POPULAR COMMITMENT TO AN EVER CLOSER UNION?

1
1
POPULAR COMMITMENT TO AN EVER CLOSER UNION? A
PRAGMATIC APPROACH PROFESSOR RICHARD ROSE FBA
CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF PUBLIC POLICY U. OF
STRATHCLYDE www.cspp.strath.ac.uk/ UNIVERSITÉ
LIBRE de BRUXELLES 21 February 2012
2
16.02.12
2
INTEGRATION BY STEALTH A DYNAMIC
PROCESS Intergovernmental deliberations among
elites and technocrats Path dependent
framework Functional spillover The acquis
communautaire no going back Result an ever
closer union Endorsed by a uninterested,uninfor
med and unconsulted citizens
3
16.02.12
3
POPULAR COMMITMENT Commitment Awareness
Understanding Endorsement Costly policies
can't be achieved by stealth need popular
endorsement EU efforts to engage
grassroots citizens have limits .Turnout at
EP elections .Astroturf consultations with
organizations .Citizens' Initiative
4
16.02.12
4
MEDIAN EUROPEAN OF TWO MINDS ABOUT EVER CLOSER
UNION Q. 80 Do you think unification has
already gone too far or should it be pushed
further?
Source 2009 European Election Study, q. 80.
Number of respondents, 27,069. Leave as is group
includes 9 percent no opinion.
5
16.02.12
5
APPROVAL OF EU DOES NOT GUARANTEE WANTING MORE
INTEGRATION
Attitudes toward integration among all saying
country's membership of the EU is a good thing.
Source 2009 European Election Study. Figure
shows division of opinion on q 79 among the
17,079 respondents who described the EU as a good
thing for their country.
6
16.02.12
6
MEPs OVERWHELMINGLY FOR EVER CLOSER UNION
MEP's NATIONAL PARTY

Source EU Profiler data base of party programmes
for the 2009 European Parliament election
(www.euprofiler.eu).
7
16.02.12
7
VOTERS NOT COMMITTED TO EP POSITION ON EVER
CLOSER UNION
FITS EP voter agrees with national party
position UNCOMMITED Voter has no opinion on
integration MISFIT Voter's position disagrees
with party
Source Combines EU Profiler data on national
party positions on integration with European
Election Study data on attitudes toward
integration of those EES respondents naming the
party they voted for (N 12,496).
8
16.02.12
8
AMBIGUITY OF EQUILIBRIUM STATIC Hard to get
anything agreed, stagnation POSITIVE
FEEDBACK Benign spillosvefrs NEGATIVE
FEEDBACK from some spillovers .French and
Dutch rejection of Constitution for
Europe .Schengen and immigration .Eurozone
crisis EXTERNAL CHALLENGES AND SHOCKS
.2008 global economic crisis .Trans-nationa
l terrorism
9
16.02.12
9
A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO EU POLICY ANALYSIS
PRAGMATISM Evaluate specific proposals
by their expected consequences Diagnose
problems by examining experience. Examine
cause and effect links in proposed solution
Evaluate likely consequences for country,
citizens, political self-interest Decisions
arrived at on an issue by issue basis No a
priori commitment for or against integration it
is a byproduct
10
16.02.12
10
A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO INTEGRATION Big
issues with visible costs and benefits create
schizophrenia in national governments
Consensual
personalities in Council, contentious in national
parliaments Add
zero-order politics to Reif/Schmitt 1st and 2nd
order need to consult citizens by
referendum Current position of treating
referendums as local option excludes most EU
citizens pan-European referendums would not
Enhance cooperation among the willing and
opt outs by the unwilling have broader support
support and more
clarity than a fudged or ambiguous agreement
Dynamic consequences of differential
cooperation. .If laggards catch up with
leaders, an ever-closer union .If
differential national judgments maintained, the
geometry of Europe becomes less hierarchical,
multi-level and more variable.
11
16.02.12
11
TO DISCUSS 1. To what
extent is pragmatic evaluation already the
norm? 2. Is pragmatism
likely to replace commitment to an ever closer
Union ? 3. To what extent
is EU research unbalanced by treating integration
as normal and, by implication desirable?