Cross-Cutting Issues and Party Strategy in the European Union

Abstract

Has European integration affected national electoral politics beyond the margins? Experts describe its main impact as empowerment of radical voices. Mainstream parties avoid European Union (EU) issues that divide their left-or right-based organizations; extreme parties attack the EU and the center’s silence. But EU issues also generate important dynamics inside mainstream parties. The authors theorize cross-cutting EU issues as an example of a general model of cross-issue interference. Two mechanisms of interference alter party strategizing. When electoral victories have strengthened leaders, cross-cutting issues produce muffling of more recently emerged issues. Divided parties cling to left—right issues and suppress fights over integration. But interference also runs the other way. When leadership is weak, muffling fails and challengers aggravate dissent. Internal fights on newer (EU) issues affect the selection of leadership on older (left—right) issues, generating displacement from electorally competitive positions. The authors document these mechanisms and their generality with mixed methods: pan-European panel analysis and interview-based accounts.

Political parties and the EU in national election campaigns: who talks about Europe, and how?

“…There are issue‐based strategic incentives to frame the EU selectively, that is, to talk about the EU in ways that matches the party's general ideological profile. For one, doing so minimizes the extent to which the EU affects the party's overall ideological disposition (Parsons and Weber, ). Moreover, selective framing allows parties to use EU issues in ways that fit their general strategies (Helbling et al ., ).…”

Where There is Discord, Can They Bring Harmony? Managing Intra-Party Dissent on European Integration in the Conservative Party

“…Leaders with significant authority have greater success in managing intra‐party divisions (Parsons and Weber ). Many of those examined here had limited authority; only Cameron seemed a likely election winner so reaction was muted when he abandoned a referendum on Lisbon.…”

Dynamic party unity: the US Congress in comparative perspective

“…Experts generally agree that mainstream parties have long neglected, avoided, or suppressed debates about EU authority (Van der Eijk and Franklin, 1996, 2004; Hix and Lord, 1997; Mair, 2000; Johansson and Raunio, 2001; Aylott, 2002; De Vreese et al ., 2006). They also argue that the key reason is Ostrogorskian: elite and voter positions on these questions cross-cut right- and left-based parties and coalitions, encouraging parties to ‘muffle’ the divisive issue (Parsons and Weber, 2011).…”

“…Even in the supranational European Parliament, election proximity increases unity of national parties at the expense of European party groups (Lindstädt et al ., 2011). In a Europe-wide, mixed-methods study, Parsons and Weber (2011) show that intra-party dissent over the EU is ‘muffled’ as elections approach. They see these cycles explicitly as Ostrogorskian attempts to exclude a disruptive issue from elections.…”

“…(2014) find a more pronounced cycle for salient issues but do not track particular issues. Parsons and Weber (2011) address multiple issues, but we rely on expert survey measures of EU issue intra-party dissent rather than directly on legislative behavior. Second, coding dissent by years, as all these studies do, measures timing crudely relative to elections.…”