Research on differentiated integration (DI) has by and large ignored the views of political party... more Research on differentiated integration (DI) has by and large ignored the views of political party actors on DI. Drawing on 35 semi-structured interviews with party actors from seven member states and situated across the political spectrum, we show them to regard DI as divisive and deeply political. We also identify two little explored dimensions affecting their views: namely the wealth of their member state (MS) and its prior experience of DI. Interviewees from richer MS generally favour DI more than those from poorer MS, and those from MS that have not experienced sovereignty or capacity DI welcome DI more than those from MS that have. While the former tend to see DI as allowing both opt outs for MS unwilling or unable to integrate further and enhanced cooperation for MS able and desirous of doing so, the latter fear their MS being excluded and relegated to a second class status.
Differentiated integration (DI) appeals as a pragmatic way of accommodating political and economi... more Differentiated integration (DI) appeals as a pragmatic way of accommodating political and economic differences among member states (MS). However, it potentially challenges their equal standing in EU decision-making, creating the possibility for some MS to dominate others. As such, it risks undermining the democratic legitimacy of the EU. Drawing on 35 interviews with party actors in seven MS, we find many shared these concerns, thereby questioning the acceptance of DI. While they considered DI could support self-determination at the national level, they worried it might result in arbitrary exclusion and growing inequality at the EU level. To be non-dominating, they contended differentiated policies must remain open for all to join, be based on clear criteria, and allow all MS a say, though only participating states should be entitled to vote on differentiated policies in the Council, whereas all MEPs should be able to vote in the European Parliament. Zusammenfassung: Differenzierte Integration (DI) entschärft politische und wirtschaftliche Heterogeneität zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten (MS) der Europäischen Union (EU). Sie wirft allerdings Fragen politischer Gleichheit zwischen den MS und der Dominanz schwächerer MS durch stärkere auf und riskiert, die demokratische Legitimität der EU zu untergraben. Die Analyse von 35 Experteninterviews zeigt, dass viele parteipolitische Akteure aus sieben MS diese Bedenken teilen. Einerseits unterstützen sie DI als Mittel zu nationaler Selbstbestimmung. Andererseits sorgen sie sich, dass DI zu arbiträrer Ausgrenzung und wachsender politischer Ungleichheit auf EU-Ebene führen könnte. Um dem entgegenzutreten sollten alle differenzierten Politiken offen bleiben für diejenigen, die ihnen beitreten wollen, und ein späterer Beitritt sollte auf transparenten Kriterien beruhen. Die gegenwärtigen Abstimmungsregeln im Rat und im Europäischen Parlament werden hingegen weitestgehend befürwortet. Résumé: L'intégration différenciée est une réponse pragmatique aux défis posés par l'hétérogénéité des états-membres de l'Union Européenne (UE). Toutefois, cette méthode risque de mettre en cause le principe d'égalité entre ces états-membres, d'engendrer des relations de domination et, de ce fait, de saper la légitimité démocratique de l'UE. Par une analyse de 35 interviews avec des acteurs de partis politiques issus de sept états-membres, nous montrons qu'une grande part des élites politiques européennes partagent ces préoccupations et contestent l'acceptabilité de l'intégration différenciée. Même si certains interviewés pensent que l'intégration différenciée peut renforcer l'autodétermination au niveau national, ils craignent qu'elle peut également donner lieu à des exclusions de nature arbitraire et augmenter les inégalités au niveau européen. Les interviewés considèrent que les politiques différenciées doivent rester ouvertes à tous et qu'elles doivent se baser sur des critères précis. Il ressort également de ces entretiens que seuls les états concernés par une politique devraient avoir le droit de vote au Conseil, alors qu'au Parlement Européen tous les députés devraient avoir le droit de vote. 2
Ever since they first entered the European Parliament in 1979, the EU has proven to be a strong l... more Ever since they first entered the European Parliament in 1979, the EU has proven to be a strong legitimizing tool for far right parties, providing them with funding, visibility and a higher degree of credibility and respectability. While recent literature has explored some of these dynamics, the role of the far right's ideological positioning on Europe as a source of public legitimacy has been neglected. This paper argues that as a relatively new and contentious political issue, Europe can function as a powerful ideological resource for far right parties by allowing them to convey a more acceptable political message. This argument is illustrated through a case study of two key aspects of the Rassemblement National's (RN) ideological approach to the European Union: the party's claim to be pro-European but anti-EU and its opposition to EU integration on grounds of sovereignty.
Euroscepticism is frequently presented as a key ideological feature of far right parties, however... more Euroscepticism is frequently presented as a key ideological feature of far right parties, however, this definition masks important variations between them. This paper argues that far right positions on Europe are characterized by long-standing ambivalence rather than straightforward opposition. While far right parties frequently oppose the EU, ideological flexibility, the malleability of European integration and the protean nature of Europe also lead them to display support towards certain aspects of it and towards Europe as a civilization. The argument is illustrated through a qualitative analysis of the party literature of the Movimento Sociale Italiano and the Front National. The analysis shows that these parties conceived of Europe as an identity, a space of liberty, an endangered heritage and a construction where national interests must be defended. In each theme, they offered ambivalent readings of Europe, oscillating between opposition and support depending on how Europe and the EU were defined.
Ever since they first entered the European Parliament in 1979, the EU has proven to be a strong l... more Ever since they first entered the European Parliament in 1979, the EU has proven to be a strong legitimizing tool for far right parties, providing them with funding, visibility and a higher degree of credibility and respectability. While recent literature has explored some of these dynamics, the role of the far right’s ideological positioning on Europe as a source of public legitimacy has been neglected. This paper argues that as a relatively new and contentious political issue, Europe can function as a powerful ideological resource for far right parties by allowing them to convey a more acceptable political message. This argument is illustrated through a case study of two key aspects of the Rassemblement National’s (RN) ideological approach to the European Union: the party’s claim to be pro-European but anti-EU and its opposition to EU integration on grounds of sovereignty.
Research on differentiated integration (DI) has by and large ignored the views of political party... more Research on differentiated integration (DI) has by and large ignored the views of political party actors on DI. Drawing on 35 semi-structured interviews with party actors from seven member states and situated across the political spectrum, we show them to regard DI as divisive and deeply political. We also identify two little explored dimensions affecting their views: namely the wealth of their member state (MS) and its prior experience of DI. Interviewees from richer MS generally favour DI more than those from poorer MS, and those from MS that have not experienced sovereignty or capacity DI welcome DI more than those from MS that have. While the former tend to see DI as allowing both opt outs for MS unwilling or unable to integrate further and enhanced cooperation for MS able and desirous of doing so, the latter fear their MS being excluded and relegated to a second class status.
Differentiated integration (DI) appeals as a pragmatic way of accommodating political and economi... more Differentiated integration (DI) appeals as a pragmatic way of accommodating political and economic differences among member states (MS). However, it potentially challenges their equal standing in EU decision-making, creating the possibility for some MS to dominate others. As such, it risks undermining the democratic legitimacy of the EU. Drawing on 35 interviews with party actors in seven MS, we find many shared these concerns, thereby questioning the acceptance of DI. While they considered DI could support self-determination at the national level, they worried it might result in arbitrary exclusion and growing inequality at the EU level. To be non-dominating, they contended differentiated policies must remain open for all to join, be based on clear criteria, and allow all MS a say, though only participating states should be entitled to vote on differentiated policies in the Council, whereas all MEPs should be able to vote in the European Parliament. Zusammenfassung: Differenzierte Integration (DI) entschärft politische und wirtschaftliche Heterogeneität zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten (MS) der Europäischen Union (EU). Sie wirft allerdings Fragen politischer Gleichheit zwischen den MS und der Dominanz schwächerer MS durch stärkere auf und riskiert, die demokratische Legitimität der EU zu untergraben. Die Analyse von 35 Experteninterviews zeigt, dass viele parteipolitische Akteure aus sieben MS diese Bedenken teilen. Einerseits unterstützen sie DI als Mittel zu nationaler Selbstbestimmung. Andererseits sorgen sie sich, dass DI zu arbiträrer Ausgrenzung und wachsender politischer Ungleichheit auf EU-Ebene führen könnte. Um dem entgegenzutreten sollten alle differenzierten Politiken offen bleiben für diejenigen, die ihnen beitreten wollen, und ein späterer Beitritt sollte auf transparenten Kriterien beruhen. Die gegenwärtigen Abstimmungsregeln im Rat und im Europäischen Parlament werden hingegen weitestgehend befürwortet. Résumé: L'intégration différenciée est une réponse pragmatique aux défis posés par l'hétérogénéité des états-membres de l'Union Européenne (UE). Toutefois, cette méthode risque de mettre en cause le principe d'égalité entre ces états-membres, d'engendrer des relations de domination et, de ce fait, de saper la légitimité démocratique de l'UE. Par une analyse de 35 interviews avec des acteurs de partis politiques issus de sept états-membres, nous montrons qu'une grande part des élites politiques européennes partagent ces préoccupations et contestent l'acceptabilité de l'intégration différenciée. Même si certains interviewés pensent que l'intégration différenciée peut renforcer l'autodétermination au niveau national, ils craignent qu'elle peut également donner lieu à des exclusions de nature arbitraire et augmenter les inégalités au niveau européen. Les interviewés considèrent que les politiques différenciées doivent rester ouvertes à tous et qu'elles doivent se baser sur des critères précis. Il ressort également de ces entretiens que seuls les états concernés par une politique devraient avoir le droit de vote au Conseil, alors qu'au Parlement Européen tous les députés devraient avoir le droit de vote. 2
Ever since they first entered the European Parliament in 1979, the EU has proven to be a strong l... more Ever since they first entered the European Parliament in 1979, the EU has proven to be a strong legitimizing tool for far right parties, providing them with funding, visibility and a higher degree of credibility and respectability. While recent literature has explored some of these dynamics, the role of the far right's ideological positioning on Europe as a source of public legitimacy has been neglected. This paper argues that as a relatively new and contentious political issue, Europe can function as a powerful ideological resource for far right parties by allowing them to convey a more acceptable political message. This argument is illustrated through a case study of two key aspects of the Rassemblement National's (RN) ideological approach to the European Union: the party's claim to be pro-European but anti-EU and its opposition to EU integration on grounds of sovereignty.
Euroscepticism is frequently presented as a key ideological feature of far right parties, however... more Euroscepticism is frequently presented as a key ideological feature of far right parties, however, this definition masks important variations between them. This paper argues that far right positions on Europe are characterized by long-standing ambivalence rather than straightforward opposition. While far right parties frequently oppose the EU, ideological flexibility, the malleability of European integration and the protean nature of Europe also lead them to display support towards certain aspects of it and towards Europe as a civilization. The argument is illustrated through a qualitative analysis of the party literature of the Movimento Sociale Italiano and the Front National. The analysis shows that these parties conceived of Europe as an identity, a space of liberty, an endangered heritage and a construction where national interests must be defended. In each theme, they offered ambivalent readings of Europe, oscillating between opposition and support depending on how Europe and the EU were defined.
Ever since they first entered the European Parliament in 1979, the EU has proven to be a strong l... more Ever since they first entered the European Parliament in 1979, the EU has proven to be a strong legitimizing tool for far right parties, providing them with funding, visibility and a higher degree of credibility and respectability. While recent literature has explored some of these dynamics, the role of the far right’s ideological positioning on Europe as a source of public legitimacy has been neglected. This paper argues that as a relatively new and contentious political issue, Europe can function as a powerful ideological resource for far right parties by allowing them to convey a more acceptable political message. This argument is illustrated through a case study of two key aspects of the Rassemblement National’s (RN) ideological approach to the European Union: the party’s claim to be pro-European but anti-EU and its opposition to EU integration on grounds of sovereignty.
Uploads
Papers by Marta Lorimer