Turnover, Turnout, and Input Legitimacy in the EU

Author(s):  
Nicholas Clark ◽  
John A. Scherpereel
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Catherine Barnard ◽  
Steve Peers

This introductory chapter begins with a discussion of the development of EU law. It then sets out the text’s overarching themes.These can be introduced in the form of two questions: ‘What should the EU be doing?’ and ‘How should the EU go about doing it?’ The first question is linked to the concept of ‘output legitimacy’, that is, the EU proving its value to the public by showing that it is effective in contributing to the achievement of objectives which have wide public support (e.g. economic growth and job creation). The second question is linked to the concept of ‘input legitimacy’, that is, how fair and democratic is the process by which the EU takes decisions.


Author(s):  
Tapio Raunio

This chapter examines the relationship between European integration and democracy. The continuous transfer of policy-making powers from European Union (EU) member states to the European level has raised serious concerns about democratic legitimacy. The chapter assesses the claims that European integration undermines national democracy, and that decision-making at the EU level is not sufficiently democratic. It argues that while significant challenges remain, European integration has definitely become more democratic over the years. But there is perhaps a trade-off, with stronger input legitimacy potentially an obstacle to efficient European-level decision-making. It also underlines the multilevel nature of the EU polity and the importance of public debates about European integration.


Author(s):  
Joseph Lacey

This book was motivated by the purported problems of democratic or input legitimacy facing the EU—a discussion primarily confined to academia and the elite spheres of EU political life, at least until the euro-crisis when Europe’s democratic credentials became a much more public concern. The project dealt with one of the greatest challenges to the achievement of democratic legitimacy in this political constellation, namely the existence of distinctive public spheres. According to the ...


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Catherine Barnard ◽  
Steve Peers

This introductory chapter begins with a consideration of what purpose EU regulation serves and why the EU should regulate. This is a way of introducing students to the main themes of the book. These can be introduced in the form of two questions: ‘What should the EU be doing?’ and ‘How should the EU go about doing it?’ The first question is linked to the concept of ‘output legitimacy’, that is, the EU proving its value to the public by showing that it is effective in contributing to the achievement of objectives which have wide public support (e.g. economic growth and job creation). The second question is linked to the concept of ‘input legitimacy’, that is, how fair and democratic is the process by which the EU takes decisions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 1247-1270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Wieczorek

AbstractThis contribution discusses National Parliaments’ subsidiarity objections raised in the context of the Early Warning Mechanism (EWM) to the European Public Prosecutor Office proposal, and the European Commission response to them. It argues that National Parliaments raised important points, on how does subsidiarity apply respectively, when the wording of the Treaty grants the Council theoptionto act, as opposed to an obligation to act; on how to assess the inefficiency of the national level; on how does subsidiarity apply in a geographically fragmented context, and on the legitimacy for the EU to regulate non cross-border behaviors. It criticizes the Commission's hasty dismissal of all National Parliaments’ objections, and its decision to leave the proposal's text untouched. It further argues that the Commission's interpreted the EWM as an arena where to test the political feasibility of the proposal, as it had occurred in the past, rather than as a proper subsidiarity policing mechanism. It finally provides some observation on how this interpretation of the EWM has negative implications to terms of subsidiarity policing, of understanding the substance of the principle, and of input legitimacy.


2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dina Sebastião ◽  
Susana Borges

Purpose The purpose of the paper is to reflect on the conditions of referenda as an EU input legitimacy, on the era of social media microtargeting campaigns. Taking the case of Brexit as an example, it takes conclusions for the democracy as an inherent value of the EU multilevel polity and opens prospects for possible solutions. Design/methodology/approach The paper is interdisciplinary based, complementing political science approaches on EU democratic legitimacy and communication studies on social media and political communication. These are the theoretical frameworks for analysing the case of Brexit referendum campaign, which is based on an empirical tracing of strategies and contents used. This empirical assessment is supported by official reports of the House of Commons and of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office and media news on the case. Analysis and discussion of it allows to come to conclusions. Findings Primary finding is that manipulation and disinformation occurred in Brexit campaign, creating a biased, fake and unbalanced information. Second main finding is that microtargeting and suppression of public debate enhances the typical polarisation of binary options on a referendum, and in the case of Brexit deepened the social cleavage that already shaped voter’s preferences, once information consumed by citizens functioned as “eco-chambers”, strengthening preconceptions. The ultimate conclusion in this case is a sign that social media can deepen the historical gap between elites and voters in the EU, with negative consequences for democracy and social legitimacy of the EU political system. Research limitations/implications The almost impossible access to the digital microtargeted adverts used in campaigns, to allow a more detailed analysis of the EU content issued. Practical implications Conclusions of this research are useful for politicians and advisers of policy-making to reflect on the future of the political system of the EU in terms of democracy, and the Europe as a whole and think about measures to be taken either on the level of improving legitimacy processes or regulation of digital media. Social implications If practical implications are taken from conclusions of this study, enhancing democratic processes, avoiding privacy data manipulation and providing accurate, impartial and trustworthy information to citizens public can be a social benefit achieved mainly through regulation. Originality/value Despite some studies have been released on Brexit referendum, they have mainly been single-disciplinary. This study innovates because it conciliates political science theoretical views with communications studies’ ones, to produce strengthened reasoning ground on the purposed of this research: to search evidence that new political communication strategies within the social media landscape can be of special negative influence in EU referenda and for the future of the multilevel polity.


2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rinus van Schendelen
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document