No one inspired by the ‘neo-functionalist’ approach to regional integration (such as myself) should feel threatened by a ‘post-functionalist’ replacement for it. Unlike its long-term rival, ‘intergovernmentalism’, this way of conceptualizing what has been happening in Europe since the 1950s has always presumed that the process of regional integration would be transformative in the sense that, if and when it progressed, it would change the nature of the actors involved in it. Their identity, motives and mechanisms would shift and, correspondingly, so should the concepts and assumptions of those attempting to explain its trajectory and probable outcome. Lisbet Hooghe and Gary Marks offer precisely that: a new approach to studying the European Union as it has shifted from what they call a context of ‘permissive consensus’ to one of ‘constraining dissensus’. As a card-carrying neo-functionalist, I can only welcome the effort – with, however, some reservations. The mechanism that they postulate as responsible for the shift and, consequently, for the future course of European integration is ‘politicization’ or, more accurately, the mobilization of mass public opinion with regard to EU policies and institutions. Interestingly, this was predicted by neo-functionalism as an eventual emergent property – even if the approach did not specify the event that would trigger it or the timeframe within which it was expected to occur. What was not predicted was that this mobilization would threaten rather than promote the integration process. In the neo-functionalist scenario, mass publics would be aroused to protect the acquis communautaire against the resistance of entrenched national political elites determined to perpetuate their status as guarantors of sovereignty. In the postfunctionalist version, the inverse has occurred – opening up a gap between elites, by and large favourable to the expansion of EU tasks and decisional autonomy, and masses resistant to both. Hooghe and Marks marshal an impressive command of the secondary literature on public opinion (unfortunately constrained in large part by Eurobarometer data sometimes of dubious validity) and are convincing in their descriptive observations. Moreover, their task has been greatly facilitated by the increased frequency with which member states have held national referendums on EU-related issues. No serious student of European integration can deny that something like