Search results

In May 2022, the European Parliament (EP) launched a procedure to amend the EU treaties and began drafting a report with concrete reform proposals. In their resolution, EP members explicitly described this as a necessary response to recent crises (notably the Russian aggression against Ukraine, the Covid-19 pandemic, and climate change) as well as a follow-up to the Conference on the Future of Europe. However, the stated objectives of the reform, in particular more efficient and democratic EU decision-making, were not new but followed long-standing discourses on deepening EU integration. This raises the question of to what degree the EP's initiative really reflected a lesson from recent crises—in line with a "failing forward" approach towards EU reform—or rather a "backlog" of reforms which had already been proposed before but whose implementation had been blocked by member states, and for which the crises only represented a window of opportunity. The article assesses the development of treaty change proposals by the EP and bodies close to it, comparing three comprehensive plans for institutional reform: the federalist Spinelli Group's Fundamental Law for the EU (2013), the EP's Verhofstadt Report (2017), and the EP's latest Article 48 Report (2023). The comparison shows that, while the crises had an impact on the level of ambition in some policy areas, the EP's general approach, especially on institutional issues, was characterised by a high degree of continuity.

The principle of "degressive proportionality" in European elections ensures that even the smallest member states are adequately represented in the European Parliament. However, it is detrimental to transnational electoral equality: votes cast in small countries have greater weight and thus distort the relative strength of political parties. Is it possible to reform European electoral law in a way that preserves the degressive-proportional representation of member states, but at the same time makes sure that the seat share of each parliamentary group corresponds to its EU-wide vote share? The "tandem model" proposed by Jo Leinen and Friedrich Pukelsheim ostensibly fulfils this goal, but at the price of strong distortions within the national constituencies. A more promising model to reconcile electoral equality and degressive proportionality would be proportional compensation through transnational lists.

In der Krise von 1989/90 boten die Verhandlungen über den Vertrag von Maastricht beste Voraussetzungen für einen europäischen Verfassungsmoment. Doch die öffentliche Debatte blieb fragmentiert und an nationalen Interessen ausgerichtet – nicht zuletzt wegen des zwischenstaatlichen Verfahrens, das dem diplomatischen Kontext größeren Nachrichtenwert verlieh als dem konstitutionellen Inhalt der Reform. Mit einer detaillierten Untersuchung der deutschen, französischen und britischen Pressedebatte gibt dieses Buch empirische Einblicke in eine Schlüsselphase der EU-Integration. Zudem bietet es eine analytische Neuvermessung der Voraussetzungen europäischer Öffentlichkeit sowie des Verhältnisses zwischen politischen Verfahren und Diskursstrukturen. ; In the crisis of 1989/90, the negotiations on the Maastricht Treaty offered ideal conditions for a European constitutional moment. But the public debate remained fragmented and focused on national interests — not least because of intergovernmental procedures, which gave more news value to the diplomatic context than to the constitutional content of the reform. With a detailed examination of the German, French and British press debates on this issue, this book provides empirical insights into a key phase of EU integration. Moreover, it offers analytical re-conceptualisation of the conditions of a European public sphere and of the relationship between political procedures and discourse structures.

The COVID-19 pandemic is not only putting European financial solidarity to the test, but also the common values of the European Union (EU). In Hungary and Poland, the governments are using the situation to undermine democratic principles and expand their own position of power. The EU - once again - is struggling to give an adequate answer. While the European Parliament has clear words, but little options for action, most national governments show a reserved attitude. Similarly, the European Commission has expressed concern, but does not want to take any immediate countermeasures.

In der Krise von 1989/90 boten die Verhandlungen über den Vertrag von Maastricht beste Voraussetzungen für einen europäischen Verfassungsmoment. Doch die öffentliche Debatte blieb fragmentiert und an nationalen Interessen ausgerichtet – nicht zuletzt wegen des zwischenstaatlichen Verfahrens, das dem diplomatischen Kontext größeren Nachrichtenwert verlieh als dem konstitutionellen Inhalt der Reform. Mit einer detaillierten Untersuchung der deutschen, französischen und britischen Pressedebatte gibt dieses Buch empirische Einblicke in eine Schlüsselphase der EU-Integration. Zudem bietet es eine analytische Neuvermessung der Voraussetzungen europäischer Öffentlichkeit sowie des Verhältnisses zwischen politischen Verfahren und Diskursstrukturen.

Since the 1990s the so-called 'democratic deficit' of the EU became an increasingly discussed topic in both academic and political circles. In this context, the (apparently insufficient) communication of European politics to its citizens has been of especially great importance. Academic research has invested considerable efforts in trying to analyse and explain these problematic relationships. However, because this still growing area of research is still dominated by social scientists, historical approaches seem to be somewhat underrepresented. Against this background, this special issue will present historical studies on actors, means and contents of communicating the process of European integration from its beginnings to the present day.