1 / 10

CSPP

CSPP. IS THERE A DEMAND FOR PAN-EUROPEAN REFERENDUMS? Or SHOULD EUROPEAN INTEGRATIONISTS FEAR THE EU ELECTORATE?. PROFESSOR RICHARD ROSE & DR. GABRIELA BORZ Centre for the Study of Public Policy

nadine-snyder
Télécharger la présentation

CSPP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CSPP IS THERE A DEMAND FOR PAN-EUROPEAN REFERENDUMS? Or SHOULD EUROPEAN INTEGRATIONISTS FEAR THE EU ELECTORATE? PROFESSOR RICHARD ROSE & DR. GABRIELA BORZ Centre for the Study of Public Policy This paper is part of an British ESRC-funded project on Representing Europeans. RES-062-23-1892 and draws on the 2009 European Election Survey, organised through the Robert Schuman Centre of the European University Institute and funded by the European Commission. Presented at PIREDEU Final Conference Brussels, 18 November 2010

  2. 2 NORMATIVE ISSUE: How much vertical accountability should EU policymakers be subject to as agents of Europe's citizens? STATUS QUO: The European Parliament is the only participant in the EU system whose members are directly elected to their EU offices. The Council of Ministers consists of national governments that are directly elected in national elections on national issues. Most Europeans aren’t interested in EU politics and don’t vote in EP elections. CASE FOR A PAN-EUROPEAN REFERENDUM National referendums already hold the EU to account—but three-quarters or more of EU citizens are excluded from them There should be limits to EU policymakers pursuing integration by stealth e.g. require citizen approval of treaty changes. Participation is good in itself and increases commitments to EU decisions.

  3. 3 EMPIRICAL ISSUE How much popular demand is there for a pan-referendum? Figure 1 POPULAR ENDORSEMENT OF PAN-EU REFERENDUMS Q. Do you agree or disagree that EU treaty changes should be decided by referendum? Source: 2009 European Election Study in all EU member states. Number of respondents: 25,078. For details, see www.piredeu.eu.

  4. 4 Figure 2 ALL COUNTRIES ENDORSE PAN-EU REFERENDUMS Pro-referendum Source: 2009 European Election Study. Pro and anti-referendum calculated after excluding those neither for nor against. N=21,819

  5. 5 ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF THE DEMAND FOR REFERENDUMS *H 1. SATISFICING: The more satisfied citizens are with the performance of governing agents, the less likely they are to demand EU referendums but the more dissatisfied they are, the more likely they are to demand referendums. *Focuses on outputs of governor not inputs of citizens *Performance can be that of national and/or EU level governments *Performance of government varies over time as does satisfaction *H 2. SUBJECTIVE COMPETENCE. Individuals with more resources will participate more in politics and be more likely to favour referendums. *Individual resources tend to be fixed, e.g. education, class *H3 NATIONAL CONTEXT. Individual assessments of referendums are influenced by national practices and EU engagement. *H 4 PERVASIVE. Majority of all political and social groups favour having a referendum.

  6. 6 Table 1 TESTING INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENT OF PAN-EU REFERENDUMS Logit b (S.E.) Exp(B) (Dis)satisfied with National Politics Approve government record -.425*** (.031) .654 Positive natl economy -.008 (.014) .992 Satisfied democracy in country -.074 (.032) .929 Immigration should decrease .558*** (.030) 1.747 Punish criminals more .447*** (.032) 1.564 Govt should not intervene economy .238*** (.031) 1.269 (Dis)satisfied with EU Politics Positive EU -.083*** (.015) .920 Feels EU citizen -.068 (.032) .934 Unification going too far 107** (.033) 1.113 Resourceful Participants Social class -.178*** (.017) .837 Education -.022 (.012) .978 Standard of living .006 (.020) 1.006 Interest in politics .054 (.031) 1.055 Close to party .038 (.030) 1.039 Voted EP election .006 (.034) 1.006 ______________ Constant .885*** (.075) 2.423 Percentage correctly predicted 69.7 Nagelkerke R-squared .10 -2 Log likelihood 29073.804 Chi square whole model 1825.575 *** significant at .000 ** at .001 * at .01 Source: 2009 European Election Survey. Dependent variable: those endorsing a referendum dichotomized against those opposing or undecided. Number of respondents included in analysis: 24,614.

  7. 7 Table 2 FEARS ILL GROUNDED: REFERENDUM MAJORITIES IN ALL GROUPS Location on variables Yes, positive No, negative % Pro – Referendum Significant variables Unification gone too far 82 76 Positive EU 73 79 Immigration should fall 84 69 Punish criminals more 82 66 No govt intervention in economy 83 75 Middle class 74 84 Approves national govt. record 69 83 Not significant Interested in politics 75 82 Close to a party 76 80 Voted EP election 76 83 Feels EU citizen 74 85 Positive national economy 78 78 Satisfied country's democracy 73 84 More educated 72 82 Standard of living above average 73 82 Source: As in Figure 2.

  8. 8 Table 3 GAP BETWEEN MEPS AND CITIZENS VIEWS OF REFERENDUMS Country Citizens MEPs Difference % pro Malta 75 0 75 Spain 75 2 73 Estonia 72 0 72 Romania 76 9 67 Hungary 71 14 58 Latvia 70 13 57 Luxembourg 56 0 56 Italy 65 13 52 Lithuania 68 17 52 Bulgaria 85 35 50 Slovenia 43 0 43 Poland 71 30 41 Slovakia 62 23 38 Denmark 67 31 36 Average EU 27 68 34 34 France 66 35 31 Finland 61 31 30 United Kingdom 85 58 26 Sweden 47 22 25 Austria 60 35 24 Greece 85 64 21 Germany 61 42 18 Cyprus 82 67 15 Belgium 58 46 12 Ireland 89 83 6 Netherlands 53 60 -7 Czech Republic 66 91 -25 Portugal 71 100 -29 Pro-referendum MEPs are members of national parties endorsing a referendum as per EU Profiler analysis. For details, see Borz and Rose (2010). Sources: 2009 European Election Survey and www.euprofiler.eu.

  9. 9 Figure 3 EXCLUSION OF EUROPE'S CITIZENS BY NATIONAL REFERENDUMS (Percent of citizens in member states not holding Treaty referendum) % excluded from voting Notes: Lisbon: Ireland voted; 26 countries did not. European Constitution: France, Spain, Luxembourg and Netherlands voted, 21 did not. Amsterdam: Ireland and Denmark voted, 13 countries did not. Nice: Ireland voted, 14 countries did not. Maastricht: France, Ireland and Denmark voted, 9 countries did not. Single European Act: Denmark and Ireland voted, 10 countries did not.

  10. 10 THE EFFECTIVE CHOICE An unstable status quo *Since 1992 an average of referendums every 3 years on Treaty issues *Risk of events triggering national referendums, e.g. .Eurozone crisis .Enlargement in Balkans and Turkey Alternatively, adopting rules for a European referendum 1. Question set at the EU level 2. Binding or advisory? 3. Turnout requirement? 4. Double majority --electorate and countries--for enactment 5. Super majorities as well? 6. Provisions for opting out by countries defeating a proposal

More Related