BrusselsReport.eu Ranking of Members of European Parliament 2019-2024

By
Pieter Cleppe
-
Copyright: Copyright: "European Parliament, Strasbourg" by tacowitte is licensed under CC BY 2.0

In the run-up to the 2024 European Parliament elections, BrusselsReport.eu is happy to present its Ranking of Members of European Parliament for the period 2019-2024.

The data processing has been undertaken by the leading provider of European Parliament voting analysis, EUmatrix.eu.

 

METHODOLOGY:

Three rankings of MEPs have been made, whereby they are being ranked according to how they vote on the following topics:

First Ranking: Accountability and Transparency

  • Category I: Transparency (5 votes) – Yellow
  • Category II: Financial Accountability (12 votes) – Blue

Second Ranking: Free market economics, subsidiarity and civil liberties

  • Category III: Subsidiarity (7 votes) – Orange
  • Category IV: Civil liberties (5 votes) – Green
  • Category V: Free market economics (16 votes) – Grey

Third Ranking: Overall Ranking: This ranking takes all five categories into account.

MEPs are being ranked according to the perspective of BrusselsReport.eu, which, as mentioned on our website, intends to be a platform offering an alternative to the dominant EU policy consensus, thereby criticizing:

  • Fiscal transfers
  • A top-down policy approach
  • Loose monetary policies
  • Protectionism
  • Excessive or ill-guided regulation

Instead supporting:

  • Decentralisation
  • Hard money
  • Fiscal and regulatory competition
  • Low taxes
  • Free trade
  • Respect for the rule of law

For each vote, MEPs received:

+1 point for voting in line with the Brussels Report perspective

-1 point for voting in the opposite direction

0 points for abstention or not taking part in the vote

After that, the scores have been adjusted to a scale where the highest score is set to 100 and the lowest to 0. Thereby, a score of 100 does not imply that an MEP consistently voted in line with the Brussels Report perspective in every case, nor does a score of 0 necessarily mean an MEP always voted against this perspective.

It is important to note that to vote against a certain proposal on the mere basis of the ideological background of the MEP that submitted the proposal, is not being considered as a valid excuse. Proposals need to be judged on their merits.

This ranking also only ranks MEPs on how they have voted on the selected votes and not on their ideology, let alone other factors (like personal behaviour).

The following 45 votes have been singled out from the 2019-2024 European Parliament legislative mandate:

I. Transparency (5 votes)

VOTE NR 1 on an obligation for MEPs to disclose how they use their monthly “expenditure allowance” of almost 5,000 euro which they receive on top of their salaries

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – European Parliament Amendment 45/2

A majority of 355 MEPs voted to support a proposal to require MEPs to prove they are using their monthly expenditure allowance for actual office expenditure and that they are not merely pocketing the money, which amounts to almost 5,000 euro per month, on top of their monthly salaries of over 8,000 euro. The issue has become the symbol of how the European Parliament, which is supposed to serve as a watchdog for the EU machinery, struggles to get its own house in order.

Transparency International has noted that along with the secretarial allowance, used by MEPs to pay their staff, amounting to €24,164 monthly per MEP, “this EU budget line has repeatedly been the subject of fraud and misuse by MEPs.”

This is the text MEPs adopted:

  1. Highlights the fact that the 2018 Bureau decision on the general expenditure allowance stipulates that the Bureau will maintain this decision until the end of 2022 and will evaluate it on the basis of the experience gained during the 9th parliamentary term; regrets that the bureau continues to ignore the plenary’s will expressed on numerous occasions1a to further reform the general expenditure allowance, thereby actively preventing Members’ expenses of Union taxpayers’ money from becoming more transparent and accountable; urges the bureau to immediately implement the Plenary’s decisions from the 2017 and 2018 Parliament’s discharge reports introducing changes to the rules governing the general expenditure allowance; stresses that any new voluntary and/or optional measures for greater transparency and financial accountability should not create unnecessary bureaucracy for Members and their offices; _________________ 1a Discharge 2017: General budget of the EU – European Parliament, March 26th, 2019; Discharge 2018: General budget of the EU – European Parliament, May 14th, 2020.

A majority of MEPs thereby voted to change this original text:

  1. Highlights the fact that the 2018 Bureau decision on the general expenditure allowance stipulates that the Bureau will maintain this decision until the end of 2022 and will evaluate it on the basis of the experience gained during the 9th parliamentary term; stresses that any new voluntary and/or optional measures for greater transparency and financial accountability should not create unnecessary bureaucracy for Members and their offices.

Still, a minority of 250 MEPs however voted against requiring them to prove they are using the expenditure allowance for expenditures, while 93 abstained.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 2 on supporting transparency on the financing of the “Conference on the future of the Union”

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – European Parliament Amendment 5

A majority of MEPs voted to reject transparency on the financing of the “Conference on the future of the Union”

This is the text a majority of 360 MEPs rejected. Only 329 supported the proposals, with 10 abstaining:

51 a. Notes the setting up of the Conference on the future of the Union; calls for clarification as soon as possible of the conditions for financing this conference and the consequences for the institution’s budget; calls for a commitment to full transparency on the expenditure of this conference, including the keeping of separate accounts and an audit report by the European Court of Auditors for each year of functioning.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 3 – on demanding that the results of roll-call votes in plenary should be available in an open, machine-readable format and easily visible on Parliament’s website

In May 2020, a majority of MEPs supported the following proposal, but still 210 MEPs, including many from EPP and ECR, voted against:

“Notes that the results of roll-call votes in plenary should be available in an open, machine-readable format and easily visible on Parliament’s website; calls on Parliament therefore to publish the machine-readable version of the roll-call vote results next to the non-machine-readable versions, on the plenary minutes’ webpage;”

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 4 on urging the Council to step up its transparency efforts by, inter alia, publishing Council working documents in a machine-readable format  

In April 2021, MEPs voted to support the following proposal:

“40. Recalls that the European Parliament in its resolution of 17 January 2019 on the Ombudsman’s strategic inquiry OI/2/2017 on the transparency of legislative discussions in the preparatory bodies of the Council of the EU overwhelmingly supported the Ombudsman’s proposals on legislative transparency and demands that the Council further improves legislative transparency, particularly by recording and publishing member state positions and by making available more trilogue documents; urges the Council to step up its transparency efforts by, inter alia, publishing Council working documents in a machine-readable format; invites the Council to report on other measures taken in order to improve legislative transparency;”

Still, 209 MEPs, including many EPP and ID MEPs, voted against.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 5 on regretting the practice whereby ‘efficiency of the institution’s decision-making process’ is routinely invoked to refuse access to legislative preparatory documents

In June 2021, a majority of MEPs, including all Renew MEPs but one, rejected the following statement:

  1. Regrets the practice whereby ‘efficiency of the institution’s decision-making process’ is routinely invoked to refuse access to legislative preparatory documents, which risks that exceptions to public access to documents become the de facto rule;

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

 II. Financial accountability (12 votes)

VOTE NR 6 on pledging to refuse to approve (“grant discharge to”) EU spending in case EU state aid rules are violated in the context of spending funds from the EU recovery fund

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – Commission and executive agencies Amendment 2

This is the original text:

  1. Recalls the increasing gap between commitments and payments and the increase in the size of the Union budget (the Court’s rapid case review, ‘Outstanding commitments – a closer look’) which poses a serious challenge for the discharge authority too; notes that the long-term EU budget increased from 1.083 to 1.800 billion Euro for 2021-2027, including the EU Recovery plan Next GenerationEU; calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of the national recovery and resilience plans at regular intervals to ensure that the state aid rules are fulfilled and report to the discharge authority; stresses that a failure of this request could lead to a refusal of the Discharge procedure in 2020;

This is how a majority of MEPs changed it, thereby scrapping “stresses that a failure of this request could lead to a refusal of the Discharge procedure in 2020”:

“Recalls the increasing gap between commitments and payments and the increase in the size of the Union budget (the Court’s rapid case review, ‘Outstanding commitments – a closer look’) which poses a serious challenge for the discharge authority too; notes that the long-term EU budget increased from 1.083 to 1.800 billion Euro for 2021-2027, including the EU Recovery plan Next GenerationEU; calls on the Commission to monitor the implementation of the national recovery and resilience plans at regular intervals to ensure that the state aid rules are fulfilled and report to the discharge authority;”

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 7 on whether to reduce EU agricultural subsidies in a rather modest way

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – Commission and executive agencies Paragraph 341

The EU’s biggest spending area is still agriculture. A part of that spending, around 300 billion euro in the previous EU budget period, goes to “market related expenditure and direct payments”, whereby the link between subsidies and production of specific crops has largely been removed, in effect causing people and corporates to receive EU taxpayers money mainly  for owning agricultural land. A very first step to tackling the EU’s misguided agricultural policies is of course to reduce these payments.

This is the proposal that a large majority of MEPs supported. Still, a number of MEPs rejected this:

  1. Insists that larger farm incomes do not necessarily need the same degree of support for stabilising farm incomes as smaller farms in times of crisis in income volatility since they may benefit from potential economies of scale, which are likely to be resilient; believes that the Commission should take steps to ensure that CAP funds are distributed in a weighted manner, such that the payments per hectare are on a reducing scale relative to the size of the holding/farm[85];

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

 

VOTE NR 8 on scrapping a pledge to prevent EU funds supporting incitement to terrorism and anti-semitic hatred

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – Commission and executive agencies Amendment 43D= 73D=

An amendment was proposed to scrap this text. A majority of MEPs rejected the amendment, but many still supported it.

  1. Is concerned about the hate speech and violence taught in Palestinian school textbooks and used in schools by UNRWA in in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem; is concerned about the effectiveness of UNRWA’s mechanisms of adherence to UN values in educational materials used and taught by UNRWA staff in its schools, which contain hate speech and incitement to violence; insists that UNRWA acts in full transparency and publishes in an open-source platform all its educational materials for teachers and students, as well as its reviews of host country textbooks used to ensure that content adheres to UN values and does not encourage hatred; requests that all school material, which is not in compliance with these standards be removed immediately; insists that the earmarking of EU funding such as PEGASE for salaries paid to teachers and public servants in the education sector must be made conditional on educational material and course content complying with UNESCO standards of peace, tolerance, coexistence, and non-violence, as was decided upon by Union education ministers in Paris on 17 March 2015;

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 9 on allowing the European Court of Auditors to audit all operations by the European Investment Bank

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – Commission and executive agencies Paragraph 482/1

A majority of MEPs voted to support the following proposal:

  1. Considering that the EIB, a major player in the implementation of Union external policies, with 10 % of its loans outside the Union, plans to strengthen its development role by creating a dedicated agency for this purpose and may become the main entity in charge of development policies in the new financial architecture framework of the Union, reiterates the longstanding demands of the Parliament that the Court be empowered to audit all EIB operations, and that these audits be carried out;

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

 

VOTE NR 10 on approving EU 2019 spending

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – Commission and executive agencies vote: resolution

A majority of MEPs voted to approve (or “grant discharge to”) EU 2019 spending. This despite the fact that the EU’s own auditing body, the European Court of Auditors, did “conclude that payments were affected by too many errors, mainly in the category classified as ‘high risk expenditure’”. It did say EU accounts were giving “a true and fair view” of the EU’s financial position.

For years, the European Court of Auditors, has been issuing very critical assessments of EU spending, even if the situation has improved in recent years.

There’s also the issue of the EU’s “debt” or “reste à liquider”: Even if the EU is not legally allowed to go into debt, it has built up a mountain of “unpaid bills”, amounting to almost twice the EU’s annual budget. Between 2011 and 2019, it has increased with 36 percent, and the European Court of Auditors has also warned about it.

Furthermore, severe weaknesses persist in the way the EU budget is spent, when it comes to EU agricultural, regional or administrative spending, with concerns of these funds propping up organized crime, oligarchs and vested interests, something which for example in Bulgaria led to mass protests and a big election defeat of the incumbent government. The European Commission resists making its “spending reviews” public whereby it looks at the efficiency of every spending programme, despite this being requested by the likes of the Dutch government.

Despite all of this, a majority of MEPs happily sign off EU spending without asking many questions.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

 

VOTE NR 11 on examining EU spending the year after EU funds are spent and not two years after, to strengthen scrutiny

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – European Parliament Amendment 1

A majority of MEPs rejected the following proposal to examine EU spending the year after EU funds are spent and not two years after, to strengthen scrutiny:

“1 a. Notes with concern that the European institutions are once again failing to have a budgetary discharge in the year following the year under review; stresses that the current procedure of examining the accounts two years later is contrary to transparency and sound management of public money; is concerned that, as a result, the recommendations made to correct the errors and malfunctions detected for the year N will only be implemented during year N+2”

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 12 on whether taxpayers should pay for the European Parliament’s secretive second pension fund in case it suffers investment losses

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – European Parliament Amendment 17D https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0044-AM-009-018_EN.docx

The European Parliament’s second pension fund is no longer open to MEPs that were not already an MEP before 2009, but the controversial scheme, which has been established in Luxembourg, so to guarantee secrecy, continues to pay out to mostly former MEPs and their family members. In case the investment fund suffers losses, it is currently foreseen that taxpayers need to pay for these losses, as a guaranteed return has been promised.

More about the scheme can be read here.

MEPs were asked to vote on whether to scrap the following proposal. Therefore, MEPs that voted to support this think that taxpayers should pay for the European Parliament’s secretive second pension fund in case it suffers investment losses:

  1. Recalls that for all beneficiaries of the voluntary pension fund the benefits represent an additional rather than sole source of income; underlines that due to a low-interest-rate environment, the amount of defined benefit schemes has radically declined across the Union; objects to sheltering former Members from this dynamic; rejects any situation in which the actuarial deficit of the fund leads to any form of bail-out with taxpayer money;

Finnish EPP MEP Petri Sarvamaa is the one who proposed to scrap this rather sensible proposal. A majority of MEPs agreed with his stance that taxpayers should remain liable for a secretive second pension scheme that probably few taxpayers would be happy about.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 13 on the environmental impact of the European Parliament’s recurrent relocation to Strasbourg

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – European Parliament Paragraph 164

This vote on whether to support the European Parliament’s “traveling circus” between Brussels and Strasbourg, should perhaps be classified as “environmental” rather than “financial” accountability, but it also comes at a big cost to taxpayers. The troubling practice will resume in June and even if MEPs are not legally able to change it, they can at least express their disapproval at times.

Nevertheless, still 133 MEPs voted against and 58 abstained on an amendment which “notes the environmental impact of Parliament’s recurrent relocation to Strasbourg”.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 14 on whether to approve 2019 spending by the European Economic and Social Committee

Reference: 2019 Discharge: EU general budget – European Economic and Social Committee resolution

The European Economic and Social Committee is a taxpayer funded gathering of interest groups that also dispose of their own lobby entities to influence the EU institutions and whose reports are exerting only minimal influence on the EU decision making process. In 2020, a scandal revealed how the so-called “140 million euro costing zombie committee” had been proposing to hand its delegates 200 euro for attending their virtual meetings, as normally they would be handed almost 300 euro for physically attending summits in Brussels, to pay for hotels and restaurant bills.

This demand was rejected by EU member states, but it should warrant more scrutiny of how this EU body deals with the scarce resources contributed to EU taxpayers. Instead, a majority of MEPs simply rubber stamped its 2019 spending.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 15 in support of a single seat of the European Parliament

In June 2022, a majority of MEPs endorsed the following statement, which calls for a single seat for the European Parliament.

“7.6.2022 B9-0307/36 Amendment 36 Anja Hazekamp on behalf of The Left Group Motion for a resolution B9-0307/2022 S&D, Renew, Verts/ALE Call for a Convention for the revision of the Treaties Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6  indent 5 a (new)

Amendment • Sole Article, point (a) of Protocol No 6 on the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, offices, agencies and departments of the European Union (a) At the latest by 1 January 2024 the European Council shall take a decision to establish a single location for the seat of the European Parliament in the European Union, in order to prohibit the current monthly travelling circus between Strasbourg and Brussels and eliminate the related financial costs and CO2 emissions. Until January 2024, the European Parliament shall have its seat in Strasbourg where the 12 periods of monthly plenary sessions, including the budget session, shall be held, with the possibility of hybrid voting sessions and debates. The periods of additional plenary sessions shall be held in Brussels. The committees of the European Parliament shall meet in Brussels. The General Secretariat of the European Parliament and its departments shall remain in Luxembourg”

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

 

VOTE NR 16 on discharge for the spending by the European Court of Auditors, despite allegations of wrongdoing

In May 2022, a resolution urged to deny discharge for the 2020 spending of the European Court of Auditors, following allegations of financial wrongdoing, but a majority of MEPs rejected it. The European Court of Auditors is the EU institution charged with critically analysing the EU’s finances.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 17 on extra taxpayers money for the EU budget

In October 2023, a large majority of MEPs voted to demand even more extra taxpayers money for the EU budget than the European Commission was asking for. While the Commission desired an extra 66 billion euro, MEPs thought that this should be 10 billion euro higher. This despite ongoing criticism by the European Court of Auditors about the unacceptably high rate of error in EU spending.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

 

 

III. Subsidiarity (7 votes):

VOTE NR 18 on whether Brexit should inspire subsidiarity reform of the EU

Reference: The outcome of EU-UK negotiations Amendment 5

MEPs were asked to vote on this:

“Considers that the UK’s withdrawal could inspire a reform of the EU, towards greater respect for the sovereign interests of the Member States;”

A majority voted against this.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 19 on immediate EU action to agree an EU digital services tax regardless of the progress at the global level

Reference: Digital taxation: OECD negotiations, tax residency of digital companies and a possible European Digital Tax vote: resolution (as a whole) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0103_EN.html

A majority of MEPs voted to support “immediate EU action” to agree an “EU digital services tax”, backing a resolution outlining that “regardless of the progress of the negotiations in the G20/OECD IF, the EU should have a fall-back position and stand ready to roll out its own proposal for taxing the digital economy by the end of 2021”.

Apart from the fact that taxing digital services is not exactly the right incentive to support digital innovation, something where the EU is lagging its competitors, also since the introduction of burdensome GDPR regulations, dictating the kind of taxes that should be in force in EU member states is a clear violation of the principle of subsidiarity and flies against the perspective of BrusselsReport.eu that the EU should be focusing on its core business, which is to scrap barriers to trade.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 20 on EU spending on “reducing the digital divide”

Reference: European Child Guarantee Paragraph 16/2

With this vote, a majority of MEPs are supporting “calls for a public-private partnership at pan-European level for investing in reducing the digital divide and empowering children through digital and entrepreneurial skills”

While “reducing the digital divide” is obviously a laudable aim, using the EU budget for this is a violation of the subsidiarity principle, given that there is no relationship with the EU’s core business to open up trade.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

VOTE NR 21 on EU spending on “technological upgrading and comprehensive digital training”

Reference: European Child Guarantee Paragraph 16/3

With this vote, a majority of the the European Parliament “stresses the importance of equal access to digital infrastructure and skills for children, teachers and parents alike, in both urban and rural settings, in order to avoid a digital divide, as well for children in remote and outlying regions; calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide financial support to areas in need of technological upgrading and comprehensive digital training for both teachers and students, in order to enable them to adapt to new technologies;”

While everyone should be in favour of “technological upgrading and comprehensive digital training”, using the EU budget for this is a violation of the subsidiarity principle, certainly when it comes to education, given that there is no relationship with the EU’s core business to open up trade.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

VOTE nr 22 – MEPs vote for EU taxes

In 2023, a majority of MEPs supported the Hayer report, which calls for “own resources” for the EU (i.e. EU taxes) thereby even demanding that citizens in member states “with a higher gender pay gap” should contribute more.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

VOTE nr 23 – on support of unanimity in EU policy making

An amendment in July 2023 set out the following endorsement of unanimity in EU policy making. It was however defeated:

“Believes that the Union must effectively ensure unanimity in specific policy areas that are vital to Member States’ interests, as stipulated in the Treaties, so that no Member State is forced to take decisions against its will; further believes that unanimity is an indispensable means of building trust and respect between all the sovereign Member States willing to cooperate in the Union;”

The context here was a vote on the ‘Pisapia’ report, which advocates the use of the ‘passerelle clauses’ in the current European Treaty to authorise the Council of the European Union to make decisions on certain issues by a qualified majority of Member States. 347 voted in favour, 241 against, and there were 46 abstentions.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE nr 24 – on moving to qualified majority voting (QMV) for environmental and energy policies

Another amendment in July 2023 included a warning against moving to qualified majority voting (QMV) for environmental and energy policies, recalling the failures of EU policy in this area:

“Highlights that moving to QMV and OLP for environmental and energy policies is particularly dangerous given the broader context of environmental and energy policy mistakes related to cooperation with Russia made by certain Member States and of the ongoing energy crisis”

Also this amendment was defeated.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

IV. Civil liberties (5 votes):

VOTE NR 25 on whether to oppose an EU “Vaccine Passport”

Reference: Digital Green Certificate – Union citizens Amendment 11

https://www.votewatch.eu/en/term9-digital-green-certificate-union-citizens-draft-legislative-resolution-rejection-amendment-11.html

With this vote, MEPs were asked to vote on an amendment rejecting the so-called “Digital Green Certificate”, also known as the “Vaccine Passport” for EU travel. Opponents, like the “Civil Liberties Union for Europe”, an EU-focused human rights watchdog, have pointed out that the scheme may “create a divide between citizens of different EU countries”, adding:

 “[There are] inevitably risks to travellers’ privacy if the vaccine certificate is in digital form. Governments won’t only have to ensure that they keep individuals’ data safe, but also that this is not shared or misused for other purposes. If the vaccination certificate is required for travel between countries, it means all 27 governments have to have interoperable systems with equally strong data protection systems. And the EU data protection chief already expressed scepticism about the feasibility of this.”

Furthermore, EU legal expert Ciarán McCollum has warned that the scheme may lead to “checks within the Schengen zone. It is article 3 of the DGC that creates certificates of vaccination, testing and immunity. Border guards will have to inspect these.”

On BrusselsReport.eu, Bill Wirtz has pointed out:

“It could become mandatory to present it when entering a grocery store, a concert venue, or a park…it is concerning that the EU vaccine passport exposes sensitive health information – concerning vaccination, test results and even medical information on being recovered from Covid – to hackers, domestic and from foreign governments…It very much looks like this may become a long-term measure, whereby an increasing amount of personal information is being gathered under the pretext of public health and security.”

This is what amendment 11, submitted by MEPs opposing the scheme, argued:

“The proposed regulation infringes on fundamental human rights, including freedom of movement, respect of private life, protection of personal data and equality before the law. It also results in discrimination against those who have not had the opportunity or do not wish to be vaccinated or to be tested. Moreover, it does not guarantee data privacy protection. Sharing of personal and medical data should never be compulsory and storing of this confidential information is not necessary. Furthermore, it will most likely be used for other purposes besides restricting the freedom of movement and it poses a risk to become permanent since it will be applicable to any variant of SARS-CoV-2 and similar infectious diseases with epidemic potential. The Commission has also not conducted an impact assessment. The regulation has such far-reaching implications for fundamental rights, that an impact assessment cannot be omitted in light of an urgency. Finally, this regulation is not necessary to ensure the freedom of movement. Presenting the results of a negative PCR-test before cross border travel is sufficient. The proposed regulation should therefore be rejected in its entirety.”

Nevertheless, the European Parliament vote to simply go along with the EU’s “vaccine passport”, as 591 MEPs rejected this amendment critical of this “Digital Green Certificate”, with only 86 MEPs supporting it and 16 abstaining.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

VOTE NR 26 – on recognising the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism – vote: resolution (as a whole)

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE NR 27 – on condemning EU funding for pro hijab campaigns

In this vote, the European Parliament voted against an amendment of the conservative ECR group to the annual human rights report calling for a halt to EU funded campaigns glorifying or legitimizing the hijab. The EP previously voted to express deep concern over these campaigns.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE nr 28 – to approve the Digital Services Act

In July 2022, the European Parliament voted to support the Digital Services Act (DSA) which comes with considerable risks for freedom of speech online.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE NR 29 – on condemning Hamas

Right after the Hamas terror raid on Israel on 7 October 2023, the European Parliament voted to condemn the acts, with however still 21 MEPs refusing to do so.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

 

 

V. Free market economics (16 votes)

VOTES NR 30 and NR 31 on whether to scrap Covid vaccine patents retroactively

With vote nr. 30, MEPs were asked to vote on the following amendment, proposing to scrap Covid vaccine patents:

“The Union should support the India and South Africa WTO initiative for a temporary waiver of intellectual property rights with regard to COVID-19 vaccines and treatments and the pharmaceutical companies should share their knowledge and data through the WHO’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP).” (Reference: Digital Green Certificate – Union citizens Amendment 20rev)

With vote nr 31, they were asked whether they “deplore the repeated refusal of EU Member States to accept the proposals being put forward by India, South Africa and others at the WTO calling for the waiving of monopolies for COVID-19 medical tools considering the current state of emergency, which is one of the criteria for the waiving of patents under existing WTO rules” (Reference: EU-India relations Amendment 11)

Because of the importance of this issue, 2 votes relating to this matter have been selected to rank MEPs. Thankfully, when it comes to vote nr. 30, a majority of 454 MEPs voted to reject this attack on the market system, but still 162 supported it. Despite the fact that pharma companies managed to come up with life-saving Covid vaccines at a speed that few had assumed possible, they are now threatened with retroactive expropriation of their innovation, which is also of gigantic economic importance. The argument that taxpayers resources have been used to develop these vaccines does not hold water, as the research necessary to develop has been conducted over decades and not since governments have been financially supporting pharma innovators to come up Covid vaccines.

Not only may undermining vaccines threaten both innovation and the EU’s economy, as 82% of all EU exports is generated by sectors dependent on intellectual property, it is not likely to have much of an effect on actually boosting vaccine production, given how complex it is to produce these new vaccines. Apart from the importance to preserve future innovation, this is yet more evidence how vital the importance of cooperation with private industry really is.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

VOTE NR 32 – vote to reject Carbon border tax protectionism

A majority in the European Parliament rejected a proposal to not go along with the EU Commission’s effective climate tariff, the so-called Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

This Carbon Border Tax is targeting imports from countries that have less stringent climate legislation. As a result, African economies will be hit hard by this climate protectionism, while India has announced to contest the EU’s measure at the WTO level.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE NR 33 – banning the combustion engine

In 2022, a majority in the European Parliament voted in support of a de facto ban on the combustion engine from 2035 on. This despite the environmental downsides of electric vehicles, despite the fact that this violation of tech neutrality disadvantages European car manufacturers and ignoring the fact that also the combustion engine continues to improve, when it comes to its environmental footprint.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE NR 34 – on responding to the US IRA with protectionism and unrealistic green policies

In a 2023 vote, a majority of MEPs supported a resolution calling for more protectionism and doubling down on green policies, in response to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, which contains all kinds of supportive measures to attract European businesses to the U.S. to invest in supposedly green ventures.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE nr 35 in support of expanding the EU’s ETS climate tax

In this vote, Members of European Parliament supported extending the Emissions Trading System (ETS), a de facto EU climate tax, to road transport and buildings, ultimately hitting the end consumer hard.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

VOTE nr 36 to make housing even more expensive via mandatory renovation of buildings

In yet another solid endorsement of the European Commission’s green regulatory drive, in this March 2023 vote, MEPs supported make housing even more expensive via mandatory renovation of buildings.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE nr 37 – to support more due diligence burdens for companies

In June 2023, MEPs provided support for extra “due diligence” obligations for companies, forcing them to investigate all kinds of aspects of their suppliers. Europe’s energy-intensive industry, which is already struggling with energy prices that are higher than competitors, fiercely resisted this, with Wolfgang Große Entrup, the managing director of the Association of the Chemical Industries (VCI) reacting: “Our companies are already suffocating in bureaucracy. Now, there are even more regulations on top. That’s another blow.”

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE nr 38 – on the nature restoration law

In July 2023, a majority of MEPs was not found to reject the nature restoration law, another piece of EU green legislation constraining the EU’s 27 democracies in making trade-offs between economic growth and preservation of the environment.

Also here, warnings from industry were flatly ignored. For example Dutch business federation VNO-NCW warned that the newly proposed EU Nature Restoration law would create a “lockdown for new business and the energy transition” and “permanently close the Netherlands to new economic activities”

Here, the European People’s Party (EPP) Group at least tried to stop the proposed regulation – which now is however stuck in the Council – but not without pointing out that “the EPP Group has voted in favor already of 29 laws to make the Green Deal a success.”

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

VOTE nr 39 on temporary trade liberalisation measures for Moldova

In July 2022, a majority of MEPs supported temporary trade liberalisation measures for Moldova, a shaky democracy fearing Russian aggression, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE nr 40 – on urging the EU to leave the Energy Charter Treaty

Despite the fact that the Energy Charter Treaty is important for European investors and emerging economies alike to stimulate investment in the energy sector, MEPs still supported a call for the EU to exit the arrangement, using disingenuous arguments that the Treaty would merely protect fossil fuel interests, this while it has also protected investors in renewable energy against arbitrary breach of contract by European governments, like Spain.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

VOTE nr 41 – to support top-down micromanagement of the EU’s energy mix by requiring more renewables

In September 2022, MEPs voted to raise the share of renewables in the EU’s final energy consumption to 45% by 2030, under the revision of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) -a target also backed by the European Commission under its “RepowerEU” package, thereby violating the principle of “tech neutrality” – the idea that policy makers should not be favoring certain technologies over others, certainly not given the proven track record of nuclear power as an energy source able to combine carbon neutrality with reliable energy provision.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

VOTE nr 42 – to oppose a motion seeking to block EU gas and nuclear proposals (and therefore supporting tech neutrality) (oppose is green, approve is red)

In this vote in the Summer of 2022, MEPs rejected a motion seeking to block EU gas and nuclear proposals, thereby endorsing the principle of tech neutrality.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

VOTE NR 43 – to urge the European Central Bank to continue an ultra-loose monetary policy

In February 2022, a large majority of MEPs urged the European Central Bank to continue an ultra-loose monetary policy, ignoring the severe inflationary impact of this for European savers.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

VOTE nr 44 – on linking development aid with conditions, also related to migration

In November 2020, MEPs supported an amendment supporting to attach certain conditions to development aid:

“62. Believes that European development aid and public investments should promote joint priorities and policy objectives including eradicating poverty, climate and environmental action, economic and trade policies and migration management, and should also be fully aligned with the principles of fundamental human rights, democracy and good governance;”

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

VOTE nr 45 – on banning vaping flavours, thereby rejecting the successful approach of “harm reduction”

In February 2022, a majority of MEPs urged to ban flavours for vaping, despite evidence that vaping has helped many tobacco smokers to quite smoking. Thereby, they reject the policy approach of “harm reduction”, which involves offering those engaged in harmful activities a less or non-harmful alternative. This approach has been proven successful in Sweden, whereby snus, which is banned in the rest of the EU, has serves as an alternative for tobacco for decades.

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes. Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

THE OVERALL RANKING:

Here are the five best performing MEPs :

  1. Charlie WEIMERS (Sweden, SD, ECR) and Johan NISSINEN (Sweden, Folklistan, ECR)
  2. Peter LUNDGREN (Sweden, SD, ECR)
  3. Michiel HOOGEVEEN (The Netherlands, JA21, ECR)
  4. Rob ROOS (The Netherlands, Independent, ECR)

 

And the five worst performing MEPs:

  1. Karen MELCHIOR (Denmark, Independent, RENEW EUROPE)
  2. María Soraya RODRÍGUEZ RAMOS (Spain, Ciudadanos, RENEW EUROPE)
  3. Diana RIBA I GINER (Spain, Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, GREENS/EUROPEAN FREE ALLIANCE)
  4. Pietro BARTOLO (Italy, Partito Democratico, S&D)
  5. Massimiliano SMERIGLIO (Italy, Alleanza Verdi e Sinistra, Non-attached Members)

 

THE ACCOUNTABILITY RANKING, ranking MEPs on the basis of Transparency (5 votes) and Financial Accountability (12 votes):

 

 

THE SUBSIDIARITY, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND FREE MARKET ECONOMICS RANKING, ranking MEPs on the basis of Subsidiarity (7 votes), Civil liberties (5 votes) and Free market economics (16 votes):

Please click here for the total ranking, with detail on the list of 45 votes used, and detail on the voting behaviour of individual MEPs for every one of these votes.

Voting along the lines of the Brussels Report perspective is marked in green. Voting the other way, in red.

 

Analysis:

By Pieter Cleppe, editor-in-chief of BrusselsReport.eu

When it comes to the non-ideological categories Transparency and Financial Accountability, social democrats, greens and Renew are doing poorly. This can not be exclusively explained by the fact that they tend to vote against proposals from right-wing groups, regardless of the content, which in itself is already questionable. Overall, not even 1 in 7 MEPs obtain at least 66 percent on the transparency metric. To witness MEPs scoring so poorly here should alarm anyone, regardless of ideology.

Equally disappointing is that only about 130 out of 705 MEPs achieve a 66 percent score on subsidiarity, civil liberties & free market economics. Looking at opinion polls, certainly a lot more than 20 percent of Europeans support this point of view. Also troubling is how about 65 percent of MEPs are on balance hostile to subsidiarity, civil liberties & free market economics, as they do not even reach a 50 percent score here. All of this can serve as yet more evidence of the disconnect between the European Parliament and the electorate.

The overall ranking is being dominated by politicians belonging to centre-right political parties from Sweden, the Netherlands and Finland. Out of the top six, half of them have already left their political party, which is evidence of a certain degree of independent mindedness.

The cause of accountability and transparency is in any case more strongly supported by “eurosceptics” – or “euroconfederalists” from both the left and the right. Those supporting a more centralised EU, a legitimate position, but one not shared by BrusselsReport.eu, should at least make an effort to be as critical as the former when it comes to such non-ideological topics.

In an ideal world, the European Parliament should serve as a check on the EU’s legislative machine. This ranking reveals that this remains a distant prospect.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR