Referendum challenges to the EU’s policy legitimacy – and how the EU responds

Rose, Richard

doi:10.1080/13501763.2018.1426034

Cited by 32 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Citizens are given a direct say on fundamental constitutional issues, such as the territorial contours of the nation, more often than ever before (Mendez and Germann 2018). In Europe, referendums are increasingly used to decide a country's relationship with the EU (Hobolt 2009;Rose 2019). Yet, direct democracy remains controversial.…”

Section: Referendum Votes and Policy Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They give citizens an opportunity to have a direct say on fundamental political questions. Yet the simple binary nature of most referendum ballots also means that complex policy problems are often reduced to stark either/or choices (Setälä 1999;Bowler and Donovan 2002;Rose 2019). This is a particular issue in sovereignty referendums, where a decision to reallocate powers between two territories may be followed by protracted negotiations about the future of the relationship.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Policy Preferences and Policy Legitimacy After Referendums: Evidence from the Brexit Negotiations

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do votes in direct democratic ballots translate into policy preferences about future outcomes and affect the perceived legitimacy of those outcomes? This article examines these questions in the context of sovereignty referendums: specifically, the 2016 referendum on British membership of the European Union (EU). While the referendum result gave the British government a mandate for Britain leaving the EU, it did not provide any firm guidance as to the kind of Brexit that voters would prefer and consider legitimate. To examine the perceived desirability and legitimacy of different Brexit outcomes, we conducted a nationally representative conjoint experiment measuring attitudes towards different possible negotiation outcomes. Our findings show that 'Leave' and 'Remain' voters were highly divided over what they wanted from Brexit on salient negotiation issues, but also that most voters did not regard any possible outcome as legitimate.

show abstract

Section: Referendum Votes and Policy Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy Preferences and Policy Legitimacy After Referendums: Evidence from the Brexit Negotiations

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The idea of a centralised management of patent judicial actions at the European level has been around for over fifteen years, 13 concomitantly receiving direct democratic mandate from European voters (which is quite a rare event), 14 but its path has proven rather bumpy. Indeed, whilst EU's citizenry and policymakers seem to have it clear that only a shared IP system may entitle the EU to compete on equal footing with the IP markets of China and the United States, law-wise such a shared system triggers numerous dilemmas for EU institutions and Members alike.…”

Section: A the Legal Path Towards The Unified Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Unified Patent Court and the frustrated promise of IP protection: Investors’ claims in (post-)Brexit Britain

Segate

2020

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tensions between the EU’s legal order and the international investment law regime are not exclusive to the Brexit era, but they certainly gained momentum in the aftermath of this referendum. By incautiously declaring that the UK will remain a party to the Unified Patent System regardless of Brexit, the British government arguably shaped (il)legitimate expectations on the part of investors who aimed at exploiting their intellectual property rights in the UK while benefitting from the judicial protection of the forthcoming Unified Patent Court as much as of the European institutions (and market) as a whole. Indeed, not only the System itself will undergo a process of major rebalancing after London’s departure from the EU, but more importantly, the UK will most probably be unable to retain its membership in the System after the actual delivery of Brexit. These complications trigger a wide spectrum of fundamental dilemmas investing the definition and scope of concepts such as unilateral declaration, indirect expropriation, reasonable expectation, estoppel, and public policy exception, under both EU law and international investment law. It is therefore essential to explore these intersections as to anticipate possible scenarios in the event of both domestic court and international arbitral claims lodged by patent investors pre- and post-Brexit, having due regard for competition concerns on the side of the EU, yet referring to recent Canadian case law which opened the gate to investor-State claims in the field of intellectual property.

show abstract

“…15 out of 61 EU-related referendums between 1972 and 2016 resulted in such government defeat 5 of these referendums dealt with the ratification of comprehensive EU treaty reform, 4 with EU or EEA membership, and 6 with specific policy issues. The rejections of these policies do not only question the legitimate authority of the EU, but also that of their elected national representatives (Rose 2018). Failed referendum outcomes are usually thoroughly analysed to reconstruct 'what went wrong', what determined voting behaviour and what could be improved in future referendums.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Did the government serve the European institutions within which it has endorsed the rejected policy, or did the government serve the majority of domestic voters? The policy outcome is not decided by the national referendum but by the dynamic interaction between the domestic and European actors afterwards (Rose 2018). The government could accept its defeat or look creatively for alternative options in order to improve its losing position.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ruling the referendum?

Akker¹,

Pieter²

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing a dissertation is a search for yourself. As in Franz Schubert's song Der Wegweiser 1 , the researcher avoids roads which other travelers used to go, but searches out the hidden pathways. Sometimes through snowy mountain tops, sometimes traveling a street from which no one ever returned. You do not know when and where to end. Which desire drives the researcher into the wilderness, wandering ever further without rest? Probably to find out the truth in a world of humans, nature and science. Science also reflects the truth of its time. The last years at the University of Twente comprise a period in which the nationwide referendum has been introduced in the Netherlands and is-almost-withdrawn. After having graduated from Maastricht University, I was grasped by the challenge to do more fundamental research. Even before his research group Law on Europe was officially established within Zuyd University of Applied Sciences, Eric van de Luijtgaarden invited me to take part in research discussions, to brainstorm about a suitable topic and to look for a potential supervisor. After some time, governmental action in EU-related referendums turned out to be the niche topic. In May 2012, Kees Aarts and Henk van der Kolk entrusted me to start as one of their PhD researchers at the University of Twente. During our first acquaintance, Kees envisaged that my subject of EU-related referendums would gain significance. He was right: the referendum became highly topical over the last five years. I had barely started my PhD research in autumn 2012, when in January 2013 former British Prime Minister David Cameron announced that the United Kingdom would hold an 'in or out' referendum on EU membership before the end 2017. The rest is history, still history in the making. How will Great Britain be able to rule the referendum outcome? I am most grateful to Kees, Henk and Eric for their outstanding guidance, always warm advice, and steady, patient and confident support during almost six years of supervision. Despite the distance to Enschede (or even Groningen), it was possible to arrange lengthy and well-prepared meetings, regularly after which I returned to Maastricht, always energized and with a lot of homework. Kees has been extremely stimulating in composing this thesis as is now, by suggesting how to build up the level of research and writing and to design the different theoretical frameworks into one coherent monograph. Henk has been very helpful in learning me the skills of well-structured and tight academic writing, modelling of causal inferences and very constructive and critical feedback on tables and figures. I have very much appreciated our intense discussions on draft chapters and papers. Eric enriched the discussions with the legal perspectives of this thesis. Though to count on Eric's enduring support how to maintain the balance between jobs in Twente and Limburg and between public and private life was at least as valuable. In this respect, Eric has been a true mentor. Fortunately, my research activities were not spatiall...

show abstract

Referendum challenges to the EU’s policy legitimacy – and how the EU responds

Cited by 32 publications

References 45 publications

Policy Preferences and Policy Legitimacy After Referendums: Evidence from the Brexit Negotiations

Policy Preferences and Policy Legitimacy After Referendums: Evidence from the Brexit Negotiations

The Unified Patent Court and the frustrated promise of IP protection: Investors’ claims in (post-)Brexit Britain

Ruling the referendum?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About