The Debate on the European Union’s Future From the Perspective of Regional Members of Parliament

IF 2.5 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics and Governance Pub Date : 2023-06-19 DOI:10.17645/pag.v11i3.6746
Elisabeth Donat, Simon Lenhart
{"title":"The Debate on the European Union’s Future From the Perspective of Regional Members of Parliament","authors":"Elisabeth Donat, Simon Lenhart","doi":"10.17645/pag.v11i3.6746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Differentiated integration has become ubiquitous in the European Union today. However, the evaluation of differentiated integration by the academic community is much contested: While some see it as a remedy to political gridlock, others think of it as the beginning of the end of the EU (i.e., disintegration). Our article sheds light on the relationship between differentiated integration and disintegration from the viewpoint of subnational members of Parliament. Assuming that at least some scenarios of differentiated integration are related to disintegration, we report on data from a survey of seven EU member states about subnational members of Parliament’s preferences regarding future scenarios for the EU. Our results find that a preference for a Europe with a singular focus on “nothing but the single market” is related to a functionalist approach towards European integration and the perceived disintegration of the EU. This preference is especially prevalent among subnational MPs in the Czech Republic and Poland, both known for having opt-out solutions. While the Czech Republic constantly shows high levels of Euroscepticism in public surveys, the reverse is true in Poland. Obviously, a general commitment to the EU should not be equated with a shared common goal of further European integration. If such differences become permanent, European integration may genuinely be endangered.","PeriodicalId":51598,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v11i3.6746","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Differentiated integration has become ubiquitous in the European Union today. However, the evaluation of differentiated integration by the academic community is much contested: While some see it as a remedy to political gridlock, others think of it as the beginning of the end of the EU (i.e., disintegration). Our article sheds light on the relationship between differentiated integration and disintegration from the viewpoint of subnational members of Parliament. Assuming that at least some scenarios of differentiated integration are related to disintegration, we report on data from a survey of seven EU member states about subnational members of Parliament’s preferences regarding future scenarios for the EU. Our results find that a preference for a Europe with a singular focus on “nothing but the single market” is related to a functionalist approach towards European integration and the perceived disintegration of the EU. This preference is especially prevalent among subnational MPs in the Czech Republic and Poland, both known for having opt-out solutions. While the Czech Republic constantly shows high levels of Euroscepticism in public surveys, the reverse is true in Poland. Obviously, a general commitment to the EU should not be equated with a shared common goal of further European integration. If such differences become permanent, European integration may genuinely be endangered.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从地区议员的视角看欧盟的未来
差别化一体化在今天的欧盟已经变得无处不在。然而,学术界对差异化一体化的评价存在很大争议:虽然一些人认为这是对政治僵局的补救,但另一些人则认为这是欧盟终结(即解体)的开始。我们的文章从国家以下议员的角度阐明了有区别的一体化和解体之间的关系。假设至少有一些差异化一体化的情景与解体有关,我们报告了对七个欧盟成员国的调查数据,这些国家以下的议会成员对欧盟未来情景的偏好。我们的研究结果发现,对一个只关注“单一市场”的欧洲的偏好与欧洲一体化的功能主义方法和欧盟的解体有关。这种偏好在捷克共和国和波兰的地方议员中尤为普遍,这两个国家都以选择退出解决方案而闻名。尽管捷克共和国在公共调查中不断表现出高度的欧洲怀疑主义,但波兰的情况正好相反。显然,对欧盟的普遍承诺不应等同于进一步欧洲一体化的共同目标。如果这种分歧成为永久性的,欧洲一体化可能真的会受到威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Politics and Governance
Politics and Governance POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
99
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Politics and Governance is an innovative offering to the world of online publishing in the Political Sciences. An internationally peer-reviewed open access journal, Politics and Governance publishes significant, cutting-edge and multidisciplinary research drawn from all areas of Political Science. Its central aim is thereby to enhance the broad scholarly understanding of the range of contemporary political and governing processes, and impact upon of states, political entities, international organizations, communities, societies and individuals, at international, regional, national and local levels. Submissions that focus upon the political or governance-based dynamics of any of these levels or units of analysis in way that interestingly and effectively brings together conceptual analysis and empirical findings are welcome. Politics and Governance is committed to publishing rigorous and high-quality research. To that end, it undertakes a meticulous editorial process, providing both the academic and policy-making community with the most advanced research on contemporary politics and governance. The journal is an entirely open-access online resource, and its in-house publication process enables it to swiftly disseminate its research findings worldwide, and on a regular basis.
期刊最新文献
Territorial Configurations of School‐to‐Work Outcomes in Europe Strategies for Engaging and Outreaching NEETs in Italy: Insights From Active Labour Policies Public Policy Europeanisation in Response to the Covid‐19 Crisis: The Case of Job Retention Schemes NextGenerationEU and the European Semester: Comparing National Plans and Country‐Specific Recommendations Tested by the Polycrisis: Reforming or Transforming the EU?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1