London School of Economics and Political Science National

London School of Economics and Political Science National Parliamentary Scrutiny of European Union Affairs: Explaining Divergence of Formal Arrangements and Actual Activity Julian M. Hörner A thesis submitted to the European Institute of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2015 1 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 62,828 words. Statement of use of third party for editorial help I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by Su Yin Tan, Zoe Gardner, Jason DaPonte 2 Abstract The role of national parliaments in the European Union (EU) has gained prominence in the last decade among academics and practitioners alike in relation to the alleged democratic deficit of the EU. The existing literature has largely focused on the formal powers of national parliaments. However, the formally strongest parliaments are not necessarily the most active, and vice versa. This thesis argues that this divergence between formal rights and actual activity exists because not formal scrutiny powers, but public Euroscepticism, the presence of parties for which Europe is salient and which care deeply about Europe (‘issue entrepreneurs’) as well as internal party cohesion on the EU are the most important factors influencing activity. Public Euroscepticism leads to more debate and resolutions when issue entrepreneurs are present and when parties have a coherent position on Europe. Recent measures and future plans to further increase the formal powers of national parliaments might not lead to more activity and might thus not help to ameliorate the democratic deficit. Methodologically, this thesis relies on computer-assisted content analysis, multilevel models as well as elite interviews. Each of the three papers focuses on a different aspect of parliamentary activity. The first paper focuses on the ‘communication function’ of parliaments and presents an analysis of parliamentary debates in EU affairs. The second paper quantitatively analyses the determinants of parliamentary activity in the form of resolutions, relating to the government control or ‘scrutiny function’. The third paper investigates parliamentary scrutiny activity in-depth in a case study of the ‘Fiscal Compact’. The thesis argues that national parliaments should mostly concentrate on their communication function in EU affairs, while other functions might best be carried out by the European Parliament. It thus suggests that different parliamentary functions can best be fulfilled by different institutions in the EU multilevel system. 3 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank my PhD supervisors, Professor Sara Binzer Hobolt and Professor Kevin Featherstone. They have always gone out of their way to support my academic development and provided me with the perfect balance of encouragement and always constructive criticism. I am thankful to my examiners, Professors Geoffrey Edwards and Simon Hix for their valuable feedback and comments, to Professor Helen Wallace for her feedback at critical junctures of the PhD process and to Paul Stephenson for encouraging me to pursue a doctorate. I would like to thank my mother Claudia and her husband Michael for their emotional and financial support, without them I could not have embarked on this journey. I am grateful to my late father Gregor Hoerner for encouraging intellectual curiosity and dedication early in my life. I would like to thank Su Yin Tan for her companionship and all her help. In London, my friends at the European Institute and other departments of LSE have made the sometimes tedious PhD process enjoyable. I would like to mention in particular Alex, Angelo, Chris, Chrysa, Eva, Lukas, Margarita, Mireia, Paula, Roch, Sarah and Zoe. My good friends in Germany- Mark-Philipp, Oliver, Paul and Yuri- have helped me to relax and to think about things other than work, when I was at home or when they came to visit. Finally, I would like to thank the administrative staff at the European Institute who has always helped me with the sometimes confusing bureaucracy which is part of the PhD process. I am grateful to the ESRC for funding my research. 4 Table of Contents Declaration ................................................................................................................................ 2 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 4 Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ 7 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 9 The Research ‘Puzzle’ and the Main Argument of the Thesis ...................................... 9 The Democratic Deficit, De-parliamentarisation and Accountability ......................... 16 Cross-National Variation in Formal Scrutiny Systems ............................................... 21 The Rankings of Formal Powers of National Parliaments .................................................. 22 Towards an Analysis of Scrutiny Practice .................................................................. 30 The Crucial Role of Issue Entrepreneurs..................................................................... 36 Challenges to the Definitions of Issue Entrepreneurship and Euroscepticism ............ 43 Different Forms of Activity and Parliamentary Functions .......................................... 48 Methodological Approaches and Plan of the Thesis ................................................... 58 Concluding Remarks ................................................................................................... 66 Paper 1: The Determinants of Debate on EU Affairs in National Parliaments: The Role of Party Politics and Party Cohesion ........................................................................... 68 Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 68 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 69 Theory and Hypotheses ............................................................................................... 72 Method and Data ......................................................................................................... 79 Analysis and Results ................................................................................................... 85 The Parliamentary Level ..................................................................................................... 85 The Party Level ................................................................................................................... 95 Discussion and Conclusion ......................................................................................... 98 Appendix 1: Examples of EU and General Keywords .............................................. 101 Appendix 2: Descriptive Statistcs ............................................................................. 102 Appendix 3: Robustness Checks ............................................................................... 103 Paper 2: The Determinants of Resolutions of National Parliaments in EU Affairs ...... 111 Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 111 5 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 112 Parliamentary Control of the Government and Resolutions as a Focus of Analysis. 114 Method and Case Selection ....................................................................................... 118 Theory and Hypotheses ............................................................................................. 122 Data and Model ......................................................................................................... 129 Analysis and Results ................................................................................................. 133 Discussion and Conclusion ....................................................................................... 138 Appendix 4: Resolutions in the five countries .........................................................

Load more