CSPP
IS THERE A DEMAND FOR PAN-EUROPEAN REFERENDUMS?
Or
SHOULD EUROPEAN INTEGRATIONISTS FEAR
THE EU ELECTORATE?
PROFESSOR RICHARD ROSE & DR. GABRIELA BORZ
Centre for the Study of Public Policy
This paper is part of an British ESRC-funded project on
Representing Europeans. RES-062-23-1892 and draws on
the 2009 European Election Survey, organised through the
Robert Schuman Centre of the European University Institute
and funded by the European Commission.
Presented at PIREDEU Final Conference
Brussels, 18 November 2010
2
NORMATIVE ISSUE: How much vertical accountability
should EU policymakers be subject to as agents of
Europe's citizens?
STATUS QUO:
The European Parliament is the only participant in the EU
system whose members are directly elected to their EU
offices.
The Council of Ministers consists of national governments
that are directly elected in national elections on national
issues.
Most Europeans aren’t interested in EU politics and don’t
vote in EP elections.
CASE FOR A PAN-EUROPEAN REFERENDUM
National referendums already hold the EU to account—but
three-quarters or more of EU citizens are excluded from
them
There should be limits to EU policymakers pursuing
integration by stealth e.g. require citizen approval of treaty
changes.
Participation is good in itself and increases commitments
to EU decisions.
3
EMPIRICAL ISSUE How much popular demand is there for a
pan-referendum?
Figure 1 POPULAR ENDORSEMENT OF PAN-EU REFERENDUMS
Q. Do you agree or disagree that EU treaty changes should be decided by
referendum?
Source: 2009 European Election Study in all EU member states.
Number of respondents: 25,078. For details, see www.piredeu.eu.
4
Figure 2 ALL COUNTRIES ENDORSE PAN-EU REFERENDUMS
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Ireland
United Kingdom
Greece
Cyprus
Romania
Estonia
Spain
Malta
Hungary
Portugal
Poland
Latvia
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Italy
Denmark
France
Belgium
Finland
Austria
Germany
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Sweden
Slovenia
0%
94%
91%
91%
90%
90%
89%
86%
86%
85%
85%
84%
83%
83%
83%
81%
80%
77%
77%
70%
70%
68%
68%
67%
62%
59%
59%
52%
50%
Pro-referendum
Source: 2009 European Election Study. Pro and anti-referendum
calculated after excluding those neither for nor against. N=21,819
100%
5
ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF THE DEMAND FOR REFERENDUMS
*H 1. SATISFICING: The more satisfied citizens are with the performance
of governing agents, the less likely they are to demand EU referendums
but the more dissatisfied they are, the more likely they are to demand
referendums.
*Focuses on outputs of governor not inputs of citizens
*Performance can be that of national and/or EU level governments
*Performance of government varies over time as does satisfaction
*H 2. SUBJECTIVE COMPETENCE. Individuals with more resources will
participate more in politics and be more likely to favour referendums.
*Individual resources tend to be fixed, e.g. education, class
*H3 NATIONAL CONTEXT. Individual assessments of referendums are
influenced by national practices and EU engagement.
*H 4 PERVASIVE. Majority of all political and social groups favour
having a referendum.
6
Table 1 TESTING INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENT OF PAN-EU REFERENDUMS
Logit b
(S.E.)
Exp(B)
Approve government record
Positive natl economy
Satisfied democracy in country
-.425***
-.008
-.074
(.031)
(.014)
(.032)
.654
.992
.929
Immigration should decrease
Punish criminals more
Govt should not intervene economy
.558***
.447***
.238***
(.030)
(.032)
(.031)
1.747
1.564
1.269
(Dis)satisfied with EU Politics
Positive EU
Feels EU citizen
Unification going too far
-.083***
-.068
107**
(.015)
(.032)
(.033)
.920
.934
1.113
Resourceful Participants
Social class
Education
Standard of living
-.178***
-.022
.006
(.017)
(.012)
(.020)
.837
.978
1.006
.054
(.031)
.038
(.030)
.006
(.034)
______________
1.055
1.039
1.006
.885***
(.075)
69.7
.10
29073.804
1825.575
2.423
(Dis)satisfied with National Politics
Interest in politics
Close to party
Voted EP election
Constant
Percentage correctly predicted
Nagelkerke R-squared
-2 Log likelihood
Chi square whole model
*** significant at .000
** at .001
* at .01
Source: 2009 European Election Survey. Dependent variable: those endorsing
a referendum dichotomized against those opposing or undecided. Number of
respondents included in analysis: 24,614.
7
Table 2 FEARS ILL GROUNDED: REFERENDUM MAJORITIES IN ALL GROUPS
Location on variables
Yes, positive
No, negative
% Pro – Referendum
Significant variables
Unification gone too far
Positive EU
82
73
76
79
Immigration should fall
Punish criminals more
No govt intervention in economy
84
82
83
69
66
75
Middle class
Approves national govt. record
74
69
84
83
Not significant
Interested in politics
Close to a party
75
76
82
80
Voted EP election
Feels EU citizen
76
74
83
85
Positive national economy
Satisfied country's democracy
78
73
78
84
More educated
Standard of living above average
72
73
82
82
Source: As in Figure 2.
8
Table 3 GAP BETWEEN MEPS AND CITIZENS VIEWS OF REFERENDUMS
Country
Malta
Spain
Estonia
Romania
Hungary
Latvia
Luxembourg
Italy
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Slovenia
Poland
Slovakia
Denmark
Average EU 27
France
Finland
United Kingdom
Sweden
Austria
Greece
Germany
Cyprus
Belgium
Ireland
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Portugal
Citizens
75
75
72
76
71
70
56
65
68
85
43
71
62
67
68
66
61
85
47
60
85
61
82
58
89
53
66
71
MEPs
% pro
0
2
0
9
14
13
0
13
17
35
0
30
23
31
34
35
31
58
22
35
64
42
67
46
83
60
91
100
Difference
75
73
72
67
58
57
56
52
52
50
43
41
38
36
34
31
30
26
25
24
21
18
15
12
6
-7
-25
-29
Pro-referendum MEPs are members of national parties endorsing a referendum
as per EU Profiler analysis. For details, see Borz and Rose (2010).
Sources: 2009 European Election Survey and www.euprofiler.eu.
9
Figure 3 EXCLUSION OF EUROPE'S CITIZENS BY NATIONAL REFERENDUMS
(Percent of citizens in member states not holding Treaty referendum)
% excluded from voting
Notes: Lisbon: Ireland voted; 26 countries did not. European Constitution:
France, Spain, Luxembourg and Netherlands voted, 21 did not. Amsterdam:
Ireland and Denmark voted, 13 countries did not. Nice: Ireland voted, 14
countries did not. Maastricht: France, Ireland and Denmark voted, 9
countries did not. Single European Act: Denmark and Ireland voted, 10
countries did not.
10
THE EFFECTIVE CHOICE
An unstable status quo
*Since 1992 an average of referendums every 3 years on Treaty issues
*Risk of events triggering national referendums, e.g.
.Eurozone crisis
.Enlargement in Balkans and Turkey
Alternatively, adopting rules for a European referendum
1. Question set at the EU level
2. Binding or advisory?
3. Turnout requirement?
4. Double majority --electorate and countries--for enactment
5. Super majorities as well?
6. Provisions for opting out by countries defeating a proposal