Jean Claude Juncker’s comments faced with an almost empty plenary in Strasbourg during the address by Prime Minister Muscat provoked a barrage of questions on the European Parliament and the MEPs.
Was the poor attendance a sign of disregard for smaller Member States? If not, why did the MEPs not attend the debate?
Answers to these questions require a background of the plenary session and its role in the Union’s decision-making machinery.
The session in Strasbourg takes place every month, spread over four days, to seal negotiations held earlier in Brussels or advance them to the next stage.
A single plenary session may include 70 substantive points for decision with open debates on 15 or more of these. Taking this week as an example, apart for the address by Prime Minister Muscat, MEPs also discussed the priorities of the Estonian presidency with Prime Minister Ratas, proposals for tax disclosure between Member States, European defence, Turkey’s accession negotiations and several other topics.
From justice and home affairs to the digital single market, MEPs have worked closely with the Maltese presidency, respecting it as an equal partner
Before and in between debates and votes on legislation and resolutions, the MEPs would be preparing their interventions while actively seeking support, or being lobbied for theirs, on the points up for a vote in the plenary chamber.
The plenary is hence far from being a ceremonial gathering. It is rather the bustling centre of European political influence which, to a large extent, spills out of the plenary chamber to the MEPs’ offices, to the meetings of the political groups and to the bars and cafeterias where MEPs, European Commissioners and national politicians measure and match their ideas and proposals with counterparts in between debates and votes in the chamber.
MEPs have hence huge time competition on where to be during the plenary and a wide choice of topics to follow with their actual presence in the chamber. The result is that some debates will inevitably have a poor attendance.
Does this mean that the European Parliament or the MEPs disrespect Malta or small Member States? Not at all. The 24 concluded legislative proposals with the Maltese presidency are the clearest testimony to this. From justice and home affairs to the digital single market, MEPs have worked closely with the Maltese presidency, respecting it as an equal partner.
Having said that, the fact remains that Juncker’s comments spread like wildfire with the media and the public, especially with those wanting to believe that MEPs get a too handsome salary for doing very little or nothing at all.
Notwithstanding that the Union is constantly delivering to citizens in areas of importance to their daily lives, from end of roaming charges, to faster internet, to energy-efficient labelling and better coordinated actions to combat terrorism, we are bound to work against the current of parts of public opinion set on quick judgements.
In that context we should simply strive ahead to deliver more results for the citizen, and be careful not to give this impromptu prosecution other causes for action.
Peter Agius is a senior European official working with the European Parliament. Views are his own.