CSPP

IS THERE A DEMAND FOR PAN-EUROPEAN REFERENDUMS?

Or

SHOULD EUROPEAN INTEGRATIONISTS FEAR THE EU ELECTORATE?

PROFESSOR RICHARD ROSE & DR. GABRIELA BORZ

Centre for the Study of Public Policy

This paper is part of an British ESRC-funded project on Representing Europeans. RES-062-23-1892 and draws on the 2009 European Election Survey, organised through the Robert Schuman Centre of the European University Institute and funded by the European Commission.

Presented at PIREDEU Final Conference

Brussels, 18 November 2010

2

NORMATIVE ISSUE: How much vertical accountability should EU policymakers be subject to as agents of Europe's citizens?

STATUS QUO: The European Parliament is the only participant in the EU system whose members are directly elected to their EU offices.

The Council of Ministers consists of national governments that are directly elected in national elections on national issues.

Most Europeans aren’t interested in EU politics and don’t vote in EP elections.

CASE FOR A PAN-EUROPEAN REFERENDUMNational referendums already hold the EU to account—but three-quarters or more of EU citizens are excluded from them

There should be limits to EU policymakers pursuing integration by stealth e.g. require citizen approval of treaty changes.

Participation is good in itself and increases commitments to EU decisions.

3

EMPIRICAL ISSUE How much popular demand is there for a pan-referendum?

Figure 1 POPULAR ENDORSEMENT OF PAN-EU REFERENDUMS

Q. Do you agree or disagree that EU treaty changes should be decided by referendum?

Source: 2009 European Election Study in all EU member states. Number of respondents: 25,078. For details, see www.piredeu.eu.

52%59%59%

62%

67%68%68%70%70%

77%

77%80%81%83%83%

83%84%85%85%86%86%

89%90%90%91%91%

94%

0% 50% 100%

SloveniaSweden

The NetherlandsLuxembourg

GermanyAustriaFinland

Belgium

FranceDenmark

ItalySlovakia

Czech Republic

LatviaPoland

PortugalHungary

MaltaSpain

EstoniaRomania

CyprusGreece

United KingdomIreland

LithuaniaBulgaria

4

Figure 2 ALL COUNTRIES ENDORSE PAN-EU REFERENDUMS

Pro-referendum

Source: 2009 European Election Study. Pro and anti-referendum calculated after excluding those neither for nor against. N=21,819

5

ALTERNATIVE THEORIES OF THE DEMAND FOR REFERENDUMS

*H 1. SATISFICING: The more satisfied citizens are with the performance of governing agents, the less likely they are to demand EU referendums but the more dissatisfied they are, the more likely they are to demand referendums.

*Focuses on outputs of governor not inputs of citizens

*Performance can be that of national and/or EU level governments

*Performance of government varies over time as does satisfaction

*H 2. SUBJECTIVE COMPETENCE. Individuals with more resources will participate more in politics and be more likely to favour referendums.

*Individual resources tend to be fixed, e.g. education, class

*H3 NATIONAL CONTEXT. Individual assessments of referendums are influenced by national practices and EU engagement.

*H 4 PERVASIVE. Majority of all political and social groups favour having a referendum.

6

Table 1 TESTING INDIVIDUAL ENDORSEMENT OF PAN-EU REFERENDUMS

Logit b (S.E.) Exp(B)(Dis)satisfied with National Politics

Approve government record -.425*** (.031) .654Positive natl economy -.008 (.014) .992Satisfied democracy in country -.074 (.032) .929

Immigration should decrease .558*** (.030) 1.747Punish criminals more .447*** (.032) 1.564Govt should not intervene economy .238*** (.031) 1.269

(Dis)satisfied with EU Politics Positive EU -.083*** (.015) .920Feels EU citizen -.068 (.032) .934Unification going too far 107** (.033) 1.113

Resourceful ParticipantsSocial class -.178*** (.017) .837Education -.022 (.012) .978Standard of living .006 (.020) 1.006

Interest in politics .054 (.031) 1.055Close to party .038 (.030) 1.039Voted EP election .006 (.034) 1.006

______________

Constant .885*** (.075) 2.423Percentage correctly predicted 69.7Nagelkerke R-squared .10-2 Log likelihood 29073.804Chi square whole model 1825.575

*** significant at .000 ** at .001 * at .01 Source: 2009 European Election Survey. Dependent variable: those endorsing a referendum dichotomized against those opposing or undecided. Number of respondents included in analysis: 24,614.

7

Location on variables

Yes, positive No, negative

% Pro – ReferendumSignificant variables

Unification gone too far 8276

Positive EU 73 79

Immigration should fall 84 69Punish criminals more 82 66No govt intervention in economy 83 75

Middle class 74 84Approves national govt. record 69 83

Not significant Interested in politics 75 82Close to a party 76 80

Voted EP election 76 83Feels EU citizen 74 85

Positive national economy 78 78Satisfied country's democracy 73 84

More educated 72 82Standard of living above average 73 82

Source: As in Figure 2.

Table 2 FEARS ILL GROUNDED: REFERENDUM MAJORITIES IN ALL GROUPS

8

Table 3 GAP BETWEEN MEPS AND CITIZENS VIEWS OF REFERENDUMS

Country Citizens MEPs Difference % pro

Malta 75 0 75Spain 75 2 73Estonia 72 0 72Romania 76 9 67Hungary 71 14 58Latvia 70 13 57Luxembourg 56 0 56Italy 65 13 52Lithuania 68 17 52Bulgaria 85 35 50Slovenia 43 0 43Poland 71 30 41Slovakia 62 23 38Denmark 67 31 36Average EU 27 68 34 34France 66 35 31Finland 61 31 30United Kingdom 85 58 26Sweden 47 22 25Austria 60 35 24Greece 85 64 21Germany 61 42 18Cyprus 82 67 15Belgium 58 46 12Ireland 89 83 6Netherlands 53 60 -7Czech Republic 66 91 -25Portugal 71 100 -29

Pro-referendum MEPs are members of national parties endorsing a referendum as per EU Profiler analysis. For details, see Borz and Rose (2010).

Sources: 2009 European Election Survey and www.euprofiler.eu.

9

Figure 3 EXCLUSION OF EUROPE'S CITIZENS BY NATIONAL REFERENDUMS

(Percent of citizens in member states not holding Treaty referendum)

% excluded from voting

Notes: Lisbon: Ireland voted; 26 countries did not. European Constitution: France, Spain, Luxembourg and Netherlands voted, 21 did not. Amsterdam: Ireland and Denmark voted, 13 countries did not. Nice: Ireland voted, 14 countries did not. Maastricht: France, Ireland and Denmark voted, 9 countries did not. Single European Act: Denmark and Ireland voted, 10 countries did not.

THE EFFECTIVE CHOICE

An unstable status quo

*Since 1992 an average of referendums every 3 years on Treaty issues*Risk of events triggering national referendums, e.g.

.Eurozone crisis

.Enlargement in Balkans and Turkey

Alternatively, adopting rules for a European referendum

1. Question set at the EU level

2. Binding or advisory?

3. Turnout requirement?

4. Double majority --electorate and countries--for enactment

5. Super majorities as well?

6. Provisions for opting out by countries defeating a proposal

10