Search

This project examines public opinion on economic sanctions on the part of the European Union as a result of violations of its fundamental principles in the EU member states. By sanctions we mean possible financial conditionality defined in the Conditionality Regulation (officially known as the Regulation 2020/2092) and intended for the protection of the EU budget against violations of the principles of the rule of law. The effectiveness of EU sanctions depends, among other things, on their public acceptance of these sanctions. If the national population's attention would be drawn to the violations of EU fundamental principles, thus causing resentment or even protest, pressure can be exerted on the respective government to consider a policy change. Citizens can be affected both by their government's violations of EU fundamental principles themselves and by the sanctions. The concrete design of sanctions can therefore have a considerable influence on whether they are accepted by the public or even lead to a rejection of the EU. In this respect, studying public opinion is essential in assessing the potential effectiveness of sanctions. In the specific case of this study, we analyze under which conditions Bulgarian, Polish and Hungarian citizens would be willing to side with the EU and put pressure on their national governments to change their policies. For this purpose, we use a Conjoint Survey Experiment, which allows us to examine the effect of several independent variables on the dependent variable simultaneously. Drawing on existing research on financial sanctions and public opinion, as well as theoretical insights from the related literature on framing, second order beliefs, and procedural fairness, we develop theoretical hypotheses about the factors that might influence public opinion on financial sanctions and test them empirically. The experiment thus uses various possible sanctions design features and other relevant factors to examine public acceptance of EU financial sanctions against its member states. By deriving the hypotheses incorporating the relevant literature, we will be able to examine the complexity of public opinion formation on economic sanctions in the area of EU fundamental principles.

This paper traces the political debate about the export and the indexation of family benefits in the European Union (EU). We ask why such a technical legal issue has become salient in several EU member states. Explanations building on financial and political justifications prove to be insufficient. Rather, we argue, indexation has to be understood in the broader context of the contestation and constitutionalization of the free movement of workers. Free movement and equal treatment of workers have become contested with Eastern enlargement, but their legal framework is largely removed from political adjustments as it is constitutionalized in the Treaties and progressively interpreted by the Court of Justice (CJEU). At least symbolically, indexation promises to address these economic and legal challenges and serves as an “outlet” for member state governments. We illustrate our argument with empirical evidence from the debates preceding the Brexit referendum and the Austrian reform of family benefits. (VLID)5850586

This contribution analyses if and under what conditions bottom-up pressures constrain the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Neofunctionalists famously explained the power of the Court by its use of ‘law as a mask and shield. Due to its technical nature, the Court is able to mask the political substance of ‘integration through law and to shield it from political challenges. We revisit this argument in times of politicisation of the EU and develop a typology of four constellations depending on different kinds of bottom-up pressures. We argue that depoliticised integration through law still functions, to varying degrees, in face of either governmental contestation or public politicisation. By contrast, if member state governments and the public jointly oppose further integration through law, the Court is constrained as further expansive jurisprudence could even reinforce politicisation and risk political backlash. We illustrate our argument with case law on EU citizenship. (VLID)5792551

In order to tackle democratic backsliding in EU member states, the European Commission proposed a new financial conditionality in May 2018 that would allow the suspension of EU funds in cases of systematic rule of law infringements. This article seeks to evaluate the Commissions proposal in terms of its chances at successfully deterring or redressing such infringements. Drawing on both the literature on EU enlargement and on international sanctions, we identify a list of scope conditions for conditionality in order to systematically evaluate the institutional design and analyze the context of application of the proposed rule of law conditionality on EU funds with regard to its expected effectiveness. We find that the current proposal would indeed improve the speed and likelihood of sanctions compared to existing mechanisms, but lacks in the determinacy of conditions and procedures, thus undermining its perceived legitimacy and chances of success. (VLID)4736970

Recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) marks a striking shift towards a more restrictive interpretation of EU citizens rights. The Court's turnaround is not only highly relevant for practical debates about ‘Social Europe or ‘welfare migration, but also enlightening from a more general, theoretical viewpoint. Several recent studies on the ECJ have argued that the Court is largely constrained by member state governments threats of legislative override and non-compliance. We show that an additional mechanism is necessary to explain the Court's turnaround on citizenship. While the ECJ extended EU citizens rights even against strong opposition by member state governments, its recent shift reflects changes in the broader political context, i.e., the politicization of free movement in the European Union (EU). The article theorises Court responsiveness to politicization and demonstrates empirically, how the Court's jurisprudence corresponds with changing public debates about EU citizenship. (VLID)3420027

The European Unions (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare. (VLID)2863725