Thread by @Usherwood

Lots of chat today about 'what MEPs should do', so a good point to revisit the research on this.

My text today is @NathalieBrack's excellent typology of eurosceptic MEPs:

journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.11…

1/

.@NathalieBrack's main argument is that sceptic MEPs don't all look or act alike, but have different models of 'what matters'

2/

To that end, she has a four-fold typology:
- absentee
- public orator
- pragmatist
- participant

3/

The absentee is maybe the one you're thinking of when you think of sceptic MEPs: low involvement in the EP

That's because their focus is the national level, working to shape local audiences

4/

The orator is a more actively confrontational role, focusing on public speaking and disseminating -ve info on the EU. They're not trying to shape legislation, but to represent the excluded/neglected. Your @Nigel_Farage type, essentially

5/

The pragmatists also want to represent sceptic views, but are also willing to press on limited areas of legislative change or oversight of other institutions.

6/

And the participants flip that around, so their primary role is to be legislators and so work their ideological positions around that

7/

All four of those models are legitimate (in my reading), in that they've all stood for election and have been elected (and re-elected in many cases): just as SF MPs are free to not take up their seats in Commons, so too are MEPs to explore the terrain as they wish

8/

You don't have to like it, or to think it's the nest use of their time/effort, but maybe having some more understanding of why they do this might be helpful in finding ways to address the underlying issues

9/

tl;dr people do lots of odd things: maybe reflect on why

/end