Have European citizens become increasingly Eurosceptic over the last two decades, turning their backs on European integration? Though many journalists, politicians and academics argue that they have, this book suggests that reactions to European integration cannot be reduced uniquely to a rise in Euroscepticism, but that indifference and ambivalence need also to be brought into the picture when studying EU legitimacy and its politicisation. Drawing on new evidence from survey data from eight founding member states, and focus groups conducted in francophone Belgium, France and Great Britain, Integrating Indifference explores the various faces of citizens’ indifference, from fatalism, to detachment, via sheer indecision. This book adopts a pioneering mixed-methods approach to analysing the middle-of-the-road attitudes of ordinary citizens who consider themselves neither Europhiles nor Eurosceptics. Complementing existing quantitative and qualitative literature in the field, it opens up new perspectives on attitudes towards European integration.
Pre-financial crisis, EU citizens were 'overlooking' Europe ignoring it in favour of globalisation, economic flows, and crises of political corruption. Innovative focus group methods allow an analysis of citizens' reactions, and demonstrate how euroscepticism is a red herring, instead articulating an indifference to and ambivalence about Europe.
Since the advent of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, a key turning point in terms of the crystallisation of opposition towards the European Union (EU), Euroscepticism has become a transnational phenomenon. The term ‘Euroscepticism’ has become common political language in all EU member states and, with the advent of the Eurozone, refugee and security crises have become increasingly ‘embedded’ within European nation states. Bringing together a collection of essays by established and up-and-coming authors in the field, this handbook paints a fuller, more holistic picture of the extent to which the Eurosceptic debate has influenced the EU and its member states. Crucially, it also focuses on what the consequences of this development are likely to be for the future direction of the European project. By adopting a broad-based, thematic approach, the volume centres on theory and conceptualisation, political parties, public opinion, non-party groups, the role of referendums – and the media – and of scepticism within the EU institutions. It also reflects on the future of Euroscepticism studies following the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the EU. Containing a full range of thematic contributions from eminent scholars in the field, The Routledge Handbook of Euroscepticism is a definitive frame of reference for academics, practitioners and those with an interest in the debate about the EU, and more broadly for students of European Studies, EU and European Politics.
Why do we need European integration in increasingly fragmented and antagonised European societies? How can European integration relate to the national stories we carry about who we are as a nation and where we belong? What to do with the national stories that tell traumatising tales of past loss and sacrifice, and depict others as villains or foes? Can we still claim that our national states are the most legitimate way of organising European political communities today? Engaging with these big questions of European politics, Nevena Nancheva tells a small story from the periphery of Europe. Looking at two post-communist Balkan states – Bulgaria and Macedonia – she explores how their narratives of national identity have changed in the context of Europeanisation and EU membership preparations. In doing so, Nancheva suggests that national identity and European integration might be more relevant than previously thought.
Die gestiegene Bedeutung nationaler Parlamente ist auch Ausdruck der Differenzierungsprozesse in der EU. Habermas' Erwartungen eines größeren Konsenses über politische Normen für gemeinsame Entscheidungen scheinen aktuell widerlegt zu werden. In ihrem auf einer preisgekrönten Dissertation aufbauenden Buch legt Anja Thomas einen wichtigen theoretischen und empirischen Beitrag zum Verständnis der soziologischen Ursachen dieser Entwicklung vor. Ihre Analyse der parlamentarischen Prozesse in EU-Angelegenheiten in der Assemblée nationale und im Bundestag seit 1979 zeigt ein paradoxales Phänomen auf: vermehrte EU-Erfahrung führt zu einer gesteigerten Bedeutung von nationalen Institutionen für den Diskurs von Parlamentariern zur Rolle der Parlamente in der EU. Gestützt auf sozialtheoretische Ansätze, insbesondere den Institutionalismus Max Webers, präsentiert die Autorin hierfür einen neuen theoretischen Erklärungsansatz. Diese Arbeit wurde mit dem Pflimlin-Preis 2017 (Prix Pflimlin) als herausragende Dissertationen ausgezeichnet.
This book examines and investigates the legitimacy of the European Union by acknowledging the importance of variation across actors, institutions, audiences, and context. Case studies reveal how different actors have contributed to the politics of (re)legitimating the European Union in response to multiple recent problems in European integration. The case studies look specifically at stakeholder interests, social groups, officials, judges, the media and other actors external to the Union. With this, the book develops a better understanding of how the politics of legitimating the Union are actor-dependent, context-dependent and problem-dependent. This book will be of key interest to scholars and students of European integration, as well as those interested in legitimacy and democracy beyond the state from a point of view of political science, political sociology and the social sciences more broadly.
The cutting-edge contributions to this book analyse different facets of the European Union (EU): closer integration among the member states, policymaking within a ‘normal’ political system, and the implications of European integration for its member states. This book also considers whether the challenges currently confronting the EU – the lingering Eurozone debt crises, the migrant/refugee crisis, the British decision to leave the EU, and terrorist attacks in Belgium, France and Germany – mark an inflection point for the Union and for the study of the EU. For the first time, ‘less Europe’, rather than closer integration, has emerged as a serious option in response to crisis. This possibility reignites questions of (dis)integration and calls into question the assumption of the EU as a ‘normal’ political system. This book was originally published as a special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy.
This handbook comprehensively defines and shapes the field of Critical European Union Studies, sets the research agenda and highlights emerging areas of study. Bringing together critical analyses of European Union politics, policies and processes with an expert range of contributors, it overcomes disciplinary borders and paradigms and addresses four main thematic areas pertaining to the study of the European Union and its policies: • Critical approaches to European integration; • Critical approaches to European political economy; • Critical approaches to the EU’s internal security; • Critical approaches to the EU’s external relations and foreign affairs. In their contributions to this volume, the authors take a sympathetic yet critical approach to the European integration process and the present structures of the European Union. Furthermore, the book provides graduate students and faculty with ideas for future research activity and introduces critical analyses rooted in a broad spectrum of theoretical perspectives. The Routledge Handbook of Critical European Union Studies will be an essential reference for scholars, students, researchers and practitioners interested and working in the fields of EU politics/studies, European integration, European political economy and public policy, EU foreign policy, EU freedom of movement and security practices, and more broadly in international relations, the wider social sciences and humanities.
This book provides a comprehensive account of national parliaments' adaptation to European integration. Advancing an explanation based on political parties' constitutional preferences, the volume investigates the nature and variation of parliamentary rights in European Union affairs across countries and levels of governance. In some member states, parliaments have traditionally been strong and parties hold intergovernmental visions of European integration. In these countries, strong parliamentary rights emerge in the context of parties' efforts to realise their preferred constitutional design for the European polity. Parliamentary rights remain weakly developed where federally-oriented parties prevail, and where parliaments have long been marginal arenas in domestic politics. Moreover, divergent constitutional preferences underlie inter-parliamentary disagreement on national parliaments' collective rights at the European level. Constitutional preferences are key to understanding why a 'Senate' of national parliaments never enjoyed support and why the alternatives subsequently put into place have stayed clear of committing national parliaments to any common policies. This volume calls into question existing explanations that focus on strategic partisan incentives arising from minority and coalition government. It, furthermore rejects the exclusive attribution of parliamentary 'deficits' to the structural constraints created by European integration and, instead, restores a sense of accountability for parliamentary rights to political parties and their ideas for the European Union's constitutional design.
Mind the Gap is a book on the difficult times of modern representative democracy, and on the way in which political science is trying to make sense of it. Forecasting election results has become a very risky business, and explaining the often-surprising results must increasingly rely on case-by-case ad hoc interpretations. Old and formerly stable political parties now appear to be very vulnerable, because many of their traditional voters seem willing to desert them. If voters turn out to vote at all, they tend to be very volatile and send out complex messages, to decide later than ever what to do in the polling booth, to react to short-term factors and to follow candidates rather than parties. Low levels of trust in political actors and institutions reveal a gap between the elites and the people. Belgium is one of the countries where one can witness these debates. Yet Belgium is also a special case. Not only a gap between elites and citizens but also a gap between north and south animates the political debates. The territorial division of the country in two language groups has led to the complete split of the parties and the party system and to the transformation of the unitary state into a complex federal system. With on top of all that the European level the lines of representation and accountability in Belgium are extremely opaque. Decision making requires subtle compromises between party leaders and sometimes take a very long time to come about. Voting in Belgium is however compulsory, which means that exiting the scene of democratic representation is not an obvious option. Citizens do turn out to vote and do express their views and their discontent. Some political parties however do suggest that leaving Belgium behind altogether might be better than just muddling through. This book is based on ten years of research on political participation and representation in Belgium by the interuniversity research team PartiRep. Using several surveys among the population and politicians, voting aid applications, focus groups and experiments it draws a picture of a parliamentary and representative democracy that faces multiple tensions and multiple gaps. It discusses a wide range of political processes and actors, placing them in a comparative perspective, and exploring to what extent the Belgian case fits into the general picture. The chapters of the book deal with political socialization, political parties, representation, economic voting, preference voting and personalized voting, democratic preferences, identity politics and campaign effects and on the way in which elites and citizens try to find their way and make sense of this complex multi-level and linguistically divided country in the heart of the European Union.
