There are also suggestions the European Parliament doesn’t have sufficient power and is a mere talking shop. This has been disputed amid claims MEPs now have more power and share decision making with ministers from member states.
“I don’t think he’s right,” Dr Katjana Gattermann, assistant professor of political communication and journalism at the University of Amsterdam told Euronews. “He’s said MEPs are ridiculous but I think there are three considerations.
“Firstly, this was one incident and obviously MEPs were not there. But there are many other incidents when important things happen and there is a full house.”
She said MEPs don’t just turn up to parliament and that their absence should be seen in the context of other roles they perform, such as serving their constituencies or preparing for work in committees.
Gattermann has also argued that active MEPs get less press coverage than absent ones. This, she says, leads to a “potential motivational problem” for politicians with ambitions domestically, who may see their time is better served at home.
What do the statistics say?
Figures from VoteWatch, an online platform that monitors MEPs’ activities, shows just 16 of 751 members turn up to less than two-thirds of votes.
Austria has the best record – their MEPs turn up to 95.7 percent of votes.
The UK is the worst: its MEPs, driven by anti-EU party UKIP, turn up to just 81.75 percent of voting sessions.
However, the session in which Juncker had his outburst was a plenary session, rather a voting one. Again, the UK has the worst voting record, with MEPs turning up to 81.2 percent of plenary sessions, according to mepranking.eu.
However plenary attendance data is said to be less reliable, because it only records MEPs presence in the parliamentary complex, rather than in the actual chamber.
Doru Frantescu, director of VoteWatch, told Euronews: “Statistics show that in general MEPs are present, also taking into account that they have to travel from their member states every week.
“However, the motivation to go to the plenary depends on the importance and relevance of the debates, as perceived by the MEPs.
“During other debates with Mr Juncker the chamber was full.
“This time MEPs did not participate as they were not interested in assessing the Maltese presidency, which they saw more as a formality than as an opportunity to have relevant discussions.
“However, Juncker had a point when he emphasized that if this were an assessment of a German Presidency under Merkel or French under Macron, the chamber would have probably been full, which highlights that MEPs seem to discriminate against smaller EU countries.”