- 1. Overview
- 2. Etymology
- 3. Cultural Impact
The allocation of legislative seats to member states of the European Union within the European Parliament is a complex mechanism governed by the EU treaties . The fundamental principle guiding this distribution is “degressive proportionality ,” meaning that while larger states have more representatives, smaller states receive a disproportionately larger number of seats relative to their population size. This ensures that no single large member state can dominate the Parliament and that the voices of smaller nations are adequately heard. It’s a delicate balancing act, negotiated and agreed upon by the member states themselves, rather than a rigid, automatic mathematical formula. Think of it less like a strict equation and more like a carefully brokered peace treaty, where concessions are made to ensure representation across the board.
Background
The concept of degressive proportionality dates back to the very inception of the European Parliament. When the institution was established in 1952 as the 78-member “Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community ,” the three founding smaller states – Belgium , Luxembourg , and the Netherlands – expressed concerns about being under-represented. To address this, they were granted more seats than their populations would have strictly warranted, setting a precedent for safeguarding the interests of smaller member states. As the European project expanded, with the Assembly eventually encompassing the Economic and Atomic Energy Communities , the number of seats grew to 142. Each subsequent enlargement of the European Union brought new member states into the fold, and with each accession, the seat allocation was adjusted, consistently reinforcing the principle that smaller nations should have a proportionally greater say than their sheer numbers might suggest. This historical context is crucial for understanding the current distribution, which is a product of decades of negotiation and compromise.
Nice System (2003–2009)
The Treaty of Nice , signed in 2001 and entering into force in 2003, outlined a framework for the European Parliament’s composition that aimed to accommodate the significant enlargement of the EU. Under this system, the maximum number of seats was set at 736 for the 25 member states that existed at the time of the 2004 European Parliament election . This meant that, on average, each Member of the European Parliament (MEP) represented roughly 670,000 citizens. However, the treaty’s provisions weren’t always strictly adhered to. The accession of Romania and Bulgaria in 2007 temporarily pushed the number of seats to 785, as these new member states were granted parliamentary representation without a corresponding reduction in the seats allocated to existing members. This temporary increase highlighted the political complexities involved in rebalancing representation during enlargement. The Nice system, therefore, represented an attempt to manage growing membership while attempting to maintain the balance of representation, though it ultimately proved to be a transitional measure.
Lisbon System (2009–present)
The Treaty of Lisbon , which came into effect in December 2009, significantly reshaped the European Parliament’s structure and the rules governing seat allocation. It established a new cap of 750 seats, plus the President of the Parliament, for a total of 751. Crucially, it also introduced a minimum of 6 seats and a maximum of 96 seats per member state. This system, which first applied to the 2014 European Parliament election , reaffirmed the principle of degressive proportionality, ensuring that the smallest states still had a meaningful voice while larger states received seats reflecting their population size, albeit with a reduced per-capita representation.
The implementation of the Lisbon system wasn’t without its complexities. There was controversy regarding the basis of population figures used for allocation – whether they should be based on residents or citizens. Countries with larger immigrant populations, who often don’t have voting rights in European elections, could potentially gain more representation under a resident-based system. Italy, for instance, found itself set to lose seats under the initial Lisbon proposals and vigorously campaigned for parity with France and the United Kingdom, ultimately securing one additional seat. To maintain the 750-seat limit, the President of the European Parliament was designated as not being counted as a lawmaker, a pragmatic solution to a political impasse.
2011 Amendment
A temporary adjustment was made in 2011 through an amendment that increased the Lisbon limit to 754 seats. This interim measure was designed to facilitate the transition to the new allocation rules. It allowed member states that were slated to gain seats under the Lisbon framework to take them before the 2014 elections, while simultaneously allowing Germany, which was set to lose seats, to retain its existing number until the 2014 elections. This meant that Germany temporarily exceeded the maximum of 96 seats stipulated by the Lisbon Treaty, holding 99 seats until the next election cycle. This amendment was a practical, albeit temporary, solution to manage the shift in representation and acknowledge the disparities in the timing of elections and treaty implementation.
2013 Amendment
The accession of Croatia to the EU on July 1, 2013, necessitated a further adjustment to the seat allocation. With Croatia being granted 12 seats, the overall number of MEPs would have exceeded the Lisbon limit. Consequently, an amendment was introduced for the 2014 elections . This amendment involved a redistribution of seats, with 12 countries, including Croatia itself, losing one seat each to accommodate the new member state within the established framework. This demonstrated the ongoing process of adapting the Parliament’s composition to reflect the evolving membership of the European Union.
2014 Election
The 2014 European Parliament election marked the first electoral cycle under the full implementation of the Lisbon Treaty rules. The total number of seats was set at 751 (including the President). The allocation aimed to uphold degressive proportionality, with a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 96 seats per member state. This election cycle saw some shifts in representation, with larger countries generally maintaining their positions while smaller states continued to benefit from the degressive proportionality principle.
During this period, there were ongoing discussions and proposals for further reform. MEP Andrew Duff was a prominent advocate for electoral reform, proposing the creation of a single pan-European constituency for the 2014 elections, where citizens could vote for transnational lists. While this specific proposal did not come to fruition, it highlighted the continuous debate surrounding the optimal structure of European parliamentary representation and the desire to enhance democratic legitimacy. The Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) considered various reports and proposals, but achieving unanimity on such fundamental changes proved challenging.
2019 Election
The impending Brexit – the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU – loomed large over the preparations for the 2019 European Parliament elections. With the UK’s 73 MEPs set to vacate their seats, the Parliament faced a decision on how to reallocate these positions. Various options were debated, including the creation of a pan-European constituency to replace the lost seats, reducing the total number of MEPs, or reassigning the seats to other member states to further enhance proportionality.
In February 2018, the Parliament approved a plan to reduce the total number of seats to 705 following the UK’s departure. This plan involved redistributing 27 seats to member states deemed to be under-represented and reserving the remaining 46 seats for potential future EU expansions. The proposal for a pan-member constituency was rejected simultaneously. However, the exact timing of Brexit became fluid, with extensions to the withdrawal date. Consequently, the seat allocation for the 2019 elections remained the same as in 2014. After Brexit officially took legal effect, the European Council made the final decisions regarding the reallocation of seats. Member states that were allocated additional seats after Brexit saw their newly elected MEPs take office only after the UK’s departure.
2024 Election
The approach to the 2024 European Parliament elections saw further adjustments to the seat allocation. In February 2023, the European Parliament’s Committee on Constitutional Affairs (AFCO) released a draft report proposing changes to the composition of the Parliament to better uphold the principle of degressive proportionality, as enshrined in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) . This draft suggested a new apportionment that would increase the number of MEPs from 705 to 716, aiming to respect degressive proportionality without any member state losing seats. This approach favored an expansion of the Parliament to accommodate demographic shifts and ensure fairness.
On June 15, 2023, the European Parliament approved the AFCO committee’s proposal. Subsequently, in July 2023, the European Council put forward its own proposal for the composition of the tenth European Parliament. This proposal envisioned adding 15 new MEPs, bringing the total number of seats from 705 to 720. Crucially, this plan also ensured that no member state would lose any of its existing seats. The European Parliament approved this Council proposal on September 15, 2023.
Beyond the immediate increase in seats, this decision also included a commitment to defining a future method for seat distribution. This future method is intended to be “objective, fair, durable and transparent,” implementing the principle of degressive proportionality while respecting the prerogatives of the EU institutions. This forward-looking commitment signals an ongoing effort to refine and solidify the rules governing parliamentary representation in the European Union, ensuring its legitimacy and effectiveness as the EU continues to evolve.
Changes in Membership
The composition of the European Parliament has been in constant flux, mirroring the ebb and flow of EU membership. From its initial 78 members in 1952, representing the six founding members, the Parliament’s size has grown dramatically with each wave of enlargement. The accession of Germany in 1951, Italy , France , Belgium , the Netherlands , and Luxembourg formed the initial bloc. The first significant expansion came in 1973 with the entry of the United Kingdom , Denmark , and Ireland . Subsequent enlargements in 1981 (Greece ), 1986 (Spain and Portugal ), and 1995 (Austria , Finland , and Sweden ) further increased the number of MEPs.
The major enlargements of 2004 and 2007, bringing in ten and then two new member states respectively, dramatically altered the Parliament’s size and dynamics. The 2004 enlargement alone added 198 MEPs, bringing the total to 732. The accession of Bulgaria and Romania in 2007 added 35 and 18 seats, respectively, pushing the total temporarily higher. The most recent accession, Croatia in 2013, added 11 seats. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom in 2020 resulted in a significant reduction, bringing the total down from 751 to 705 MEPs. Each change in membership necessitates a recalculation and redistribution of seats, a testament to the dynamic nature of European integration and its institutional framework. The historical data presented clearly illustrates this growth and contraction, showing the evolving representation as the Union has expanded and contracted.