31 Amendments of Paulo RANGEL related to 2023/2104(INL)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas representation of the interests of citizens from the Member States concerns both indirect representation in the Council of the European Union and direct representation in the European Parliament; whereas the voting system in the Council already takes into account population in the calculation for qualified majority voting; whereas this needs to be considered when deciding on the allocation of seats in the European Parliament;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas it essential that big and smaller Member States can effectively contribute to the decisions of the European Union;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas Article 14(2) TEU states that the European Parliament shall be composed of representatives of the Union’s citizens; whereas according to this paragraph the seats of the Parliament are to be distributed among Member States with a minimum and maximum number of seats per Member State; whereas Article 14 does not refer to any alternative distribution of seats to that among Member States;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas the composition of the European Parliament must respect the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 14(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), namely no more than seven hundred and fifty representatives of the Union's citizens, plus the President, representation being degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State and no Member State being allocated more than ninety-six seats; whereas these are the only criteria foreseen and allowed by the Treaties;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D a (new)
Recital D a (new)
Da. whereas in order to ensure comparability of population figures necessary to distribute seats, the same reference population data and period should be used;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas the basis forsince the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the calculation of the number of seats per mMember sStates is to be has been based on Eurostat data on these member states’ « usual resident population » in accordance with a method established by means of Regulation (EU) No 1260/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council ; whereas the calculation includein the regulation; whereas the calculation also includes third country citizens, stateless persons as well as mobile EU citizens;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas any seat allocation system in the European Parliament cannot ignore the institutional framework set out in the Treaties and therefore has to be considered together with the voting system in the Council;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas European Council Decision (EU) 2023/2061 of 22 September 2023 establishing the composition of the European Parliament for the 2024-2029 legislative term increases the size of Parliament from 705 to 720 members; whereas the Treaty currently sets an upper limit of 751 members; whereas the current solution used to avoid seat losses by individual member states of tapping into the remaining reserve of seats until the upper limit is reached is neither sustainable nor contributes to a more equitable allocation of seats; whereas this situation underlines the need for an agreement on an objective, fair, durable and transparent seat allocation method;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas it is necessary to ensure that the allocation method is flexible enough to accommodate future EU enlargements and possible changes to applicable Union law, and in particular to the Treaties or EU electoral law;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Underlines that this discussion needs to take place at an inter- institutional level and should therefore involve the Council and the European Commission;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that Treaty requirements together with political realities have led to ad hoc negotiated agreements on the composition of the European Parliament every mandate; observes that the reason for the politicisaally sensitive nature of seat distribution is the aim of every Member State to minimise seat losses and maximise seat gains in absolute or relative terms and to ensure their citizens adequate representation in the Parliament also in view of QMV calculations in the Council; emphasises that in the last two decisions concerning the allocacomposition of seats,the European Parliament seats were allocated that became available after the United Kingdom left the EU; highlights that, in the long-term, this strategy is not sustainable, given the Treaty limitation of a maximum of 751 seats and the potentially distortive effects of a political solution, rendering an agreement on an equitable allocation in the future more difficult;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses that a seat allocation method offers great potential for providing in the future a permanent system to allocate the seats of the European Parliament in an objective, fair, durable and transparent way, in so far as it takes in consideration the voting system in the Council;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that in choosing the most suitable formula, priority needs to be given to objective and evidence-based criteria; further believes that changes to the relevant Treaty provisions can be considered, having in mind that this is a constitutional debate that seriously impacts the overall balance of the institutional system as laid down in the Treaties;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Strongly bBelieves that expert advice for a permanent system of allocation is readily available although it continues to ignore the implications of the voting system in the Council as per the representation of small and medium size Member States in the EU decision making framework ; stresses that, given existing political realities, finding the most suitable system, while reflecting on adaptations and alternatives, is key;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Underlines that any method chosen should be transparent; continues. therefore. to support using Eurostat data as the official source of population figures for the calculations, which is publicly available; fully supports that the same population figures are used as basisconsiders that the reference criteria for the calculations onf the EP composition and the qualified majority in Council;number of seats per Member State should be the resident population of a given Member State entitled to vote in the European elections.
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Points out that the method chosen should be understandable, avoiding ain order to represent member States of all sizes in a way that is adequate and fair is a complex task; considers therefore that complexity of a formula is not a disadvantage; stresses that transparency of a calculation method should in no case be equated with the quality of being easily explainable to people with various levels of complexity that citizens cannot understandgrasp of mathematical concepts; considers rather that transparency means that one single rule applies to the distribution of all seats, which citizens can check;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes that degressive proportionality is assessed on the basis of the representation ratio of the citizens of a given Member State, meaning the ratio of the population of a Member State relative to its number of seats before rounding; observes that degressive proportionality entails that the ratio varies for the various Member States; further notes that the larger the population, the higher the entitlement to a number of seats for a specific Member State, while the ratio population to MEP also increases; notes and accepts that degressive proportionality entails an underrepresentation of citizens from Member States with a larger population and an overrepresentation of citizens of Member States with a smaller population; believunderlines that this principle is justified given the current EU institutional framework;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Is of the opinion that a permanent system based on a formula needs to be durable and therefore flexible enough to account for changes in population figures, for future enlargements and for possible changes of applicable legislative provisions, such as the electoral law or treaty changes;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Recalls that the Treaties do not refer to any alternative distribution of seats than that among Member States; stresses therefore that any distribution based on other considerations, such as making an allocation for so-called transnational lists would go against the letter and the spirit of the Treaties;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12 a (new)
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. Underlines that the overall balance of the institutional framework as laid down in the Treaties when it comes to the decision-making power does not allow for seat allocation in the European Parliament based on direct proportionality criteria;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Further notes that the ‘Cambridge Compromise’ has been criticised for neglectings the interests of citizens of medium-sized Member States, entailing seat losses for these countries; recalls that in order to counterbalance this tendency of the ‘Cambridge Compromise”, an extensive reform of the qualified voting mechanism currently in force in the Council; regretfully acknowledges that, , due to high political hurdles, such as Treaty change, these reforms were never pursued;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Stresses the need for any method chosen to maintaincontemplated method to consider the advantages of the known formulas, while minimising their disadvantages; points out that ‘base seat’ elements of the seat allocation system can be used to ensure the democratic representation of citizens from smaller Member States, while the proportional elements ensure that the larger a Member State’s population , the greater the number of seats allocated to it; highlights that seats allocated in proportion to the square root of the population of Member States contribute to ensuring that degressive proportionality is achieved and the citizens of small and medium-sized Member States are democratically represented; believes that the combination of these elements can be converted into a mathematical formula and used as the basis of the most suitable allocation system; believes that such allocation system should be proposed and adopted in the form of a political decisionbelieves that such allocation system should be thoroughly discussed and proposed in the next parliamentary term;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Believes that the seat allocation system will make it easier for the European Parliament to swiftly adopt its proposal to the European Council concerning the composition of the European Parliament; resolves to make this seat allocation system the basis of its proposal to the European Council; points out that Parliament’s consent is required on the European Council decision on the composition of the European Parliament; further resolves not to give its consent to the European Council decision, if that decision deviates from the allocation resulting from the application of allocation system proposed by Parliamentnot set aside political considerations and therefore will not mean an "automatic" or predefined proposal of the European Parliament to the European Council concerning its composition;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Believes that the seat allocation system willcould make it easier for the European Parliament to swiftly adopt its proposal to the European Council concerning the composition of the European Parliament; resolves to make this seat allocation system the basis of its proposal to the European Council; points out that Parliament’s consent is required on the European Council decision on the composition of the European Parliament; further resolves not to give its consent to the European Council decision, if that decision deviates from the allocation resulting from the application of allocation system proposed by Parliament;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19a. Considers it democratically legitimate for the next European Parliament legislature to decide on the use of a particular formula based on the considerations from this resolution;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)
Paragraph 19 b (new)
19b. Commits itself to discuss its proposals for a seat distribution formula with the Council, the EU institution responsible with the adoption of the decision on the European Parliament's composition;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution and the proposal annexed heretoworking document to the European Council and the Commission, and to the parliaments and governments of the Member States.
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Instructs its President to forward this legislative resolution and the proposal annexed hereto to the European Council and the Commission, and to the parliaments and governments of the Member States.
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I
Annex I