IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v56y2008i4p789-806.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Constitutional Politics like Politics ‘At Home’? The Case of the EU Constitution

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Pennings
  • Christine Arnold

Abstract

A large number of delegates from different institutional levels within the EU have achieved a remarkable consensus on a draft constitution. Has this consensus been made possible because the nationally predominant left–right divide was only weakly present during the deliberations of the delegates? Left–right differences have been analysed by means of a content analysis on submitted documents during the European Convention. The data analysis confirms our assumption that the left–right distinction was relevant, although not very dominant. The draft constitution did not take a mean position on left and right issues, but in fact puts more emphasis on substantial goals related to both left and right, giving an equal weight to both anti‐poles. However, if we exclude the Charter of Human Rights, the draft constitution appears to be strongly tilted to the right. The analysis also shows that party family differences did affect the process of coalition building during the Convention, since more than half of all documents have been submitted together with at least one member of the same party family and/or with one family member close by. Our analysis also indicates that the process of consensus building was enhanced by the absence of many extremist and new parties during the Convention. This may have enhanced agreement on the Constitution, but later it became problematic for the domestic democratic process and for the acceptance of the Constitution in some countries, such as France and the Netherlands, especially since some of the excluded parties have actively and successfully mobilised voters to vote against the Constitution.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Pennings & Christine Arnold, 2008. "Is Constitutional Politics like Politics ‘At Home’? The Case of the EU Constitution," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(4), pages 789-806, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:56:y:2008:i:4:p:789-806
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00697.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00697.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00697.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben Crum, 2003. "Towards Finality? A preliminary assessment of the achievements of the European Convention," ARENA Working Papers 4, ARENA.
    2. Marks, Gary & Wilson, Carole J., 2000. "The Past in the Present: A Cleavage Theory of Party Response to European Integration," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 433-459, July.
    3. Paul Pennings, 2002. "The Dimensionality of the EU Policy Space," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(1), pages 59-80, March.
    4. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Laver & Christine Arnold & Paul Pennings & Madeleine O. Hosli, 2005. "Measuring National Delegate Positions at the Convention on the Future of Europe Using Computerized Word Scoring," European Union Politics, , vol. 6(3), pages 291-313, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Laver & Christine Arnold & Paul Pennings & Madeleine O. Hosli, 2005. "Measuring National Delegate Positions at the Convention on the Future of Europe Using Computerized Word Scoring," European Union Politics, , vol. 6(3), pages 291-313, September.
    2. Mark Aspinwall, 2002. "Preferring Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(1), pages 81-111, March.
    3. Jae-Jae Spoon, 2012. "How salient is Europe? An analysis of European election manifestos, 1979–2004," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 558-579, December.
    4. Christina Zimmer & Gerald Schneider & Michael Dobbins, 2005. "The Contested Council: Conflict Dimensions of an Intergovernmental EU Institution," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53(2), pages 403-422, June.
    5. Hosli, Madeleine O.; Arnold, Christine, 2007. "The Importance of Actor Cleavages in Negotiating the European Constitutional Treaty," European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) 3, CONNEX and EUROGOV networks.
    6. Paul Pennings, 2006. "An Empirical Analysis of the Europeanization of National Party Manifestos, 1960–2003," European Union Politics, , vol. 7(2), pages 257-270, June.
    7. Simon Hug & Tobias Schulz, 2007. "Referendums in the EU’s constitution building process," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 177-218, June.
    8. Thomas König & Daniel Finke, 2007. "Reforming the equilibrium? Veto players and policy change in the European constitution-building process," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 153-176, June.
    9. Hortala-Vallve, Rafael & Esteve-Volart, Berta, 2011. "Voter turnout and electoral competition in a multidimensional policy space," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 376-384, June.
    10. Esteve, Patrícia & Theilen, Bernd, 1965-, 2014. "European Integration: Partisan Motives or Economic Benefits?," Working Papers 2072/225297, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    11. Michael Evans & Wayne McIntosh & Jimmy Lin & Cynthia Cates, 2007. "Recounting the Courts? Applying Automated Content Analysis to Enhance Empirical Legal Research," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(4), pages 1007-1039, December.
    12. Catherine E. de Vries, 2010. "EU Issue Voting: Asset or Liability?," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(1), pages 89-117, March.
    13. Torsten J. Selck, 2004. "On the Dimensionality of European Union Legislative Decision-Making," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(2), pages 203-222, April.
    14. Madeleine O. Hosli, 2012. "Negotiating the European Constitution: Government Preferences for Council Decision Rules," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 6(3), pages 177-198, October.
    15. Kristel Jacquier, 2015. "Political conflicts over European integration: rejection or ambivalence?," Post-Print halshs-01243675, HAL.
    16. Torsten J. Selck & Bernard Steunenberg, 2004. "Between Power and Luck," European Union Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 25-46, March.
    17. Amandine Crespy & Katarzyna Gajewska, 2010. "New Parliament, New Cleavages after the Eastern Enlargement? The Conflict over the Services Directive as an Opposition between the Liberals and the Regulators," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 1185-1208, November.
    18. Robert Pahre & Burcu Uçaray-Mangitli, 2009. "The Myths of Turkish Influence in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47, pages 357-384, March.
    19. Thomas König & Bernd Luig, 2017. "The impact of EU decision-making on national parties’ attitudes towards European integration," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(3), pages 362-381, September.
    20. Erol Külahci, 2010. "Europarties: Agenda-Setter or Agenda-Follower? Social Democracy and the Disincentives for Tax Harmonization," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48, pages 1283-1306, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:56:y:2008:i:4:p:789-806. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.