(De)politicization a Posteriori? The Justification of Legislative Compromises by Rapporteurs in the European Parliament

The aim of the communication is to analyze how rapporteurs in the European Parliament (EP) defend the agreements that they reached with the Council of Ministers in front of their peers during plenary sessions. According to the ordinary legislative procedure, the public justification of adopted decisions is mainly a task of the European Parliament. However, because of the progressive computerization of the legislative procedure, legislative debates in the EP mainly encompass compromises that were previously negotiated with the Council of Ministers. Legislative debates lose their impact as they cannot affect the content of the adopted acts anymore. As a consequence, the presentation of compromises by the rapporteur serves as the principal public support of their content within the European Union. Furthermore, this presentation is also important for the EP members due to the specialization of records within the EP. Indeed, as the main part of the legislative work within the PE is realized in parliamentary committee and trilogues, only a limited number of parliamentarians (MEPs) follows the evolution of a specific report and the majority relies so on the presentation in plenary session of the compromise that was reached. Thus, beyond the EP’s role and influence in the OLP, it seems appropriate to study the discursive register used by rapporteurs when they defend the reached agreements. What types of arguments do these representatives from the institution that claims to be the most politicized within the EU use? Do arguments vary according to the features of records? To answer these questions, we analyse the discourses of rapporteurs both qualitatively and quantitatively. More specifically, by using the three elements (salience, number of actors and polarization) drawn from the definition that de Wilde and Zürn (2011) gave for politicization, this paper analyses if - and how - rapporteurs (de)politicize their presentations. Firstly, the analysis is based on a comparison of the different arguments given by the rapporteurs to support the compromise that they negotiated. This comparison relies on a set of qualitative indicators specifically developed to meet this purpose and it includes all the legislative records completed between 2015 and 2017. secondly, to enhance this first analysis, an interpretative analysis of the same speeches is realized. A particular attention is paid to the way other institutions and member states are mentioned in the rapporteurs’ presentations. The public justification of the choices that are made is necessary for the democratic legitimacy of the legislative procedure. Thus, this approach enables to assess the democratic legitimacy of the OLP by analyzing the framing strategies, in terms of (de)politicization, used by MEPs when they defend their work in front of their peers and arouse their adherence. Additionally, negotiations between institutions are also described to assess the state of the inter-institutional power relationships within this context. Finally, from a theoretical perspective, this analysis enables to question MEPs’ role conception.