loyal or disloyal to their European group on
different policy areas. This is done to ascertain the compatibility on the grounds of
ideological positions between both. It is mainly a theory developing approach, which
is descriptive. The temporal domain will be from the last European election in 2009 to
July 2012.
The data sources, which will be relied on for my study, will primarily include
the records of roll-call votes and parliamentary speeches. Sources will also include the
websites of the European parliament groupings, for example the European Peoples
Party, Socialists and Democrats etc. The European institutions have a good record of
open and transparent information so sources from these websites and official
institution documents will be useful. These will consist of those from the Europarl
Europa website with information on EP plenary meetings: Minutes, debates, and
voting records. Also access to EP committee meetings, minutes, draft reports,
amendments to draft reports, voting outcomes and PreLex will be sources, which will
be used.
6
16. 1.4 Brief summary of findings
The research findings show that tensions occur the most between the Fianna
Fáil party and their group, ALDE. They vote the opposite way to their group (‘rebel’)
relatively regularly in a number of policy areas, as discussed in the research findings
chapter. The areas they rebel most on are on social issues in the gender equality and
civil liberties areas respectively. They reached a 22% disloyalty (not voting the same
way as the group) rate on gender equality, which was the highest disloyalty figure of
all the three parties on all policy areas.
Fine Gael was found to be relatively compatible with their group, the
European People’s party (EPP). Economic and monetary affairs produced their
second highest disaffection rate at 8.79% and common European tax issues were a
heated subject area. Civil liberties were again among the most controversial and were
the highest at 8.23%. (VoteWatch Europe 2012)
The Labour party, however were the most loyal Irish political party of the
three with a remarkable 98% loyalty. Labour and Socialists and Democrats (S&D) are
clearly the most compatible of the three parties. The most surprising figure coming in
the foreign and security policy section where they displayed a 99.70% loyalty to S&D.
Their highest dissatisfaction came in the area of agriculture. (VoteWatch Europe 2012)
7
17. 1.5 Structure of Study
The introduction sets out the scope of the research project and explains the
grounds for analysis of this type. It mentions some tensions that have occurred, that
have been in the media. The data collection technique of roll-call votes is mentioned
and a brief summary of findings gives context to the research. Chapter 2 consists of
the Literature review and identifies the key debates in the research area and includes
the ideas of other researchers in the field. The chapter is divided into the relevant
sections dealing with EP group membership, compatibility on the grounds of policy,
cohesion in groups along with the EP and Irish party systems.
The Methodology allows for the justification of the chosen research methods.
It will describe how the investigation of the research question will take place. A
section on limitations of research admits that initially manifesto comparison on the
grounds of compatibility was considered but was inconclusive. Chapter 4 deals with
the research findings and discussions. It links the data with the research question and
shows with examples of issues in policy areas, that tensions occur and to what degree.
It discusses and analyses the findings and gives a conclusion on all findings.
Conclusions are made in the last chapter and summarises the findings and
shows how compatible the parties are with their groups. Recommendations are then
given to see if the party should switch to another group or remain within the group to
which they are affiliated. A bibliography and appendix is then displayed.
8
19. 2.0 Introduction
The research question is: “Are Irish political parties compatible with their
European Parliament groupings?” From analysis of the research done in relation to
European Party group cohesion and the ideological stance, there is a large extent of
literature available. The literature covers many issues pertaining to the European
Parliament, its existence and many contributing factors to the overall make-up of the
Parliament. In this section the existing empirical and theoretical literature on the topic
will be reviewed. The literature reviewed has looked at questions surrounding
cohesion and the party system in the European Parliament. Also looked at were the
differences between the party groups here in Ireland and in the European Parliament.
Cohesion is a fundamental theme in the existing research; as such a body of
research can be gained from its analysis. This takes in the reasons why a Member
State country would join a group and matching up its ideological preferences and
policy congruencies. This is done to place the party in the best possible position to
have influence on major issues within the group and the Parliament as a whole. The
themes or questions that are relevant to this research include: 1. On what basis do
parties join European Parliament groups? , 2. What is the nature of the party system in
the European Parliament? and 3. How does the Irish party system fit in with this?
10
20. 2.1 European Parliament Group Membership
The first question that needs addressing is ‘on what basis do parties join
European Parliament groups?’ This topic is seen throughout a number of pieces of
literature. Two other fundamental questions regarding this theme to be answered are;
When analysis of voting records on policy areas in the Parliament is done, do Irish
MEP’s vote more along national lines, together, on a particular policy area? Is the
party being loyal to the group as a whole on other policy areas thus contributing to
group cohesion? Many European Parliament groups share similar policy positions as
national parties. Policy is a determinant of group affiliation in those cases. McElroy
and Benoit dealt with the issue of how partisan politics in the European Parliament is
organised around transnational party groupings, in their article on ‘Party Policy and
Party Group affiliation in the European Parliament’. They construct empirical
measures of policy positions and the structure of policy contestation in the EU. They
do this by comparing the national and EU levels. They also explain national party
affiliation with EP groups as a function of policy, comparing these to estimates of
party family. (McElroy and Benoit 2010)
McElroy and Benoit’s findings suggest that policy competition in the EP is a
straightforward extension of national party politics and the organisation of national
parties into EP groups is driven by policy. Thus this explains the fundamental
underlying force driving EP group affiliation. (McElroy and Benoit 2010)
In answering the initial question at the start, it seems clear from the evidence
that the Irish MEP’s would be under pressure from both sides on the National and
European scene to join the right group. Policy and ideological stance would be the
two most influential factors. There is also the pressure of cohesion. On the one hand
11
21. there is pressure to be loyal on a certain percentage of issues in order to present unity
in their group. On the other hand, voting cohesion could be used to avoid national
attention. This is done by not voting against their national party on a controversial
issue that forms part of a fundamental policy they hold. This reading has shown that
policy compatibility even before affiliation to a group is crucial as difficulties could
emerge very quickly.
While acknowledging some differences, group cohesion does grow over time.
The increased role of National parties in the European Parliament is seen in
Whitaker’s book on ‘National Parties in the European Parliament’ and believes this is
now more likely to have an impact on national parties’ policy choices and on electoral
fortunes. The article compares the voting behaviour of committee contingents with
their national party delegations on the basis of roll-call votes. The author makes
reference to something an Irish MEP said when questioned. He says that MEPs
themselves suggest that cue taking on the basis of trust in other members of their
national party delegation is a significant factor in their decision-making. The Irish
MEP said:
“…Not a lot of the votes that I participate in, …I haven’t a clue what I’m
voting for…. you assume that on issues, even though you’re not involved in
them, that you’re singing from the same hymn sheet, so it’s ok to follow them.”
(Whitaker 2005, p.9)
The results from the analysis support the assertion that, as the European
Parliament’s actions matter more, national parties have become more concerned with
their MEPs’ activities. It seems clear from the evidence that the more the MEP’s think
that their activities are being watched from Dublin, the more pressure they will feel to
12
22. follow the national party line. This is especially the case if their party is in
Government in that country. (Whitaker 2005)
Compatibility and membership of groups as well as the factors behind political
Group membership in the European Parliament are investigated in Bressanelli’s
article. The research is based on two arguments. One is the traditional argument that
Group membership is based on the ideological or policy compatibility of the member
parties within each political group. The second is that, joining the largest and most
influential groups better advances the pragmatic goals of national parties. The
findings suggest that the policy compatibility or ideology is the most important factor
behind a party transnational affiliation. (Bressanelli 2011)
The second area within this theme in the literature is policy position
compatibilities. A key question here is; is there a particular outstanding policy area in
which the national parties are hugely at odds in terms of voting loyalty with their
groupings? According to McElroy and Benoit 2010, the issue of policy on its own
would make up four-fifths of national party affiliation. This infers that policy
congruence is far and away the single most important part that is encouraging the
member state parties to join their respective groups. Key policy areas voted on in the
parliament should be looked at especially foreign and security policy, civil liberties
and economic and monetary affairs. These are controversial topics and are sure to
raise valuable insights into compatibility issues. In saying that they didn’t expect
policy would explain every instance of national party affiliation with party groups.
The area of policy compatibility is raised again in Bressanelli’s work and says
that in the new EU-27, ideology or policy compatibility is, still, the main factor which
influences group membership. What this then means is that the political groups are
13
23. aggregations of like-minded parties, which share, at a minimum, similar policy
objectives. (Bressanelli 2011)
The literature points to another theme that is based around the compatibility of
Irish parties and Member State parties to the Group membership in the Parliament.
Some of the political parties in Ireland do not readily fit into the classical European
definitions of party families. The question must be asked; is it apparent that the party
fits in ideologically and is compatible in terms of policy orientation? Hansen
discusses this in ‘The Positions of Irish Parliamentary Parties 1937-2006’. (Hansen
2009)
The research shows that party competition in the Dáil adheres to a
government-opposition dimension. The estimated positions do not reflect party policy
positions but are the voting cohesion of two distinct blocs of the parliamentary parties.
The results from this are validated by a comparison with various expert surveys of
Irish Party positions. (Hansen 2009) A consistency of voting against the group on
policy areas would usually point to a lack of fitness but Irish parties are different and
this must be taken in to account. Because of tradition and history, putting Irish parties
with traditional European party families is not easy to do.
The third area within this theme is centred on cohesion and the question ‘how
cohesive are political parties in the European Parliament?’ is asked by Hix, Noury and
Roland in ‘Power to the Parties: Cohesion and Competition in the European
Parliament 1979-2001’. Through the collection of roll-call votes the data shows
growing party cohesion despite growing internal national and ideological diversity
within the European party groups. They also concluded that increased power of the
European Parliament has meant increased power for the transnational parties, via
14
24. increased internal party cohesion and inter-party competition. They found that the
ideological diversity of the national member parties of the groups has only a marginal
effect on cohesion. Therefore, there are conflicting arguments as to why groups are
cohesive (Hix et al 2005)
Focusing on one section of parties in particular, Green parties, several studies
have documented how organisational structures of national Green parties and the
integration of their quasi-party European counterparts have changed in response to
integration. Hines uses the example of Bomberg (2002) who reached similar
conclusions arguing that Europeanisation has ‘mellowed’ the Greens’ ideology and
professionalised their party politics. At a time when factionalism was tearing apart
their national parties, the cohesion of the Greens in the EP actually increased. The
external stimuli the EP’s rules and procedures offered the Greens were more powerful
than the shifting strengths of the factions. This is relevant because when a party is
working with other like-minded groups, similarities and commonalities come to the
fore and thus cooperation and cohesion are produced. Analysis of the voting patterns
will tell a lot and once a comparison with Irish MEP’s across all group affiliations is
made, a more comprehensive conclusion can be made. (Hines 2003)
Kreppel and Hix discuss the changing pattern of political competition in the
European Parliament from a “grand coalition” of the two main parties in the 1994-
1999 EP, to a new structure of left-right competition in the 1999-2004 EP. In 1996,
despite the PES and EPP’s (largest party groups) apparent ideological differences and
frequently conflictual relationships, these two party groups were perceived to work
together in bipartisan cooperation quite frequently within the EP up until the 1999
15
25. elections. Since Fine Gael and Labour are currently in government one would not be
surprised with cooperation of their sister party groups in the Parliament. It is
important to mention this, as it is relevant to the overall outlook, seeing cooperation
of two political parties from two ideological wings working together at both a national
level and European level.
2.2 European Parliament Party System
The second main theme in the existing literature is centred on the whole idea
of party systems in those member countries and in the European Parliament. Does the
party system in a member country play a large role once that party partakes in a
European party system and what challenges are encountered?
Hoyland and Godbout, in their article showed that MEPs from the old
member states expressed a belief system, which is quite similar to that of their fellow
party group members. New member states displayed very little consistency in their
legislative speech. This leads to the conclusion that national party delegations from
new member states joined the existing party groups for other reasons than simple
shared ideological beliefs and goals. (Hoyland and Godbout 2008) Ireland would be
considered an old member state so looking to see if a belief system is at play in the
MEP’s decisions could be beneficial in understanding where they are coming from.
A problem for the two main party groups in the EP was that, they themselves
are aggregations of sub actors: the national party delegations that make up these
parties. And these national party delegations often have different preferences over
these short-, medium-, and long-term goals. (Kreppel and Hix 2003)
16
26. A focus needs to be placed on the Irish party system in the context of the
European party system, which will contribute to the overall expectations of the
research. McElroy and Benoit’s findings show that the structure of political
contestation in both the national and transnational arenas is substantially similar.
Party groups at the transnational level not only operate in a similar policy space as do
national parties, but can as well have a tending to be formed mainly as coalitions of
parties that are like-minded on matters of policy. Basically what they are saying in
simple terms is that party and competition, which surrounds policy in the EP, is an
extension of national politics by other means. (McElroy and Benoit 2010)
Secondly in order for them to examine the relationship between national
parties and the EP party groups to whom they affiliate, they predicted Parliament
group membership as a function of the policy distances between national parties and
the EP groups in the choice set. From that the result was that they strongly indicate
that how close a party group is to a national party’s policy platform determines the
likelihood that the national party will be affiliated with that EP group. The reality is
that what was found basically means that parties tend not to affiliate with party groups
that are farther from their own preferred positions.
It is the EPP, Socialist’s and Democrats (S&D) and ALDE that form the core
group of the party system. Analysis of the party manifestos has shown that party
competition at the European level is based around the left-right dimension. The
system is often known as the triangular party system in the European Parliament (EP).
Competition occurs between two core blocs which is made up of the EPP on the right
and S&D on the left. The third part of the triangle is ALDE and when all are
organised and work together, they are able to form secure and winning coalitions.
Hence they shut out the smaller party groupings. (Thorlakson 2005)
17
27. A comparative question must be asked in relation to the three-party
concentration in the EP party system and if that is mirrored in the national party
systems? If the degree of incongruence is high this may point to a European party
system where some national parties are not integrated as effectively as others.
Thorlakson measured structural congruence by the party families in the system and
the result for the 25 (at the time) EU member states was that there was a high degree
of incongruence.
This incongruence across national party systems and the EP suggests a high
variation in the number of relevant cleavages expressed in national party systems.
This incongruence within the party family and across the national party system can
affect the effectiveness of the aggregation of national party systems into a European
party system in the parliament. Nevertheless the party system in the EP is remarkably
stable. The system is concentrated around the three main parties mentioned earlier
which are core party groupings which sustain the stability. More often than not, the
traditional party families, which can be seen throughout the national party systems of
Europe, are what underpin the structure of its party competition. (Thorlakson 2005)
2.3 Irish Party System
Given what we have learned about the parties on the left and right, one would
have to expect tensions in the Irish case in particular. This research will explore how
Irish parties fit with their groups on different policy dimensions. In particular, Fianna
Fáil’s affiliation with ALDE on social issues could be at odds. Meanwhile the Labour
party could have a good fit with S&D. The birth of the Irish party system was akin to
that of other European countries. Trying to understand the location of political actors
in policy spaces is a key feature of modern political science. (Hansen 2009) He admits
18
28. that placing the Irish parties with traditional European party families is no easy
undertaking. The basic principle behind this is that party competition in the electoral
arena does not sit into the left-right divide, which is seen to a greater extent in other
west European countries. (Mair and Weeks 2005) Hansen explains that in the Irish
case, differences between the two main parties do not seem to be policy-dependent
but instead have their roots in history and tradition which most Irish people are aware
of. (Hansen 2009)
The label applied to Fianna Fáil has gone from a left-centre to a right-wing
party due to coalitions it formed with the Progressive Democrats. In a European
context the PD’s would be considered a classical European liberal party. In relation
then to Fine Gael, a centre right party has formed coalitions with centre left Labour
and once with a republican party, Clann na Poblachta. The main point here is that the
differences between the two main parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael do not seem to
be policy dependent, but have their roots in history and traditions. For this reason, it
sets Ireland apart from other European colleagues and reiterates the importance of this
study. (Hansen 2009)
The study of politics and in particular party politics is crucial in understanding
the most fundamental processes in modern political life. The study of political parties
gives a sense of understanding of the way in which modern states actually function in
practice. Ireland is a small peripheral state and by virtue of this fact it escapes much
of the studies that decide instead to focus on larger states such as France, Germany
and the UK. The Irish case can also be overlooked because of its lack of ‘fit’ into
party systems that are more common. This again comes back to the left-right divide or
lack there of for the two main parties on opposite sides of the Dáil. (Coakley &
Gallagher 2006)
19
29. The Irish case is unusual not least when one tries to use the common way to
compare systems within Europe. Usually the focus is brought to bear on issues
surrounding the origins and genetic identity of the major parties and then put them in
categories of ‘party families’ such as Christian democratic, liberal and so on. The
reason this can’t be done in the Irish case is because during the 1990’s for example,
70% of support went to the centre right parties (Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the
Progressive Democrats) In west European countries this figure is 45%. Turning to
centre left and the figure in Ireland for the same period was 20%. This includes the
Labour party, the Greens, the Worker’s party and Democratic left. This compares
with 40% in the European countries. So in terms of support for the parties at the
political centre or right, the average support electorally for such parties in Ireland far
exceeds that in any country neighbours. (Coakley & Gallagher 2006)
The second reason and also very relevant for this study is the fact that it is
accepted that the country is an exception. When it comes to the enormous difficulty of
fitting the major centre-right parties into the principal European families. Fianna Fáil
is a case in point. The party is regarded as a ‘secular conservative’ party. It cannot be
regarded as Christian Democratic because from it origins it wasn’t looking to defend
the church against anti-religious forces. Fianna Fáil claims to fight for the poor and
underprivileged. On the nationalism front, you can compare Fianna Fáil to the
Gaullists in France for their patriotic appeal. They have good links in the European
Parliament and one can see some commonalities with at least some of its European
neighbours.
Turning to Fine Gael and it is listed as a Christian Democratic party, which is
mainly due to its membership of the European People’s party (EPP). But turning back
the clock, to be a Christian Democratic country, Catholics had to make up a large part
20
30. of the population but active practicing made up no more than a small minority and
this left the door open to secular groups to move in and become political forces. This
did not happen in Ireland and following the break with the Union, Catholicism in
Ireland was victorious. For these reasons, Christian democracy did not unfold as a
political force in Ireland. The fact was that the church just didn’t need it. In more
recent times, the tag seems to fit more not just because the party remains with the EPP
but also because it has failed to create a more distinct identity within the party system.
(Coakley & Gallagher 2006)
It is important to have outlined how the Irish party system relates to the
European party system because expectations for this study are that Fianna Fáil will be
found to be more of a misfit. This study goes further however and tracks policy
decisions made in the Parliament, in terms of votes and give concrete examples of
areas of debate and clearly will point to a disillusioned party in a European family that
just isn’t the right fit for them.
2.4 Expectations
To conclude, what will be undertaken in this research will be to examine the
compatibility of Irish parties with their European Parliament groups. The
development of the argument was centred on three main issues. The first was
European Parliament group membership and how it is based on policy compatibility
and how the party groups are defined primarily in left-right terms, which is the
dominant dimension of political competition in most member states. Secondly, the
party system in the European Parliament was looked at. Lastly, the Irish party system
because it is different, so it is interesting to see how Irish parties fit in with their
21
31. groups. The existing literature presented in this chapter leads us to anticipate that
tensions will occur. On balance the evidence suggests this because of the nature of the
European Parliament party group system and the nature of the Irish party system.
My research will contribute to the existing literature. It will do this through
linking Irish MEPs voting records to group affiliation to analyse compatibility which
hasn’t been individually focused on. There are few pieces of literature analysing
specifically the Irish case of compatibility with European party groupings but the
literature analysed gives insight for scope into further research. The main conclusion
from this literature review is that party group affiliation is driven primarily by policy
proximity, and that the party group system is similar to the party system in most
member states. In saying that, the Irish party system does not fit with the European
model, so from that we might expect to find tensions.
22
33. 3.0 Introduction
The case selection for my study, which has been chosen, is Irish MEPs from Fine
Gael, the Labour party and Fianna Fáil in their European political groups; EPP, S&D and
ALDE. The 3 parties are looked at because they have multiple MEPs elected and are from the
three largest parties in Dáil Éireann. Compatibility can be better analysed with party
delegations in groups and it was felt that the inclusion of the one Socialist MEP and one
Independent MEP would cloud the overall analysis and divert focus.
It is clear from the evidence that the Irish case of individual party compatibility with
groups has not been researched in detail in this way and measuring compatibility indirectly by
looking at the behaviour of MEPs needs to be explored. My research will focus on four of the
eight key areas of policy that are most discussed and debated during the European Parliament
plenary in Brussels and Strasbourg. I decided to concentrate on four policy areas in order to
gain an in-depth understanding into the most controversial issues. The areas of policy include,
starting with what would be perceived as the most controversial, Foreign and Security policy,
Civil Liberties and Home affairs, Economics and Monetary affairs and Gender Equality.
3.1 Research question
The research question is: “Are Irish political parties compatible with their European
Parliament groupings?”
24
34. 3.2 Context of Research
The time period, which the research will explore, will be the current 7th European
Parliament when it began on the 14th July 2009 to July 2012. The current term will end after
the European elections in 2014. The Irish political parties examined will be Fine Gael, Fianna
Fáil and the Labour Party. Furthermore the European Parliament Groups analysed will be The
European People’s Party (EPP), Socialists and Democrats (S&D) and The Alliance of
Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE).
3.3 Research Methods
From a quantitative perspective, the research will involve the analysis of roll-call
voting records to ascertain voting cohesion. The data sources, which I will rely on for my
study, will primarily include the VoteWatch Europe website (www.votewatch.eu) and the
European Parliament website (www.europarl.europa.eu). The European institutions have a
good record of open and transparent information. Sources from these websites and official
institution documents with information on EP plenary meetings: Minutes, debates, and voting
records will be easily accessible. Also access to EP committee meetings, minutes, draft
reports, amendments to draft reports and voting outcomes will be sources, which will be used.
3.4 Research Design
The advantages of the research design are that people will be able to get a clear
understanding of the national political parties role in the EU within a wider framework. After
the research has concluded, people may look and judge the candidate for the European
election and take into account its European party grouping policies more so than its national
policies. From McElroy and Benoit 2010 they say that national parties in the EU are having
common experiences by being in a party group in the parliament. So the case with which I
have decided to study is representative of a larger class in the European Union.
25
35. The reason for choosing voting records in Parliament is because it will add depth to
the research as a whole. Some European Groupings disaffection for their National party
members might be explained through its decision to disagree or abstain on an issue crucial to
the Grouping. The analysis of these voting records expands further on the work done by
McElroy and Benoit 2010 where they use surveys to extract their information along with
policy analysis.
3.5 Data Analysis
To measure compatibility, an MEP’s voting option on issues is analysed. The
political line of the European group is taken from the position adopted by the plurality of
MEPs inside the group. As an example, take for instance if 40 MEPs from the S&D group
voted ‘For’, 26 MEPs voted ‘Against’ and another 28 MEPs voted to ‘Abstain’, the political
line of S&D taken would be ‘For’. Where there is an equal number, there is said to be no
political line. Furthermore an MEP is considered to be ‘loyal’ to his/her grouping in the
Parliament if that MEPs vote is the same as the political group. If the MEP votes the opposite
way to the group or abstains, the term ‘rebel’ is used to describe him/her. The data comes
from the VoteWatch Europe website. It provides voting records, coalition formation trends
and attendance records to name but a few.
3.6 Limitations of Research
Initially a comparison of National party manifestos and European group manifestos
was done but this analysis would have been inconclusive on a stand-alone basis. The policy
focus of the national party manifestos was too different from the EP group manifestos to
allow a structured comparison. The National manifestos contained specific proposals such as
for example, an increase in DIRT from 25% to 30%. No EP group manifesto mentions tax for
26
36. the simple reason that tax policies are a matter for each individual Member State to decide on
and the EPP, for example has many varied political parties from different countries as
members, which all have different tax policies.
Basically, European Groups are always trying to attract new parties into the fold. For
a forthcoming European Election, if one party performed very well in the election and if the
EPP included policies in their manifesto that were very much against the ideology of that
party, they might get dismayed and switch to another group. The Group manifesto needs to be
vague and non controversial in order to satisfy all its member parties in the run up to the
European election. In terms of research, it would have been very difficult to do a comparison
of compatibility on the grounds of policy with manifestos on a stand-alone basis. So rather
than a direct comparison, the voting records of Irish MEPs is investigated in order to ascertain
compatibility indirectly by looking at the behaviour of the MEPs.
To summarise, firstly analysis of patterns of defections across parties will be
conducted for each of the eight policy areas. This will then be reduced to four policy areas
where a more detailed examination using speeches from debates and written explanations of
votes will be used. This will look to explore in greater depth the reasons behind a defection
and how it related to the overall vote and to look out for an all Irish MEP voting bloc on a
particular issue. A comparison of the voting records results will give good insights into both
perceived policy stand points and actual positions taken at implementation stages as part the
European process.
27
37. Chapter 4:
Research Findings
And
Discussions
28
38. 4.0 Introduction
The clustered bar chart in figure 1 (a) shows the percentage of which each Irish
political party has voted the opposite way to their groupings (disloyalty) on all policy areas.
The clustered bar chart in figure 1 shows the percentage disloyalty among each Irish political
party in its respective grouping per policy area. The percentage disloyalty is the percentage
total number of votes in which MEPs from each national party voted to rebel (vote in the
opposite way to the group or abstain) against their group on an issue in a policy area. For the
relevant policy areas: there was 235 roll-call votes on Civil Liberties, 275 on Economic and
Monetary Affairs, 389 on Foreign and Security policy and 137 on Gender Equality. An MEP
is considered to be ‘loyal’ to his/her grouping in the Parliament if that MEPs vote is the same
as the political group. If the MEP votes the opposite to the group or abstains, the term ‘rebel’
is used to describe him/her. (VoteWatch Europe, 2012) Figure 1 (a) shows Fianna Fáil having
the most disloyalty with ALDE at 10.29% on all roll-call votes in the EP. Fine Gael is at
4.80% while Labour is on 1.62% on all policy areas.
Figure 1 (a)
All
Policy
Areas
%
Disloyalty
Labour
(S&D)
Fianna
Fáil
(ALDE)
Fine
Gael
(EPP)
Fianna
Fáil
(ALDE)
Labour
(S&D)
Fine
Gael
(EPP)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
Percentage
disloyalty
29
39. Figure 1: Irish Political Party Disloyalty in the European Parliament
Economic
and
Monetary
Affairs
Employment
and
Social
Affairs
Culture
and
Education
Policy
area
Gender
Equality
Labour
(S&D)
Environment
Fianna
Fáil
(ALDE)
Civil
Liberties
Fine
Gael
(EPP)
Foreign
and
Security
Policy
Agriculture
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
Percentage
disloyalty
Figure 1 does show us a lot in terms of voting patterns across parties. The first figure
that becomes apparent is Fianna Fáil’s 22% disloyalty with its group on gender issues.
(VoteWatch Europe, 2012) The Labour party are the most loyal of the parties but the issues of
Economic and Monetary Affairs, Agriculture, Foreign and Security policy and Civil Liberties
seem to generate most rebellion. It would have been imagined that the theme of Economic
and Monetary Affairs would have featured more tensions because of the current economic
crisis. The rationale behind this is that in a crisis the EU institutions would try to make
changes to try and solve the situation, which might not meet the approval of some Member
States.
What is surprising is Labour’s loyalty on Foreign and Security issues. When one
considers that Ireland is a neutral country, it is unexpected that an issue has not come up that
the party believed would have adverse effects on a neutral country. The party is after all,
voting amongst countries that have gone to war several times and have vast armies at their
disposal. Fianna Fáil’s disloyalty on agriculture is startling and when they join with a group
that raises questions over the Common Agricultural Policy, it is not out of the blue that one
would expect tensions. Figure 1 gives a good insight on a macro level of the policy areas
30
40. where the parties disagree with their groups most and hence decide to rebel against their
group colleagues. (VoteWatch Europe, 2012)
By looking at speeches made by the Irish MEP’s, a good understanding of where they
are coming from in relation to the issue will be gained. This will further inform the discussion
and also of interest will be the way in which they vote on certain issues. It might be by
political party, by country or ones own particular preference. It would be imagined that
MEP’s from the same political party would have regular meetings updating themselves on the
latest issues. Analysis will now continue and strive to achieve an in depth understanding of
why these MEP’s rebel against their groups on issues and see if these add to tensions in the
group and thus may question the national party’s compatibility with that grouping in the
Parliament. The four policy areas were chosen because, in those areas significant differences
are seen between the parties in terms of loyalty and also they reflect the broader trends found
across all policy areas. The four areas picked are: Foreign and Security policy, Civil Liberties,
Gender Equality policy and Economic and Monetary Affairs.
31
41. Figure 2:
Labour
Foreign
and
Security
Policy
(S&D)
Fianna
Fine
Gael
(EPP)
Fáil
(ALDE)
Fianna
Fáil
(ALDE)
Labour
(S&D)
Fine
Gael
(EPP)
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
Percentage
disloyalty
4.1 Foreign and Security Policy
Foreign and security policy is an important and sometimes controversial issue among
EU member-state countries. The opinion of member state countries varies. Some want a
supranational foreign and security policy and on the other hand the others go against any
significant limitation of national sovereignty. The reality is that there is still a sizeable
variation in what governments want when it comes to foreign policy integration. (Koenig-
Archibugi, M., 2004)
From figure two we can see the Fianna Fáil party with the highest disloyalty with
11.79%, Fine Gael with 7.27% and finally and interestingly the Labour party with 99.70%
loyalty with their Socialist and Democrats group on the issue of foreign and security policy.
(VoteWatch Europe, 2012) The first policy issue of four to be focused on in this section is in
relation to the ‘EU-Russia summit 2011’. These four were picked because there was defection
between the parties and their groups over issues. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are the two parties
focused on here because the Labour party hardly ever rebelled against their group on Foreign
and Security policy.
32
42. On the issue of the EU-Russia summit which took place in June 2011, the goal being
for both to take the opportunity of the upcoming summit to intensify negotiations on a new
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement. It urges Russia to step up its contribution to
addressing climate change and also the rapid need to implement fundamental principles of
democracy, the rule of law, media freedom and human rights as a basis of cooperation.
(European Parliament, 2011) Sean Kelly FG MEP and Jim Higgins FG MEP are the only
rebels on this motion of all the Irish parties, they voted in favour while their group advocated
a no vote. The no vote was in the majority and won by 67%. Sean Kelly MEP contributed to
the debate:
“…. Its (Russia’s) behaviour towards some countries, particularly
neighbours such as Georgia, certainly cannot be admired.” “…Nevertheless, they do offer a
great opportunity for tackling global issues like climate change and also, of course, a great
opportunity to develop both our economies.” (Kelly, 2011)
For the EPP, the main spokesperson outlined that they believed that the final
declaration of the summit which was going to take place the week after must be more than
just fine words. At the time, they expected real agreements that will lead to results. They also
said that President Medvedev’s efforts of improving the rule of law were not enough.
On the second issue, Sean Kelly MEP rebelled against the EPP by voting in favour of
a motion on violence against lesbian women and the rights of LGBT persons in Africa. In it,
it strongly condemns all forms of violence and discrimination against lesbians in African
countries. It also calls for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 76 countries where it
is illegal. There were some impassioned and harrowing speeches made on the issue and the
MEP in question made a contribution during the plenary session. Kelly said he believed that
right across Africa there is a kind of cultural tradition based on non-tolerance of LGBTs in
any form. He gives an example of where in South Africa they were the first country to bring
in non-discrimination on sexual orientation but when it says one thing in law, it doesn’t
33
43. always work out that way in reality. This would be seen to be a liberal issue and he was one
of 11 in his group to defect. (European Parliament, 2011)
Brian Crowley FF ALDE rebelled on one issue in this section and that was on the
2010 progress report on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. He abstained and was
the only Irish MEP that rebelled on the vote that called for more efforts in the field of gender
equality and women’s rights and calls on the Council and Commission to start developing a
generally applicable arbitration mechanism aimed at solving bilateral issues between
enlargement countries amongst other things. All other Irish MEPs were loyal to their groups
by voting in favour so this MEP would be seen to be conservative on gender issues.
(European Parliament, 2011)
Finally Pat ‘the cope’ Gallagher from Fianna Fáil and ALDE was on his own in an
Irish context when he rebelled and was the only Irish MEP to vote in favour for a motion on
the situation in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain in the context of the situation in the Arab world
and North Africa. In particular to Syria, it called for Syrian authorities to allow foreign press
into the country and to release all children who were arrested during the repression. It also
supported the EU’s diplomatic efforts with its partners in the international community.
However it was defeated overall, 79% to 12%. (European Parliament, 2011)
The Labour party in its group, the S&D, were very loyal on nearly all issues. Three
individual votes against the group are noted. On the subject of an enlargement report for
Turkey, Emer Costello rebelled by voting no while her group and delegation were loyal and
in favour. Nessa Childers abstained on the ‘impact of the financial crisis on the defence sector’
when her group were in favour. Finally, Phil Prendergast voted no to ‘the EU as a global actor:
its role in multilateral organisations’. When put in the context of two changes in personnel as
Emer Costello replaced Proinsias De Rossa due to retirement and Phil Prendergast replaced
Alan Kelly due to him being elected to the Dáil, one would expect more changes vote- wise
but this did not happen.
34
44. To sum up, Labour, who are now a government coalition member and are still found
to be so loyal at a European level is remarkable and is a very good indication that the Socialist
and Democrats grouping is a very compatible group with the Labour party. For Fine Gael and
the EPP, a percentage of only 7% disloyalty is a good performance and where Fine Gael were
seen to be conservative was around the whole area of neutrality and not being seen to vote on
issues that could compromise the country’s situation on an international stage. They were
seen to be liberal when it came to the motion on the EU-Russia summit when half of the
delegation voted against the group by voting in favour of urging Russia to act on human
rights. Fianna Fáil reached almost 12% disloyalty with ALDE. However a joint rebellion with
Fine Gael was seen on issues such as defence and human rights but they also voted
individually on a number of issues with no pattern or cohesion with other party or group
members visible.
35
45. Figure 3:
Labour
Civil
Liberties
(S&D)
Fine
Gael
Fianna
Fáil
(ALDE)
Fine
Gael
(EPP)
Fianna
Fáil
(ALDE)
Labour
(S&D)
(EPP)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
Percentage
Disloyalty
4.2 Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
High tech communication systems have been developed and when these are
combined with the new security environment, this generates international terrorism. These
systems have transformed many national civil liberties issues into significant international
debates. Logs of intimate personal character- credit card transactions and even retina scans,
cross territorial borders. Through communications of national systems with clear ideas of
freedom, transnational civil liberties were born. (Newman, 2008)
It is important to give this policy area context, as it is a large area, which does have
important implications for member states. In terms of the political parties, Fianna Fáil is the
most disloyal when it comes to Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs with a figure of just
over 18%. Fine Gael has only 8.23% while the Labour party remains the most loyal of all the
parties with just 0.43%. (VoteWatch Europe, 2012)
36
46. The first policy issue of three is in relation to public access to European Parliament,
Council and Commission documents. The three policy issues were selected based on the
National parties voting the opposite way to their group and the large amount of debate around
these issues. Important elements like including documents relating to the EU budget, its
implementation and beneficiaries of Union funds are to be made public and available to
citizens who can have access to them on websites also. Their reasoning for this was that it is
an important aspect of transparency and that it is important that the budgetary procedures are
clearly visible when implementing the EU budget. (European Parliament, 2011) The EPP
instructed its members to vote this down on the grounds that the report went too far beyond
the goal of extensive public access to EU documents. They said their agreement was made
impossible because it believed that when it said documents, that was taken to mean any data
or content in any way connected to EU policy, decisions and measures. The EPP also go on to
say that they are very clear in their support to privacy and data protection while still taking
the issue of public access to documents seriously.
The resolution was passed by 63% in the end with Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil being
rebels on the issue. All Fine Gael MEP’s abstained in this vote and Fianna Fáil MEP’s voted
against (excluding Brian Crowley who was absent). Labour MEP’s were loyal and voted in
favour of the report. There were many written explanations on the part of the rebel MEP’s.
This was probably the case because it would be considered a controversial topic with the Irish
media if they decided to run a story on it. The two Fianna Fáil members from ALDE released
a join written statement where they stated:
“…In the interests of the privacy of our constituents…with matters and queries of a
personal or sensitive nature, it was necessary to vote against this report.” (Aylward and
Gallagher, 2011)
This was a significant break with ranks with ALDE on this issue, and interestingly
the Fianna Fáil delegation were in agreement with the EPP, which would be seen by some as
37
47. a closer fit in terms of policy for the party. So to recap, ALDE voted in favour, EPP voted
against and S&D were in favour. Both Mairead McGuinness MEP and Gay Mitchell MEP
from Fine Gael and EPP gave individual explanations in writing. Mairead stated that:
“Although this report prioritises transparency, it goes too far and actually poses a
potential threat to the smooth running of the Parliament. The text confuses ‘access to
documents’ with ‘administrative procedures” (McGuinness, 2011)
Part of Gay Mitchell’s contribution stated that:
“The Irish EPP delegation fully supports transparency but public access to
documents must also meet legal requirements. In this regard, we do not feel the Cashman
report is satisfactory.” (Mitchell, 2011)
One would assume if a delegation found that a report is not satisfactory then they would vote
against that report but the Fine Gael delegation stopped short of this and abstained instead
maybe for reasons to avoid controversy but this is merely speculative. This issue shows that,
Fianna Fáil insists on privacy much more than the other parties. This vote happened in
December 2011, when Fine Gael were in Government and perhaps Fianna Fáil felt they had
nothing to lose by voting against, however all media eyes are on Fine Gael and if they were
seen to vote against public access to EU documents, the Irish media would pounce on that
opportunity. So the safest thing to do in the eyes of Fine Gael was to abstain.
The next vote has been the closest yet involving Fianna Fáil, on the issue of freedom
of information in Italy. This was a joint motion put forward for a resolution by S&D, ALDE,
GUE/NGL and Greens groups. This was produced in 2009 and it recognises that concerns
were being raised in Italy over the enduring conflict of interest talking in particular about the
Prime Minister at the time and his media ownership and control politically over major private
and public media. This motion basically censures the pressure, which was directed towards
Italian and European newspapers by authorities from the Italian government. It specifically
38
48. backs calls by the OSCE representatives where they say to the Italian authorities to stop this
pressure. (European Union, 2009)
The vote was extremely close in the end with the motion being defeated by just 3
votes. All Fine Gael MEPs were loyal and voted against while Labour were also loyal but in
favour. However, all three Fianna Fáil MEP’s abstained and were disloyal so if they were to
vote in favour of the motion it would have been a tied vote. Members of ALDE were angered
by FF’s stance and a row was said to have erupted involving the three Fianna Fáil MEPs at
the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Pat ‘The Cope’ Gallagher, who is the leader of the FF
delegation, said that they abstained because the party would not interfere in the internal
affairs of other member states. He was also asked if he came under pressure from the FF
government at the time but said that it was ultimately their own decision. (RTE News, 2009)
A motion passed about the situation in Lithuania following the adoption of the law on
protection of minors was abstained upon by the Fine Gael MEPs making them rebels
(excluding Sean Kelly who didn’t vote) and voted against by the Fianna Fáil MEPs making
them rebels also (excluding Pat ‘The Cope’ Gallagher who didn’t vote). The motion invites
the Lithuanian President and authorities to make sure that law’s nationally are matched with
human rights and fundamental freedoms, which are preserved in international and European
law. (European Parliament, 2009)
All Fine Gael MEPs gave an explanation for their abstentions. In it they said that:
“The Fine Gael MEPs abstained on the votes on Lithuania as the legislative/legal processes
have not yet been completed there. When the Lithuanian legal process has been finalised as to
whether it conflicts with EU Treaties can be examined.” (Fine Gael MEPs, 2009)
This explanation is similar to others given and with a percentage of just 89% of
MEPs who voted along European political group lines on this vote so it did divide groups
with the majority formed in the end by S&D, ALDE, GUE/NGL and Greens/EFA. This is a
39
49. logical response because if the legislation on Human Rights has not gone through the houses
of Parliament, then a vote about it in the Parliament at such an early stage is questionable.
To sum up this section on Civil Liberties and referring back to Figure 3, Fine Gael in
the EPP rebelled against their group more than any others but are not highest on the graph,
this is because most of their decisions under that category were to abstain and this does not
count against them as much as Fianna Fáil who voted against ALDE more than Fine Gael
voted against the EPP. As far as compatibility is concerned in relation to Fine Gael, apart
from when Ireland is not concerned/affected in the motion, they will abstain or when the EPP
is one of the few groups to recommend MEPs in their group to vote against, Fine Gael MEPs
decide to abstain and seem to not want to cause too much upset at home and in Europe.
Meanwhile, Fianna Fáil have no issue with going against an issue that they feel
passionately about. A case in point was over the freedom of information issue in Italy where
Pat ‘The Cope’ Gallagher admitted that he should have flagged the issue sooner with his
group colleagues that his delegation had an issue with it and intended to vote against it. The
overall level of compatibility on Civil Liberties with ALDE is not overly high and was
evident when they voted against giving public access to EP, Council and Commission
documents. The Labour MEP’s were again loyal with their S&D group on all issues except
Nessa Childers who rebelled on an international agreement with the US. On Civil Liberties,
the Labour party and S&D are a good match. (European Parliament, 2012)
40
50. Figure 4:
Labour
Gender
Equality
Policy
(S&D)
Fianna
Fine
Gael
(EPP)
Fáil
(ALDE)
Fianna
Fáil
(ALDE)
Labour
(S&D)
Fine
Gael
(EPP)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
Percentage disloyalty
4.3 Gender Equality
The drive for gender equality is still to the forefront in Europe with many issues
being debated in the Parliament. The energy with which the issue is debated has not
disappeared from the gender equality agenda. The successful effect of this agenda however
remains questionable. There have been advancements in this area in individual Member
States but this has not been constant and increasing. More consideration has been paid to the
gender pay gap at a European level but in terms of policy, they still are fairly weak. The new
employment guidelines lost its equal opportunities pillar thus putting the momentum gathered
at risk. However the inclusion of promises for an integrated strategy of gender mainstreaming
and equal opportunities are welcome. (Rubery et al, 2003)
Figure 4 is quite startling in reference to Fianna Fáil’s 22% disloyalty. This is the area
in which they are most disloyal to their group over all policy areas and produce the highest
figure of all 3 political parties in all policy areas. Fine Gael at 8.85% amounts to their most
disloyal policy area also coming very close to Economic and Monetary affairs. The Labour
41
51. party at 0.76% disloyalty records one of their lowest figures and maintains its compatibility
with S&D.
The first issue under this policy area of three is that of Gender mainstreaming. These
three were picked to generate a focus on Fianna Fáil in particular to find out why their
disloyalty on this policy area is so high.
‘Gender mainstreaming in the work of the European Parliament’ created dissent
among the Fine Gael MEPs. The report cites measures that would be proactive. They include
accepting and applying a policy plan for gender mainstreaming in Parliament, gender
budgeting, which is making sure measures implemented affect men and women equally.
Another important measure is to increase the amount of women in decision-making positions.
All Irish MEPs, except the Fine Gael delegation, were in favour of this motion, which
passed by 66%. The conflict in votes is apparent between the EPP and Fine Gael. It was the
EPP’s recommendation for the political parties to endorse a No vote. Some of the EPP group
members decisions centred around extremists in the Committee on Women’s Rights and
Gender Equality, in the past, taking advantage of a report in order to include in it demands
that have nothing to do with the subject and instead concentrated on transgendered people.
Others point to paragraph 12, which in their eyes pays a disproportionate amount of attention
to transgender people in European policies. Their point was that transgender issues are taken
out of their political and institutional context. (European Parliament, 2011)
Jim Higgins MEP was one of those who rebelled against the EPP and voted in favour:
“The Parliament needs to lead by example and must truly reflect the needs,
aspirations and experiences of all society. Gender mainstreaming is firmly established in
Article 8 of the Lisbon Treaty and this report is an essential first step towards the
mainstreaming of the institutions.” (Higgins, 2011)
42
52. A very low figure of 78% of MEPs actually voted along European political group
lines and the main reason for this is probably the stance taken by the EPP. The Fine Gael
delegation was not alone in their decision to oppose their group. They were joined by 87 other
EPP rebels, which equalled a very poor group cohesion rate of 36.65% in contrast to S&D
who had cohesion of 99% and ALDE who had 97.7% who backed the proposal. (VoteWatch
Europe, 2011) We can interpret this as Fine Gael actually being more progressive than the
majority of the EPP members. It also shows that the party is not afraid to speak out and go
against its group on a progressive issue like Gender mainstreaming.
The subject of defective silicone gel breast implants made by a French company PIP
resulted in a close vote of 286 (50%) for and 279 (49%) against with 6 (1%) abstentions.
(VoteWatch Europe, 2012) The motion called on the Commission to develop an appropriate
legal framework to guarantee the safety of breast implants and of medical technology in
general and also the implementation of immediate and specific measures on the basis of the
current legislation on medical devices. (European Parliament, 2012)
The Fianna Fáil delegation did not agree with ALDE who were in favour of this and
all (except Brian Crowley MEP who was absent) voted against the motion. Fine Gael were
loyal to their group and voted against it while Labour’s position was that they were loyal and
in favour with just Nessa Childers rebelling by abstaining. So overall very mixed opinions on
this, a contentious issue. Labour MEP, Emer Costello and Fine Gael MEP, Mairead
McGuinness, both had opposing opinions and both gave explanations on their voting
decisions.
“Today’s vote is important in ensuring that more stringent safety checks and
increased product traceability is introduced in regard to breast implants…” “…The passing
of today’s resolution should help to institute industrial change.” (Costello, 2012)
On the other side, MEP McGuinness was loyal to her group and voted against:
43
53. “I did not support the inclusion of Paragraph 7 on the introduction of a system of
pre-market authorisation. Europe already has in place an effective de-facto premarket
authorisation system and further regulation could stifle innovation.” (McGuinness, 2012)
There really were two sides taken on this by Labour and Fine Gael. Fine Gael see it as further
regulation and this could have a negative impact in the longer term while Labour want more
checks and are enthusiastic for change to the system.
A motion for resolution on the Beijing plus 15- UN Platform for Action for Gender
Equality was discussed and urges, amongst other things, the Commission and the Member
States to adopt and implement specific gender equality policies. It also requests that in the
revision of the Lisbon Strategy in 2010 a strong gender equality priority, which would be
accompanied by new targets, be set out. (European Parliament, 2010) The EPP’s stance was
in favour, ALDE were also in favour and so was the S&D. The only rebels were the Fine Gael
delegation who abstained as a group. It was eventually carried by 82%. But in the debate the
Fine Gael MEP, Mairead McGuinness made a few points based on their decision.
“…A lot of women are contributing to this debate, but I think we have to be honest
about how many of us have dependent children. Could we be here if we had? Yes but only
because we earn a great deal more than other people who cannot follow suit.” (McGuinness,
2010)
For Fine Gael MEPs to go against their group on this issue would make them more
conservative taking into account the rest of the EPP’s support for this. According to
McGuinness, there is too much focus on women when it comes to these issues, men’s reasons
for not taking up positions needs to be investigated also.
What was clear to see throughout analysis on this policy area was the disparity with
Fianna Fáil and their group, ALDE. Fianna Fáil displays the most conservative positions on
gender equality. The Fine Gael delegation seem to be cautious as well but operate more
efficiently in the sense that if they are going to disagree with an issue they seem to talk and
44
54. decide a common position for the delegation and all vote for, all against or abstain. It is
apparent that there is good coordination and cooperation in that group. Fianna Fáil rebelled
and joined with Fine Gael in voting against the motion on defective breast implants. An
interesting finding was that on 2 out of the 3 motions featured, Fianna Fáil voted along the
same lines as the European People’s Party. The Labour party were very loyal to the S&D
group and are undoubtedly the most progressive of the three parties on Gender issues. Nessa
Childers MEP went against them on the motion on defective breast implants while her
colleagues were loyal on all issues. (VoteWatch Europe, 2012)
Figure 5:
Economic
and
Monetary
Affairs
Labour
(S&D)
Fianna
Fine
Gael
(EPP)
Fáil
(ALDE)
Fianna
Fáil
(ALDE)
Labour
(S&D)
Fine
Gael
(EPP)
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
Percentage
disloyalty
4.4 Economic and Monetary Affairs
With the Euro crisis and recessions seen across European Member States, the EU’s
work on economic and monetary affairs has increased in importance. The Maastricht Treaty,
for example had an economic and monetary constitution rooted in it. It included the main
goals and basic values for good economic governance. A key philosophy was the need to
secure sound public finances for sustainable growth. Nothing can be more valid for today as
we look to the future. With further integration within the Union from some Member States
expected, the idea of economic sovereignty has been raised and many MEPs and governments
45
55. get uncomfortable around some areas of economic policy being pursued by the EU. Common
tax rates and more control of how governments budget their finances are issues of concern
and this is reflected in the debates in the Parliament. (Papademos, 2006)
Some initial reactions to figure 5 show that 8.79% disloyalty on this issue is the
second highest defection rate for Fine Gael over the 8 policy areas. We expect to see many
reasoned explanations from the MEPs on the issues that concern both them and their party. It
also shows that the party holds monetary affairs in high standing if it is prepared, as a
perceived pro-European party, to object to certain elements. Some of these further increase
the integration economically of the Eurozone and Union as a whole. Fianna Fáil is at 10.20%
disloyalty with ALDE and is well down on being its highest rate. This figure is less surprising
compared to Fine Gael because when we put it in context and compare it to the 22% on
Gender Equality, it seems it is at odds with ALDE more so on social issues than it does on
economic and monetary affairs issues.
The Labour party’s second highest figure of disloyalty is seen in this policy area.
When Labour has been in government, they have dealt with poor economic and fiscal
situations such as those in ’82 to ’87 and from 2011 onwards. In the eighties they bore much
of the blame for the requirement of strict curtailing of government spending and paid the
price at the ballot box.
Tax is a salient issue among Member States, none more so than Ireland. The first of
three motions that will be analysed in detail is entitled ‘Call for concrete ways to combat tax
fraud and tax evasion’. These three were chosen because in some instances all MEPs in the
National party as a group bloc voted against their group. All are highly emotive and when it
comes to talking about tax, the Irish MEPs get very protective and a large debate develops.
This calls on Member States to ensure smooth cooperation and coordination of their tax
systems in the hope that tax avoidance and fraud and unintended non-taxation can be avoided.
It also calls on them to have another look at bilateral agreements between Member States but
46
56. also third countries in the same areas. All Fine Gael MEPs rebelled against the EPP on this
issue by voting no. Seán Kelly MEP gave an explanation as to the reasons why.
“…We consider that his (Jean-Paul Gauzes) proposals are excessive, in
particular introducing proposals in which we had no part, such as a common tax or ‘CCCTB’,
tax competition and agreements among various countries. We cannot accept these proposals
and we therefore voted against it. Let us continue to battle dishonesty and evasion.” (Kelly,
2012)
The Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) is of concern to Ireland
because it is seen as tax harmonisation by the ‘back door’ and that this would have an adverse
impact on our low corporation tax rate of 12.5% which is seen as key to the entry of
multinationals into Ireland. Fianna Fáil’s position was in favour because they supported a lot
of the positive recommendations in the report. However in his explanation of the vote, Pat
‘The Cope’ Gallagher noted with concern, the inclusion of a reference to the role of the
CCCTB in Paragraph 4 but in the end supported it because of its overall positive
recommendations. Meanwhile, the Labour Party were loyal to S&D by voting in favour. The
motion passed in the end by 71%. (VoteWatch Europe, 2012) Fine Gael are protectionist in
their opposition to changes to the tax system and in particular, Ireland’s corporate tax rate.
However, in this motion, it deals very little with corporate tax and yet the MEPs raise the
issue. Fine Gael are conservative on tax issues and have a ‘laissez faire’ attitude when it
comes to such issues.
The CCCTB was the subject of the second policy issue where tensions were apparent.
Both the Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil delegations voted against their groups on this issue by
voting no. Pat ‘The Cope’ Gallagher’s vote is recorded as a yes vote but this was due to his
voting machine not working. There were several explanations given by the Irish MEPs on
this controversial issue and amongst the no votes by the two aforementioned parties, it will be
47