Talk:Member of the European Parliament/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I'm not very good with this Wiki stuff, but I thought you might be interested to learn that the 'Bumper Book of Government Waste' includes a detailed section on EU expenses, including accident and life insurance (on and off duty), medical insurance for them and their spouse and family, funding for dental work, 6 months maternity leave after the birth and 3 before, etc etc. The book states that 'Each MEP is estimated to cost the taxpayer £2.4m per year, in comparison to over £375,000 for each MP.'

The book is published by The Taxpayers Alliance, a low-tax lobbying group.

It is not only British-centric: the expense section shows a POV, trying to excuse the MEPs. They do get a lot of money that is not publicly accounted for and a lot of special deals (in hotels, trains, airlines, etc). This is the Financial arrangements of the MEP's as of today:

"Allowances Pending the entry into force of the single statute for Members of the European Parliament, Members receive a basic allowance paid by the parliaments or governments of the various Member States, which is subject to the tax rules of the country in question.

The amount of this allowance is equal to the amount of the national parliamentary allowance, less any additional allowances to which Members of national parliaments may be entitled.

The European Parliament confines itself to paying its Members allowances to cover the costs incurred in the performance of their parliamentary duties, in particular travel and subsistence expenses, the monthly general expenditure allowance and a parliamentary assistance allowance to cover the cost of hiring an assistant.

The provisions governing the payment of the various allowances are adopted by the Bureau and are set out in the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to Members. The Quaestors are responsible for ensuring that these provisions are properly applied.

These Rules are forwarded to each Member at the beginning of his or her term of office, and each Member must acknowledge their receipt in writing. Copies of the Rules may also be obtained from the Quaestors' secretariat.

Travel and subsistence expenses

Members are entitled to a travel and subsistence allowance in respect of the days on which they participate in meetings of official Parliament bodies (part-session, Bureau, Conference of Presidents, committees, interparliamentary delegations, political groups and other bodies established by the Bureau). Such participation must be attested by signing either the attendance register open in the meeting room, or, during part-sessions in Strasbourg and Brussels, the attendance register in the Chamber.

Outside part-sessions, Members are also entitled to a travel and subsistence allowance for visits to a Community institution in Brussels, in which case they must provide proof of attendance by signing the central register. This same register is available to Members in Luxembourg (SCH Building/reception) and in Strasbourg when meetings of an official Parliament body, other than a plenary sitting, are held there.

Travel expenses

When a Member participates in an official meeting of one of Parliament’s bodies within the European Union the amount of the travel allowance is calculated on the basis of the mode of transport used:

where the Member travels by air, the allowance comprises the following:

an amount equivalent to the YY economy full fare for the journey between the nearest appropriate airport to the Member’s place of residence1 and the airport serving the place of work in question;

an amount representing the cost of travel from the Member’s place of residence to the nearest appropriate airport on the basis of a single rate per km set by the Bureau (€ 0.35/km as at 1.1.06);

an amount set by the Bureau based on the distance of a return journey from the place of residence to the place of work, known as the distance allowance.

0 - 500 € 0 501 - 1 000 € 117 1 001 - 1 500 € 281 1 501 - 2 000 € 374 2 001 - 2 400 € 468 more than 2 400 € 585

when the Member is travelling not by air but by surface transport, the flat-rate travel allowance comprises the following:

an amount for a single journey based on the flat rates set by the Bureau, with the full rate (€ 0.70/km as at 1.1.06) being applied for the part of the journey which is less than or equal to 500 km, and the reduced rate (€ 0.29/km as at 1.1.06) for the remainder of the journey;

an amount set by the Bureau on the basis of the distance per return journey between the place of residence and the place of work (distance allowance).

0 - 500 € 0 501 - 1 000 € 117 1 001 - 1 500 € 281 1 501 - 2 000 € 374 2 001 - 2 400 € 468 more than 2 400 € 585

This allowance is intended to cover all expenses incurred during the journey (in particular ticket reservation, baggage transport, accommodation, meals and taxi fares).

Supporting documents

Payment is made on presentation of the following supporting documents:

for each plane journey, the boarding card, or, where no such card is issued, the plane ticket or a copy thereof,

for rail journeys, the train ticket, or, if the ticket is needed for another journey, a copy thereof,

for journeys in the Member’s own car, a personal declaration stating the registration number of the vehicle, the mileage at the beginning and end of the journey, the route taken and the parking place of the vehicle at Parliament’s place of work.

When a Member participates in an official meeting of one of Parliament’s bodies outside the European Union, the amount reimbursed comprises the following:

For journeys by plane

an amount representing the cost of travel between the Member’s point of departure and the nearest appropriate airport, assessed on the basis of a single rate per km set by the Bureau; and

the cost of the plane ticket used for the return journey on the basis of the most direct route, on presentation of the ticket and boarding card.

For journeys by surface transport

by train: the cost of the train ticket used for the return journey on the basis of the most direct route; by other means of transport: an amount equivalent to the cost of a first-class ticket. Subsistence allowance

Members are entitled to a flat-rate allowance (€ 274/day as at 1.1.06) for participation in official meetings of Parliament’s bodies taking place within the European Union. This allowance is intended to cover accommodation expenses and meals, as well as any other expenses incurred during the stay.

During part-sessions, the subsistence allowance is halved for Members who have not taken part in half the roll-call votes on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of a Strasbourg part-session or the Thursday of a Brussels part-session.

For meetings outside the European Union, this daily allowance is reduced by half, but the cost of bed and breakfast is borne by Parliament. The subsistence allowance is paid in hourly instalments for the period between the time of departure and the time of return.

Travel allowance

This allowance, of up to € 3 826 a year (as at 1.1.06), is intended to cover the cost of travel anywhere in the world, except in the country in which a Member was elected, on parliamentary business (for purposes other than attendance at official meetings, such as conferences taking place in another Member State, and so on). It can also be used to cover accommodation and related expenses. Expenses are reimbursed under this allowance by reference to the air or rail fare on presentation of the relevant ticket and supporting documents.

Additional information is available from the Directorate-General for Finance / Members' Financial Affairs Division.

General expenditure allowance

Members receive a flat-rate monthly allowance of € 3 876 (as at 1.1.06) which is chiefly intended to cover office management expenditure, phone bills, postage, the purchase, management and use of IT equipment, and travel by Members within their own Member State.

This allowance is paid monthly at the Member’s request. Members who, without valid reason, have not taken part in half the part-session days will be required to repay 50% of the allowance. Where absence from a part-session is justified on grounds of health or serious family circumstances, supporting documents must be sent to the Quaestors no later than two months from the end of the period of absence.

Parliamentary assistance allowance

Each Member is entitled to a monthly parliamentary assistance allowance of €.15.222 (as at 1.1.06) to cover expenses arising out of the employment or use of the services of one or more assistants whom the Member may choose at his or her discretion. Several Members may jointly engage or employ the services of a single assistant.

The Member is the assistant’s sole employer or the service provider’s sole contractor and there is no legal or administrative link between the Member’s assistant or service provider and Parliament. The only administrative obligation on Parliament being to pay the remuneration in accordance with the Member’s instructions, on his or her behalf, either directly to the assistant, or to a paying agent designated by the Member, or to the service provider. The Member must submit an application for a parliamentary assistance allowance accompanied by a private law contract that has been directly concluded in accordance with national law between him or her and an assistant or service provider."

When talking about the expenses used to hire assistants, the excusing is bluntly presented. It is not true that most MEPs have large offices, they usualy have one or two assistants plus an unpaid trainee. Most MEPs do not fulfill their legal contractual obligations and abuse their assistants, who have to work in an evironment made to permit and hide such abuse. The assistants are to be legally employed under the laws of their country of origin (like in the famous bolkenstein directive) but only 20% of the MEPs have presented the mandatory social security registrations to the European Parliament. Of those that have done so, half pay an average of €400 a month to their assistants. A lot of MEPs have officially larger offices because they hire relatives to get the revenue. There are also known cases of assistants having to hand back part of their salaries to the MEP each month. --User:Tampopo 10:38, 07 Sept 2006.

Wow, a lot of additional information! But isn't this a bit British-centric? -- till we *) 12:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, good point! Admittedly, I'm a Brit, so that's my area of expertise. I've had a look over and modified some of the slightly more blatant Britain-only references. But if someone were to make it more international by adding in some information from other countries, that would be great.

I'm not sure what to do with the big expenses section. I think a comparison of MEP expenses with national parliamentarians' expenses is useful, but I take the point that it's a bit UK-centric at the moment. Any ideas? Toby W 13:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Expense section

Why does this section draw comparisons soley between MEP's remuneration and British MPs? This section of the article seems rather UK-centric. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved expense section and allegation that it is untrue to talk page -- till we *) 08:33, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It was right to move this over here temporarily. My view, for what it's worth: it's the initial paragraph ("The right-wing press of several member states"...) which is perceived as POV, while the bullet points about MEPs' expenses are purely factual (based on the Parliament's rules of procedure). So I suggest that the bullet points are restored, while the initial paragraph is rewritten to be more satisfactorily NPOV. A sub-section on 'debates about expenses', presenting both sides of the argument about whether MEPs are overpaid/can fiddle the system or whatever, would also be worthwhile. What do people think? Toby W 09:04, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Expenses

The right-wing press of several member states (notably Denmark, Sweden and the UK) have frequently accused MEPs of taking advantage of lucrative expense allowances for personal profit. While the level of expenses paid to any politician is always open to debate, in fact MEPs receive allowances that are in fact roughly equivalent to those paid to British MPs.

The detail is complicated because the categories and the methods of payment are slightly different. As of 2002:

• MPs received an allowance for travel around their constituencies, but MEPs did not, despite the fact that their constituencies were much larger.
• MPs were paid a lump sum of just under £19,500 for accommodation at seat of Parliament, regardless of the time they actually spent there. MEPs received £150 per day attended and were required to sign in to prove attendance.
• Both MPs and MEPs were paid travel expenses for journeys from constituencies to Parliament. Contrary to widespread rumours, MEPs received 'YY economy class' air fares paid, not first class, plus an allowance per kilometre for the trip from their home to the airport. Only one journey was allowed per week.
• MPs were given first class rail tickets for spouse and children to Westminster up to thirty times per year. MEPs had no such allowance.
• MPs were given two return tickets per year to any EU parliament or the European Parliament itself. MEPs had no such allowance.
• MPs received unlimited travel expenses around the UK on parliamentary business. MEPs were given a similar allowance, but this was limited to £2,170 per year, plus an extra allowance if they needed to return home midweek.
• MPs and MEPs both received an office allowance. MEPs were paid 44% more than MPs, but this had to include postage and all equipment, whereas MPs also received unlimited free postage and free computers.
• MPs and MEPs both had a staff allowance. MEPs received 30% more than MPs, but their staffs are typically larger, and this amount had to cover staff pensions, temporary replacements for illness, redundancy costs at end of mandate, staff travel, insurance, administration, and employer's liability. MPs had those provided for free on top of their allowance.
• At the end of their mandates, MPs received four months of office allowances, while MEPs received three.

MEPs' accounts are currently audited on a spot-check basis. (Feeling this to be insufficient, some members voluntarily submit their accounts for a full independent audit annually.)

---

Note: the expenses section is untrue - "right-wing press" indeed. Any GOOGLE search will show that the outrageous filght expenses scam still exists: the latest proposal to change it was vioted down in January 2004: an example:

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1433_A_1098127_1_A,00.html

"Germany and three other EU states have blocked an attempt to reform the pay system for European parliamentarians, meaning it's now unlikely that a reform package will be passed before EU-wide elections in June.

Efforts to reform the European Parliament's pay system for its deputies have been under way since 1998. But there's still no end in sight, following the collapse of pay reform talks in Brussels on Monday.

The majority of members of the European parliament (MEP's) would welcome reforms. The system has earned itself a bad reputation for being open to fraud. The expenses system is not based on actual costs supported by receipts. An MEP who flies to Brussels with a budget airline, for example, could get away with claiming the highest air fare, thereby pocketing the difference."

(from article page, 21-04-2004)

Expenses re-added

I've restored the disputed expenses section, NPOVed as far as I can see. As discussed above, the list of what MEPs receive by way of expenses is purely factual, and, I think, useful to inform the debate. The surrounding comments need to be carefully NPOVed. I've added in a remark about the air-fare debate and also added some more detail about why reform hasn't yet taken place. All corrections, comments or edits are very welcome. Toby W 10:31, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Length of Service

Only 14 of them [MEPs] have served continuously since the first elections in 1979, and not one has served continuously for longer. Am I not understanding this sentence right? The second clause seems redundant. How could any MEP have served continously for longer than from the first election until the present?

Because Parliament existed before there were elections. Back in the 50s and 60s, when Parliament had little legislative power, MEPs were delegated by national parliaments, not directly elected. Toby W 10:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Salaries

Should the example salaries be in Euros instead of pounds? Just a crazy thought I had. RMG 02:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of that too. We could do a conversion, but the answers wouldn't be exactly right. Toby W 12:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actualy the salaries bit is just plain wrong. This used to be the case, but starting about a year ago, all MEPs are given the exact same salary! Wouter Lievens 23:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It appears I am just plain wrong, as I continued to read the article :-) Wouter Lievens 23:20, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I think it should be. Well, kind of. I think (this is my view on all Wikipedia currency usage) is that money should always be quoted in the currency it is/was actually dealt with in the situation in question. I also believe there should not be estimates, on anything but currency amounts in articles, which are in the majority of usage in that article. Just to use a working example, to clarify, this is how I view what this page should be written as: For all salaries write in the national currency, this should (if all salaries are listed) leave euro in the majority, and because of that, add bracket euro estimates after any currency amount which isn't euro. Any thoughts? - ^R_H^e_o^d_t 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor confusion

The third paragraph reads "On the July 2009 European Parliament election," which reads ambiguously to me -- sounds like it's discussing the results of an election which hasn't happened yet. I just don't know enough about this topic to know what the proper simple copyedit would be. [[User:CatherineMunro|Catherine\^talk]] 22:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My edits today have fixed this. Thought, though: does the section about the number of MEPs belong on the European Parliament page rather than here? Toby W 22:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More confusion

"MEPs are the European equivalents of a country's national parliamentary members..."

I don't know if people realize this, but there are more than a hundred million europeans that are not EU citizens. Not only in eastern Europe, but also in northern Europe and Switzerland (and the Vatican). EU is not Europe. I think that the centence above is misleading and untruthfull. --JJ-Hammer 12:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic Language

This section "Generally speaking, the European Parliament has a remarkably high turnover of MEPs." seems inappropriate - the turnover will only seem high when compared with something (for example the UK Parliament) in which case we ought to say what it's being compared with. Can anyone suggest (or better still, implement) an alternative? The 'generally speaking' and 'remarbably' could probably be lost too! DavidFarmbrough 09:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Quality of content

Some of the style here could be more polished/formal. Good info though. A bit about non-British MPs and MEPs might also be a welcome addition.

Fictional MEPs

Perhaps there could be bit at the bottom with a list of fictional MEPs? I know there's Alan B'Stard and those mentioned in the European Parliament and ALDE's comics (Troubled Waters & Operation Red Dragon respectively). There must be more, at least in Continental fiction and if not it's a starting point for when more are thought of or appear and saves having it on it's own list which would of course be pointless right now. 161.76.99.156 20:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

MEP Template

How about a standardised MEP Infobox ? name - group - country - legislatures served - etc . In preparation for the elections next year. --triwbe (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It is covered under Template:Infobox Officeholder.- _J.Logan`^t: 21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Youngest/ Oldest MEPs todate

It would be cool if there would be info about who has been the youngest and oldest MEPs over time and in the current parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.236.149 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

MEP assistant: family first

Should it not be written that a MEP can appoint a personal assistant, for example a daughter, without any qualification check? -DePiep (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Globalize

I added the worldwide view tag because nearly every example or comparison made in the article is a reference to the British Parliament, especially the payment and privileges section (though it exists to a slightly lesser extent throughout the article, which is why I didn't simply tag the section). We need more examples and comparisons that refer to other European Nations. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Update

2009 onwards members will have a number of new rules, not least on their salaries and pensions. --Triwbe (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Convicted MEPs

I have removed the allegations of criminal convictions because I think that, in connection with the links provided, it violates WP:BLP. Though it should be permissible to discuss the issue, first-class reliable sources are necessary when making allegations of criminality (including allegations by innuendo). Also, I think, one has to be very careful with words like "many" and with statements about what rules do not exist (a practically infinite list), and any statement about the rules for MEPs, presented as noteworthy, could be taken to imply that the rules are markedly different from rules in other parliaments. For balance it would probably be necessary to discuss what rules on convictions do apply I have read (but would need better sources to state as fact) that convicted MEPs can be barred but that it depends on national rules.--Boson (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I first asked to add this voice on the European Parliament's discussion page, as you can verify, I was invited to post it on the European Members of Parliament wikipedia page. So I did, putting the source of the information. I see that for you it's not enough so I can give you other sources, hoping that these will be enough for you:

Vito Bonsignore sources: 1) http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vito_Bonsignore; 2) http://www.beppegrillo.it/documenti/parlamento_pulito.pdf; 3) Other 10.900 google results: http://www.google.it/search?q=vito+bonsignore+condannato&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_itIT308IT308

Mario Borghezio sources: 1) http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Borghezio; 2) http://www.beppegrillo.it/documenti/parlamento_pulito.pdf; 3) Other 15.400 google results: http://www.google.it/search?hl=it&rlz=1B3GGGL_itIT308IT308&q=mario+borghezio+condannato&btnG=Cerca&meta=

Aldo Patriciello sources: 1) http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldo_Patriciello; 2) http://www.beppegrillo.it/documenti/parlamento_pulito.pdf; 3) Other 8.430 google results: http://www.google.it/search?q=aldo+patriciello+condannato&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_itIT308IT308

Nick Griffin (elected in 2009) sources: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Griffin; 2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4670574.stm

Jean Marie Le Pen sources: 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_marie_le_pen 2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234978.stm

And I can go on this way with all the other ones...

If you want we can change the word "many" into "few", but the fact that there are convicted MEP'S will be there anyway. Maybe for some one they will be few, for others also just 1 convicted MEP'S is too much.

Today the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning the election of Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage doesn't prohibit individuals convicted of crimes from standing as candidates so in this gap rules applied are the national ones and the result is the above situation with MEP'S convicted also for serious crimes sitting in Strasbourg and Brussels.--78.12.41.253 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A few quick thoughts:

• I'm not convinced we should list the individual MEPs (partly because it looks like the list would be quite long if we included them all, and partly because if we didn't include them all it would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to those we did list).
• I prefer "some" to "many" or "few", though ideally it would be better if we could say the precise number (though, obviously, this would likely be an underestimate since I suspect MEPs with criminal convictions might keep that hidden).
• The key thing here is that (a) nothing prevents convicted criminals from standing for election, and (b) convicted criminals have been elected.
• I agree with adding something about national rules - as I understand it Britain has none, but "may" have some at some future point (I'm sceptical about how fast Britain will actually do this, but that's irrelevant...)

Basically, I think this section is useful information, but we need to be careful how we do it so we avoid WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE issues.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that some information on this may be useful, but I have a number of concerns:

• I would feel happier if it were integrated, with appropriate weight, in a general discussion of MEPs' eligibility and so on.
• Another concern I have is WP:OR. I am not happy with making general statements based on sources concerning individual cases. If this is a real issue there must be unbiassed, secondary, reliable sources making these points.
• As regards sources, I don't think individual cases are sufficient, and, of course, Wikipedia is not a suitable source.
• Campaigners are also not a suitable source for statements of fact (except for facts about their campaigns, if the campaigns themselves are noteworthy).
• I agree that individual cases should not be listed here.
• Another reason for careful formulation is the avoidance of bias. It might be true to state that 40% of women fail their driving test at the first attempt but such an unqualified statement would be misleading (even in an article about women) if the figure is the same for men; I have similar concerns when talking about MEPs, though comparing them with national MPs is obviously rather difficult with 27 member states in the EU alone.

--Boson (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so what we do? Now you have the sources and I think you cannot say there are not reliables. It's ok for me not to list every convicted MEP'S but we cannot hide the problem. Can we write here a draft to be inserted?--78.12.55.162 (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As regards the sources, we need reliable, preferably secondary, preferably English sources that discuss convicted criminals in the context of the European Parliament. The sources listed above may be sufficient for the articles on the MEPs concerned, but for this article it is not sufficient to have evidence that particular persons who were convicted are MEPs. Similarly, if we had sources stating that certain convicted criminals were Christians, vegetarians, or Republicans, those sources would probably not be valid reliable sources in articles about Christianity, vegetarianism or the Republican Party. See [WP:SYN]]. --Boson (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you don't want we talk about that here, because each time you add something more required to add the voice. The sources are reliable, you can translate it into english with any translator online. The fact that big medias doesn't speak about that doesn't means the problem doesn't exist. Is the Herald Tribune a reliable source? http://www.beppegrillo.it/immagini/beppe_ht.pdf It was the only one english speaking newspaper who accepted to speak about the issue (but as advertising!!!) Imagine how they could do that "for free" speaking about the problem as journalists!!! I thought wikipedia was free, I was wrong. Are you a MEP Boson? You are the boss here? --78.12.53.143 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Here a reliable, secondary, english sources that discuss convicted criminals in the context of the European Parliament: http://www.eudebate2009.eu/eng/article/30271/meps-corrupt-europe-parliament-italy-problem.html What you need now? --78.12.53.143 (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all, but someone has to do the work first. I have been looking for appropriate sources but have not found anything I'm happy with. I am not continually adding new objections, merely being more specific, because you apparently did not get the message first time round. Some time ago I referred you to WP:OR, which includes WP:SYN. Have you read and understood what that says about drawing conclusions by combining information from different sources? I have found some sources for a potential article on EU electoral law but have not found the time to create such an article. Our efforts might be better spent looking for reliable sources compliant with WP:OR.

No, I would not normally regard advertisements in the IHT paid for by campaigners as reliable sources for the factual accuracy of the campaigners' claims. No, I am not an MEP and I am not the boss; I am merely giving you my interpretation of policy. --Boson (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Re your PS: I had looked at that site. At first sight, I would not, personally regard it as reliable within the meaning of Wikipedia policy. It appears to be a debating site where people can submit their own views. The author of that piece appears to be a journalist, which might help to make it eligible, but I would like a better source for an issue of this sensitivity. If this is an issue of encyclopedic interest, we should be able to find better sources.--Boson (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite the name eudebate isn't a debating site, it's not Agoravox. The articles are submitted by a team of journalists, not from readers. You will never find another english speaking source because mainstream medias prefer not to talk about that to avoid ennemies between MEP'S. --78.12.57.151 (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, Andrea D’ambra is promoting his blog and acting as a campaigner, rather than an objective reporter.

I haven't noticed that the British media are particularly worried about making enemies of MEPs, though they may pay close attention to libel laws. --Boson (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing here about Beppe Grillo or Andrea D'Ambra here but on the fact of CONVICTED PEOPLE in the European Parliament. What is the wrong in doing a campaign for a just cause? You have a strange concept of what is objective.--78.12.57.151 (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with campaigning for a good cause. Elsewhere. --Boson (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, it's an encyclopedia. We only report what reliable sources say; so if they avoid it for whatever reason, we can't include it. Please check out what Wikipedia is not. – Toon 20:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cafebabel is not a reliabe source? Can you please tell me the names of some reliable sources for this matter? Thanks--78.12.52.7 (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you or I could find reliable sources for this, we would not be having this coversation. For general rules on reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Reliable sources would include academic books and peer-reviewed journals. For this subject, I would also include reporting (rather than opinion) from the mainstream media such as the Washington Post or the BBC, perhaps also the Guardian and the Daily Telegraph. When alleging criminal (or unethical) conduct I would want direct quotes from particularly reliable secondary sources (possibly backed up by additional references to primary sources). I would also regard transcripts of parliamentary debates as reliable sources for the fact that the issue was raised. On electoral law, I would also regard fact sheets from the European Parliament and the national governments as reliable sources.

So for an article on something like "Electoral law of the European Union" (including rules on EU citizens voting in municipal elections), which could be created and linked to here, possible sources would be (for instance):

• http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/007-50576-061-03-10-901-20090302STO50535-2009-02-03-2009/default_en.htm “If convicted of a criminal offence MEPs may be barred, but this depends on national rules.”
• http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2009/countries/default.htm?language=EN

If each country were included, also

• http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2009/countries/electoral_laws/italy.htm?language=EN
• http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2009/countries/electoral_laws/Germany.htm?language=EN
• http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2009/countries/electoral_laws/united_kingdom.htm?language=EN

etc.

--Boson (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When it will be on CNN and Barroso will talk about that I will alert you. --84.220.218.92 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC) You remember the bosses that you find when seek a job and ask always for past experiences... LOL --78.12.40.177 (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You wanted a reliable source. Now you have it: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0729/1224275693728.html So I insert something about it in the article. --151.56.63.254 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

VIDEO: EUROLECTIONS - External Link Suggestion

Please view this film from an online youth magazine as I would like to submit it as an external link. Thanks Willsmore (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I was thinking the lede could do with a rewrite.

Are we really justified in saying that an MEP is the equivalent of a national MP or deputy? That is possible the way one would explain it to a child, but it is only true to the extent that the EP is equivalent to a national parliament. It is also unsourced. Since we already say that MEPs are directly elected etc. can't people draw their own conclusions?

The sentence stating that proportional representation is now used everywhere might mislead people into thinking that it just happens to be the case and is not a legal requirement.

Shouldn't the reference to Members of the European Parliament 2009–2014 be a hatnote rather than a sentence in the lede (if a see-also link is not enough)?

The lede does not seem to summarize the article.

--Boson (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Whole article needs going over. I think the MP comparison is useful given the skewed perceptions of the EU. Though of course the difference is that MEPs have a lot more practical influence over legislation than MPs do. That is worth mentioning.- _J.Logan`^t: 20:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Expenses and recent reforms

We have : "The much-criticised expenses arrangements were also partially reformed", and "Before the 2009 reforms, …", but nothing on what the reforms changed or accomplished, on this matter. --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, what were the "criticisms centered on the amount paid to MEPs as expenses"? 'doesn't say --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Election of non-nationals

The list under this heading appears to be intended to list examples of people in the category referred to by the heading and the first sentence: "European citizens are eligible for election in the member state where they reside (subject to the residence requirements of that state); they do not have to be a national of that state."

However, it apparently includes UK nationals who were elected in the UK.

This could be interpreted as correct because the list is introduced by "state other than their native [my emphasis] country". However, the inclusion of these people is misleading and irrelevant.

Also, at least some of the people in the list are not included in the cited reference.

I propose removing all those people who are not shown as having a different European naitionality from the country where they were elected (and presumably resided at the required time). --Boson (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I question whether Nirj Deva should appear in this list. Although he was born in Sri Lanka, he holds dual British Citizenship. I have left him in the list, as I don't know whether he held British Citizenship when first elected to the European Parliament (1999) Danfolkestone (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed removal of lists of MEPs who did other things

First up we have the "Demographics" section, which lists a lot of MEPs who held other positions. I'm not sure this is all that relevant myself, but I won't insist on it.

Then we have "Allegations of improper conduct" and "Convicted MEPs", which is I will insist on. Lots of MPs all over the world have been in trouble. The article on the House of Representatives of the United States doesn't talk about Jack Abramoff, does it? Walloon Parliament doesn't discuss the deputy Bernard Wesphael who is accused of murdering his wife. No, because such things are not relevant to the institution at large. Those sections stink of an attempt to push an agenda.

And then there's the section of Mohacsi, which must be some sort of joke. Her fleeing to Canada is completely irrelevant to the institution of Member of the European Parliament. It belongs in her article, and maybe that on Antiziganism (where I see it already is). I am willing to admit that I may have been wrong about the list, but the vast majority of what I removed has no place here. --RevivesDarks (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Support removal of the lot. The article on Bishop also doesn't have lists of bishops famous for other things, etc. If someone thinks the information belongs elsewhere, they should make the case at the talk page of the appropriate article (and possibly link to that discussion from here). --Boson (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who suggested that a discussion takes place before deletion. I am neutral on the point and I will totally support whatever majority decision, as long as deletion of large part of content that was contributed by a number of wikipedians is not made simply as a matter of course. Thank you, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Member of the European Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://193.60.94.203/97805218/06251/sample/9780521806251ws.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930215943/http://www.ena.lu/?lang=2&doc=4000 to http://www.ena.lu/?lang=2&doc=4000
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624114722/http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/parliament/index_en.htm to http://europa.eu/institutions/inst/parliament/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Member of the European Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100210105843/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/008-60547-292-10-43-901-20090911STO60546-2009-19-10-2009/default_en.htm to http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/008-60547-292-10-43-901-20090911STO60546-2009-19-10-2009/default_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Member of the European Parliament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170603180036/http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/meps/CoC_Users_Guide_draft4web_EN_rev.pdf to http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/meps/CoC_Users_Guide_draft4web_EN_rev.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)