Under the radar? National parliaments and the ordinary legislative procedure in the European Union

Ruiter, Rik de

doi:10.1080/13501763.2012.760328

Cited by 28 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These data are provided by Auel et al (2015b), on which Auel and her co-authors in the three above-cited studies all rely (see Table 1). By contrast, in his two-country comparison between and 2010, De Ruiter (2013 shows that there are numerically more references to EU directives in plenary debates in the United Kingdom than in the Netherlands. This is also reflected by the use of debates in both upper houses by the evidence presented in Table 2.…”

Section: Manifestations Of the Mainstreaming Of Eu Affairs Scrutinymentioning

confidence: 93%

research note: studying a new phase of europeanisation of national parliaments

Gattermann

Högenauer

Huff³

2015

Eur Polit Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this research note, we propose studying a new trend of Europeanisation in national parliaments within the European Union (EU). We argue that further integration, combined with the opportunities and challenges presented by the Lisbon Treaty and the financial crisis, created pressure on national parliaments to expand the scrutiny process beyond European Affairs Committees. In this new phase of Europeanisation, parliaments are increasingly 'mainstreaming' EU affairs scrutiny, blurring the distinction between national and European policies and involving larger numbers of MPs. Following a review of existing research on the Europeanisation of national parliaments in the post-Lisbon era, we propose studying four dimensions of mainstreaming: the rising involvement of sectoral committees in European affairs; the adaptation of parliamentary staff to EU policy-making; the growing salience of European affairs in plenary debates; and increasing inter-parliamentary cooperation beyond European affairs specialists. We argue that this trend has significant implications for research that studies the roles of national parliaments in the democratic functioning of the EU.

show abstract

Section: Manifestations Of the Mainstreaming Of Eu Affairs Scrutinymentioning

confidence: 93%

research note: studying a new phase of europeanisation of national parliaments

Gattermann

Högenauer

Huff³

2015

Eur Polit Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We analyse the transposition of the same directive in all four countries. Directive selection was grounded in an important scope condition for our theoretical argument, namely that the directive is salient enough as to attract the interest of parliamentarians (De Ruiter, ; Sprungk, ). Thus, we selected a controversial piece of legislation: Directive 2008/115/EC on Return of illegal third‐country nationals.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, as highlighted by the reparliamentarization thesis (Goetz and Meyer‐Sahling, ), national parliaments have various instruments to influence EU law‐making. First, they can control EU decision making ex ante, by influencing national negotiation positions in the Council of Ministers (Karlas, ; Winzen, ) or using the Early Warning Mechanism for direct scrutiny of EU legislative proposals (De Ruiter, ). Alternatively, parliaments can shape final policy outcomes ex post, during the domestic transposition of supranational legislation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Surprisingly, empirical knowledge on parliamentary involvement during transposition is still scant (but see Sprungk, ). The literature on executive–legislative relations in Europe has primarily focused on national parliamentary involvement during policy formulation (Goetz and Meyer‐Sahling, ; Raunio, ; Winzen, ) and, more recently, on the direct ex ante scrutiny of proposals (De Ruiter, ). The scholarship on EU transposition (see Mastenbroek, ; Toshkov, ) has studied the impact of parliamentary involvement on domestic transposition outcomes, but this has mostly been done indirectly by reference to factors such as general institutional capacity or transposition instrument choice (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

National Parliaments and Transposition of EU Law: A Matter of Coalition Conflict?

Dörrenbächer¹,

Mastenbroek²,

Toshkov

2015

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses to what extent the mechanism of the coalition conflict model of executivelegislative relations can account for the extent and policy direction of parliamentary control over domestic transposition, focusing on EU migration law. Our empirical approach is based on an in-depth cross-country comparison of the transposition of the Returns Directive in Austria, Germany, France, and the Netherlands. We find that in all four countries the legislatures left their marks on the final laws, and the policy direction of amendments was largely in line with the predictions of the model. Yet, the policy adjustments were not always triggered by coalition partners correcting ministerial drift, but also by factions within the ministerial party, and by opposition parties.

show abstract

“…It aims to contribute to the literature on the de-parliamentarization of the EU multi-level political system by assessing to what extent Upper Houses scrutinize EU affairs. Scholars already shed some light on the conditions under which Lower Houses exercise parliamentary control over the choices made by the national government at the EU level during the negotiations on EU legislative acts (de Ruiter 2013;Finke and Dannwolf 2013). However, it has remained by and large unclear what the role of Upper Houses is.…”

Section: The Role Of Upper Houses In the Production Of Eu Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Houses of Abstention or Houses of Reflection? Upper Houses in EU Member States and theEx anteScrutiny of EU Legislation

Ruiter

2015

Journal of European Integration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars interested in the role of national parliaments in the EU legislative process hardly paid attention to the differences in scrutiny between Upper Houses of EU member states. It is hypothesized in this article that structural differences between bicameral systems can explain differences between Upper Houses in scrutiny of EU legislative proposals. The hypotheses are assessed with a qualitative content analysis of parliamentary debates in the Dutch and British Upper Houses on the scrutiny of EU directives agreed upon through the ordinary legislative procedure in the period 2000-2010. The empirical findings indicate that differences in the set-up of bicameral systems can only in part explain the variation in ex ante scrutiny. Moreover, in both the British and Dutch bicameral systems, MPs of the Upper and Lower Houses most of the time do not contradict each other on substantive grounds when the same EU legislative acts are scrutinized. The results also show that the scrutiny by Upper Houses improves the output legitimacy of the EU legislative process.

show abstract

Under the radar? National parliaments and the ordinary legislative procedure in the European Union

Cited by 28 publications

References 25 publications

research note: studying a new phase of europeanisation of national parliaments

research note: studying a new phase of europeanisation of national parliaments

National Parliaments and Transposition of EU Law: A Matter of Coalition Conflict?

Houses of Abstention or Houses of Reflection? Upper Houses in EU Member States and theEx anteScrutiny of EU Legislation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About