1. POPULAR COMMITMENT TO AN EVER CLOSER UNION? A PRAGMATIC APPROACH PROFESSOR RICHARD ROSE FBA CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF PUBLIC POLICY U. OF STRATHCLYDE www.cspp.strath.ac.uk/ UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE de BRUXELLES 21 February 2012 1

2. INTEGRATION BY STEALTH: A DYNAMIC PROCESS *Intergovernmental deliberations among elites and technocrats *Path dependent framework *Functional spillover *The acquis communautaire: no going back *Result: an ever closer union *Endorsed by a uninterested,uninformed and unconsulted citizens 16.02.122

3. POPULAR COMMITMENT *Commitment = Awareness + Understanding + Endorsement *Costly policies can't be achieved by stealth; need popular endorsement * EU efforts to engage grassroots citizens have limits:.Turnout at EP elections.Astroturf consultations with organizations.Citizens' Initiative 16.02.123

4. MEDIAN EUROPEAN OF TWO MINDS ABOUT EVER CLOSER UNION Q. 80 Do you think unification has already gone too far or should it be pushed further? Source: 2009 European Election Study, q. 80. Number of respondents, 27,069. Leave as is group includes 9 percent no opinion. 16.02.124

5. APPROVAL OF EU DOES NOT GUARANTEE WANTING MORE INTEGRATION 16.02.125 Attitudes toward integration among all saying country's membership of the EU is a good thing. Source: 2009 European Election Study. Figure shows division of opinion on q 79 among the 17,079 respondents who described the EU as a good thing for their country.

6. MEPs OVERWHELMINGLY FOR EVER CLOSER UNION MEP's NATIONAL PARTY Source: EU Profiler data base of party programmes for the 2009 European Parliament election (www.euprofiler.eu). 16.02.126

7. VOTERS NOT COMMITTED TO EP POSITION ON EVER CLOSER UNION FITS: EP voter agrees with national party position UNCOMMITED: Voter has no opinion on integration MISFIT Voter's position disagrees with party Source: Combines EU Profiler data on national party positions on integration with European Election Study data on attitudes toward integration of those EES respondents naming the party they voted for (N: 12,496). 16.02.127

8. AMBIGUITY OF EQUILIBRIUM *STATIC: Hard to get anything agreed, stagnation *POSITIVE FEEDBACK: Benign spillosvefrs *NEGATIVE FEEDBACK from some spillovers.French and Dutch rejection of Constitution for Europe.Schengen and immigration.Eurozone crisis *EXTERNAL CHALLENGES AND SHOCKS.2008 global economic crisis.Trans-national terrorism 16.02.128

9. A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO EU POLICY ANALYSIS PRAGMATISM : Evaluate specific proposals by their expected consequences Diagnose problems by examining experience. Examine cause and effect links in proposed solution Evaluate likely consequences for country, citizens, political self-interest Decisions arrived at on an issue by issue basis No a priori commitment for or against integration; it is a byproduct 16.02.129

10. A PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO INTEGRATION Big issues with visible costs and benefits create schizophrenia in national governments: Consensual personalities in Council, contentious in national parliaments Add zero-order politics to Reif/Schmitt 1st and 2nd order: need to consult citizens by referendum Current position of treating referendums as local option excludes most EU citizens; pan-European referendums would not Enhance cooperation among the willing and opt outs by the unwilling have broader support support and more clarity than a fudged or ambiguous agreement Dynamic consequences of differential cooperation..If laggards catch up with leaders, an ever-closer union.If differential national judgments maintained, the geometry of Europe becomes less hierarchical, multi-level and more variable. 16.02.1210

11. TO DISCUSS 1. To what extent is pragmatic evaluation already the norm? 2. Is pragmatism likely to replace commitment to an ever closer Union ? 3. To what extent is EU research unbalanced by treating integration as normal and, by implication desirable? 16.02.1211