How is specialisation achieved?

Ethnography allows us to explore the ways in which specialisation is achieved at the everyday level. Firstly, MEPs focus on a few issues rather than following all the EP’s initiatives:

‘There are issues that come across my desk that I would undoubtedly take up if I was on that committee ... but there are only so many hours in the day. So you compartmentalise. Strictly.

Or drown’ (Interview-41)

‘Personally for me as Austrian, fisheries is not of that high importance, for example as budgetary or environmental issues like anti-nuclear power, so fisheries relies on two or three people and just from the discussions you understand who has the better experience’

(Interview-54).

Focus is facilitated by joining a committee/delegation you are interested in (see Whitaker:2001), following and getting involved in particular issues, and then being a shadow and/or rapporteur on relevant reports, and then perhaps trying to become a

co-ordinator or committee chair. This career trajectory was described by numerous MEPs and officials (particularly Interviews-18,28,32). A group official said committee allocations are decided by their Secretary-General and President as a ‘package deal’ based on MEPs’

requests and accounting for NPDs’ weights and members’ experience – new members being less likely to get their first choice (Interview-47). Interviewees said MEPs may request (and be allocated) committees based on previous experience (see Whitaker:2011 Chapters 4-5):

‘It’s useful if they used to be a farmer, and now they are in AGRI, its better but not necessary, not everyone needs to specialise before they come here, we have singers, astronauts, actors, models, scientists ... Usually you choose and the group co-ordinates depending on your background and interests...they try to do that so it’s easier for the MEPs to specialise and improve the discussion’ (Interview-7)

‘There are certain areas that I decided, right, I am going to do a bit of work here. One of them was volunteering, that’s my background. I was a teacher for most of my life, but I come from the community voluntary background’ (Interview-27).

Most interviewees were positive about this approach, however an Estonian MEP noted that it can be more difficult for (especially new) MEPs from smaller member-states because distribution (via the D’Hondt procedure) can appear to be more important than their (political) career and personal capacities (Interview-37). Another MEP insisted MEPs can build a reputation through their committee work, particularly if they (strategically) choose a recurring ‘European’ issue (Interview-32). An MEP noted that if you cannot get on to your preferred committee, you can alternatively pursue issues through working parties, inter-groups, and with interest groups and campaigns. She had worked in global public health and pursued this through a working party run by NGO’s including Médecins Sans Frontières (Interview-52). MEPs may also account for other players in the field; ‘I’m not intending to become a human rights champion because there is plenty of people doing that really well, and I don’t have enough experience, so that wouldn’t be the best use of my time’

(Interview-52).

Once MEPs have been allocated and identified issues on which to focus, they organise their time, activities, and office procedures to focus their efforts on these. The MEP’s second assistant repeatedly told actors contacting the MEP about other issues that the office did not work in that field and that they should contact someone else in the NPD or group (unless it was a constituent). To explore how specialisation is achieved, we firstly return to the calendar. The particular ordering of the weeks (committee-group-plenary)

means MEPs acquire ‘expert knowledge’ and develop (endogenous) specialisation during committee weeks and then harness this to give convincing performances for committee members and then group colleagues in group and plenary weeks, to influence committee proceedings, group voting lists, and votes (Chapter 7). Whilst knowledge is constantly acquired and disseminated, acquisition tends to be concentrated in committee weeks.

The MEP acquires expert knowledge through the activities he engages in (particularly) during committee weeks (Appendix-11). He attends committee/delegation meetings, takes part in debates and discussions, and listens to relevant experts the committee (secretariat) invites. He also attends committee prep meetings with group colleagues where they discuss reports and the group line. Specialisation is achieved through committee-related activities and MEPs’ pursuit of their interests through these structures. Committees are ‘crucial’

because ‘that’s where all the detailed work goes on’ (Interview-3) and it is where links are established on issues between different groups (Interview-34). Through their committee work, (active) MEPs gather knowledge, become (known as) experts, and can develop a specialist reputation which enables them to exert influence in backstage processes and over outcomes:

‘I made sure I got on the committee where my interest lies. You then have to get yourself in some sort of position to be able to do stuff. I became the coordinator which gives you some sort of power and I was very lucky with the allocation of reports. We managed to carve a deal out which gave me the first report on CAP which is a big issue for me to pursue and gave me a huge profile’ (Interview-28)

‘...the most important thing is how active you have been. If you haven’t been to the meetings, prep meetings, if you haven’t been studying reports, it is quite impossible to get your own reports if you haven’t been active’ (Interview-39).

Three caveats should be noted. Firstly, MEPs can (formally) attend any committee and submit amendments: ‘at committee level, it is very difficult to keep control of the members, they can do what they like. They are a free agent, and indeed members can table amendments in any committee. And some do, but not many’ (Interview-47). MEPs may do this if they have a particular interest in another policy area: ‘I have brought amendments to them, so you can work in that way as well, even though I am not on that committee ... if I get the committee chair to co-sign then I have a much greater chance of getting it through’

(Interview-27). However another MEP explained why this is rare in practice: ‘it’s a strange experience ... once ... I went to the budget control committee to raise some controversial

issues, and although I am a substitute, I never go ... The full time members were very upset ... Who was I to raise these things? I was a foreigner, an interloper’ (Interview-41).

A second caveat is that whilst MEPs are assigned as full and substitute members, this does not mean they will attend these committees. They have a high degree of agency to choose how they spend their time in Brussels. They may not attend committees at all, particularly substitute committees, or allocate a junior office member to follow proceedings (Chapter 6). Neuhold and Dobbels found only 6-7 of 24 full members of the Fisheries committee were considered ‘active’ (2011:11).

Thirdly, whilst most MEPs tend to focus on committee based topics, they may (also) pursue political issues which do not fit into committee remits. An MEP described how he has never been ‘enamoured’ with the ‘nitty gritty’ of committee work and prefers to ‘catch the tide of politics’ and pursue ‘political issues’ (e.g. tourism corruption) as a politician rather than a committee member. However, his stories showed that he also focused for lengthy periods on technical issues, met stakeholders and acquired knowledge, and then deployed it strategically within the most appropriate CoPs to raise awareness, particularly utilising well-timed plenary interventions (Interview-48).

Whatever an MEP’s foci, ‘information is everything ... you have to be really well informed’

(Interview-54). Particularly during committee weeks, the MEP meet regularly with stakeholders and actors perceived to be experts in his chosen issues⁵⁵. Usually these meetings would take place in his office, but more familiar actors were sometimes met in the MEPs’ private bar. The range of actors included interest groups (NGOs, lobbyists, think tanks, consultancies, political foundations), the Permanent Representation, Commission officials, ambassadors, academics, lawyers, and constituents as well as other (usually group) MEPs, committee/delegation officials, group officials, and europarty staff. The purpose was (usually) to acquire knowledge about his interests and to aid with his pursuit of them.

The meetings yielded different combinations of organisational, expert, and political knowledge - all required to play the game successfully.

Meetings with EP and committee officials tend to focus on organisational knowledge (e.g.

deadlines and procedures) and those with group policy advisors, MEPs, and europarty staff

55 See Field (2013) for further problematisation of ‘expertise’ in EU policy-making.

on political knowledge (e.g. voting lists, amendments, and manifestos). Meetings with other actors often focused more on expert knowledge, combined with political knowledge. For example, meetings with NGOs, lobbyists, ambassadors, and Perm Rep officials were either organised by the office to acquire further expert information or requested by these actors to supply the MEP with their positioned expert knowledge. Either way, the MEP or assistant would take notes, aware that information is not a neutral commodity (Marcella et al:1999:6) and that it is deployed in the political field to persuade other actors. This was tacitly acknowledged after some meetings when the MEP and assistants would assess what had been discussed, how useful it was, and how they might use resources gained – expert knowledge and any offers of further contacts or future events.

MEPs also acquire knowledge by attending the daily events in the EP. Often the organisers will invite external experts to disseminate information on reports being dealt with. The posters will indicate who has sponsored the event (often a rapporteur, shadow, group, or inter-group) and again MEPs are aware that information is not value-free (Photos 10-11).

As a group official said, ‘we don't work in an ivory tower, so we are happy to receive information from civil society, then we decide what to do with it’ (Interview-57).

The MEP regularly reads international news and briefing material from different sources, particularly the assistants. He also attends conferences, workshops, roundtables, and high level meetings. All these activities facilitate specialisation. Knowledge gathered through these backstage activities enables MEPs to give convincing performances to the various CoPs of which they are members. The accumulation of this capital is crucial because MEPs must be well prepared to give credible and thus persuasive performances in the habitus, and group and committee meetings ‘tend to be the culmination, hopefully, of a lot of work done around the margins’ beforehand (Interview-1).

5.4.2 Re-contextualisation

Through these activities and practices, MEPs specialise in a few (often technical) issues.

They strategically gather knowledge to become perceived as experts by other actors in the field. Knowledge is required for MEPs to give credible performances in the habitus. Inside the EP, MEPs move between backstage CoPs and re-contextualise their interests according

to the audience, to persuade them of their position. In this way, MEPs perform multiple roles.