Hierarchically speaking, the European Parliament is the first of the EU institutions, as it directly represents the citizens. So far, so good. In the run-up to the European elections of this May, it is worth a closer look at how this representation will take effect.
Democracy and equality are two of the fundamental values of the EU (article 2 TEU), which, “in all its activities, shall observe the principle of equality of its citizens” (article 9 TEU). You might infer from this that the said equality applies to the citizens as voters. However, in the European Parliament elections, “representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per member state. No member state shall be allocated more than 96 seats” (article 14 (2) TEU).
In other words, within the general constraints, the member states divide up the available seats on the basis of their number (27 of them for the next elections) and of the development of their respective populations. The last time the European Council revised this apportionment was on 29 June 2018. This system leads to the overrepresentation of smaller countries and, to a lesser extent, the medium-sized ones. A Maltese or a Luxembourg voter will thus wield at least ten times as much weight as their German counterparts.
This means that the equality of votes between EU citizens is not observed, even though it is set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 10 (3)). As the German Constitutional Court of Karlsruhe ruled on 30 June 2009, article 14 TEU runs counter to article 9 TEU and, moreover, introduces discrimination between citizens on the basis of nationality, a phenomenal that has been unlawful since the Treaty of Rome and has been consistently ruled against by Court of Justice of the EU ever since. Can it be right to give a voter less of a say for the sole reason that he or she is a national of a large member state?
Firstly in the ECSC Treaty (article 21 (3)) and then the EEC Treaty, the founding fathers of Europe made provision for the Assembly to “draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member states” (article 138 (3)) EEC). In 1976, however, when they adopted the Act allowing the first elections to the EP by universal suffrage in 1979, the governments failed to agree on this procedure and have made no progress since.
The Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) offered an alternative: “a procedure based on common principles” (article 5 (3)); these were set out in a decision of the Council in 2002; they included the method of proportional voting (voting from an optional preferential list) and the option to create territorial constituencies, as long as this did not impinge upon the proportional nature of the vote. For the remainder, therefore, each member state arranges for the European elections to be carried out on its soil as it sees fit, which to this day leads to an unbelievable range of different situations.
The upshot is that with the exception of Ireland and Malta, which use the single transferable vote system (whereby the voter does not choose from a list and the political parties therefore have no powers to draft them), all member states vote between lists drawn up by the various parties. In most cases, voters may vote by preference for a given candidate, which gives them more say in selecting MEPs (open lists); however, closed lists (no possibility of preferential voting) are the order of the day in France, Germany, Spain, Hungary, Romania and Portugal (see EUROPE 12098), which gives the parties’ national federations more powers and, on the basis of an assessment of winnable seats, these decide ‘who goes to Strasbourg’. In Luxembourg alone, vote-splitting (voting for more than one candidates from rival lists) is allowed.
As for the option of dividing the electoral college into constituencies, this is used only by Belgium, Ireland, Italy and Poland.
So much for the common principles to be observed. For the remainder, the additional differences are alive and kicking!
European citizens are not equal in their liberty to turn out and vote. Voting is compulsory in just five member states (Belgium, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Greece and Cyprus). This situation obviously plays a large part in the overall assessment of voting rates in the European elections, one of the EU’s thorniest issues.
How old do you have to be vote? 18 everywhere but Austria – a progressive country in this matter – where the voting age is 16.
And how old do you have to be to stand? Are we making way for the young people? Yes and no – get ready for this: you have to be 18 in 14 member states (including France and Germany); 21 in another 10 (including Belgium and Poland); 23 in Romania alone; and, bringing up the rear, Italy and Greece, where you have to be 25. This means that a Frenchwoman could stand for election as soon as she reached her 18th birthday, whilst her Italian cousin would have to wait for another seven years – longer than the term of the Parliament. A Cypriot could stand at the age of 21, but his Greek friend, however passionate about politics, could not do so until he was four years older. What a funny Union, in any case, that puts more effort into harmonising recreational bass fishing than into levelling the playing field for its own younger generation wishing to become members of the European Parliament!
What is the minimum percentage of votes a party needs to win in order to field MEPs? Following a decision of its Constitutional Court in 2014, Germany has had to abolish all voting thresholds for the European elections; unless things change in the next three months, which they may or may not, on the basis of the Council Decision on common minimum rules on EU election law (see EUROPE 12037), it is still possible to expect a zero rate. This will also be the case in 11 other member states, so as not to deprive those voting from new lists of the possibility of representation. In the opposite corner, 10 countries will continue to practice a minimum 5%, a situation that has the effect of strengthening the largest parties. Between these extremes, Italy, Austria and Sweden have placed the bar at 4%, Greece 3% and Cyprus 1.8%. If the EU was an orchestra, you wouldn’t necessarily back them to play in tune.
Can citizens living abroad take part in their own country’s vote? They can in most cases, by post and/or by proxy (or online), but if you are Bulgarian, Greek or Italian, you can do so only from an EU member state. Or are you Czech, Slovakian, Irish or Maltese? Unlucky – it’s totally prohibited! All other things being equal, though, you still have the option available on the grounds of your European citizenship (article 20 (2b) TFEU): you can vote in your country of residence, as long as you observe the rules in force there (directive 93/109/EC of the Council).
If you described this situation, twee and folkloric as it is, to an alien just arriving on the continent, they would no doubt say: “What kind of shambles do you call this? You’ve been electing MEPs to your great big Parliament for 40 years, European citizenship has been on your statute books for 25 years, and you haven’t even bothered to bring a bit of order and fairness to your democratic practices for a matter of such importance!”
It would be incorrect to infer from all of this that there is no point in voting in the forthcoming European elections. Quite the reverse: despite this model of inequality, there are many excellent reasons to go and vote in May. I shall return to these in due course.
Renaud Denuit