Search

Knowledge of what voters prefer is central to several theories of democratic representation and accountability. Despite this, we know little in a comparative sense of how well politicians know citizens’ policy preferences. We present results from a study of 866 politicians in four countries. Politicians were asked to estimate the percentage of public support for various policy proposals. Comparing more than 10,000 estimations with actual levels of public support, we conclude that politicians are quite inaccurate estimators of people’s preferences. They make large errors and even regularly misperceive what a majority of the voters wants. Politicians are hardly better at estimating public preferences than ordinary citizens. They misperceive not only the preferences of the general public but also the preferences of their own partisan electorate. Politicians are not the experts of public opinion we expect them to be. published

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 multiple crises that the EU has faced over the last decade haveprovided fertile ground for the emergence of new political movements,often labelled as ‘anti-system’, ‘populist’ and ‘Eurosceptics’.One defining characteristic of these parties is their claim to represent‘the people’ and their reliance on the idea of sovereignty. Thisarticle aims at examining how these populist parties have framedsovereignty in relation to the economic and migration crises. Itargues that the binary opposition between EU integration andnational sovereignty does not tell the whole story, and that thepopulist upsurge reflects instead competing versions of sovereigntyat the national level. To test this hypothesis, we conducta corpus-based analysis of the discourse of four leading populistparties between 2012 and 2017: the Front National, the UKIndependence Party, the Movimento cinque Stelle and Podemos., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

In the post-Maastricht era, member states of the European Union (EU) have proved increasingly reluctant to transfer further competences to the supranational level and are willing to safeguard their sovereignty. Though the responses to the contemporary multiple crises–related to economic and monetary policy, borders and migrations, or democracy and the rule of law–have brought about conflicts over values and sovereignty losses surrounding the legal, economic and political legitimacy of the EU. Against this backdrop, we argue that beyond the traditional contentious (re)distribution of competences between nation-states (national sovereignty) and the EU (and its embryonic forms of supranational sovereignty), new conflicts of sovereignty involve two other key types of sovereignty belonging to the democratic tradition, namely parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty. This introductory article proposes a common analytical framework in order to investigate conflicts in their multi-dimensionality., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Au cours de ces dernieres decennies, la transformation graduelle de l’UE a souleve une question essentielle : comment peut-on exercer un pouvoir partage de facon collective et democratique au sein d’une union supranationale qui se situe a mi-chemin entre une federation et une organisation internationale ? Ces dernieres annees, le theme de la souverainete s’est donc retrouve, de facon latente ou explicite, au cœur des debats ayant secoue la politique europeenne, que ce soit avec la crise migratoire, les debats entourant les plans de sauvetage de l’euro ou encore ceux relatifs au Brexit. Cela a entraine un niveau de conflit sans precedent sur les valeurs qui sous-tendent les politiques communautaires et ce qui est percu comme de nouvelles pertes de souverainete. Dans le cadre de cette contribution, nous estimons que la souverainete reste un concept fondamental pour saisir l’integration europeenne. Toutefois, les discours sur la souverainete sont aujourd’hui fortement politises : ils prennent la forme de conflits de souverainete qui sont non seulement multidimensionnels mais aussi plus polarisants que jamais. Afin de contribuer aux debats sur la souverainete et sa politisation, nous proposons une matrice qui permet d’expliquer comment, audela de la repartition controversee des competences entre Etats nations (souverainete nationale) et l’UE (et sa forme embryonnaire de souverainete supranationale), de nouveaux conflits de souverainete emergent en impliquant deux autres types de souverainetes ancres dans la tradition democratique, a savoir les souverainetes parlementaire et populaire.

The Brexit referendum in June 2016 marked a critical point for European integration and has quickly attracted attention from scholars. However, the literature so far has focused on the UK and the EU level, neglecting the asymmetric risk exposures and the diverging views around Brexit within the Member states. This article aims at contributing to filling this gap by analyzing to what extent the attention paid to Brexit differs across parliaments in a multilevel setting and whether parties emphasize the same issue across different levels? It relies on a unique database of parliamentary questions in the Belgian (regional and federal) parliaments between 2013 and 2017 and combines social network analysis and a loglinear modeling to analyze how Brexit has been framed and discussed in Belgium., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

International audience; La montée en puissance du Parlement européen (PE) est un phénomène abondamment étudié, notamment en lien avec le déficit démocratique de l’Union européenne (UE). Toutefois, on sait peu de choses sur l’organisation du travail parlementaire et son impact pour la démocratie au sein de l’institution. Cet article se penche sur l’évolution du règlement intérieur du PE et ses enjeux. L’analyse révèle qu’un train constant de réformes a pris place depuis le milieu des années 1980, au nom de l’« efficacité » du travail parlementaire. Les organes de direction ont vu leur pouvoir s’étendre, ce qui a renforcé l’influence des deux grands groupes politiques au PE tandis que le rôle individuel des députés a été réduit de manière significative. Les modalités de la délibération en séance plénière ont été de plus en plus encadrées, jusqu’à ne laisser qu’une faible marge de manœuvre aux députés. Ces évolutions sont considérées par leurs tenants comme un moyen d’accroître la capacité du PE de profiter de ses pouvoirs formels, mais aussi de garantir sa « crédibilité » dans les négociations interinstitutionnelles. Toutefois, elles ont aussi porté atteinte à la représentativité de l’institution et à la lisibilité de la politique européenne pour les citoyens.

Since its origins, there have been competing views concerning the nature, scope and objectives of the process of integration and of the European Union. Attitudes towards Europe and European integration, both among political elites and citizens, have been much studied over the last 15 years. But there is no comprehensive analysis of these competing views of Europe at the supranational level. The existence of radically diverging views on the European political system within the EU's own institutions is problematic at both theoretical and practical levels. Little is known, however, about this phenomenon, its impact on the EU's agenda and policy-making as well as on constitutional reform. This book aims therefore at investigating the divergence in views about the European Union in order to lend insight into its consequences for the functioning of the EU and its institutions. It will focus on the main EU institutions, i.e. the Council, Commission, Parliament and Court but will also deal with the visions of various European elites on the EU. This book was originally published as a special issue of Journal of European Integration.

Often presented as a threat, Eurosceptic MEPs and their strategies have been comparatively understudied so far. At a time when the EU is facing a deep crisis and citizens’ discontent has led to a significant increase in the Eurosceptics’ share of EP seats, it is crucial to analyse empirically whether Eurosceptic MEPs behave in a manner that endangers the legitimacy or the work of the EP of the institution. This article is a first attempt to answer this question. The ambition here is to examine to what extent the behaviour of Eurosceptics differs from the behaviour of non-Eurosceptic MEPs and whether this has evolved over time. Based on an analysis of MEPs’ activities during the 6th, 7th and 8th legislature, this article shows that there is a shift in Eurosceptic behaviour, in the sense of a normalisation of their parliamentary activities., info:eu-repo/semantics/published

This chapter explores the territorial dimension and its recent evolutions during the current European Parliament’s mandate. This territorial dimension is generally considered to be central to the process of representation at the national level but has been relatively neglected in the EP to date. Rather than assuming an electoral disconnection between MEPs and EU territories, authors take an inductive approach to empirically examine the extent to which territorial representation is reflected in members’ practices. To do so, they rely on an analysis of MEP’s written questions, which constitutes another understudied topic. The content of these questions is used as an indicator of members’ priorities, centres of interest, and conception of their mandate, as well as of their evolution in the recent period of time.

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.

Democracy involves popular control over decision-making, and political equality among those exercising that control. In parliamentary democracies, day-to-day control is delegated to elected politic ...

Political representation – the core of modern democracies – essentially refers to a relationship between a representative and those represented by him or her. Therefore, the linkage between citizens and political decision makers is one of the most important topics in the study of democratic political systems. However, the literature on parliamentary systems has concentrated on what MPs do inside parliament on the one hand and on the impact of the electoral system on MPs’ behavior on the other hand. This aim of this article is twofold. First, it provides a more comprehensive description of the activities of Belgian MPs on the basis of a mixed-method approach, using data from a survey, interviews as well as field observations. Second, it addresses four other factors that could have an influence on MPs relations to the district, besides the electoral system: the level at which they are elected (regional vs. federal), the accumulation of mandates, the distinction between older and newer parties, and MPs seniority.

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.

International audience; While an extensive (US) literature stresses the importance of procedural rules in the evolution of parliaments as well as in the legislative process, very few studies have focused on the European Parliament (EP) rules. Whereas the EP's empowerment was significantly influenced by its rules of procedure, the reforms of these rules and their consequences for political actors remain understudied. This paper aims to contribute to the theorisation of the EP's institutional dynamics in light of the North American theories. It examines the challenges faced by the EP due to the rationalisation of its deliberation and the consequences of the procedural changes for the institution, its members and its public image. On the basis of a qualitative analysis of the revisions of the EP rules of procedure from April 1979 to January 2017, it is shown that institutional efficiency has become an objective in itself, but the reforms have had a strong distributive effect by reducing members of the European Parliament’s freedom of action. The various reforms have strengthened ‘democracy through parliament’ at the expense of ‘democracy in parliament’, which could have tremendous consequences for the EP's image among public opinion.

International audience; This introductory article discusses the rationale and the aim of this special issue on the European Parliament. Examining the ongoing multidimensional crisis the EU is facing, it emphasizes how the current content has reduced the EU output legitimacy. It also argues that the Parliament has been affected by the recent developments. On the one hand, it has been further empowered with the Lisbon Treaty and the Spitzenkandidaten procedure. On the other hand, the management of the crisis has been essentially intergovernmental and the EP has been sidelined. A second section critically discusses the literature on the EP and highlights the need to further develop our understanding of this institution, which cannot yet be called a ‘normal parliament’. It then presents the articles composing this special issue.

This interesting edited volume is the result of the efforts of three teams, from the Universities of Antwerp, Leiden and Luxembourg. It includes contributions from a number of leading academics in ...

With the advent of the Eurozone crisis, Euroscepticism has become increasingly mainstreamed. This is discernible across Europe at the level of public opinion, among political parties and civil society groups, within the EU institutions themselves and in terms of changing and more challenging media discourses. Against the backdrop of the 2014 European elections and a potential referendum on UK membership of the EU, the purpose of this article is to introduce an evolving debate. It begins with discussion of the ‘state of the art’ with regard to the study of Euroscepticism, before focusing on the significance of the latest European elections themselves. It then provides an overview of the various articles in the collection, explaining their relevance in helping to unravel the complexity and diversity of opposition towards ‘Europe’ and the extent to which Euroscepticism has become part of the mainstream with regard to European political debate.

The 2014 European elections demonstrated the scale and success of the EU’s opponents. Radical and populist parties topped the polls in some countries while others gained parliamentary representation for the first time. At the same time, Euroscepticism has entered the mainstream, with an increase of anti-EU rhetoric among government parties and the European Conservative and Reformist group becoming the third largest party in the European Parliament. In this context, this article aims at analysing the strategies developed by Eurosceptics from the left, the right and the mainstream once elected to parliament but also at providing food for thought regarding the implications of an (increased) presence of Eurosceptic MEPs. It provides a typology of four roles played by Eurosceptics, showing the diversity of their strategies. It then argues that the presence of these dissenting voices might be an asset for the EU’s legitimacy.

This chapter focuses on the institutional context to examine its effect on the strategies of Eurosceptics. It is argued here that the rules of the game have an impact on the way parliamentarians understand and execute their mandate. A first section is dedicated to the formal rules, i.e. the rules of procedure of the Chamber, and their evolution since 1979. The second section concentrates on the informal rules, and more particularly on the way the EP works (the grand coalition of the two main groups, the consensual operation of the Chamber, the value placed on expertise); membership in a political group and the existence of a cordon sanitaire around some Eurosceptics, especially from radical right parties. Both sections show that the institutional context is key to understand the roles played by Eurosceptics.

The development of anti-EU sentiment is one of the most important features of the integration process over the last two decades. The ongoing economic, political and migration crisis has provided fertile ground for the galvanization of oppositions to the EU. Euroscepticism has progressively become embedded at the national and supranational levels and is now part of the mainstream. This chapter aims at understanding Euroscepticism at the European level. The first section places Euroscepticism within a broader historical context through an up-to-date review of the literature. The next section reviews the main conceptualizations and their shortcomings before explaining how Euroscepticism is defined in the framework of this book. It is argued that Euroscepticism should be seen as an anti-system opposition. The final section empirically examines who the Eurosceptic MEPs are between 2004 and 2016.

Representation is at the core of modern democracies. But as complex phenomenon, it can be studied from a number of different angles. This chapter offers a critical review of the relevant literature on political representation in legislative and EU studies and presents the theoretical foundation of this book. It concentrates first on studies devoted to the “descriptive” or symbolic side of representation, trying to assess the representativeness of the EP. A second part turns to the “substantive” approach to representation. It discusses studies devoted to the relationships between MEPs, political parties and constituents as well as the limited research on political roles within the EP. A third section discusses the insights of role theory and more particularly the motivational approach. The claim here is that such an approach provides a comprehensive analytical framework that helps understand how Eurosceptic MEPs conceive and carry out their mandate.

One of the main challenges of role theory is explaining the choice of a role. Whereas attitudes and preferences are usually used in the literature as “an explanatory complement” to other factors such as the electoral system, it is argued here that MEPs’ preferences are the key to explain their strategies in the Parliament. In order to test this hypothesis, a first section examines whether the roles played by Eurosceptics are influenced by the degree and nature of their Euroscepticism. Alternative hypothesis put forward by the literature are also analysed: the impact of the electoral system as well as the nationality, political affiliation and background of MEPs are indeed tested.