Irish Political Parties' Compatibility with EU Parliament Groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 1:

Introduction

1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 2:

Literature Review

9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chapter 3:

Methodology

23

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

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

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

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

Chapter 4:

Research Findings

And

Discussions

28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

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

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

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

Irish Political Parties' Compatibility with EU Parliament Groups

Irish Political Parties' Compatibility with EU Parliament Groups

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (6)

Similaire à Irish Political Parties' Compatibility with EU Parliament Groups

Similaire à Irish Political Parties' Compatibility with EU Parliament Groups (20)

Dernier

Dernier (14)

Irish Political Parties' Compatibility with EU Parliament Groups