European Affairs Committee Research Articles

Drivers of parliamentary opposition in European Union politics: institutional factors or party characteristics?

ABSTRACT A vital political opposition is one of the cornerstones of democracy, yet we know surprisingly little about the conditions that shape it. In this paper, we offer a comprehensive assessment of the drivers of parliamentary opposition in European Union (EU) politics in five countries: Denmark; Germany; Ireland; Sweden; and the United Kingdom. Based on an extensive hand-coded data set of 7,520 statements made by members of parliament (MPs) during both plenary sessions and deliberations during European Affairs Committee (EAC) meetings, we examine how institutions and party characteristics shape two types of oppositional behaviour: the expression of critique and the presentation of alternatives. We find that both factors are important for understanding to what extent, and how, opposition is voiced in national parliaments. Oversight institutions’ strength and a party’s degree of Euroscepticism jointly function as significant determinants of the likelihood that MPs will express opposition in the form of critique. However, when it comes to the likelihood of offering alternatives, oversight institutions’ strength fails to explain variations in the share of alternatives, while degree of Euroscepticism remains a significant predictor.

Do Members of Parliament Express More Opposition in the Plenary than in the Committee? Comparing Frontstage and Backstage Behaviour in Five National Parliaments

Abstract This study attempts to break new ground by systematically comparing oppositional behaviour of Members of Parliament (MPs) in the two key arenas found in parliament: the plenary and the committee. Do MPs express more opposition frontstage in the plenary than backstage in the committee when discussing European affairs? The article sheds new light on political opposition in parliament by using a dataset of hand-coded statements made by MPs during plenary debates and European Affairs committee deliberations in five national parliaments. The results lend strong support to the main hypothesis that MPs express more opposition during plenary debates than committee deliberations.

The influence of Eurosceptic challenger parties on mainstream party behaviour: Is oppositional behaviour contagious?

Previous research has looked at how Eurosceptic challenger parties can cause mainstream parties to change their policy positions and bring about adjustments to their programmes. We explore whether this contagion effect extends to the parliamentary behaviour of mainstream parties in European Union (EU) affairs. The empirical analysis is based on a large-scale study of 6215 statements made by national parliamentarians in the European Affairs Committee of Sweden between 1995 and 2016. A dynamic panel analysis of the data shows that the oppositional behaviour of Eurosceptic challenger parties has a significant impact on the opposition statements made in EU affairs by mainstream parties. These findings have important implications for the general understanding of factors that drive national EU opposition.

Prerequisite for Accountability: Access to Information in the German European Affairs Council

Negotiations in the Council of the European Union have been described as non-transparent since access to certain documents concerning the deliberations is restricted. As a result, national parliaments struggle to hold their national governments to account. Parliaments, providing a direct link between voters and the executive, play a vital role in granting legitimacy to the EU. Their incapacity weakens the democratic legitimacy of the European project. Existing literature on the topic has examined the formal powers of national parliaments and how active they are. However, it has failed to explore their access to information. This paper analyses the access to information on deliberations in the Council by the German European Affairs Committee (EAC) in the Bundestag. Interviews were conducted with members of the German EAC and their EU policy advisors. The analysis revealed that the German EAC employs an extensive network of direct oversight, manually scrutinizing a large number of documents. Certain limitations of this method were revealed, as due to capacity constraints only select decisions were examined. Individual citizens, organized interest and the media were shown to play a role in triggering the oversight at times, thus providing the impetus to start the scrutiny process.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of the European Semester: The Case of Poland

The European Semester became an essential part of the revised governance architecture of the Europe 2020 reform strategy for the Single European Market under the conditions of the global financial crisis and the emerging eurozone crisis a decade ago. The article examines to what extent the European Semester offers channels to establish <em>throughput legitimacy </em>by granting national parliaments the ability to effectively scrutinise executive decision-making in the annual policy cycle. Poland is chosen as the case study for parliamentary scrutiny of the EU’s system of multi-level governance in the East-Central European region. The analysis adopts a liberal intergovernmentalist two-level approach. On the domestic level it concentrates on the involvement of the Sejm, the lower house of parliament, on the drafting of the Polish National Reform Plans for the annual Semester policy cycle between 2015 and 2020. The basis for the analysis are official transcripts from the plenary debates in the relevant committees, the European Affairs Committee and the Public Finance and the Economic Committee. The Polish case study illustrates that the European Semester represents a predominantly elite-driven process of policy coordination, which is strongly geared towards EU-level executive bargaining processes between national governments and the European Commission at the expense of domestic parliamentary scrutiny.

Comparing oppositional behaviour in European Union affairs: empirical evidence from six member states

This article offers a comprehensive comparison of oppositional behaviour in European Union (EU) affairs in six countries: Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. By drawing on a unique data set of hand-coded statements made by Members of Parliament during European Affairs Committee (EAC) meetings it provides new knowledge on political opposition. The data uncover that there is more opposition expressed in EU affairs than has been assumed by previous research. The results also reveal that there exists considerable cross-national variation in oppositional behaviour during EAC deliberations in the six countries. The study finally shows that Eurosceptic parties are key drivers of opposition in EU affairs, especially when it comes to opposition directed at the EU political system.

Eurosceptic Challenger Parties and Political Opposition in European Union Politics: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?

Despite extensive research on Eurosceptic challenger parties, our knowledge of their influence on political opposition has so far been sparse. In this article we make an in‐depth assessment of parliamentary EU opposition, based on 4,264 statements made by national parliamentarians in the European Affairs Committees (EACs) of Denmark and Sweden. Our analysis shows that the presence of Eurosceptic challenger parties in the national parliamentary arena impacts patterns and practices of EU opposition significantly. A greater presence of ‘hard’ Eurosceptic parties in parliament is associated with more opposition in EU politics. These parties deliver a vast majority of the polity‐oriented opposition towards the EU and present more policy alternatives than mainstream parties. The findings presented have implications for our understanding of national parliamentary EU opposition as well as for the assessment of the impact of Eurosceptic challenger parties on the process of European integration.

From procedural disagreement to joint scrutiny? The Interparliamentary Conference on Stability, Economic Coordination and Governance

Abstract The provision of Article 13 TSCG to create an Interparliamentary Conference was the starting point for long discussions after which national parliaments and the European Parliament eventually reached a compromise. This article pursues a two-fold objective: It first examines the different phases of interparliamentary negotiations from 2012 to 2015. On the basis of a distinction between three competing models for interparliamentary cooperation, the article shows that the two models of EP-led scrutiny and creating a collective parliamentary counterweight did not prevail: Parliaments agreed that the new Interparliamentary Conference on Stability, Economic Coordination and Governance (SECG) would follow the ‘standard’ interparliamentary conference (COSAC model). In terms of national parliaments’ actual participation, the lowest common denominator compromise has not changed the numbers of participating MPs: Attendance records are stable over time, the size of national delegations continues to vary and participating MPs are still twice as likely to be members of Budget or Finance committees than to be members of European affairs committees.

The Alleged Opposition Deficit in European Union Politics: Myth or Reality?

AbstractAccording to the ‘opposition deficit thesis’ European Union politics is characterized by a conspicuous absence of opposition to the policies promoted by the EU. However, once we start looking for systematic evidence supporting the claim of an opposition deficit in EU politics, we come up surprisingly empty handed. This article seeks to rectify the lacuna in previous research by examining how much and what type of opposition actually exist in EU politics. The study formulates four hypotheses on the state of political opposition in EU politics, and breaks new ground by testing their validity by use of unique data collected from the Swedish European Affairs Committee for the period 1995–2016. The results show there is in fact considerably more opposition present in EU politics than has previously been assumed. The opposition deficit thesis thus seems to be more myth than reality.

Regional parliaments questioning EU affairs

ABSTRACTSince the Treaty of Lisbon, the desire of parliaments to adapt to their new powers has led to a new wave of Europeanisation. However, the early warning system (EWS) and the political dialogue with the Commission constitute only a small part of parliamentary scrutiny for regional parliaments, which still largely rely on traditional tools such as mandates, debates and questions. Therefore, this paper studies a traditional mechanism of scrutiny, parliamentary questions, in order to understand how they can be used in an EU context. The study shows that Europeanisation is progressing slowly. Interestingly, the vast majority of MPs who ask EU-related questions are not members of the European Affairs Committee. In addition, questions focus primarily on the implementation stage rather than the policy-making stage. Finally, the content of parliamentary questions shows that regional parliaments have a distinctive territorial approach to EU affairs.

Report of the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table regulatory workshop update of the evaluation of new agents for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome: Executive summary

Regulatory authorities interpret the results of randomized controlled trials according to published principles. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is planning a revision of the 2000 and 2003 guidance documents on clinical investigation of new medicinal products for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to achieve consistency with current knowledge in the field. This manuscript summarizes the key output from a collaborative workshop, organized by the Cardiovascular Round Table and the European Affairs Committee of the European Society of Cardiology, involving clinicians, academic researchers, trialists, European and US regulators, and pharmaceutical industry researchers. Specific questions in four key areas were selected as priorities for changes in regulatory guidance: patient selection, endpoints, methodologic issues and issues related to the research for novel agents. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) should be studied separately for therapies aimed at the specific pathophysiology of either condition, particularly for treatment of the acute phase, but can be studied together for other treatments, especially long-term therapy. Unstable angina patients should be excluded from acute phase ACS trials. In general, cardiovascular death and reinfarction are recommended for primary efficacy endpoints; other endpoints may be considered if specifically relevant for the therapy under study. New agents or interventions should be tested against a background of evidence-based therapy with expanded follow-up for safety assessment. In conclusion, new guidance documents for randomized controlled trials in ACS should consider changes regarding patient and endpoint selection and definitions, and trial designs. Specific requirements for the evaluation of novel pharmacological therapies need further clarification.

Research note: studying a new phase of europeanisation of national parliaments

In this research note, we propose studying a new trend of Europeanisation in national parliaments within the European Union (EU). We argue that further integration, combined with the opportunities and challenges presented by the Lisbon Treaty and the financial crisis, created pressure on national parliaments to expand the scrutiny process beyond European Affairs Committees. In this new phase of Europeanisation, parliaments are increasingly ‘mainstreaming’ EU affairs scrutiny, blurring the distinction between national and European policies and involving larger numbers of MPs. Following a review of existing research on the Europeanisation of national parliaments in the post-Lisbon era, we propose studying four dimensions of mainstreaming: the rising involvement of sectoral committees in European affairs; the adaptation of parliamentary staff to EU policy-making; the growing salience of European affairs in plenary debates; and increasing inter-parliamentary cooperation beyond European affairs specialists. We argue that this trend has significant implications for research that studies the roles of national parliaments in the democratic functioning of the EU.

National Parliamentary Control of EU Policy: The Challenge of Supranational Institutional Development

The history of the EU is characterised by rapid and complex institutional development. This leaves European Affairs Committees (EACs) in national parliaments with a moving target problem in their endeavours to control the government's EU policies. This paper investigates how EACs react to this challenge. Building on the rational delegation literature, it is argued that EACs are likely to adapt control instruments in tandem with institutional changes at the supranational level. Using McCubbins and Schwartz (1984, American Journal of Political Science, 28, 165–179), it is further argued that EACs are likely to want to impose both police patrol and fire alarm control on the government. These arguments are investigated in the case of Denmark during the 50-year period since the first Danish application for EU membership in 1961, and considerable support is found for the authors' hypotheses.

Report on the 21st international shock interaction symposium

The 21st International Shock Interaction Symposium (ISIS21) was held from August 3rd to August 8th, 2014, in Latvia. It was organized jointly by the Ioffe Physical-Technical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Saint-Petersburg, Russia) and the University of Latvia (Riga). The Ioffe Institute and the University of Latvia enjoy long-term scientific cooperation. For the majority of shock reflection researchers, Latvia was a new country. For this reason, we decided to suggest Latvia as a possible venue for this symposium at the ISIS-20 in Stockholm 2 years ago. We are very grateful to the International Advisory Committee for their trust. As a logo for the planned Symposium, we selected the auseklis—the Latvian symbol of the morning star. In Latvian folk tradition, it bears the meaning of good will, and thus we thought to express our wishes of good luck to the event and its participants. The Symposium started in the heart of Latvia’s capital city, Riga, in the University of Latvia main building. The importance of this event for the academic life of the country was noted in the welcome speech by Mr. Igor Pimenov, Member of Parliament of Latvia, Secretary of the European Affairs Committee of Saeima. The next speech by Prof. Indriķis Muižnieks, vice-rector for research, gave an insight into the past and present of the University as a flagship of higher education in Latvia. Just to mention a remarkable fact, the opening ceremony of ISIS-21 took place exactly 100 years after Friedrich Zander, known alongside Ernst Mach as the inventor of optical Mach-Zander interferometers, received his diploma of graduation from the University of Latvia (at that time known as Riga Polytechnic) in the walls of the very same building on 19 Raiņa boulevard, Riga.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AFFAIRS IN LITHUANIA: THE FACTOR OF DIVERGENCE OF PARTIES’ PREFERENCES WITHIN A COALITION

In the 1970s, the process of the European integration induced discussions about the deficit of democracy in the European Union (EU). The decreased power of national parliaments and the increased autonomy of the executive sphere are named as the aspects this problem. As this problem has been realised, the importance of the parliamentary scrutiny of the EU affairs increased significantly. The main question raised in this article is whether the level of preference divergence within the coalition determines the parliamentary scrutiny intensity of the EU affairs. The Lithuanian case is analysed. In the article, the levels of preference divergence of two political coalitions and the intensity of the parliamentary scrutiny of the EU affairs implemented in the period of their governance (06.07.2006–17.11.2008 and 18.11.2008–30.04.2012) are compared. The preferences of political parties are identified by using an expert survey. The intensity of parliamentary scrutiny is analysed with reference to the information provided in the protocols of the European Affairs Committee’s meetings.

Catching the Train to Europe: Executive Control of Policy Formulation inside Spain's Parliamentary European Union Affairs Committee

Parliamentary European Affairs Committees (EACs) are the most important specialised body for scrutinising European Union (EU) matters. Despite a central position in domestic policy-making, their role is often limited. In Spain, the pre-eminence of the executive over the legislature is commonly assumed. This article applies Moravcsik's four causal mechanisms for executive influence (initiative, institutions, information and ideas) to the analysis of reporting and debate on trans-European networks (TENs) policy. Placing a microscope over the process of EU policy formulation, throughout which member states articulate their preferences, it seeks to understand why the executive might exert strong influence and the legislature remain weak.

Learning in Denmark? The Case of Danish Parliamentary Control over European Union Policy

The Danish parliament is renowned for its influence over Danish European Union (EU) policy. Contrary to popular belief, this strength is now in question. The most central feature of the Danish EU decision‐making model is parliamentary control over the executive expressed in political mandates before Council meetings. In 1973, this was a perfectly reasonable way for the Danish parliament to influence EU policy. Today, the status of the Council has changed, severely challenging the ability of the Danish parliament to secure influence over EU policy. This article demonstrates that the Danish European Affairs Committee is aware of the changes in European decision‐making, and that the lack of adaptation, despite this knowledge, is due to structural and cultural barriers to learning in the Danish Folketing. This study reveals that our understanding of particular responses to the pressure of Europeanization is enhanced when the conditions for learning and ‘non‐learning’ are spelled out.

The role of national parliamentary committees in European scrutiny: Reflections based on the Danish case1

This paper deals with the European Affairs Committee of the Danish Folketing. It endeavours to situate the committee within the Danish parliamentary system, giving historical background and information about procedures and powers. The European Affairs Committee is a powerful committee. It issues binding mandates to ministers before negotiations in the EU Council of Ministers. As the process of European integration led to increased functional scope of EU legislation a need emerged for involving the various sector committees in the Folketing more in parallel with the European Affairs Committee. An important factor explaining the Danish system of scrutiny is the fact that Denmark usually has minority coalition governments. Such governments need to know what agreements can be accepted at home. Calls for increased transparency have had some effect, but mandates are still negotiated behind closed doors.

Europeanisation of executive–legislative relations: Nordic perspectives

To cope with the challenges resulting from EU membership, Nordic parliaments have resorted to well-known national procedures for controlling governments. But they have also introduced new devices to avoid a ‘decline of parliament’, especially by establishing a European Affairs Committee. Inspired by Anthony King's ‘modes of executive–legislative relations’, a systematic analysis shows that the Nordic parliaments, and the Danish parliament in particular, have adjusted their organisation and procedures in predictable ways. Denmark is a case representing a type of parliamentary government characterised by a multi-party system, cohesive parties and minority governments. Such a system is likely to facilitate opposition party influence. It is not certain that the parliament has lost influence. It seems that the impact of the EU on national executive–legislative relations has less to do with the EU than with the national organisation of executive–legislative relations.

The Story So Far: The Role of the Scottish Parliament's European Committee in the UK-EU Policy Cycle

The setting up of the Scottish Parliament's European Committee has enabled the closer scrutiny of European legislation from a distinct 'Scottish' perspective. At the outset in 1999 it was believed that such scrutiny would allow the Scottish Parliament to influence UK-EU policy, whilst improving the accountability of the Scottish Executive in relation to EU affairs. European Affairs Committees are designed primarily to improve parliamentary scrutiny and control of Executives in their EU activities. As a number of comparative studies have shown, the role of these Committees has undergone significant institutional adaptation and change (See Norton 1995; Judge 1995; Rometsch and Wessels 1996; Bergman 1997). In general, the greater specialisation provided by European Affairs Committees promotes an internal division of labour and an accumulation of expert knowledge that aids parliaments when dealing with complex European policy issues (Norton 1998; Raunio and Hix 2000). Similar reasons underpinned the Consultative Steering Group's decision to establish a separate Scottish European Committee. (The CSG was the civic, cross-party body handed the task of formulating proposals for the new parliament's standing orders and rules of procedure.) It was believed such a Committee would (a) allow more effective discussion of issues which cross-cut committee responsibilities, or which fall