National Parliamentary Control of EU Affairs: Institutional Design after Enlargement

Karlas, Jan

doi:10.1080/01402382.2012.706412

Cited by 62 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two factors were identified as being most important: domestic institutional strength and Euroscepticism. Institutional strength has been measured with a variety of variables such as the overall institutional strength of parliaments prior to and independent of integration, the power balance in legislative-executive relations or the type of government (especially minority governments) (Bergman 1997(Bergman , 2000Dimitrakopoulos 2001;Holzhacker, 2005;Karlas 2012;Martin 2000;Maurer and Wessels 2001;Raunio 2005;Saalfeld 2005). 'Indeed, research on explaining cross-national variation in the level of scrutiny in EU matters indicates that the overall strength of the legislature "spills over" to European affairs, with stronger control of the government in domestic matters producing also tighter cabinet scrutiny in European affairs' (Raunio 2009: 330, FN 11).…”

Section: Delegation and Ownership In Times Of Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

Auel¹,

Höing²

2015

West European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The eurozone crisis suggests a significant reinforcement of the executive dominance in EU policy-making. Opaque emergency decisions taken at European summits as well as treaties established outside of the EU legal framework facilitate the side-lining of democratically elected chambers. This development entails the risk of a new wave of deparliamentarisation in EU policy-making. An effective scrutiny of the crisis management by national parliaments is, however, indispensable to take national ownership of the reforms in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). This paper therefore investigates national parliaments' involvement in the development of instruments to combat the crisis. Based on a quantitative data set of crisis-related parliamentary activities in 2010-2012, we observe a very uneven engagement in the scrutiny of the crisis management. Institutional prerogatives in EU affairs as well as macro-economic factors can partly explain the observed variation. Surprisingly, however, crisis-related parliamentary activity is not a reaction to Eurosceptic attitudes either in parliament or the public.

show abstract

Section: Delegation and Ownership In Times Of Crisismentioning

confidence: 99%

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

Auel¹,

Höing²

2015

West European Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of studies have classified and ranked national parliaments according to their institutional strength in EU affairs. Although the rankings differ slightly due to a different emphasis on specific institutional provisions, the overall picture is fairly consistent: As the latest rankings by Karlas (2012), Winzen (2012) In sum, the institutional capacity of national parliaments has been significantly altered by the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty and the way in which national systems have adapted to these.…”

Section: The Domestic Institutional Contextmentioning

confidence: 95%

After Lisbon: National Parliaments in the European Union

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of national parliaments in EU matters has become an important subject in the debate over the democratic legitimacy of European Union (EU) decision-making. Strengthening parliamentary scrutiny and participation rights both at the domestic and at the European level is often seen as an effective measure to address the perceived 'democratic deficit' of the EUthe reason for affording them a prominent place in the newly introduced 'Provisions on Democratic Principles' of the Union (in particular Art.12 TEU). Whether this aim can be met, however, depends crucially on the degree and the manner in which national parliaments actually make use of their institutional rights. This volume therefore aims at providing a comprehensive overview of the activities of national parliaments in the post-Lisbon era. This includes the 'classic' scrutiny of EU legislation, but also parliamentary involvement in EU foreign policy, the use of new parliamentary participations rights of the Lisbon Treaty (Early Warning System), their role regarding the EU's response to the eurozone crisis and the, so far under-researched, role of parliamentary administrators in scrutiny processes. In this introduction, we provide the guiding theoretical framework for the contributions. Based on neo-institutionalist approaches, we discuss institutional capacities and political motivation as the two key explanatory factors in the analysis of parliamentary involvement in EU affairs.Keywords: National Parliaments, EU, Scrutiny, Lisbon Treaty, Neo-Institutionalism, democratic legitimacy 'Maybe not formally speaking, but at least politically speaking, all national parliaments have become, in a way, European institutions' (Van Rompuy 2012). Whether it is indeed true -or 2 even desirable -that national parliaments have become 'European institutions' in a more narrow sense, is open to debate (Cygan 2013: 21). Yet the statement certainly suggests that the former 'losers' of the European integration process have come a long way. For a long time the role of national parliaments was not formally recognised at the European level, and in the domestic arena the integration process provided ample opportunities for the executive actors to bypass legislatures and strengthen their hold on policy-making. Concerns about a growing democratic deficit were addressed through repeated and substantial expansions of the powers of the European Parliament, whereas national parliaments remained on the margins.However, over time the 'victims' of integration have learned 'to fight back' and obtained new opportunities for participation in domestic European policy-making. It was a slow and uneven process through which in they improved their institutional position, but they gained increased rights to scrutinise European affairs and to control the way in which ministers and officials represented national interests in Brussels. Today, the Lisbon Treaty not only mentions the role of national parliaments explicitly (article 12 TEU), but it also gives them a role within the EU's legis...

show abstract

“…This allows all parliaments to be analysed with a single dictionary of keywords in English instead of multiple dictionaries, which avoids potential validity issues. Furthermore, the national parliaments in Ireland and the UK rank close together roughly in the middle of all other parliaments with regard to their role in EU affairs, such as controlling their governments in EU affairs (Auel, Rozenberg, & Tacea, 2015;Karlas, 2012;Winzen, 2012) or being involved in the transposition of EU directives (Sprungk, 2013). Although there is no such data at the regional level, the selection of regional parliaments from the same member state to some extent controls for possible variation in their role.…”

Section: Case Selection Data and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic communication of EU affairs: an analysis of legislative behaviour on Twitter

Umit¹

2017

The Journal of Legislative Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An influential literature underlines how much parliamentary communication of European Union (EU) affairs could offer to democracy in the EU. Yet members of parliaments (MPs) seem unmoved by their potential. MPs are strategic about their communication, and this study questions the suitability of EU affairs to their re-election strategies. Analysing the messages posted on Twitter by regional and national MPs from Ireland and the United Kingdom over a fourmonth period, this article shows that clear electoral safety and strong political responsibility increase the communication of EU affairs. This suggests that the low electoral benefits and the high political complexity of EU affairs are significant deterrents to parliamentary communication of these affairs. As a result, the voices of Eurosceptic MPs echo disproportionately louder on Twitter.

show abstract

National Parliamentary Control of EU Affairs: Institutional Design after Enlargement

Cited by 62 publications

References 17 publications

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

National Parliaments and the Eurozone Crisis: Taking Ownership in Difficult Times?

After Lisbon: National Parliaments in the European Union

Strategic communication of EU affairs: an analysis of legislative behaviour on Twitter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About