Search

Euroscepticism has become a persistent phenomenon in European politics and particularly in the EP. It is therefore crucial to understand how Eurosceptic MEPs behave within an institution they criticise or even totally oppose and how the differences between Eurosceptics can be explained. This contribution aims to shed light on these questions by analysing the parliamentary behaviour of opposing voices in the 8th EP legislature (2014–2019). The analysis shows that there are indeed diverging patterns of engagement among the three different types of opposition actors we identify. First, MEPs of the non-Eurosceptic, ‘loyal’ opposition aim to provide an alternative to the Grand Coalition and focus strongly on legislative but also scrutiny activities. Second, soft Eurosceptic MEPs, the ‘critical’ opposition, are less integrated in the EP, but still engage in parliamentary life. Finally, hard Eurosceptics can truly be identified as an ‘anti-system’ opposition, concentrating nearly exclusively on activities with a potential publicity character.

The aim of this chapter is to examine how Brexit has been addressed by national and regional parliaments in Belgium. The chapter will be structured around four key questions corresponding to four dimensions of parliamentary scrutiny: first, the constitutional dimension, how does the executive-legislative relationship play out over the issue of Brexit in Belgium? Second, the procedural dimension, what is the impact that parliaments can have on European Union (EU) affairs in general, and on Brexit in particular? Third, the party-politics dimension, do political parties emphasize the same issues across different levels and depending on their role as government or opposition parties? And, fourth, the national interest dimension, how does the attention paid by regional and federal parliaments reflect the configurations of national interests in a multilevel setting? Relying on an analysis of parliamentary questions, this chapter shows that, so far, Brexit has not been a very divisive issue in Belgium, but that regional parliaments may want to bolster their role through increased scrutiny on more technical issues.

Despite the multiple crises Europe currently faces, the salience of EU affairs in Belgium remains low and popular support for the EU above average. However, since the main party in the governing coalition, the Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (N-VA), decided to exit the long-standing Belgian pro-EU consensus by labelling itself Eurorealist, Belgium’s voice in EU affairs seems to be fading. The latent tensions between the governing parties lead to a crucial lack of ambition and impact on the debates on Brexit and on the future of European integration.