Referendums on Eu Matters
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
• DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT FOR CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS REFERENDUMS ON EU MATTERS STUDY Abstract This study was commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament. It analyses the political and legal dynamics behind referendums on EU-related matters. It argues that we have entered a period of increasing political uncertainty with regard to the European project and that this new political configuration will both affect and be affected by the politics of EU-related referendums. Such referendums have long been a risky endeavour and this has been accentuated in the wake of the Great Recession with its negative ramifications for public opinion in the European Union. It is clear that referendums on EU matters are here to stay and will continue to be central to the EU’s future as they are deployed to determine the number of Member States within the EU, its geographical reach, its constitutional evolution and adherence to EU policies. Only now they have become an even riskier endeavour. PE 571.402 EN ABOUT THE PUBLICATION This research paper was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Constitutional Affairs and was commissioned, overseen and published by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Policy departments provide independent expertise, both in-house and externally, to support European Parliament committees and other parliamentary bodies in shaping legislation and exercising democratic scrutiny over EU external and internal policies. To contact the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Research Administrator Responsible Eeva ERIKSSON, Petr NOVAK Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] AUTHORS Dr. Fernando MENDEZ (Centre for Research on Direct Democracy, University of Zürich) and Dr. Mario MENDEZ (Department of Law, Queen Mary University of London) With case study reports by: Prof. Derek BEACH (University of Aarhus) Prof. John GARRY (Queen’s University Belfast) Vasilis MANAVOPOULOS (Cyprus University of Technology) Prof. Zoltán Tibor PÁLLINGER (Andrássy University Budapest) James POW (Queen’s University Belfast) Prof. Richard ROSE (University of Strathclyde) Dr. Vasiliki TRIGA (Cyprus University of Technology) Joost VAN DEN AKKER (University of Twente) LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Manuscript completed in January 2017 © European Union, 2017 This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. Referendums on EU matters ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CONTENTS CONTENTS 3 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 8 LIST OF TABLES 9 LIST OF FIGURES 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10 1. THE DIRECT DEMOCRACY SETTING IN THE EU 12 1.1. The scholarly debate 13 1.2. Instruments of direct democracy in the EU 14 1.3. Direct democracy in the EU from comparative perspective 15 2. EU-RELATED REFERENDUMS: TWO TYPOLOGIES 19 2.1. Types of referendums 19 2.1.1. Membership referendums 19 2.1.2. Treaty revision referendums 22 2.1.3. Policy referendums 24 2.1.4. Third-country referendums 26 2.2. The logic of EU-related referendums 27 2.2.1. Referendums under the logic of constitutionality 28 2.2.2. Referendums under the logic of appropriateness 29 2.2.3. Referendums under the logic of partisan calculus 30 3. MAPPING EU REFERENDUM DYNAMICS: PRACTICE AND POLICY PREFERENCES 32 3.1. EU-related referendums in practice 32 3.1.1. Dynamics according to referendum type and logic 33 3.1.2. Referendum outcomes according to type and logic 35 3.1.3. The saliency of EU-related referendums and outcomes produced 37 3.2. Policy preferences on EU referendums 39 3.2.1. The elite level 40 3.2.2. The EU citizenry 42 3.2.3. Levels of policy congruence 46 4. ANALYTICAL REVIEW 48 4.1. The Great Recession and its impact on EU public opinion 48 4.2. Latest developments in EU-related referendums since the onset of the Great Recession 51 3 Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 4.2.1. Treaty revision referendums 51 4.2.2. Policy referendums 54 4.2.3. Membership referendums 59 5. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS: A MAPPING OF THE FIELD AND SOME ‘MODEST’ PROPOSALS 63 5.1. Proscribing EU Treaty Revision & Enlargement Referendums 63 5.2. Replacing the Double Unanimity Lock 65 5.3. Instituting EU-wide Referendums 68 5.3.1. Evaluating treaty revision referendum proposals 69 5.3.2. Evaluating proposals for citizen-initiated legislative referendums 72 5.4. Operating within the current treaty revision rules 73 5.5. Additional suggestions operating within the current treaty revision rules 75 5.5.1. Democratic improvements 75 5.5.2. Challenging certain EU referendums 76 5.5.3. European Political Party funding of EU referendum campaigns 79 5.5.4. Avoiding referendums on EU Agreements 79 5.6. Recommendations 80 REFERENCES 83 ANNEXES 89 A.THE UNITED KINGDOM 89 1. The 2016 referendum: A campaign analysis 89 1.1. The referendum decision 89 1.2. The negotiations with the EU 90 2. The referendum campaign 91 2.1. Campaign actors 91 2.1.1. The political party system 91 2.1.2. Economic elites and institutions 92 2.1.3. Other elite elements 93 2.1.4. International actors 93 2.1.5. Media organisations 93 2.1.6. Digital Media 94 2.2. Campaign dynamics 94 2.3 The official campaigns’ discourse 95 2.3.1. Volume 96 2.3.2. Website Structures 96 2.4 Argumentation themes for “Leave” 97 2.4.1. Immigration-related arguments 98 4 Referendums on EU matters ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 2.4.2. National sovereignty-related arguments 99 2.4.3. Arguments attacking the EU 100 2.4.4. Attacking the UK-EU deal 101 2.5. Argumentation themes for “Remain” 101 2.5.1. Economic arguments 101 2.5.2. Arguments describing the loss of specific benefits stemming from EU- membership 102 2.5.3. Arguments related to national security 103 2.5.4. Attacks directed against the “Leave” campaign 103 2.6. Modes of persuasion 103 2.6. 1. The “Leave” side 104 2.6.2. The “Remain” side 105 3. The referendum results 106 B.THE UNITED KINGDOM 113 1. Mobilising a coalition of support 113 2. National and European issues linked 114 3. The outcome 117 4. Consequences 118 C.GREECE 119 1. Referendums in Greece 119 2. Prologue 119 3. Historical context: the Greek sovereign debt crisis 120 3.1. The 2009–2015 period 120 3.2. Reactions among the population 121 3.3. The January 2015 elections 122 3.4. SYRIZA in power and the negotiations period 123 4. The 2015 Greek bailout referendum 124 4.1. Why call a referendum? 124 4.2. The referendum question 125 4.3. The campaigns 126 4.3.1. The “Yes” side 126 4.3.2. The “No” side 127 4.3.3. The campaigning period 128 4.3.4. Campaigns discourse 129 4.4. Campaign narratives 131 4.4.1. The “Yes” campaign 131 4.4.2. The “No” campaign 133 5 Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. The Referendum result 136 6. Referendum outcomes 137 D. IRELAND 142 1. Introduction 142 2. The Theoretical Context 143 3. The Irish Context 144 4. Evaluating the Evidence 148 4.1. Issue-Voting over Second-Order Effects 149 4.2. When Issue-Voting Matters More 150 E.HUNGARY 156 1. Introduction 156 2. Conceptual Basis 158 2.1. The Hungarian Conception of Direct Democracy 158 2.2. Instruments 158 2.3. Procedures 160 3. The Migrant Quota Referendum of 2016 161 3.1. Background 161 3.2. Campaign 163 3.2.1. Arguments for “Yes” 163 3.2.2. Arguments for “No” 164 3.2.3. Arguments for Boycott 164 3.2.4. Arguments for Invalid Voting 165 3.2.5. Neutral 165 3.3. Ballott 165 3.4. Consequences 166 4. Conclusion 166 F. DENMARK 174 1. Introduction 174 2. The Danish history of referendums 175 3. The referendum campaigns in 2014 and 2015 176 4. Theoretical approaches to voter behavior in EU referendums 177 4.1. Issue-voting 178 4.2. Second-order dynamics 178 4.3. Assymetric issue-voting – motivated reasoning and attitude strength 179 6 Referendums on EU matters ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5. Explaining the outcomes in the two referendums 179 5.1. Methods – the DKOPT and DKOPT-JHA survey instruments 179 5.2. Predicting the vote in the EPC referendum (2014) 180 5.3. Predicting the vote in the JHA referendum (2015) 182 5.4. Motivated reasoning and attitude strength in the 2015 JHA referendum 183 6. Conclusions 184 G. THE NETHERLANDS 188 1. Political context: Referendums in the Netherlands 188 1.1. Constitutional Treaty 2005 189 1.2. EU-Ukraine Association Agreement 2016 189 2. Political campaign 193 2.1. Main actor positions 194 2.1.1. The Government 194 2.1.2. The Parties 196 2.1.3. Constitutional Treaty 196 2.1.4. EU-Ukraine Association