Talk:2014 European Parliament election/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Areas to work on, and a table for the europarty results

	Results of the European Parliament election by European political party																												MEPs

	EPP		PES		AECR		ALDE		EL		EGP		EAF		EFA		MELD		EDP		ECPM		AENM		EUD		Unaligned
Candidate for EC president
End of 7th Parliament (seats)			195										12				25		13		2		4		13		1
Number of member states													5				10		12		1		3		4		1
Results on election	214		185		52		43		27		40		38		12		13	-12	8	−5	2	=	3	+1	8	-5	1	=	751	−15
Realignment													-1				-11		=		=		=		=		=
Final status for 8th Parliament	214	−60	185	−11	45	−12	59	−24	45	+10	47	−10	37		42	+9	2	-23	8	-5	2	=	3	+1	8	-5	1	=
Number of member states	214	−60	185	−11	45	−12	59	−24	45	+10	47	−10	5	-1	42	+9	1	-9	2	−2	1	=	1	=	2	-2	1	=

I'm going to suggest that perhaps the "Presidential Candidates" and "Television Debates" sections could be slimmed down. In the debates section, there's a great deal of repetition of basic information contained in the table; With respect to the "Presidential Candidates" section, do we need as much detail as we have on the schedules for selection? I hope the table above can be the foundation for what gets used in the article. But it needs some work- colours, information, etc. If anyone can put it together, please do. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see a table like the one in the EP election 2004 article. I really would. But someone put the mark of Cain on it and called it OR. This is getting really obnoxious: Newspaper or blog articles are allowed as sources, even though they might be biased, and often the newspaper deletes the article after a while or the blog crashes. Meanwhile, data from clearly objective sources, like election results, may only be used, but not compiled, since that would be OR. Not funny. Ambi Valent (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a rather incorrect view of WP:OR. As far as I'm aware, you can compile information, and that is what is being done here. Taking publicly-available information and putting it together in a sensible, clear and accessible way is kind of the point of Wikipedia. Also, feel free to drop me a line if anyone is working on the table above so we don't duplicate work. I've a copy in my sandbox, if others can access it. Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I had wanted to do a table like the one from 2004, but I hadn't started because I was sure it would only get taken down again. I also happen to believe that the way it was organized there is right: Group (e.g. ALDE), then split up into its constituents (ALDE, EDP, allies), followed by the data. But I won't stand in your way either. Ambi Valent (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This would complement rather than replace the existing results tables, so I don't really think it's necessary to reference the groups; especially as members of the EFA and MELD sit in different groups at the moment; and even last Parliament the two members of the ECPM sat in different groups. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you mix two phenomena here. The first is that the national parties are still very strong and may easily decide to switch their international alliances, like the N-VA just did. But this doesn't mean Europarties and EP groups are independent. Unless kicking a member out would result in dissolution of the Europarty, it has not many reasons to keep a member party that broke the alliance in parliament and now works with new friends, weakening its former allies. Other parties had left or were kicked out by the EFA before, so I don't really see them keeping the N-VA in now they have left their group. And the ECPM is very weak, and in this term its 2 MEPs sit in the same group. Now please don't ask me to do something you want done in the way you think is right but I think is wrong. Ambi Valent (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we are actually in much disagreement. Certainly I don't want to ask you to do something you don't fully believe in. Yes, Europarties are fairly closely aligned with EP groups, but they aren't perfectly linked. It seems to me that national parties choose their Europarties as much for the purpose of being in the EP group as vice versa. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

We are in very much disagreement. You want a table only for the official Europarties. Such a table might work on the Wikipedia page for Europarties, but I still think it's wrong here since it drops the information who's allied with whom, and leaves parties that aren't part of Europarties unrepresented. Ambi Valent (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure why you're accenting areas of disagreement. I do see this as a supplementary table to the current two, not a replacement, and the information about party alignment is in the main table. I'm certainly open to having the non-aligned national parties & Independents counted in a "non-aligned" column. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

But who is against a table like the one in 2004? I would certainly welcome it. --RJFF (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If we are making such a table, we would also have to make a decision on whether it should only include official europarties, or also non-official ones like EACL. Øln (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

My inclination would be to just have the official ones- it's a nice, clear standard. EACL's non-official status was news to me just now, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Wikipedia should present the factual status quo, and is not bound by legal categories set by the EP (the is, not the ought). If e.g. EACL, NGLA, PPEU are de facto active federations of political parties on the European level, they should be included, no matter if they are de iure recognised as Europarties or not. I have the impression that e.g. the European-level cooperation of PPEU (unrecognised) member parties is much stronger than within MELD (recognised). Official recognition should therefore not be the determining criterion.--RJFF (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

If we only included official Europarties, GUE-NGL would only consist of EL and non-members of EL. NGLA however is one of the constituent components of this confederated group, without being a recognised Europarty. Excluding NGLA would definitely be a deficiency of the table: It is an important federation of parties, but not an official Europarty. --RJFF (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You make very good points, and I'm happy to resile from my earlier view. If we need to keep it manageable in size, perhaps we should omit parties with only a handful of MEPs? I do want to mention that this table is a low-priority item for me- so if it is to go in soon, I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave it to other editors to put the finishing touches on it. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

PNL to PPE / Norica Nicolai in ALDE

While the Romanian PNL as a whole joined PPE, PNL MEP Norica Nicolai chose to remain with the ALDE group, as per this article. This should be reflected in the Group reshouffling section, but I'm not that good with tables. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It looks as if Nicolai rejoined ALDE, rather than having never left, though the google translate version of the article is unclear. That, however, is how the numbers of ALDE were reported, and how the official elections site represents it. The reshuffling table represents movement prior to the inauguration of the new parliament. So this would appear to be the first EP group switch of the new parliament. I'm not sure where it needs to be noted, actually, but thanks for bringing it forward. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. According to her MEP data sheet she was a member of EPP for six days. --RJFF (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, RJFF. I've added the information into Eighth European Parliament. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, to be precise, and according to the ALDE website, Romanian PNL never left ALDE. PNL did not switch affiliation during active sessions of the EP, it continued to be in ALDE from the very first session of the Eighth European Parliament!

I am referencing three further articles from the Romanian press in July 2014, which reflect the fact that the former party leader intended to switch from ALDE to EPP, but this change never formally took place, and on the formation of the Eighth European Parliament the PNL group reasserted its affiliation with ALDE.[1][2][3] DaemonischEngel (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I cannot read Romanian, so I do not understand what the articles you cited say. But the European Parliament's website lists all PNL MEPs except Nicolai as members of the EPP group, so this is definitely not just a rumour. --RJFF (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your English language link is the ALDE Party website. Please note that ALDE Party is not the same as ALDE Group. The table titled "Group reshuffling" concerns the EP Groups alone; membership in the pan-European parties is irrelevant to that table. The EP's official election website shows PNL MEPs in the EPP in the opening session (link (choose Romania)), and the EPP website shows five PNL MEPs as well (link). There is no doubt about this. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I dunno if you tried to Google translate the articles, but they say that N. Nicolai is the leader of the PNL group, whose EP members all elected to remain aligned with ALDE. Fact is that N.N. was named a VP of the ALDE group, and that there is still some uncertainty here, which is not reflected by the EP official website (I would not take this one website as the yardstick for the absolute truth).

As long as different sources disagree with each other, and as long as there is still confusion, I suggest to just leave this piece of info as disputed until we have the whole, clear story. The leadership of the party (PNL) needs to come out with a clear statement, and it might take a few months until we can get the facts accurately. I don't have a personal interest one way or the other... DaemonischEngel (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Developments in the months to come are irrelevant to this article. This article deals with the election and the group reshuffling up to the opening session of the parliament (1 July). What matters in this article is that the PNL MEPs were with the EPP Group in that session. Changes in the group compositions after that date don't belong into this article; that information belong to the articles Eighth European Parliament and List of members of the European Parliament, 2014–19. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So, I read the google translations, and while those translations aren't excellent and I could well be missing something, I did not see reference to Nicolai having been the leader of the PNL European delegation, or that the PNL had not formally affiliated with the EPP. Regardless of Europarty affiliation, it seems unquestioned that the six PNL members did begin the Eighth Parliament as members of the EPP group, and that Nicolai rejoined the ALDE a few days afterwards. So I'm not sure what is being disputed: is the suggestion that the PNL members should be shown as independents leaving the ALDE and joining the EPP since their move was not at the time reflective of the PNL's Europarty affiliation? If the claim is that the PNL members were actually members of the ALDE group the entire time, I think that can be safely disregarded: the ALDE didn't claim them as members, and the published reports (including the official site) gave numbers reflecting their move to the EPP group. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Not seeing further explanation of precisely what is being disputed, I'll go ahead and remove the tags for now. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Crowley & Fianna Fail

Just to put the facts on the table: Crowley is the only FF MEP. He left the ALDE and joined the ECR when he was an unquestioned member of FF; and as the entirety of FF's EP delegation. As a result, he was expelled from the "parliamentary party"; which I assume is the equivalent of having the whip withdrawn. He remains a member of the party as a whole, and one questions what it means to be ejected from the parliamentary party when you are the only parliamentarian in this particular parliament. But the crucial difference between Crowley and Mme Bergeron is that Bergeron had already left the Front National before joining EFDD; in this case, Crowley joined as a FF MEP, and it was only subsequent to his leaving the ALDE and joining ECR that he was expelled from the parliamentary party. It is simply inaccurate to depict him leaving the ALDE and joining the ECR as an independent, since he was at that time an unimpeded and full member of FF. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That Crowley is the only FF member of the European Parliament shouldn't make any difference. He does not control who FF sits with in the European Parliament and changed groups against the explicit instructions his party. His joining the ECR group in the European Parliament was just like an Labour MP crossing the floor of the House of Commons to sit with the Conservatives. As was the article implied that FF changed their European group. They didn't. Brien Crowley did. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Crowley's decision to leave ALDE and join ECR was a decision made by Crowley alone (a literally independent decision). Fianna Fail rejected the decision and expelled Crowley. How can those facts be reflected in a table that says FF switched from ALDE to ECR? Ambi Valent (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The rights or wrongs of Crowley's defection aren't really something we need to debate. We have a simple chronological progression: Crowley is the whole of the EP caucus of FF. He leaves the ALDE group and joins the ECR group. He subsequently is expelled from the parliamentary party of FF. Now, unless by the very act of leaving the ALDE group Crowley thereby automatically ceased to be a FF parliamentarian we have a problem of anachronism where the after-the-fact status of Crowley is being retroactively applied to the actions of leaving the ALDE and joining the ECR. Fianna Fail is not the Catholic Church, and does not have a practice of Laetae sententiae excommunication; he was a full FF parliamentary member when he joined the ECR. The result, including the fact that Crowley had the whip withdrawn should be dealt with in the footnote. One final note: the official election site shows him as a FF member with the ECR: [4]. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

It was Crowley's sole and personal decision to leave ALDE and join ECR against the express will of his party. It would be plain wrong to indicate that FF—as a party—has left ALDE and joined ECR. FF—as a party—absolutely did not want this move, it was only and exclusively Crowley's move as an individual MEP. (=Totally agree with Ambi & B.-H. L.) --RJFF (talk) 09:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Gabrielthursday, you appear to be stuck on a minor technical point of Crowley nominally being under the FF whip when he join the ECR contrary to the whip's instructions.

FF have officially said that he "had effectively removed himself from the party for unilaterally joining the rightwing bloc." So if you want this is Laetae sententiae excommunication. But frankly I don't think the sequencing really matters.

The bigger picture is that FF did not change their affiliation. They are still members of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party.

The official results website is important but we don't have to follow it. Particularly when do so would misrepresent the facts: in this case FF's European affiliation. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not see this as a misrepresentation of the facts. With a suitable footnote, the entire story can be told. At the very least, your version is just as misleading, as it suggests he was an independent at the time he switched EP groups. Chronology does matter - if the action was taken as a member of FF, then FF should be in the article; if it was taken not as a member of FF, then your version is correct. Clearly FF does not have a latte with his Danish, Brian Crowley does; but when Crowley and his defeated & retired colleagues were voting in the last parliament, FF was voting (even if in a certain they were voting agaisnt the wishes of some party superiors).

As far as I'm concerned, it remains not entirely clear whether Crowley should be regarded as an independent even now. He was elected as a FF member, he remains a member of the FF party, he didn't separate himself from any caucus colleagues. Clearly there is some significant distance between Crowley and the party, but if he continues to hold himself out as a FF member while his party membership remains undisturbed, I think it is debateable. Clearly, FF could entirely cut ties to Crowley, but they have thus far chosen not to. And since Crowley is the caucus, losing the whip means very little on a practical level.

Leaving that interesting question aside, let me ask a question. If FF had elected three MEPs, and this same process occurred: they left the ALDE group, joined ECR and were subsequently expelled from the "Parliamentary Party" of Fianna Fail (though maintaining their party membership), would you still deem them independents at the time they left the ALDE and joined ECR? Surely such an action would be the action of the EP caucus of FF, regardless of the internal fallout. Since Crowley was the entirety of the FF caucus, I think the result is the same.

You wrote: "Crowley... does not control who FF sits with in the European Parliament". This is equivalent to saying that the EP caucus of FF has no power to determine which group it sits in. That is clearly not entirely the case. At the very least, the caucus (Crowley in this instance) can defy any direction from the FF party hierarchs. Do we actually know if FF has arrogated to itself the sole authority to determine which EP group its MEPs sit with? I think I would have to see some evidence that Crowley acted contrary to party rules, rather than just contrary to party wishes. We have no evidence of that, but if we did, that would at least suggest that he could only act in his personal capacity, and not as the FF caucus. There is contrary evidence to suggest he was acting as a caucus, inasmuch as he took all the FF staff with him to the ECR. Yes, the party said he had "had effectively removed himself from the party for unilaterally joining the rightwing bloc", but this is a common rhetorical tool. It basically means "the other guy was in the wrong, he forced us to do this". FF took a voice vote to eject him from the "Parliamentary party"; people spoke against it; they clearly felt the need to take an active decision, which says far more than a press release about what they actually thought was happening. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is going around in circles.

Your edits clearly misrepresent FF's official position and affiliation. (They're not just in the group they're in the party as well.) FF get to change their affliction as a group, it's immaterial what individual members do. They don't get to change their parties position on their own even if they are the only members of the elected body on which they sit.

I fear the real comparator is what would have happened if FF had elected two instead of one MEP and Crowley had still switched groups. We wouldn't be having this discussion.

Please stop reverting against the clear consensus on talk. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not believe consensus has been reached. Given the lack of consensus, it is inappropriate to have the article in the bold edit position. The consistent leave the article in the status quo ante position while consensus is being reached per WP:BRD: " Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)." And to quote from WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue"; consensus is not a mere majority, particularly when there is limited editor engagement. Perhaps we are nearing the point where we should engage in a RfC.

To respond to your concern that the article as currently constituted "misrepresent FF's official position and affiliation", I think the clarification should be made in the footnote. The tables are concerned with EP group membership, not Europarty membership; and while those are closely related, they are not the same. The table should not be read to imply that FF changed Europarty membership, just as N-VA's change from the Greens/EFA group should not be read as leaving the EFA Europarty. To the extent that the capacity for confusion exists, it should be addressed in a footnote.

"the real comparator is what would have happened if FF had elected two instead of one MEP and Crowley had still switched groups" - the distinction being that in such a situation, Crowley would have had to leave the caucus in order to change EP group or at the very least gain consent from his caucus. In the actual circumstance, Crowley's move is also the move of the caucus since he is (or was) the sole member of the caucus.

I again note that the official EU elections site shows FF joining ECR: [5]; and the official EU website continues to show Crowley as a FF member: [6]. This should attract significant deference. Gabrielthursday (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

One further note regarding the official sources: their account of FF & Crowley is in contradistinction to their treatment of Joelle Bergeron of France, who is shown as an independent affiliating with EFDD: [7], and listed as an independent for France & within EFDD. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

You have made all these points before at length but it's still three editors to one. Consensus doesn't mean that we have to convince everybody. The North American concept of "caucus" doesn't really sit well here. It's not a concept that you find in Europe. Fianna Fáil has a parliamentary party which consist of national and European parliamentarians. It's a single body. Crowley was not on his own, her had twenty or so TDs to contend with as well. FF are member so the Alde party and the Alde group. If they had any MEPs, that's where they would sit. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your main problem is when you say:

"Crowley would have had to leave the caucus in order to change EP group or at the very least gain consent from his caucus. In the actual circumstance, Crowley's move is also the move of the caucus since he is (or was) the sole member of the caucus."

There is no such notion as a caucus in this instance. Wether a party has one or twenty MEPs. You're applying a foreign concept which just doesn't belong. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow reply this time round. Firstly, it is not the case that Fianna Fail is a member of the ALDE group. The ALDE group is a parliamentary group, and its membership is composed of MEPs. As Fianna Fail has no such members in the ALDE group, it is not a member of the ALDE group. Nor are other national parties which, while having an affiliation to the ALDE party, do not have any MEPs. The ALDE party has as its members national parties, not the ALDE group.

The idea that there is no such thing as a caucus in the EP is an idea to which it is difficult to give any credence. While I take it the term "caucus" is not in use, the particular terminology isn't important. Whether we call them caucuses or fractions or groups, they definitely exist. The elected representatives of national parties in the EP meet together, they discuss and co-ordinate strategy, oversee administratative matters, occasionally debate and determine policy, and often have internal hierarchies. Political parties are complex beasts, and it simply isn't the case that Fianna Fail (or any other party that I'm aware of) runs every decision out of party headquarters, leaving the parliamentary group no capacity to act on its own initiative. Whether it is one member or twenty, national party representatives in a given parliament have certain freedom to act.

Brian Crowley was the sole member of the Fianna Fail group in the EP, and he was entitled to make decisions as such. That later his actions were repudiated by the party does nothing to contradict that fact. Again, if this was a parliamentary group of two or three members who switched EP groups together (as a fraction, if you will permit me that word), I doubt we'd be having this debate, ceteri paribus.

Different groups within a party often disagree. The French executive (Socialist) and the parliamentary Socialists fairly often disagree about one thing or another. Their disagreements do not render one or the other no longer ipso facto Socialist. While Crowley's action was deemed more serious, and he has since had the whip withdrawn, that affects his status after the fact, not at the time he withdrew from the ALDE and acceded to the ECR.

The withdrawl of the whip from Crowley centred on the substance of his action. The ECR was identified as contrary to Fianna Fail values; it certainly appears possible that Fianna Fail would have yielded to a switch to the EPP or the Greens. I personally find it difficult to believe he would have had the whip withdrawn if he had chosen to sit as a non-inscrit. The implication, of course, is that since he was capable of making this kind of decision as a Fianna Fail member, it was as a FF member he made this particular decision.

While I agree consensus does not require unanimity, neither is consensus determined by counting noses. As quoted above, WP policy notes that the discussion itself is important in determining whether consensus has been reached. I am willing to contemplate an RfC, but perhaps we ought to wait to see if your dispute notice generates any outside comment first. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

[unindent] This appears to be a case where one user diagrees with the consensus & so claims there is no consensus. It is difficult to see the dispute, the source doesn't even come close to supporting the (patently false) claim that FF has joined the ECR, the source lede says "Irish party's leader Michael Martin says Brian Crowley had effectively left the party for joining 'crowd of headbangers'". Hardly an ambiguous statement. That Crowley was the only FF MEP doesn't change anything. Iliekinfo (talk) 06:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I take umbrage at your failure to WP:AGF. Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been largely absent for a few weeks, and I see this discussion has quieted down. I'm hoping with a little re-engagement, we can resolve this question. Perhaps I ought to summarise my opinion: it's simply that since Crowley was a full FF member when he changed EP groups, he was able to do so as a FF member. His subsequent party discipline should be noted in the footnote, such that we tell the full story; but the withdrawl of the whip after his realignment doesn't alter the character of his realignment in a retroactive manner. Some have suggested that by showing FF aligning with the ECR, we are suggesting that FF changed Europarties. In my view, this misses the fact that the results tables deal only with EP group membership, not Europarty membership, and so there isn't any such implication. I could go on, but others have expressed themselves to be tired of my arguments. The one thing I would urge upon you all is that the official websites continue to show Fiann Fail affiliating with the ECR and Brian Crowley as a member of Fianna Fail. I had thought the official websites might have changed their treatment of the event, but they have not. So, in light of the official treatment of Crowley & FF, who thinks we still need to indicate Crowley as an independent in the two tables? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielthursday (talk • contribs)

It's been another month, with no further engagement on the issue, and with the official sources remaining as before, indicating Crowley as a FF member joining the ECR. Are there ongoing objections to the current treatment of this event? Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gabrielthursday: I'd prefer him not written as FF, but rather as an independent. While I understand there's a difference between EU group and Europarty membership, I think writing it as FF leaving the group, will be misinterpreted by uninitiated people reading the article. If I came to read the page as a novice, would assume his party supported his transfer if it lists FF changing party. For that reason I would prefer to list him as an independent (in style with Childers or Flanagan). A footnote would to explain that he formally didn't leave his party group before switching party, but that his party subsequently withdrew party whip on him would be good though. -- Lejman (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lejman: While I agree there is the potential for misinterpretation, I would suggest that both alternatives have similar potentialities. Representing Crowley as an independent could easily be taken to mean that he left Fianna Fail, rather than simply having the whip withdrawn; and that he no longer has any ties to Fianna Fail. Given that Fianna Fail still officially lists him as their MEP, I think that is pretty clearly wrong. That source I think is the killer- FF itself indicates his continuing membership. With all the official sources (see the EP websites above as well) supporting his Fianna Fail-ness, isn't the right thing to reflect that in the article and clearly indicate the estrangement/withdrawl of whip/FF party remaining affiliated with ALDE in the footnote? Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gabrielthursday: Wow, that's peculiar. Well, if they still consider him their representative, then I'm okay with him still being considered FF. On a side note, do we know if other independents still are similarily supported? -- Lejman (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lejman: It is a little peculiar, for sure. I remember seeing him still listed on the FF website a week or so after he joined the ECR and thought that they were just desultory in updating their website. As it is, I suspect the expulsion was more a matter of public relations than an intention to cut ties with Crowley. If I were to speculate, I suspect the party and he will reconcile in a few years, accepting the status quo. As to your side note, I suspect Crowley is a somewhat unique situation, since he's a one-man caucus (there's no caucus whip who was going to whip him anyways). The closest analogue to Crowley I can think of is Nicolae from Romania. Her party (with 6 members) switched from the ALDE to the EPP for this current parliament, but she quickly switched her own allegiance back to the ALDE. However, Nicolae - as far as I know - didn't face any party discipline for her switch, much less became an independent. In Canada, MPs who get kicked out of caucus sometimes style themselves as "Independent Conservatives" or "Independent Liberals" - but in these cases there is a caucus they are getting kicked out of. Weirder still was the case of Joe Lieberman, who lost a primary, ran as an independent, then caucused with the Democrats when he won re-election. He was a party member and caucused with the party, but was identified as an independent. Gabrielthursday (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gabrielthursday: Interesting stuff. Anyways, I'm good with FF being listed, with a footnote noting that

Crowley left without approval of FF
FF as a party retain contacts with the former group
FF has subsequently removed party whip from Crowley, but he remains a member of the party. -- Lejman (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

ENF in infobox

It doesn't really make sense for the ENF to be in the infobox as it was formed more than a year after the election. The infoboxes describe the results of the election, not the current composition of the parliament. Øln (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That's right. It is a clear mistake. At that time, for example, Martin schultz was leader of the S&D. See here: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats#Organisation (Pittella became leader only after the elections) Barjimoa (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on European Parliament election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on European Parliament election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Parliament election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)