POPULAR COMMITMENT TO AN EVER CLOSER UNION?

A PRAGMATIC APPROACH

PROFESSOR RICHARD ROSE FBA CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF PUBLIC POLICY

U. OF STRATHCLYDEwww.cspp.strath.ac.uk/

UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE de BRUXELLES

21 February 2012

1

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,uninformed and unconsulted citizens

16.02.12 2

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

16.02.12 3

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?

Gone too far30%

Leave as is30%

Favours more

integration40%

Source: 2009 European Election Study, q. 80. Number of respondents, 27,069. Leave as is group includes 9 percent no opinion.

16.02.12 4

APPROVAL OF EU DOES NOT GUARANTEE WANTING MORE INTEGRATION

16.02.12 5

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.

Favours more

integration52%

Leave as is26%

Gone too far22%

MEPs OVERWHELMINGLY FOR EVER CLOSER UNION

MEP's NATIONAL PARTY Favours more

integration84%

No position1%

Against more integration

15%

Source: EU Profiler data base of party programmes for the 2009 European Parliament election (www.euprofiler.eu).

16.02.12 6

VOTERS NOT COMMITTED TO EP POSITION ON EVER CLOSER UNION

Fit48%

Uncommitted22%

Misfit30%

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).

16.02.12 7

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-national terrorism

16.02.12 8

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

16.02.12 9

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.

16.02.12 10

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?

16.02.12 11