BETA


2018/2112(INI) Implementation of the Treaty provisions concerning enhanced cooperation

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead AFCO LAMASSOURE Alain (icon: PPE PPE) BRESSO Mercedes (icon: S&D S&D), MESSERSCHMIDT Morten (icon: ECR ECR), GOERENS Charles (icon: ALDE ALDE), SCHOLZ Helmut (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL), DURAND Pascal (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), CASTALDO Fabio Massimo (icon: EFDD EFDD), ANNEMANS Gerolf (icon: ENF ENF)
Committee Opinion JURI
Committee Opinion LIBE ZDECHOVSKÝ Tomáš (icon: PPE PPE) Andrejs MAMIKINS (icon: S&D S&D), Judith SARGENTINI (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), Anders Primdahl VISTISEN (icon: ECR ECR)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2019/07/17
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2019/02/12
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2019/02/12
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 457 votes to 154 with 64 on the implementation of the Treaty provisions concerning enhanced cooperation.

As a reminder, according to the Treaties, enhanced cooperation can be initiated by at least nine Member States under the framework of European policies, except for the areas of exclusive EU competences. It enables participating States to organise greater cooperation than that initially provided for by the Treaties under the policy concerned.

The Union has a particular interest in implementing enhanced cooperation in certain areas of non-exclusive EU competences in order to move forward the European project and to facilitate the life of citizens. Parliament stressed that enhanced cooperation should not be seen as an instrument of exclusion or division of the Member States, but as a pragmatic solution to advance European integration, and to overcome paralysis in negotiations or a blockage by another Member State or Member States when unanimity is required. Members pointed out that enhanced cooperation has predominantly been used in the area of justice and home affairs.

Main observations

Members expressed concern by the fact that even though enhanced cooperation offers a solution to a common problem, by taking advantage of the Union institutional structure and thereby reducing the administrative costs for the participating Member States, it has not completely eliminated the need to resort to forms of intergovernmental subgrouping solutions outside the Treaties, which have a negative impact on how consistently the EU legal framework is applied and therefore lead to a lack of appropriate democratic scrutiny.

The EU’s single institutional framework should be preserved in order to achieve its common objectives and guarantee the principle of equality of all citizens. The Community or Union method should be upheld.

Members made a number of recommendations:

Decision-making process

The resolution pointed out that the political impetus for enhanced cooperation should come from the Member States, but discussions on its contents should be based on a Commission proposal. In addition, Article 225 TFEU gives Parliament the right of quasi-legislative initiative, which should be interpreted as the possibility for Parliament to initiate enhanced cooperation on the basis of a Commission proposal that did not manage to reach an agreement through the regular decision-making procedure within the mandate of two consecutive Council presidencies. Parliament strongly recommended that the special ‘passerelle clause’ to be activated to switch from unanimity to QMV, and from a special to the ordinary legislative procedure, immediately after an agreement on the start of enhanced cooperation is approved by the Council, in order to avoid new blockages if the number of participating Member States is significant. T he Commission should play an active role in all stages of enhanced cooperation from the proposal through the deliberations to the implementation of enhanced cooperation. In addition, Parliament called on the Council to engage with Parliament in a possible future enhanced cooperation procedure prior to the request for Parliament’s consent on the final text, so as to ensure maximum cooperation between the Union’s co-legislators.

Budget

Members stated that operating expenditure linked to enhanced cooperation should be borne by the participating Member States, and if this cost is borne by the EU budget, the non-participating Member States should be reimbursed, unless the Council, after consulting Parliament, decides that such cooperation is to be funded by the EU budget, and therefore subject to the annual budgetary procedure.

If the activity regulated by enhanced cooperation generates revenue, this revenue should be assigned to cover the operating expenditure linked to the enhanced cooperation.

Jurisdiction

Parliament considered that enhanced cooperation should fall under the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), without prejudice to the possibility of establishing an arbitration procedure or a dispute settlement court of first instance that could be required for the functioning of a particular case of enhanced cooperation, unless the Treaty provides otherwise.

Adjustments to the institutional structure

Parliament proposed the creation of a special enhanced cooperation unit in the Commission, under the leadership of the Commissioner responsible for inter-institutional relations, to coordinate and streamline the institutional setting up of enhanced cooperation initiatives.

Future evolution

Members considered it necessary to devise a procedure for the fast-track authorisation of enhanced cooperation in fields of high political salience to be accomplished within a shorter timeframe than the duration of two consecutive Council presidencies.

Parliament called on the Commission to propose a regulation in order to simplify and unify the relevant legal framework for enhanced cooperation (for example, the guiding principles on the applicable law for common institutions or a Member’s withdrawal), thereby facilitating the conclusion of such cooperation.

Withdrawal or expulsion of Member States

Parliament stated that clear rules should be laid down in all cases of enhanced cooperation on the withdrawal of a Member State that no longer wishes to participate and on the expulsion of a Member State that no longer fulfils the conditions of the enhanced cooperation.

Documents
2019/02/12
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2019/02/11
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2019/01/29
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on Constitutional Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Alain LAMASSOURE (EPP, FR) on the implementation of the Treaty provisions concerning enhanced cooperation.

As a reminder, according to the Treaties, enhanced cooperation can be initiated by at least nine Member States under the framework of European policies, except for the areas of exclusive EU competences. It enables participating States to organise greater cooperation than that initially provided for by the Treaties under the policy concerned.

The Union has a particular interest in implementing enhanced cooperation in certain areas of non-exclusive EU competences in order to move forward the European project and to facilitate the life of citizens. It a llows those participating Member States to achieve a common goal or initiative and to overcome paralysis in negotiations or a blockage by another Member State or Member States when unanimity is required.

Main observations

Members expressed concern by the fact that even though enhanced cooperation offers a solution to a common problem, by taking advantage of the Union institutional structure and thereby reducing the administrative costs for the participating Member States, it has not completely eliminated the need to resort to forms of intergovernmental subgrouping solutions outside the Treaties, which have a negative impact on how consistently the EU legal framework is applied and therefore lead to a lack of appropriate democratic scrutiny.

The EU’s single institutional framework should be preserved in order to achieve its common objectives and guarantee the principle of equality of all citizens. The Community or Union method should be upheld.

Even though enhanced cooperation, due to its nature as a last resort measure, has not been used extensively since its inception in the Treaty of Amsterdam, it seems to be gaining importance and delivers tangible results. It often arises in areas governed by a special legislative procedure requiring unanimity, and has predominantly been used in the area of justice and home affairs.

Members recommended:

- the special ‘passerelle clause’ to be activated to switch from unanimity to QMV, and from a special to the ordinary legislative procedure, immediately after an agreement on the start of enhanced cooperation is approved by the Council, in order to avoid new blockages if the number of participating Member States is significant;

- the Commission play an active role in all stages of enhanced cooperation from the proposal through the deliberations to the implementation of enhanced cooperation;

- Parliament to play a stronger role in enhanced cooperation by suggesting to the Commission new forms of cooperation and by monitoring proposals or existing cooperation;

- Parliament to improve its internal organisation in relation to enhanced cooperation and for ad-hoc subcommittees to be set up in which full membership is primarily given to those Members elected in the Member States that are participating in such enhanced cooperation.

Budget

Members stated that operating expenditure linked to enhanced cooperation should be borne by the participating Member States, and if this cost is borne by the EU budget, the non-participating Member States should be reimbursed, unless the Council, after consulting Parliament, decides that such cooperation is to be funded by the EU budget, thereby making such expenditure part of the latter and therefore subject to the annual budgetary procedure.

If the activity regulated by enhanced cooperation generates revenue, this revenue should be assigned to cover the operating expenditure linked to the enhanced cooperation.

Jurisdiction

Members considered that enhanced cooperation should fall under the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), without prejudice to the possibility of establishing an arbitration procedure or a dispute settlement court of first instance that could be required for the functioning of a particular case of enhanced cooperation, unless the Treaty provides otherwise, which should be specified in the legal act establishing such enhanced cooperation.

Adjustments and the future evolution of enhanced cooperation

The report proposed the creation of a special enhanced cooperation unit in the Commission, under the leadership of the Commissioner responsible for inter-institutional relations, to coordinate and streamline the institutional setting up of enhanced cooperation initiatives.

Members considered it necessary to devise a procedure for the fast-track authorisation of enhanced cooperation in fields of high political salience to be accomplished within a shorter timeframe than the duration of two consecutive Council presidencies.

They called on the Commission to propose a regulation in order to simplify and unify the relevant legal framework for enhanced cooperation (for example, the guiding principles on the applicable law for common institutions or a Member’s withdrawal), thereby facilitating the conclusion of such cooperation.

Documents
2019/01/22
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2019/01/11
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2018/12/07
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2018/11/06
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2018/06/14
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2018/06/04
   EP - ZDECHOVSKÝ Tomáš (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2018/03/21
   EP - LAMASSOURE Alain (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO

Documents

Votes

A8-0038/2019 - Alain Lamassoure - Am 2

2019/02/12 Outcome: -: 534, +: 114, 0: 30
CY ?? DK IE EE LU PL MT GB SK LT HR LV FI SI AT BG NL HU EL CZ SE BE PT RO FR IT ES DE
Total
1
3
13
9
3
6
49
6
63
12
10
10
8
12
8
16
15
25
17
15
20
17
19
20
27
70
63
50
89
icon: ECR ECR
63

Lithuania ECR

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Belgium ECR

3

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1

Germany ECR

3
icon: ENF ENF
33
2

United Kingdom ENF

4
3

Netherlands ENF

3

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Germany ENF

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
18

NI

Against (1)

1

Denmark NI

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

3

Hungary NI

2

France NI

2

Germany NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2
icon: EFDD EFDD
36

EFDD

2

Poland EFDD

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Germany EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
46

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

Against (1)

3

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

Against (1)

4

Italy GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
46

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Italy Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
64

Denmark ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

Against (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

2
4
icon: S&D S&D
166
3

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1

Malta S&D

Against (2)

Abstain (1)

3
3

Lithuania S&D

2

Croatia S&D

2

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Finland S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

3

Czechia S&D

3

Belgium S&D

3
icon: PPE PPE
204

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

For (1)

3

United Kingdom PPE

2

Lithuania PPE

2

Greece PPE

Against (1)

1

A8-0038/2019 - Alain Lamassoure - Am 3

2019/02/12 Outcome: -: 529, +: 123, 0: 22
CY ?? IE EE MT PL DK LU SK LT LV FI HR SI BE NL GB BG AT SE HU EL CZ PT RO FR IT ES DE
Total
1
3
9
3
6
49
13
5
12
10
8
12
10
8
19
25
63
14
17
17
17
15
20
19
27
68
63
50
89
icon: ECR ECR
63

Lithuania ECR

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
2

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1

Germany ECR

3
icon: ENF ENF
33
2

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3
3

Germany ENF

For (1)

1
icon: NI NI
18

NI

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark NI

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

3

Hungary NI

2

France NI

2

Germany NI

2
icon: EFDD EFDD
36

EFDD

2

Poland EFDD

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Germany EFDD

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
45

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Italy GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
46

Estonia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Italy Verts/ALE

Against (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
62

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

3

Latvia ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

Against (1)

1

Slovenia ALDE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

Against (1)

1

Austria ALDE

Against (1)

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

2
4
icon: S&D S&D
168

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

1

Malta S&D

For (1)

Against (2)

3
3

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

1
3

Lithuania S&D

2

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

1

Finland S&D

2

Croatia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

1

Belgium S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

Abstain (1)

4
5

Czechia S&D

3
icon: PPE PPE
201

Estonia PPE

Against (1)

1

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

3

Lithuania PPE

2

United Kingdom PPE

2

Greece PPE

Against (1)

1

A8-0038/2019 - Alain Lamassoure - § 12/2

2019/02/12 Outcome: +: 495, -: 153, 0: 28
DE ES IT RO FR SE BG PT AT HU BE CZ LT SI NL FI LU LV HR MT SK PL EL EE DK IE CY ?? GB
Total
90
48
63
27
69
17
15
20
17
17
18
20
10
8
25
12
6
8
10
6
12
49
15
3
13
9
1
3
63
icon: PPE PPE
204

Luxembourg PPE

3

Greece PPE

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
167
4

Czechia S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Netherlands S&D

3

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Croatia S&D

2

Malta S&D

3
3

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
64

Romania ALDE

2

Portugal ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Czechia ALDE

4

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
45

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
44

Italy GUE/NGL

Against (1)

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

4

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
18

Germany NI

2

France NI

2

Hungary NI

2

Denmark NI

1

NI

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
36

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

EFDD

2
icon: ENF ENF
33

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Austria ENF

3

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Poland ENF

2

United Kingdom ENF

4
icon: ECR ECR
63

Germany ECR

3

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Bulgaria ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

3

Czechia ECR

2

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2

Finland ECR

2

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

A8-0038/2019 - Alain Lamassoure - § 16

2019/02/12 Outcome: +: 436, -: 201, 0: 35
DE ES IT RO FR BG BE PT AT HR LT LU LV FI SI PL CZ NL EE SK CY ?? SE IE DK MT EL HU GB
Total
88
50
63
27
70
15
19
18
17
9
10
6
8
12
7
48
20
25
3
12
1
3
17
9
13
6
15
16
63
icon: S&D S&D
167

Croatia S&D

2

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Czechia S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3
5

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1
3

Malta S&D

3

Greece S&D

Abstain (1)

3
icon: PPE PPE
199

Luxembourg PPE

3
5

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1
4

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Greece PPE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom PPE

For (1)

Against (1)

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
64

Romania ALDE

2

Portugal ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Czechia ALDE

4

Estonia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

Against (1)

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
44

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

4

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

Against (1)

4
icon: NI NI
18

Germany NI

Against (1)

2

France NI

2

NI

For (1)

1

Denmark NI

1

Hungary NI

2

United Kingdom NI

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
36

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

EFDD

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
46

Italy GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

4

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
33

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

Austria ENF

3

Poland ENF

Against (1)

2

Netherlands ENF

3

United Kingdom ENF

4
icon: ECR ECR
63

Germany ECR

3

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Bulgaria ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

3

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

A8-0038/2019 - Alain Lamassoure - § 19

2019/02/12 Outcome: +: 496, -: 160, 0: 20
DE ES IT RO FR PT BG SE BE AT CZ SI LU LV FI MT LT HR DK PL SK EL NL EE HU IE ?? CY GB
Total
89
50
62
27
70
20
15
17
19
17
20
8
6
8
12
6
9
9
13
49
12
15
25
3
17
9
3
1
63
icon: PPE PPE
202
5

Luxembourg PPE

3

Croatia PPE

Against (1)

4

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Greece PPE

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
167

Czechia S&D

3

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Malta S&D

3

Croatia S&D

2

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
63

Romania ALDE

2

Portugal ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Czechia ALDE

4

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Latvia ALDE

1
2

Croatia ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
46

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
46

Italy GUE/NGL

2

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

4

Sweden GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Cyprus GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

Against (1)

1
icon: NI NI
18

Germany NI

2

France NI

2

Denmark NI

1

Hungary NI

2

NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

3
icon: EFDD EFDD
36

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

Against (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

EFDD

2
icon: ENF ENF
33

Germany ENF

Against (1)

1

Belgium ENF

Against (1)

1

Austria ENF

3

Poland ENF

2

Netherlands ENF

3

United Kingdom ENF

4
icon: ECR ECR
63

Germany ECR

3

Romania ECR

Against (1)

1

Bulgaria ECR

Against (1)

1

Belgium ECR

3

Czechia ECR

2

Latvia ECR

Against (1)

1

Finland ECR

2

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Against (1)

1

Greece ECR

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ECR

2

A8-0038/2019 - Alain Lamassoure - § 20

2019/02/12 Outcome: +: 517, -: 136, 0: 23
DE ES IT RO FR BE HU SE AT BG PT NL CZ FI HR SI LT LU LV IE SK DK MT EE EL PL CY ?? GB
Total
88
50
63
27
70
19
17
17
17
15
20
25
20
12
10
8
10
6
8
9
12
13
5
3
14
49
1
3
63
icon: PPE PPE
201

Luxembourg PPE

3

Denmark PPE

Against (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

United Kingdom PPE

2
icon: S&D S&D
167

Netherlands S&D

3

Czechia S&D

3

Croatia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

Abstain (1)

3

United Kingdom S&D