This review of the formation of the 1999–2004 European Parliament has two purposes. The first is to ask whether the directly elected Parliament should be considered an old or a young institution now that it has reached the age of twenty. Does it represent a mature stage in the parliamentarianization of European Union politics? Or is the EP still an adolescent organization, full of diverse potentials, experimental in its roles, awkward in its practices, incompletely formed, and of uncertain relationship both with its public and other Union institutions? The second and related question is whether the formation of the 1999–2004 Parliament advances our understanding of the exact model of Parliamentary politics that is emerging at Union level. To answer these questions, the chapter will be broken into four sections corresponding to different stages in the formation of a new European Parliament: the electoral link, party-group formation, committee assignments, and the work of the new Parliament in confirming the new Commission in office.


Party System Voter Choice National Party Voter Participation Committee Assignment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    The theory was first formulated in K. Reif and H. Schmitt, “Nine Second Order Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results,” European Journal of Political Research, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 3–45, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. See also M. Franklin and C. van der Eijk (eds.), Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    The work of the European Parliament as a political system builder is intriguingly recounted in R. corbett, The European Parliament’s Role in Closer European Integration, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    J. Blondel, R. Sinnott and P. Svensson, People and Parliament in the European Union: Participation, Democracy and Legitimacy, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998, p. 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    For analysis of the conditional character of European Parliamentary power, see especially G. Tsebelis, “The Power of the European Parliament as a Conditional Agenda-Setter,” American Political Science Review, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 128–42, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. See also G. Tsebelis and A. Kreeppl, “The History of Conditional Agenda-Setting in European Institutions,” European Journal of Political Research, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 43–71, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    The argument that Union institutions should concentrate on substitutes to legitimation by mass representative process is made in A. Héritier, “Elements of Democratic Legitimation in Europe: An Alternative Perspective,” in Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 269–82, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    A full analysis of the party system in the European Parliament is to be found in S. Hix and C. Lord, Political Parties in the EU, London: Macmillan, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Roll-call analysis of voting in the European Parliament was pioneered in E. Attinà, “The Voting Analysis of the European Parliament Members and the Problem of Europarties,” European Journal of Political Research, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 557–579, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. T. Raunio, Party Group Behaviour in the European Parliament, Tampere: University of Tampere, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    For a full account of the rapprochement between the Christian Democratic and Conservative Parties, see T. Jansen, The European People’s Party: Origins and Development, New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Also T. Jansen, “The Integration of the Conservatives into the European People’s Party,” in D. Bell and C. Lord (eds.), Transnational Parties in the European Union, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998.Google Scholar
  13. 18.
    Quoted from G. Rinsche and K. Welle, Mehrheit fir die Mitte: Muß das Europäische Parlament socialistisch sein? Bonn: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 19.
    S. Hix, The Political System of the European Union, London: Macmillan, 1999, p. 82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 20.
    P. Magnette, “I; Union Européenne: Un Régime Semi-Parlementaire,” in P. Delwit, J.-M. De Waele, and P. Magnette, Àquoi sert le Parlement Européen, Brussels: Éditions Complexe, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 22.
    Based on a conversation with Martin Westlake. This is further explained in C. Lord, Democracy in the European Union, Sheffield: UACES/Sheffield University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pascal Perrineau, Gérard Grunberg, and Colette Ysmal 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Lord

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations