From constraining to catalysing dissensus? The impact of political contestation on parliamentary communication in EU affairs

Abstract

National parliaments have the potential to serve as transmission belts between the European Union (EU) and their citizens. By publicly communicating EU issues, they can enhance the visibility, public accountability and ultimately the legitimacy of supranational governance. Not least since the Eurozone crisis, this task has become increasingly important in the ever more politicised context of EU integration characterised by public and partisan contestation. Against this background, the aim of the paper is to investigate the communication efforts of national parliaments in EU affairs and, in particular, to analyse the impact of the levels of contestation of EU issues both within the public and the parliamentary arena on their communication activities. In a nutshell, in how far has political contestation acted as a catalyst for parliamentary communication of EU affairs? Our data on plenary activities in seven EU parliaments from 2010 to 2013 reveals that political contestation in public opinion has a positive impact, while contestation within parliament may hamper communication of EU affairs.

What Happens in Parliament Stays in Parliament? Newspaper Coverage of National Parliaments in EU Affairs

“…As Auel et al . (, p. 164) show, although the number of debates increased during the eurozone crisis, parliaments still spent only on average about 8 per cent of their debating time in the plenary on EU debates.…”

“…Ultimately, national parliaments may 'restore' among citizens a sense of ownership of EU politics and a feeling of being represented, if they actively communicate their involvement in EU matters. This is also not a purely academic issue: national parliaments are indeed paying more attention to their communicative role in EU affairs (see COSAC, 2016/26), and, as a number of studies demonstrate, increased their efforts to fulfil this role (Auel et al, 2016;Rauh, 2015;Senninger, 2016;Wendler, 2016;Wonka, 2016). The legitimizing potential of national parliaments, however, depends crucially on whether they actually reach their audience: Parliaments debate and scrutinize (EU) policies on behalf of their citizens.…”

Complementing, competing, or co-operating? Exploring newspapers’ portrayals of the European Parliament and national parliaments in EU affairs

“…For this reason, legislative and media activities are tested in separate models. Data on EP activities was retrieved from the EP’s online archives whereas data on parliamentary activities of NPs in EU affairs was collected in the context of the PACE project and the OPAL project 4 (Auel, Eisele, and Kinski 2015, 2016; Auel, Rozenberg, and Tacea 2015b). Press releases comprise only those issued by the institution of parliament, not individual party groups or M(E)Ps.…”

“…Also regarding domestic parliamentary activities, NPs are found to mirror the increased interest in EU affairs and engage in public debate to a greater extent (e.g. Auel, Eisele, and Kinski 2016; Auel and Raunio 2014). …”

The Troika's Variations on a Trio: Why the Loan Programmes Worked so Differently in Greece, Ireland, and Portugal

“…The pressure of conditionality, and the urgency of the timeframe involved, led to the further marginalisation of democratic and constitutional concerns. The time available for real debate that could help build national ownership of the reforms was squeezed out, and government relied increasingly on non-parliamentary legislative mechanisms (Auel, Eisele, and Kinski 2016). The compliance requirements set by the Eurogroup did not appear to be sensitive to the domestic complexities that successive governments had to contend with.…”