Introduction to “Out of the Shadows, Into the Limelight: Parliaments and Politicisation”

Abstract

The Lisbon Treaty gave the European Parliament extensive new powers and its consent is now required for the vast majority of EU international agreements. At the same time, national parliaments—and even regional ones—are increasingly asserting their powers over areas of European governance that were traditionally dominated by the executive. Exerting influence and conducting oversight is time-consuming, however. Particularly at the EU-level parliaments cannot influence or scrutinise every policy dossier with equal rigour. A key factor directing parliamentary attention seems to be the ‘politicisation’ of an issue. In other words, the amount of contestation and attention given to a particular issue seems to affect parliamentary activity. This thematic issue seeks to assess <em>how</em> politicisation affects the role parliaments play within the system of EU governance. In particular, the contributions aim to answer the over-arching question of whether politicisation has an impact on how parliaments seek to influence policy-making and hold the EU executives to account. Furthermore, we raise the question of whether and how politicisation affects the role of parliaments as arenas for contestation and communication of different political interests. Jointly, the findings provide the empirical foundations for a more comprehensive debate regarding the democratic implications of politicisation. Politicisation puts pressure on parliaments to act, but parliamentarians themselves may also find it in their interest to instigate contestation. This thematic issue addresses these questions by shedding light on both the European Parliament and national parliaments and examines different policy-fields reaching from climate change and trade, to financial affairs and the Common Fisheries Policy.

(De‐)politicization Discourse Strategies: The Case of Trade

“…The control variables are, firstly, claims coded as advocating for further integration; secondly, claims in support of any change from the status quo; and finally, claims including a negative evaluation of the addressee. In the context of the general contentiousness of CETA and TTIP (De Ville and Siles‐Brügge, 2017; Neuhold and Rosén, 2019; Roederer‐Rynning and Kallestrup, 2017), we can assume that EU trade policy and, by extension, furthering European integration tend to be polarizing issues, that is, that the EU will depoliticize whilst domestic actors politicize. Recognizing that claims coded as advocating for deeper integration may lead to an over‐representation of EU claimants, we add a second variable, which follows the same logic but captures all claims advocating for any change from the status quo.…”

Studying the influence of national parliaments in EU affairs: reconnecting empirical research and the Principal-Agent approach

“…A third set of studies deals with the communicative function of national parliaments. These works investigate the links between MPs and voters, along with the (de)politicisation of the EU in national parliaments (Neuhold and Rosen 2019). Recent analyses of parliamentary debates have challenged the beliefs that the role of the plenary is limited and that a 'depoliticisation' process of EU policies in national legislatures is preferred by political actors (Auel and Raunio 2014;Miklin 2014;Rauh and de Wilde 2018;Wendler 2016).…”

Between human rights and security concerns: politicisation of EU-Turkey and EU-Libya agreements on migration in national parliaments

“…This article aims at contributing to the academic reflection on the rising politicisation of EU foreign policy (e.g. Costa 2019, Neuhold andRosén 2019), with a special focus on the externalisation of EU migration management. By focusing on politicisation as a discursive process observable in national parliaments, this research investigates the drivers of politicisation, as well as their justifications.…”