Responsiveness to Different National Interests: Voting Behaviour on Genetically Modified Organisms in the Council of the European Union

Mühlböck, Monika; Tosun, Jale

doi:10.1111/jcms.12609

Cited by 47 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bailer et al . () find that the presence of strong economic domestic interests dictate when a government decides to vote “no” or “abstain” in the Council (see also Mühlböck and Tosun ()). Public opinion – in particular the public's attitude towards EU integration – has also been shown to have an effect in a number of core policy areas (Hagemann et al, ).…”

Section: Signals and Voting In The Eu Councilmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, a number of recent findings based on quantitative voting analyses has contributed to our understanding of what drives governments' behaviour in the Council. Bailer et al (2015) find that the presence of strong economic domestic interests dictate when a government decides to vote "no" or "abstain" in the Council (see also Mühlböck and Tosun (2017)). Public opinionin particular the public's attitude towards EU integration has also been shown to have an effect in a number of core policy areas (Hagemann et al, 2017).…”

Section: Signals and Voting In The Eu Councilmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Signals to Their Parliaments? Governments’ Use of Votes and Policy Statements in the EU Council

Hagemann

Bailer

Herzog

2019

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does parliamentary oversight of governments’ decisions in the international arena matter? This article finds that it does: governments with strong parliamentary oversight behave differently when negotiating policies at the EU level compared with governments with less powerful parliaments. Where parliaments have formal powers to oversee and restrict their government's positions we see a significantly higher use of opposing votes and formal policy statements by those governments. This behaviour intensifies depending on the governments' standing vis‐à‐vis other political parties at home. When governments are under pressure in their national parliaments they are more likely to go on record and take a stand against the majority in Brussels. These results make it clear that in EU legislative politics, governments not only consider their policy priorities and negotiation tactics with their European counterparts, but also make use of EU decision records to send signals to domestic audiences, including their national parliaments.

show abstract

Section: Signals and Voting In The Eu Councilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Signals and Voting In The Eu Councilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Signals to Their Parliaments? Governments’ Use of Votes and Policy Statements in the EU Council

Hagemann

Bailer

Herzog

2019

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A study from 2015 by EuropaBio (EuropaBio ) indicated that Denmark and Sweden tended to vote according to the scientific advice for GM applications in 2014, though perhaps not in every instant, and Finland is among the group of about 10 EU countries who always followed science in their votings in 2014. Mühlböck and Tosun () analysed the voting behaviour for GM events in the EC over the period 2004–2014 and found that Sweden and Finland are among the most permissive countries with nearly 100% of the votes in favour of GM approval, whereas Denmark is found somewhere in the middle of the EU‐28 list with about 60% of votes in favour and about 40% of votes against GM event authorizations. Also, a study by Smart et al () of the EU Member States' voting behaviour on GM events in 2003–2015 confirms this general picture.…”

Section: Discussion and Future Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scandinavian perspectives on plant gene technology: applications, policies and progress

Eriksson

Brinch-Pedersen

Chawade

et al. 2017

Physiologia Plantarum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant research and breeding has a long and successful history in the Scandinavian countries, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Researchers in the region have been early in adopting plant gene technologies as they developed. This review gives a background, as well as discuss the current and future progress of plant gene technology in these four countries. Country-specific details of the regulation of genetically modified plants are described, as well as similarities and differences in the approach to regulation of novel genome-editing techniques. Also, the development of a sustainable bioeconomy may encompass the application of plant gene technology and we discuss whether or not this is reflected in current associated national strategies. In addition, country-specific information about the opinion of the public and other stakeholders on plant gene technology is presented, together with a country-wise political comparison and a discussion of the potential reciprocal influence between public opinion and the political process of policy development. The Scandinavian region is unique in several aspects, such as climate and certain agriculturally related regulations, and at the same time the region is vulnerable to changes in plant breeding investments due to the relatively small market sizes. It is therefore important to discuss the role and regulation of innovative solutions in Scandinavian plant research and breeding.

show abstract

“…In the case of such a result, neither the rejection nor the acceptance of a regulatory proposal is permitted. The Commission has frequently experienced such 'no opinion' votes on proposals related to the (re)authorization of GMOs [22]. The parallel voting outcomes can be explained by the similarity of both comitology procedures [23] and the differences in opinion on the part of member states regarding both issues.…”

Section: Comparing the Politics Of Gmos And Glyphosatementioning

confidence: 99%

A Case of ‘Muddling Through’? The Politics of Renewing Glyphosate Authorization in the European Union

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Between 2012 and 2017, the European Commission struggled to achieve the renewal of glyphosate, an active ingredient of some broad-spectrum herbicides. As indicated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the chemical kills or suppresses all plant types; when applied at lower rates, it is a plant-growth regulator and desiccant. Glyphosate is used worldwide for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes. Once uncontroversial, new scientific evidence concerning the potential hazards of the substance has sparked a considerable debate in public and political spheres. In light of this sustained controversy, it came as a surprise when a qualified majority of European Union member states voted in favor of the Commission’s proposal to renew the approval of glyphosate for another five years. How was this outcome reached after many ‘no opinion’ votes? How are the member states dealing with the authorization’s renewal? Relying on document analyses and process tracing, we show in this study that the aforementioned renewal was attained due to a change in position on the part of German delegates, who voted in favor of the proposal instead of abstaining. By examining how the member states are addressing the renewal of the authorization, we found that both the countries that opposed renewal and those that supported it are now taking steps to reduce the use—or preparing the phaseout—of glyphosate. Due to domestic political considerations, however, the realization of these steps has so far proven to be difficult.

show abstract

Responsiveness to Different National Interests: Voting Behaviour on Genetically Modified Organisms in the Council of the European Union

Cited by 47 publications

References 42 publications

Signals to Their Parliaments? Governments’ Use of Votes and Policy Statements in the EU Council

Signals to Their Parliaments? Governments’ Use of Votes and Policy Statements in the EU Council

Scandinavian perspectives on plant gene technology: applications, policies and progress

A Case of ‘Muddling Through’? The Politics of Renewing Glyphosate Authorization in the European Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About