Recent studies have suggested that governments may call referendums on matters of EU integration because contextual circumstances make direct votes 'politically obligatory' as ruling politicians increasingly believe them to be the 'appropriate' decision-making mechanism. This study contests this claim based on the observation of two countries, France and the UK. The constitutions of both countries enshrine different, long-standing and equally legitimate interpretations of the concepts of sovereignty and political representation. Legislators draw on these conflicting interpretations to argue for either direct public ballots or parliamentary vote, and they deploy their arguments strategically to build a rhetorical case for the decision-making mechanism that suits their party's interests. Contrary to the 'politically obligatory referendum' hypothesis, governments have greater freedom to choose whether and when to use referendums strategically to achieve their domestic and European policy objectives.
Under what conditions do politicians oppose referendums especially to decide questions of European integration? Existing literature has identified reasons why governments and political parties pledge to hold non-mandatory referendums to ratify EU treaties or determine a country's participation in the EU project, and some studies have analysed the effect of voter demand and attitudes towards EU referendums. This study examines the positions politicians themselves take towards popular participation in decision-making on the EU. The paper presents a summative content analysis of parliamentary debates in the United Kingdom between 1974 and 2010, tracing MPs' arguments against using referendums to determine the UK's participation in EU integration. Our results indicate that the range of claims made by MPs in the House of Commons against referendums on European matters has narrowed over time, although opposing arguments have continued to fall into the same set of four argumentative strategies. We find that institutional arguments, reflecting a Burkean understanding of representative democracy, consistently predominate over arguments that cite practical, political and manipulation concerns.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.