Unit 6:  Problems Encountered By Turkish Lobbies in the EU, Germany, France & Worldwide
 

Unit 1:  Who are lobbyists & what motivates them?
Unit 2:  Turkey's image abroad.
Unit 3:  History of Turkish communities worldwide & reasons for a weak Turkish lobby.
Unit 4:  National & ethnic interests: Anti-Turkey lobbies, misrepresentation of facts & defamation.
Unit 5:  The Turkish lobby dilemma in the United States as a case study.
Unit 6:  Problems encountered by Turkish lobbies in the EU, Germany, France & worldwide.
Unit 7:  Current Turkish lobby issues & the role of public diplomacy.
Unit 8   What can be learned from powerful lobbies such as the Jewish/Pro-Israel lobby?
Unit 9   New approaches to educating & informing Turkish lobbying groups.
Unit 10  Media relations, advertising & professional communications skills.
Unit 11  Initiatives for individuals & public speaking.
Unit 12  Initiatives for communities, campaigns, & NGO'S.
Unit 13: Fund-raising, public relations, & what can be done domestically.
Unit 14: Turkish lobbies undergo a period of transition: The need to strengthen old & new leadership.
Unit 15: Long-term strategies & lobbying in the post-September 11 era.

I. OUTLINE FOR UNIT 6: Problems encountered by Turkish lobbies in the EU, Germany, France & worldwide.

    1. Different methods used by people around the world to express their interests.

        a. Turkish lobbing activities in foreign countries.
        b. Different lobbying activities around the world.

II. EXERCISE, ACTIVITIES & PROJECTS ( See History of Orient www.silkroutes.net )

●Design a draft web site that connects citizen lobbyists and facilitates finding information that is relevant to Turkish lobbying.

See European Union: ETHICS & LOBBYING REFORM

See Europe: Immigration Terms  &  History of Immigration

See Europe: Debate & Problems Over Immigration

See Global Immigration Concerns
 

III. QUESTIONS

●What political systems are most similar to the Turkish political system?

●Why is the U.S. political system and Congress more vulnerable to pressure from lobbying groups in comparison to some parliamentary systems found in the European Union?

IV. BACKGROUND MATERIAL

All over the world, the interests of people (their needs, values, desires, expectations) and their discontent are expressed to their governments. The more democratic the government, the better these interests are expressed and represented.  The views of people are expressed through groups they form, and depending on their form of government, various methods and channels are used. Every political system whose government makes decisions, has some way of formulating and responding to the views and demands of the people.

It is difficult to offer analysis on local and national political structures and to generalize on lobbying activities, or to offer predictive theories. Any comparative study of power in the U.S. and in Europe, for example, is difficult due to differing electoral systems, party systems, national experiences, history, culture, and the wide-ranging effects of coalition membership in multi-party systems. More studies are needed in comparative politics to develop a better understanding of societies and for a comparison of the roles of interest groups in different institutional mechanisms.

During the 1950's and 1960's, community power studies were popular among academics, particularly in North America. Because power is difficult to study on the national level, it was believed it could best be researched in narrower contexts with studies on the distribution of power and influence in individual towns and cities. The studies found that the communities were not fully democratic, but were dominated by elite groups that controlled different areas of policy. Because there was no correct methodology to study who was influential, or why, it was not possible to come to any conclusions about power at the national level. In many European countries, where decisions are taken by the central government (or are strongly influenced and closely regulated by central government), such studies have been less frequent.

Who is lobbied depends on the structure of power in a society. In many countries, individuals make requests to their representatives, councilmen, state legislators, congressmen, parliamentarians, members of government, or the civil service. In more traditional societies, the individual might discuss his or her concerns with a tribal or village leader. In general, the larger the group, the more attention their demands will receive. Groups within EU member countries often lobby EU authorities in European capitals and in Brussels. Although lobbying is considered an old industry in the U.S., it has increasingly become important in Europe since the 1980's.  For example, the parliamentary lobbying profession in the United Kingdom is estimated to have increased tenfold in the 1980's, and in the European Union (where the targets of lobbyists tend to be civil servants and ministers) there are now 20,000 lobbyists, many of whom emerged on the political scene in the 1990s after the European Parliament was included in co-decision making with the council in approving legislation. In countries like the U.S., with weak party discipline elected legislators, elected legislators are diligently courted by thousands of professional lobbyists.

In countries where power is decentralized, interest groups target various levels throughout the system, such as the state, provincial and municipal levels. The separated and fragmented system of government in the U.S. offers many different access points to lobbies, from school boards, city councils, legislative assemblies, executive departments and agencies, to state and federal courts. Due to the decentralization of education in the U.S., even parent-teacher associations can be viewed as lobbies as a result of their influence. In the traditional European interest group systems, there is a single, dominant organization (such as the Confederation of British Industry or the National Farmers' Union) which dominates its particular sector. In the U.S., on the other hand, interest groups have always been fragmented and competitive, and as a result there exists many competing pressure groups, such as in the agricultural sector.

Because of the decentralized and fragmented government in the U.S., there are many more opportunities for lobbies to exert influence. In parliamentary systems, however, influencing the national government is essentially a matter of trying to persuade the executive to support a particular initiative (or often trying to convince a minister to support the initiative).

Because most European countries elect parliaments under proportional representation, minority parties like the Greens, can achieve a significant political voice for the environmental movement. Europe and America have differing NGO scenes, therefore in the U.S. NGO's must rely on extra-parliamentary activism. Furthermore, U.S. courts are used as an adjunct to public opinion campaigning, whereas in Europe, NGO's can only judicially challenge government and corporate decisions in a very limited way. In countries with strong consensual traditions (Germano-Nordics), NGO's have been formally included in public policy making.

Lobbying groups often have headquarters in capitals near the seat of power, such as in Paris, London, Rome, and Washington. The Turkish lobbies in Europe, and across the world are small, not united, not well organized, and not well funded. Because many members of the community were born in Turkey, and not in the country where they reside, they have not been able to develop the skills necessary to be involved in domestic politics. Very few of them have access to those in public office or to media representatives. Most of the Turkish organizations abroad have not been concerned with public opinion or public relations. The majority of these organizations lack physical space in which to hold regular meetings. Furthermore, Turkish lobbies have been at a disadvantage due to the negative images perpetuated by self-serving anti-Turkish lobbies. Turkish lobbies are still trying to devise ways of uniting and countering anti-Turkey activities, as well as developing strategies that lead to informed involvement in the political process (many of the reasons for a weak Turkish lobby in the EU are the same reasons for a weak Turkish lobby in the U.S. See the article "The Birth and Growth of the Turkish-American Community" at the end of Unit 5).

Individual political systems have been shaped by different historical developments and events, different cultural outlooks, ideologies, races, ethnic groups, traditions, values and ways of life. In the U.S. voters elect the president, senators, congressmen and congresswomen, state legislators, city or town council members, and other occupants of minor offices (such as the secretary of state in state governments). In Britain, for example, a voter will typically vote for one member of Parliament and a local councilman. In parliamentary democracies in Europe, there are differences in how representatives are elected and in their relationships with interest groups. In some countries with parliamentary systems where there are no primary elections (as in the U.S.), the choice of candidates is usually made by the party at the constituency level and ratified by national party officials. These candidates are more likely to be responsive to party control and discipline. Furthermore,  in EU member countries citizens vote for representatives of the EU parliament. Public relations activities are not as important in parliamentary systems, since most voters are not undecided and party loyalties are strong. PR specialists are most active when there is a large undecided vote to be influenced. In the U.S. where voters often do not have strong party loyalty, critics point out that they can easily be influenced by political campaigns.

In the American system (due to federalism and the separation of powers) lobbies need to influence not one, but many groups of decision-makers who are dispersed both geographically and institutionally throughout the political system. In the British system, in contrast, lobbies need to influence only the important policy making group of Cabinet politicians and senior civil servants at the head of the relevant ministry. In some EU countries, lobbies such as trade unions, are controlled and influenced by political parties or the church. In Britain lobbies and political parties are relatively separate from each other. Most British trade unions are affiliated with the Labour Party, however, the parliamentary party often acts independently of trade-union pressure (particularly the members of Parliament who are also government ministers). Trade associations and chambers of commerce in Britain align with the Conservative party.

In Europe, often the memberships of political parties and interest groups overlap. Sometimes these interest groups are involved in the selection of party candidates (in Britain trade unions sponsor candidates for the House of Commons). In Germany and the U.S. trade unions and major commercial, agricultural, and industrial interests maintain close ties with congressmen who as a candidate received their support.

The unique aspects of each society are reflected in the composition of these interest groups, and the manner in which they operate. In France, for example, civil and military bureaucracies do not simply react to external pressures. In the absence of political directives they can act as independent forces of interest representation. In Italy, the Roman Catholic Church has often used its influence in politics. In 1948, the pope admonished Catholics (under penalty of sin) to use their votes to defeat communists and socialists. The church has sought influence through members of the clergy who contact ministries and those in public office.

The history of lobbying in the U.S. goes back to the 1700's, but, lobbying in Europe goes back centuries if one considers how social groups and institutions pass on power from generation to generation. The use of personal connections varies from society to society. These connections are often developed since childhood from family, school, church, synagogue, mosque, work, local encounters, or other social ties. One example of useful informal networks can be seen by those developed by the British elite. This is a network based on "old school ties" originating at Eton or Harrow, and at Oxford and Cambridge Universities. A comparison can be made with Ivy League universities in America, such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and the fraternities and other clubs individuals may have once belonged. In all parts of the world, celebrities, royalty, prominent religious figures, distinguished families, and notables frequently exercise special influence. Groups may also be based on lineage, class, ideology, kinship, elite cliques, and on local notables and important rural families. In contrast to lobbies, these groups may be informal and not organized in any manner. In the U.S., examples of tribal lobbies include Eskimos, Indians, and Aleuts. Examples of racial lobbies include the Chinese and African-Americans. Ethnic lobbies, for instance, include the Irish, Italian, Polish, Hispanic, Greek, Armenian, and Turkish communities.

Just as in the U.S., throughout the world there are many occupational and professional lobbies (such as medical, legal, farming, manufacturing, transport, engineering, education, etc.) which are issue or policy oriented. Regardless of their size, all interest groups use different tactics in different parts of the world to gain access to members of the political decision-making structure. Because political systems vary in the ways they distribute and organize influence, the techniques they select are not the same. But their goal is the same: to convince decision-makers that their demands deserve attention and response. Targets of influence also often include the general public.

The impact of the demands of lobbies depends on many factors. One obstacle to satisfying demands might be because the leadership is unable to, or prevented from, getting the information about the needs of the lobby. Another problem may arise if the recipient of the information is not familiar with the group, and may have wrong perceptions and knowledge. Therefore the attitudes of the decision-maker, and his prior knowledge, to some extent determine the amount of attention lobbies receive. Feelings of sympathy towards the group, rather than hostility, can make all the difference. In some cases, even if the decision-maker believes in the legitimacy of the groups claims, his or her response might be determined by the consequence of his rejection of the demand. In all political systems, face-to-face contact is one of the most effective means of getting attention and influencing attitudes. The friendlier and nicer the atmosphere, the better the response is likely to be.

In some cases, common interests are expressed by the use of violence. Some political systems repeatedly witness unpredictable and spontaneous political action due to the sudden outburst of demands. Often the reason for these disturbances (which can lead to coups, assassinations, or the creation of terrorist groups) is due to frustration and discontent.

Different nations finance their electoral campaigns in different ways, but financial contributions around the world are seen as a way to express the interests of a group. Due to campaign finance reform in the U.S. there are regulations on how contributions are received and spent. Other countries such as Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland set no ceilings on campaign spending or political donations, and have no rules on disclosure of donors.

Lobbying targets can be members of a legislative body almost anywhere in the world. Because many European Union institutions and bodies are located in Brussels, most European-wide lobbying organizations have their headquarters there. Brussels-based lobbying has been attracting attention since the 1990's (it should be noted that despite the co-decision procedure, the European Parliament is not fully authorized to make laws and works as a co-legislature with the EU's Council of Ministers). Corporations, PR firms, trade associations, commercial and industrial interests, consumer protection organizations, animal welfare and human rights groups, aid organizations, and single-issues lobbies all have representative offices in Brussels. The emergence of new technologies has also made NGO's aware of how important the battle for public opinion is, as they compete for media attention in order to communicate effectively with EU citizens and the world. Despite the growth of professional lobbying firms in Brussels, their impact on decisions and how they operate have not been extensively examined. Although the European Commission has a list of hundreds of bodies it consults, there is no official register of recognized lobbies (or pressure groups) that is produced by the Commission or European Parliament. According to CONECCS (Consultation, the European Community and  Civil Society) over 1,000 interests groups are active. Over 10,000 (perhaps up to 20,000) people are believed to be engaged in "interest representation," the majority being business groups. The Commission sometimes funds these bodies and actively works with them to encourage cultivating loyalties to the European level. Many lobbying firms are hired to monitor developments in a particular subject-area, to enable access to decision-makers, arrange meetings, suggest contacts, and assist in advocacy of a case.

Examples of issues of concern to Turkish lobbies in Europe:
--Proposed national referendums for Turkey's EU entry.
--Status of the Turkish community in Northern Cyprus.
--Resolutions that recognize the killings of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire as genocide i.e. adopted by the European Parliament in 2002 and by the French Parliament in 2001. (The Turkish Parliament officially condemned the European Parliament resolution which does not reflect the facts. The Armenian Diaspora continues to present misleading interpretations of historical events in order to influence the legislators of various countries, while historians do not agree the events during the years of warfare can be defined as genocide.
--Activities of separatist terrorist Kurdish groups, such as the PKK, and extremist organizations.
--Statements by EU parliamentarians, religious figures, etc., who fan the flames of a clash of civilizations and refer to Turkey as an "Islamic country," rather than a secular republic.

• Co-decision procedure: A procedure introduced by the Maastricht Treaty to reinforce the role of the European Parliament in the legislative process (the Treaty entered into force in 1993).
• European Commission: The executive arm of the EU which seeks to uphold the interests of the EU as a whole. The European Commission 1) proposes legislation, policies and programs of action, 2) is responsible for implementing the decisions of Parliament and the Council, and 3) supervises how funds are spent. The seat of the Commission is in Brussels. Members are appointed by the member states to serve for 5 years. The Commission acts as the EU's executive body and as a guardian of the Treaties. The Commission has the right of initiative and thus can put proposals to the Council of Ministers for action. Decisions on legislative proposals are taken in the Council of Ministers. The Commission also represents the EU on the international stage
• European Council: A summit of  the Heads of State or Government, held at least twice a year in the capital of the member state that currently holds the presidency of the Council of the EU (which rotates every 6 months). The summits set priorities and give political direction, as well as work to resolve contentious issues. Objectives include formulating common policy in the fields of justice and home affairs, as well as foreign and security matters. (not to be confused with the "Council of Ministers" or the "Council of Europe")
• European "Council of Ministers": The Council of Ministers is the EU's principle decision-making body, and the only institution which directly represents the member state's national interests. It has both executive and legislative powers (the former delegated in many areas to the European Commission, and the latter in some cases exercised jointly by co-decision procedure with the European Parliament). All EU member states are represented by their foreign ministers within the Council of Ministers, which reflects the views of the EU's 374 million citizens. Members strive to resolve differences and coordinate their national policies. Each member state of the EU has an embassy in Brussels to manage the country's dealings with various EU institutions, to lobby, and to have direct involvement in the legislative process through the Council of Ministers. The Court of Justice (based in Luxembourg, established in 1951) is the final arbiter in disputes arising from the Community Treaties, or the legislation based upon them, and is empowered to review the legality of legal instruments adopted by the Council of Ministers or the Commission, and certain acts of the European Parliament.
• European Parliament: The EU Parliament, whose seat is in Strasbourg, France, represents the EU's citizens. It shares with the Council the power to legislate, exercises democratic supervision over all EU institutions, and shares with the Council authority over the EU budget. There are over 625 members of the European Parliament (MEP's), elected every 5-years, who belong to almost 100 political parties. MEP's represent a range of interests and blocks, such as the Greens, Social Democrats, Christian Democrats, liberals, conservatives, communists, etc.
• European Union (EU): The 25-member EU is founded on the existing European communities set up by the Treaties of Paris (1951) and Rome (1957), supplemented by revisions, the Single European Act in 1986, The Maastricht Treaty on European Union in 1992, and the draft Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. Two years after Winston Churchill called for a "united states of Europe," a Congress of Europe was held in 1948 in The Hague with nearly 1,000 Europeans from 26 countries. This resulted in the birth of the Council of Europe in 1949. The aim of this European assembly of nations was "to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realizing the ideals and principles which are their common heritage." After a proposal in 1950 by the French foreign minister, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands signed the Treaty of Paris establishing the "European Coal and Steel Community." This agreement was regarded as the first step towards a united Europe. After the success of the ECSC, plans were made to establish two more organizations: the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC). As a result these treaties encouraged the establishment of a common market with a customs union. During the last 30 years the EU is undergoing a process of enlargement and integration as it seeks to strengthen its institutions, the rights of its citizens, the freedom of movement, and plans to develop economic and monetary union along with a common foreign and security policy.
• Lobbying (EU): Lobbying in the U.S. seeks to promote or secure the passage of legislation in Congress, but lobbying targets can be members of a legislative body anywhere in the world, such as representatives of the European Union (it should be noted that despite the co-decision procedure, the European Parliament is not fully authorized to make laws and works as a co-legislature with the EU's Council of Ministers). Because many European Union institutions and bodies are located in Brussels, most European-wide lobbying organizations have their headquarters there. Brussels-based lobbying has been attracting attention since the 1990's. Corporations, PR firms, trade associations, commercial and industrial interests, consumer protection organizations, human rights groups, animal welfare activists, aid organizations, and single-issues lobbies all have representative offices in Brussels. The emergence of new technologies has also made NGO's aware of how important the battle for public opinion is, as they compete for media attention in order to communicate effectively with EU citizens and the world. Despite the growth of professional lobbying firms in Brussels, their impact on decisions and how they operate have not been extensively examined. Although the European Commission has a list of hundreds of bodies it consults, there is no official register of recognized lobbies (or pressure groups) that is produced by the Commission or European Parliament. According to CONECCS (Consultation, the European Community and  Civil Society) over 1,000 interests groups are active. Yet over 10,000 (perhaps up to 20,000) people are believed to be engaged in "interest representation," the majority being business groups. The Commission sometimes funds these bodies and actively works with them to encourage cultivating loyalties to the European level. Many lobbying firms are hired to monitor developments in a particular EU subject-area, to enable access to decision-makers, arrange meetings, suggest contacts, and assist in advocacy of a case.

  ---

  İngiltere'deki genç Türkler lobiye inanıyor
   

  Türkiye, Avrupa Birliği yolunda kendisine destek olan İngiltere ile uzun vadeli çıkar birliğini ve işbirliğini arzuluyorsa lobi faaliyetlerini düzene koymalı. Köprü rolü ise ülkede bulunan üçüncü nesil Türk gençleri sağlayabilir.

   

  Aykut Uzdiyem  21.01.2006  http://www.referansgazetesi.com/haber.aspx?HBR_KOD=33962
  aykutuz@yahoo.com

   

  Yurt dışında yaşayan Türk göçmen nüfusun neden etkin bir lobi oluşturmak için organize olamadığı, kendisini olumsuz etkileyen konularda bile harekete geçemediği,sessiz ve tepkisiz durduğu, bu tabloya dışarıdan bakanlar için akılları kurcalayan bir soru.

  Bu sorunun cevabını son zamanlarda daha da önemli kılan unsur, Türkiye'nin dışa açılma sürecinde kendisini anlatacak kanallara giderek artan şekilde ihtiyaç duymaya başlaması. Ermeni sorunu, Kıbrıs sorunu gibi çözülmeden ertelene gelen önemli problemlerimiz  AB sürecinde çözülmek zorunda ve bu süreç içinde muhatap kamuoylarının da iknası gerekmekte. Bunun için kullanılabilecek kanalların içinde önemli bir öğeyi de, bu kamuoylarının bizzat içinde olan Türk toplumu oluşturuyor.

   

  Lobilerin etkinliği

  Günümüz demokratik toplumlarında etnik lobiler, bulundukları ülkenin karar alma mekanizması üzerinde azımsanamayacak bir etkinliğe sahipler. Yapılan bir çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre, 1945-1984 arasında Musevi lobisinin müdahil olduğu konuların dörtte birinden fazlasında ABD başkanının muhalefetine rağmen Amerika'daki Musevi lobisinin istediği yönde karar alınmış olduğu göz önüne alınırsa, bu etkinin büyüklüğü görülebilir.

  Köklü bir devlet geleneğini miras alan Türkiye Cumuriyeti'nin, Dışişleri Bakanlığı ve elçilikler kanalı ile yürüttüğü geleneksel diplomasi ise, yabancı ülke hükümetleri üzerinde etkili olsa da, yetkisini halktan alan parlamenterler üzerinde etkili olamıyor. Bu farkı izah için, Ermeni soykırımı iddialarının sadece 1 hükümet tarafından kabul edilmesine karşın 17 parlamentoda kabul edilmiş olduğunu söylemek sanırız kafi olur. Parlamenterleri etkileyebilecek en büyük unsur, seçim bölgesindeki oy verenleri. Etnik lobiler bunun için önemli; ancak Türkiye, ihtiyacı giderek artmasına rağmen, neredeyse her ülkede bulunan bu büyük potansiyeli, seçilmişler üzerindeki bu etkili manivelayı kullanamıyor.

  İngiltere örneğini incelersek, şu an çoğunluğu Kıbrıs'tan gelmiş olan takriben 300.000 Türk İngiltere'de bulunmakta. Dahası, bu nüfus, belirli merkezlerde yoğunlaşmış durumda. Bu, azımsanamayacak bir potansiyel. Ancak her ülkede olduğu gibi İngiltere'de de çeşitli politik,mezhepsel veya dinsel fraksiyonlar içinde kalmayı tercih eden Türk toplumuna ait dernekler, aşırı bölünmüşlükten ve enerjisini kendi içerisinde tüketmekten, temsil ettiklerini iddia ettikleri toplum için sonuç alıcı, somut çabalara girişme fırsatı bulamıyor.  1.ve 2.nesil Türk toplumunun örgütlenme düzeyi yeterli olmasa da, ilerisi için umut verici, tabandan gelen, spontane örgütlenmeler mevcut.

   

  Üçüncü nesil vizyonu

  Bu hareketlenmenin nüvesini, 60 ve 70'li yıllardaki göç dalgasından farklı bir profildeki, iyi eğitim almış, dil bilen bir Türk göçmen grubunun ve 'Türk olduğu içinde yasadığı toplum tarafından kendisine zaman zaman hatırlatılan' 3.nesil Türklerin varlığı oluşturuyor. İçinde yasadıkları toplumun dinamiklerini kavrayabilen ve  İngiltere'deki profesyonel ve akademik hayata girmekte zorlanmayan bu kesim, Türk imajını hızla değiştiriyor.  Politik veya dinsel/mezhepsel  kamplaşmalara girmeye niyeti olmayan bu kesimin arasında bir iletişim teknolojisi olarak yaygın şekilde kullanılan internetin olumlu etkisi de yadsınmamalı.

  İngiltere'deki Türk toplumu büyük sorun, Ankara Antlaşması ile İngiltere'deki tüm Türklere tanınan iş kurabilme özgürlüğünün, başvuruların seneler geçmesine rağmen cevaplandırılmaması yüzünden pratikte engelleniyor olması. Bu süreler boyunca pasaportları İçişleri Bakanlığı'nda adeta rehin kalan Türkler, İngiltere dışına seyahat edemiyorlar ve bu büyük sıkıntılara neden oluyor. Bu sorunun halledilmesi için başvuru sahibi Türklerin İngiltere İçişleri Bakanlığı'na toplu davalar açması gündemde.

  PKK'nın, Londra'daki Dalston ve Harringey gibi bölgelerde çoğu mülteci olarak İngiltere'ye yerleşmiş olan işyeri sahiplerinden haraç alacak kadar etkin olması ise, bir başka önemli sorun.

  Bu sorunların İngiltere Türk toplumu lehine çözümlenmesi, örgütlenebilmiş bir toplumun ciddi hukuksal ve politik çabasını gerektirmekte. Elçilik ve konsolosluğun rolü Viyana sözleşmesi ile kısıtlandığı için, bu örgütlenme çabalarının yukarıdan aşağıya değil, aşağıdan yukarıya gerçekleşmesi uzun vadede daha sağlıklı bir yol gibi gözüküyor.

  Türkiye, Avrupa Birliği yolunda kendisine destek olan bu önemli ülke ile uzun vadeli çıkar birliğini ve işbirliğini arzuluyorsa, İngiltere toplumuna entegre olmuş ancak asimile olmamış bahsettiğimiz bu yeni nesil Türk toplumunu bir uzlaşı köprüsü olarak değerlendirmenin yollarını aramalı. Bu yapılabilirse, Türk hariciyesi, kendisine kuvvetli bir yardımcı kazanabilir. Dahası,İngiltere örneğinde kazanılacak bir örgütlenme başarısı hem kıta Avrupası'nda,hem de diğer Anglo-Sakson toplumlar içinde yasayan Türk topluluklarına örnek olacak bir model oluşturabilir.

   

  En büyük sorun Ermeni meselesi

  Ermeni diasporası, 2005 yılında  Britanya adasında da boy göstermeye başladı. İngiltere Türk toplumu, 2005 Haziran'ında Edinburgh Belediyesi'nde kabul edilecek olan Ermeni tasarısının oylanmasını 6 ay boyunca 3 kere iptal ettirdi ve şu ana kadar benzeri görülmemiş bir şekilde "Ermeni olaylarının iki taraflı bir trajedi olduğunu, iki tarafta da mezalimler yaşandığını"  kabul ettirmeyi başardı. Ancak yine de  Edinburgh Belediye başkanının politik ihtiraslarına engel olamayarak, Ermeni soykırımını tanımasını durduramadı.

  Bunun devamı olarak, Ermeni diasporası, başlattıkları imza kampanyası ile parlamentoda söz hakkı alarak İngiltere Parlamentosu'nda boy göstermeye hazırlanıyor. Ermeni dernekleri CRAG ve  ACCC  bu çabalarda başı çekiyorlar.

  Türk karşıtı çalışmaların Westminister'daki mimarları Parlamento'da Jeremy Corbyn, Lordlar Kamarası'nda ise Barones Cox. Kürt lobisi tarafından markaja alınan bu isimler, "yerli yapım Midnight Express" olarak adlandırılabilecek 301. madde davaları ile şu sıralar kendi elimizle karartmakta olduğumuz Türkiye imajını daha da karalamak ile meşguller.
   

  ---

  Think tanks & EU policy-making  www.euractiv.com

  In Short:

  Think tanks are organisations dedicated to researching and disseminating policy solutions that aim to contribute to the policy-making process. Latest studies show that some 36 EU-specific research organisations currently specialise in European policy issues.

  Think tanks call for EU enlargement to proceed (13 June 2005)

  BRUEGEL: newest addition to think tank landscape in Brussels (19 January 2005)

  Policy Summary	>> Links
  QuickLinks: Background | Issues | Positions

  Background:

  Think tanks are independent non-profit associations, perceived as open and accountable providers of analysis and information to assist policy-makers in research and evaluation. Think tanks aim to be a source of innovative policy options and a consultative forum for new ideas. 

  In Brussels, think tanks use regular conferences and seminars as platforms to network and discuss policy opinions with other EU actors, thus allowing participants from the private sector, media, academia and civil society to meet EU institutional representatives in a neutral environment. According to Notre Europe data, the main target audiences for think tanks are policy-makers, closely followed by the media. NGOs, civil society groups, academic institutions and industry federations come next.

  According to a survey of 149 think tanks by Notre Europe, the most common reasons cited by the EU-specific think tanks for their initial creation are: 

  • To help prepare a country for its accession to the EU 
  • A government initiative to improve the level of analysis of EU policy in a country. 
  • To provide a forum for the analysis of a country’s position within the EU (and/or its relationship with it regional neighbours). 
  • To examine a specific area of EU policy (e.g. environmental or social policy). 
  • To enhance the quality of debate on European issues. 
  • To create a platform for researchers and students to express their views on Europe. 
  • To provide support to European integration (or, more rarely, to oppose it). 
  • To promote economic reform in the EU; 
  • To promote interest from the corporate sector in EU political affairs. 

  The majority of think tanks surveyed needed a domestic reason to justify their being set up in order to be seen as relevant by their own publics and policy-makers. Therefore the focus on EU issues usually comes from a domestic perspective. 

  Some of the more established thinks tanks in Brussels include the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), the European Policy Centre (EPC) and Friends of Europe. In recent times many new think thanks have been set up, a number of which work outside Brussels. 

  Issues:

  The Notre Europe report indicates that EU think tanks have not yet "fully found their place in European policy-making". Their added value is not always perceived clearly by decision-makers, and they are often seen as only moderately useful, and sometimes even elitist. Overall, they are believed to have a relatively limited impact on policies and public opinion. The main problem listed is lack of visibility and a failure to communicate their position effectively. 

  The main recurring challenge for think tanks is securing sufficient levels of funding whether public, private, national or international. According to the Austrian Institute for International Affairs: "Most think tanks are in a permanent state of budgetary crisis." 

  Due to the high level of competition in Brussels, EU think tanks often strive to develop a niche market. This is why think tanks also try to offer different approaches to EU matters. The EPC for instance takes pride in being a “welcome platform for balanced discussion” while CEPS seeks to produce “sound policy research” and “achieve high standards of academic excellence”. They offer different activities, such as the EPC's ‘Ideas Factory’ forum or the CEPS task forces. 

  As a result, Brussels has a mix of academic, advocacy, and contract research think tanks. The influence that a think tank is able to exert depends on a number of different factors, such as its relationship with the government, and the political weight of its members. 

  In the EU there are a number of strategic dilemmas that question the future efficiency and credibility of existing think tanks. Notre Europe divides these into two main categories: a need to preserve independence and intellectual credibility in the face of the possible pre-eminence of advocacy and a desire to communicate both with public authorities and the general public at a time when the European democratic deficit is being called into question. 

  Positions:

  Notre Europe defined nine criteria that an organisation must fulfill in order to qualify as a think tank. They need to be permanent organisations that specialise in the production of public policy solutions, thanks to in-house staff dedicated to research. They must generate an original production of ideas, analysis and advice, which is to be communicated to policy-makers and public opinion. Such organisations are not responsible for governmental activities. They seek, more generally, to maintain their research independence and not to be committed to particular interests. Their main activity should not be to train or to grant diplomas, but their implicit or explicit goal is to contribute to the public good, unlike purely commercial ventures. 

  A critical observation made by Notre Europe is the think tanks' preference for intervening early in the policy-making process, thus influencing decisions ‘upstream’. Think tanks are seen to focus their attention on forward-looking policies, attempting to influence decision-making bodies before legislation is drafted or parliaments and national governments intervene. 

  Stephen Boucher, author of the Notre Europe report on think tanks, says the potential of European think tanks will not be fulfilled unless they successfully manage to balance the tension between academic credibility on the one hand and the need to communicate effectively and to gain access to decision-makers on the other. 

  In the report by Notre Europe, Jacques Delors also shares his views on the role of think tanks in EU policymaking: “With ten new member states and the prospect of further enlargement, the European Union is probably experiencing one of the most challenging transitions in its history. Now more than ever, the EU will need to dip into its “think tanks”.” 

  The Brussels European and Global Economic Laboratory (BRUEGEL), a recently formed think tank launched by former commissioner Mario Monti, recognises that it will have a challenge establishing itself in a growing market of EU think tanks. With strong financial support from member states and business, BRUEGEL will have to prove it can be independent and deliver new 'out-of-the-box' thinking. 

  The Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) is highly critical of some EU think tanks: “These [new generation of think tanks] receive corporate sponsorship but are in fact nothing more than corporate front groups,” it claims. One CEO report reveals that radical free market think tanks are thriving on growing volumes of corporate funding from large influential corporations including some US multinationals. 

  Another survey recently conducted by the CEO shows a widespread unwillingness among EU think tanks to disclose who funds their work. According to CEO researcher Olivier Hoedman: "Although most EU think tanks do not engage much in direct lobbying of decision-makers, the aim of their activities is to influence EU policies [...]Parliamentarians, the media and the public must therefore have access to necessary information about the interests behind these think tanks, not the least who funds their work." 

  Links	>> Policy Summary
  QuickLinks: Think-Tanks | Press Dossiers | NGOs

  Think-Tanks

  • The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS): Website

  • Friends of Europe: Website

  • National Institute for Research Advancement (NIRA): NIRA's World Directory of Think Tanks - Fourth Edition

  • The European Policy Centre (EPC): Website

  • Centre for the New Europe (CNE): Website

  • European Trade Union Institute (ETUI): Website

  • Lisbon Council for Economic Competitiveness: Website

  • BRUEGEL: Website

  • Centre for European Reform (CER): Website

  • Federal Trust for Education and Research: Website

  • Institute for European Environment Policy (IEEP): Website

  • Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA): Website

  • The European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes (ENEPRI): Website

  • European Policy Institutes Network (EPIN): Website

  • EUROPEUM Institute for European Policy: Website

  • Confrontations Europe: Website

  • Fondation Robert Schuman: Website

  • Institut Francais des Relations Internationales (IFRI): Website

  • Institut für Europäische Politik (IEP): Website

  • Zentrum für Europäische Integrationsforschung an der Universität Bonn (ZEI): Website

  • Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik- Deutsches Institut für Internationale Politik und Sicherheit (SWP): Website

  • Forschungsinstitut der deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik (DGAP): Website

  • Centrum für angewandte Politikforschung an der Universität Müchen (CAP): Website

  • Notre Europe: Europe and its think tanks: a promise to be fulfilled (15 October 2004) / Information tables / [FR]

  • Notre Europe: Think Tanks in Europe & US: Converging or Diverging (13 December 2004) [FR]

  • Think Tank Directory Europe: Information on the most important EU-based think tanks

  • Think Tank Directory Deutschland: Ein Branchenbuch für Think Tanks (German only)

  Press Dossiers

  • The Economist: Special Report: Under the Influence - Think Tanks & the Money that fuels them (15 July 2005)

  • The Guardian Unlimited: Special Politics Report - Britain's leading think tanks

  NGOs

  • Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO): Lobby Planet: Brussels - the EU quarter (Nov. 2004)

  • Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO): European Think Tank Series: The European Policy Centre (Oct. 1998)

  • Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO): Transparency unthinkable? Financial secrecy common among EU think tanks (July 2005)

  • Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO): Covert industry funding fuels the expansion of radical rightwing EU think tanks (July 2005)

   A Comparison of Lobbying Groups in Britain & the U.S.
   From: American Government & Politics by Duncan Watts

   There are some differences in the mode of operation and the strategies adopted by lobbies in these two countries.
   In the U.S., the federal system means that pressure groups can operate at several levels, and they seek to achieve their aims in local and state governments as well as in Washington. Political power is more diffuse, partly because of the federal structure but also because of the Separation of Powers. For instance, the position of the American courts in pronouncing on the constitutionality of legislation makes them an obvious access point. By contrast, in Britain groups have made less use of the judicial system, though bodies such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission make use of legal procedures.
      Given the weak party structure and the lack of party discipline in Congress, US groups make Capitol Hill the target of their work. There is much to be gained through contact with individual legislators. By contrast, the greater cohesion of British parliamentary parties means that the powerful groups are keen to gain consultative status in Whitehall, where decisions are made. The unitary system of government concentrates power in government hands, and ministers and civil servants are the people to influence.
   Not only are American lobbyists concerned with a wider variety of targets, they also engage in some activities which are unfamiliar on the British scene. UK election campaigns are much more centralized, and the media campaign is run primarily from headquarters. Much of party income goes to the London headquarters, and there are strict controls over what the individual candidate can spend. American elections are more candidate-centered, and there is a significant role for PAC's in assisting both financially and organizationally. American makes extensive use of political advertising, and PAC's are involved in putting out their own broadcasts as well as in helping the candidate's team to finance its operations in this field.

Brussels' rise draws lobbyists in numbers
By Graham Bowley International Herald Tribune
Thursday, November 18, 2004

One morning last week, Karl-Heinz Florenz, chairman of the European Parliament's powerful environment committee, sat in his 15th-floor office as the phone rang incessantly and his computer chimed the arrival of a string of e-mails.

"I would say 80 percent are from lobbyists," said Florenz's assistant, who waved dismissively at the phone until it stopped.

Florenz, 57, a tall, brawny, cigar-chomping German with arched black eyebrows, agreed: "They phone me, they pick me up downstairs, they write me a hundred letters a day," he complained. "It is not possible to get from here to the entrance and not see any lobbyists."

As the influence of European Union institutions has multiplied, so a nascent, Brussels-based community of professional lobbyists - lawyers, public relations professionals and public affairs consultants - has grown.

For the past six weeks, the European Parliament's attention has been focused on approving a new executive commission for the Union; on Thursday, the Parliament votes in Strasbourg on the new team of 24 commissioners.

But the deputies will shortly return to the day-to-day business of scrutinizing the minutiae of EU legislation. This is where the Parliament's enduring influence lies, a fact appreciated by the mass of lobbyists huddling ever closer to the institutional heart of Brussels.

The lobbyists go to great lengths to get close to the lawmakers. Gilded invitations to swanky Brussels dinners decorate Florenz's office. In the Parliament's long corridors, companies set up television screens and information displays to raise their profiles in deputies' thinking.

A number of high-profile rulings against companies, such as the one against Microsoft earlier this year, has underlined Brussels' power as gatekeeper to the EU's vast market of 450 million consumers.

"General Electric, Microsoft and a lot of other American companies have woken up to the fact that Brussels matters, not just on antitrust but on a whole range of regulatory areas from consumer protection to security," said Brandon Mitchener of Apco, a communications consultancy that employs 40 in its Brussels office and whose clients include Microsoft, Nike, and Procter & Gamble.

The rising clamor of debate between international companies, trade associations and pressure groups on the one hand, and lawmakers and civil servants on the other, is new to Brussels. It is a direct measure of the growing importance of the EU and its institutions in Europe's changing political landscape.

Until the 1990s, two bodies decided most EU rules: the European Commission, the EU's civil service, and the European Council, which represents national governments.

But in the 1990s, the European Parliament was included in so-called co-decision making, which gave it joint oversight with the council in approving much legislation.

Now, while European capitals still control big-picture areas of national life such as taxation or education, they have accepted the need for rules that transcend borders on issues like the environment or food safety, and, in the spirit of the EU, have passed swaths of lawmaking responsibility on to Brussels.

"There is an awful lot of attention being paid to Brussels by companies that care about public policy, now more than ever," said John Kelly, who moved from the United States to run Microsoft's Brussels office in January.

More than half of the laws enacted by European national parliaments, according to some estimates, now originate in Brussels. In areas such as the environment - areas that have a huge impact on businesses - the proportion can be 70 percent or higher, according to Enrique Tufet Opi, a director at Weber Shandwick, a leading communications consultancy with 60 people in its Brussels office.

"All the decisions are made here," he said. "Telecoms, health care, and if you think of any other industry, then regulation that is going to impact your business because of Europe's internal market regulation is going to come out of here."

This growth in power is attracting lobbyists in increasing numbers, though the size of the lobby population is hard to measure exactly. The European Parliament's Web site lists 5,039 accredited lobbyists working for a host of familiar names from Amazon to McDonald's to Visa.

But according to Corporate Europe Observatory, a lobbying watchdog, more than 15,000 lobbyists stalk Brussels' corridors and meeting rooms, and some analysts, such as David Earnshaw of Burson-Marsteller, another big consultancy, estimate the figure at more than 50,000, using a very broad definition that includes third-country missions such as the U.S. mission to the EU.

Florenz says that there are about 20,000 lobbyists - equal, he says, to the total number of civil servants in the Commission and Parliament.

They come in all shapes and sizes. Florenz was lobbied this year by the Vatican, which wanted a mention of Christianity in the EU's new constitutional treaty. Usually, however, he is the focus of attention of industrialists, who worry about his plans to make them pay to recycle their cars or computers, or to register the chemicals in their products.

Lobbyists tend to focus initially on the Commission, where the first drafts of EU laws are written. They switch their energies to the Parliament and Council after the legal texts are passed on there for scrutiny and amendment.

The broadening of decision-making power to include the Parliament's 732 deputies has transformed the way lobbyists have to work.

"You need a message that works in terms of different nationalities and different languages," said Tufet Opi of Weber Shandwick. He said the industry was entering a more sophisticated stage, with lobbyists having to extend their message beyond lawmakers to pressure groups and the Brussels-based media.

Another trend is the opening of offices by regional governments - the West Midlands in England or Lower Saxony in Germany - whose views may be distinct from those of their national governments, for example in seeking EU regional aid grants.

"Regional governments in Hungary ask me, 'How can we escape the control of Budapest?"' said Rinus van Schendelen, a professor of political science at Erasmus University in Rotterdam and the author of "Machiavelli in Brussels: The Art of Lobbying the EU."

"They want to become influential themselves at the EU level," he said.

Trade unions, too, have a voice, including national bodies such as Britain's GMB or big pan-Continental groupings such as the European Trade Union Confederation, which represents its 60 million members at the Brussels level.

The rise in lobbyists is such that it has sparked a debate about whether corporations are gaining too much influence. "They can be very helpful," said one Brussels civil servant. "Sometimes you are working on a shoestring budget. You are talking to them on the phone and say, 'Wouldn't it be nice to have a study on this or that?' And bang, there's the report."

In an attempt to offset the power of corporations, nongovernmental organizations and pressure groups have also begun to lobby in Brussels. Last month, 50 NGOs wrote an open letter warning of "the excessive influence of corporate lobby groups over EU policy making," which they said was approaching levels seen in the United States.

The lobbyists counter that they provide expert knowledge that policymakers would not otherwise have, as well as an important point of view.

One of Brussels' most active lobbyists, Charles Laroche of Unilever, the multinational consumer goods group, says he represents the needs of consumers. "Citizens are also consumers," Laroche said. "We go into the Parliament and read through draft legislation with them and ask, 'What is in this for the consumer?"'

Van Schendelen said he believes that lobbying benefits democracy as long as no single lobbying group has a monopoly.

Meanwhile, in his 15th-floor office, Florenz may complain of lobbyists' enthusiasm, but he also accepts that they have a crucial role to play.

"They have views and sometimes they are right," he said, as the phone rang again. "Lobbying is now part of my life."

A BRIEF GUIDE TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
From MEP http://www.carolinelucasmep.org.uk/

• What is the role of the European Parliament?
• How are decisions made in the Parliament?
• Can citizens influence what goes on in the Parliament?
• What is the role of an MEP?
   

What is the role of the European Parliament?

The European Parliament is one of the 3 main institutions involved the creation of European law. The others are the European Commission and the European Council.

The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty gave the European Parliament an increased role in policy-making, although its influence is still relatively small compared to the Council and Commission. The links below give a good introduction to what the Parliament and the other two main institutions do.

For a general introduction to the different European Institutions and their roles, click here: http://www.europa.eu.int/inst-en.htm

For information about the European Parliament , click here: http://www.europarl.ep.ec/presentation/default_en.htm

For information about the European Commission, click here: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm

For information about the European Council, click here: http://ue.eu.int/en/summ.htm

How are decisions made in the Parliament?

The processes by which decisions are reached in the Parliament often vary depending on the type of legislation or other decisions being made. It is important to note, also, that much of the work which influences the final decision taken by the Parliament on a piece of proposed legislation takes place at an informal level, outside the formal Committee meetings and plenary sessions. This includes, for example, lobbying by the public, businesses and other organisations, and meetings with representatives from the Commission, Council or Presidency and bodies such as the Economic and Social Committee. Within the Parliament, Rapporteurs will discuss their report with their colleagues and advisers within political groupings, and there is a considerable amount of negotiating which goes on with MEPs of other political groups in order to try and get as much support as possible for the report.

The Committees

Within the European Parliament there are 17 permanent Committees dealing with different subject areas. Each Committee has a number of MEPs who are full members, and others who are 'substitute' members. There are also a number of temporary Committees which are formed as important matters arise - for example, on Echelon or genetic technology.

When a piece of draft legislation is sent to Parliament from the Commission, it is given to the relevant Committee to deal with. The Committee, by co-ordinating the political groups, allocates one of its members as 'Rapporteur'. The Rapporteur is responsible for writing a Report on the Commission document on behalf of the Committee. A typical report would consist of a number of amendments, or changes to the text, where the Rapporteur thinks that improvements need to be made.

Normally, one or more other Committees produce an Opinion on the original proposal. For example, the Civil Liberties Committee is responsible for producing the Report on the proposal for a Community Immigration Policy. The Employment and Social Affairs Committee has been asked to write an Opinion on the proposal, in which they will ask the former Committee to include certain points in its report which cover the subject from the employment and social angle.

Once the Rapporteur has produced the report, other Committee members may also submit amendments to the text. The report then goes to vote in the Committee - the Committee votes on whether to accept each submitted amendment into the text, and finally whether to accept the report as a whole. The majority of reports are accepted, and go on to be voted on by the whole Parliament in the plenary session. This is when the whole Parliament meets together to discuss reports, amend them and put them to the vote, thus adopting its position on the matter. Amendments may therefore also be submitted prior to the plenary vote.

What happens to Parliament's decision?

The report adopted by the Parliament then passes to the Council for their consideration. What happens at this stage depends on the procedure the proposal falls under. The number of times a piece of legislation in preparation goes back and forth between players, from the time of the initial proposal to its final adoption as a piece of EU legislation, varies according to the procedure. The legal base of each proposal, as set out in the Treaties, determines which procedure it falls under. The process can take years. Parliament often has to deal with the same proposal twice, as there is frequently a 'Second Reading' (if it is co-decision procedure - see below), after the Parliament's decision the first time round has been considered by the Council and Commission. There are four different procedures.

How much influence the Parliament's own decision on a particular proposal has on the final piece of legislation varies - it is just one of a number of institutions involved in forming legislation. A lot of bargaining and give and take goes on between the different institutions involved. On some matters the Parliament's opinion must be taken into account, and the legislation cannot be passed without Parliament's agreement (this is called the co-decision procedure (for a guide to the co-decision procedure in a PDF format, please click here). On others, however, the Parliament gives its opinion but this does not have to be taken into account by the Council, which has the final say. This is called the consultation procedure. There is also a cooperation procedure, which gives the Parliament more say than in consultation but less than in co-decision, but this is now rarely used, and an assent procedure, which is reserved solely for special measures.

It is in the Parliament's interests that as much as possible is based on co-decision procedure, where its powers are strongest, and as little as possible is based on the consultation procedure, where its powers are weakest. The procedure a legislative proposal falls under depends, broadly speaking, on its subject area. Since 1997, more EU legislation is subject to co-decision procedure, but agricultural, justice and home affairs, trade, fiscal harmonisation and EMU issues are still not.

Can citizens influence what goes on in Parliament?
The role of lobbying

During the time when a proposed piece of legislation is with the Parliament, from receiving the proposal to the Parliament's adopted report, there are many different influences acting on the path the Parliament takes with regard to the issue. Besides all the many people working on it inside the Parliament and in other EU institutions, MEPs are lobbied from all sides including:

· - individuals, especially constituents
· - businesses and firms with an interest in the outcome
· - non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with an interest in the outcome
· - professional lobbying organisations hired to lobby on behalf of organisations or firms

The amount of lobbying, and who does the lobbying, varies from one issue to the next. This depends on factors such as who the interest groups are and how controversial the issue is.

Sometimes all MEPs are lobbied on an issue. For example, before a vote on a proposal regarding copyright laws, Jean and most other MEPs received an inordinate number of emails and letters, mainly from authors, artists, and librarians. Sometimes the lobbying is more targeted, not extending beyond the Rapporteur and other MEPs who work particularly on that issue. This is likely for more specialised topics.

Most lobbying is in the form of letters and emails, but sometimes organisations arrange meetings with an MEP to explain their view-point and what they would like to see in the Report (particularly with the Rapporteur).

There is no way of measuring the real influence of lobbying, but there is no doubt it does have an effect. It does this by:·

- informing MEPs about the opinions of their constituents and European citizens in general
- pointing out new angles and arguments on a subject
- bringing a particular report or proposal to someone's attention

Sometimes it is the sheer volume of lobbying on a particular issue that has an effect, while on other occasions just one letter can make a difference.

THE ROLE OF A GREEN MEP

Members of the European Parliament set the framework of legislation for the Member States in conjunction with the European Commission and Council of Ministers. MEPs are therefore responsible for reviewing and developing legislation and guidance which will then form the basis of national law.

The role of an MEP covers parliamentary work, representing constituents' concerns and being a focal point for the media looking to get comment and analysis from a Green Party perspective. There are also demands to work for the Green Group in the Parliament, and demands from the party. In addition, a Green MEP will be expected to play a key role in any re-election bid. Part of the skill of being an MEP therefore, is to manage these competing demands and deliver results that keep each of the stakeholders happy - the regional and national Green Party; the constituents; the Green Group in the European Parliament and the MEP's own aspirations and values.

The requirement of belonging to a political group
The independence of individual MEPs is clearly stated in the Parliament's rules of procedure: "They shall not be bound by any instructions and shall not receive a binding mandate". We in the Green Party expect our MEPs to be guided first and foremost by the manifesto on which they were elected. However, there are a number of constraints on the freedom of action of individual members:

Most notable is that MEPs are required to belong to a political group in order to participate within the Parliamentary system. Some might say this puts pressure on them to follow the collective position adopted by the group; however, the Green Group doesn't have a whip and discipline in the European Parliament is generally much less strict than in national parliaments. The key point is that individual members can play an important role in defining a Group position in the first place. Most issues dealt with by the Parliament are overseen by a party member of each Group - allowing members to specialise so that they don't need to know the detail of each issue - clearly impossible due to the workload. Group positions are worked out by their Group co-ordinators on the relevant committee and/or by majority vote after discussion in Group meetings. Individual members have real opportunities to shape their Group's position but they can just as easily opt out of the position if they are not satisfied.

Members also have numerous rights to act outside the normal Political Group or committee framework. These include putting questions to the Commission or Council in the context of question time, or for a written answer, or a written declaration (comparable to an Early Day Motion). All of these procedures are valuable ways of making a mark on an issue of constituency or other importance, of showing a member has played an active role on an issue, or to gain publicity. Individual members may also table and move amendments to any text in committee, explain why they voted as they did, ask questions related to the work of Parliament's leadership, raise points of order, and make personal statements when derogatory comments have been made about them by other speakers - all of these methods can be used to make an impact as individuals.

Parliamentary Work
Much of the Parliament's work is carried out in its 17 standing committees, where Commission proposals for new legislation are studied so they may then be voted on by the whole Parliament. Every proposal is considered by at least one committee which appoints one of its members as 'rapporteur' to draw up a report on it. Following consultation and lobbying and the tabling of amendments, the reports are voted on by the whole Parliament in Strasbourg. Most MEPs are members of at least two formal committees. In addition there are Inter-Groups which are cross party informal groups of MEPs set up to promote particular issues. The Parliament also maintains contact with most governments in the rest of the world, and MEPs sit on delegations to particular countries.
Below are the details for our existing MEPs to give a guide to the scope of Parliamentary work.

Caroline Lucas
o Full member of the Trade, Industry, Energy and Research Committee
o Substitute member of the Committee for Regional Policy and Transport
o Vice President of the Parliament's delegation to the ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) countries.
o Vice President of the Animal Welfare, and Consumer Affairs Inter-Groups.
o Member of the Peace Inter-Group.

Jean Lambert
o Full member of the Employment and Social Affairs Committee
o Full member of the Petitions Committee, which hears complaints from EU citizens claiming breaches of European legislation.
o Substitute member of Civil Liberties Committee.
o Member of Peace, Anti-racism and Trade Union Inter-Groups.
o Member of the Parliament's delegation to Malta.

Time Management/Choosing priorities
The pressure on an MEP's time is great. One week a month is taken up by the plenary session in Strasbourg and much of the next three weeks by committee, plenary or Group meetings in Brussels, and with occasional meetings in other countries. This is compounded by the time it takes to travel between these various locations and the members home country. In addition MEPs are expected to keep in touch with their political base at home. Given the UK's regionally based electoral system and the small number of UK Green MEPs, there is also the tension between dealing with individual constituents and regional affairs and developing broader links with NGOs, businesses, trade unions, development agencies, other elected Green Party representatives. And of course, there is always the need to strengthen links with local and national media.

There are only three official "constituency weeks" in the official European Parliamentary calendar, but the electorate and the party expect MEPs to spend a significant amount of time in their regions, especially in supporting the development and creation of local parties and in raising the profile of green issues across the region. There are further conflicting pressures within the parliamentary timetable, since the meeting of an MEP's main committee may clash with a hearing or a debate in another committee of greater political importance. Intergroup meetings take up time as does speaking to visitors' groups. Lobbyists will want to meet them and invite them to receptions and presentations. Then there are the requests for interviews from the Brussels, the national or local press. Members must select an appropriate balance of priorities. How much time should be spent in Brussels, Strasbourg and in their region? Should they remain generalists or seek to become policy specialists? What activities should they concentrate on? Should they take on prestigious rapporteurships or formal roles in the Parliament or Group or concentrate their efforts in their political base at home?

The size of the Green Group and the fact that the UK Greens at times hold minority views within it means it is often easier for an individual member to make an impact in plenary where they can make a well publicised speech than in committee where they will find it harder to get major rapporteurships.

The Green Euro Trust
Members of the European Parliament are given fixed sums each year to finance the cost of their support staff, administrative expenses and for some specific projects. Like Westminster MPs, the funds are given to them personally to spend as they see fit within rules set by the parliament. The Green Party agreed, however, that our MEPs would be assisted by a specially set up Euro Trust which would disburse the money, and oversee the responsibilities expected of a good employer. Membership of the trust includes Jean and Caroline. The Trust also oversees the arrangement whereby the MEPs donate 10% of their salary to Green Party funds. The trust meets 6 times a year and includes a representative from each MEPs region, GPEx and GPRC.