33 2 Abstract Key words: 2 - 34 - 35 - - - - - - 36 - - 37 - - 38 - 3 - 3 39 - - - 4 - 5 - 4 5 - 40 - - 6 6 41 - - - - - 42 - - 7 8 9 10 7 8 9 10 43 - - – – 44 - 11 12 - - - – - 11 12 - - 45 – - 13 13 – - - 46 14 – 14 - 47 - - - - 15 15 48 16 - 16 – 49 17 18 17 18 50 - - - 19 19 51 20 21 20 21 52 - - 53 It seems that cultural differences between parliaments of the EU member countries and between them and the EP are more pronounced that differences within EP, i.e. between MEPs from different EU countries. Reason for this could be the selection of people who run for office in the EP that is made by political parties. At least bigger and more ‘serious’ parties put on their candidate lists for European elections people who are internationally comparable and sympathetic for European idea what is not always the case for national elections. These are in most cases people with international experience, if not international prestige. Another reason is exposure of MEPs from different countries to common institutional framework with its rules, norms and principles. As claimed by neoinstitutionalist approach (see March and Olsen, 1995), normative structure of particular institutional environment strongly affect mental and behavioural patterns of individuals. People who are engaged in the same institution thus tend to evolve similar (or at least compatible) habits and modes of conduct. The role in domestic political life differs considerably between Slovenian MEPs. Two of them from the period 2004-2009 were leaders of (main oppositional) political parties and two vice-presidents (of main parties of 54 government coalition), and while others did not occupy any high positions in their parties. However, even their positions differed. One of them, a former primer minister is still very influential in his party, another one, also a former high ranking functionary, ceased being involved in party politics, while the third one, a former journalist, has never before been active in politics. Five out of eight current MEPs are former ministers (one even former prime minister). In general, we can thus say that Slovenian MEPs rank rather high (at least in formal terms) in domestic politics. But this is a result of specific internal relations in some political parties. The respondents were rather supportive to further integration of the EU. However, we have to mention that most of the interviews were conducted before some events (especially rejection of European constitution on referenda in France and Netherlands) occurred that put under question the course of the integration. It would be interested to hear their opinion on these matters – have they perhaps changed their assessment on development of the EU? We can see that Slovenian MEPs, regarding their experience, competence, character and prestige, stand out from general political structure in the country. Before they become elected in the EP, they had successful carrier in politics or in some other field (business, journalism). In this regard, they more resemble representatives in the EP from other EU countries (including the ones from ‘old’ democracies) than their colleagues in national parliament. Another is In this way, they could represent a link between national and European level of policy-making and well as agents of ‘Europeisation’ of Slovenian political space. 55 - - - - - - 56 - 22 - - 22 - 57 References - - - - - - 58 - - - - - 59 - - - - - - - - 60 - Van Kersbergen, Kees and Frans Van Waarden (2004): ’Governance’ as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research. No. 43, pp. 143-171. - -