Suchergebnisse

This article discusses two European referendums held in the Netherlands in 2005 and 2016 on the approval of the European Constitutional Treaty and the ratification of the Ukraine-European Union Association Agreement respectively. It investigates their backgrounds and outcomes and how they unfolded, drawing conclusions on striking similarities that can be discerned between them. In both cases, legislation that made the referendums possible was driven by ideas of popular involvement; the referendum campaigns were characterised by the discomfort of the political elite and the dominance of the no-camp; and they resulted in a popular rebuff, an outcome that the legislature could and would only very partially honour. The article demonstrates how the experience resulted in disillusionment, both for voters and politicians, and eventually led to the withdrawal of the corrective referendum bill.

This article contests the argument that Daniel J. Whelan and Jack Donnelly put forth in the November 2007 issue of the Human Rights Quarterly , thus joining the debate about the truth or myth of Western opposition to economic and social rights. Their statement that Western states considered these rights as equal to civil and political rights in importance is challenged through analysis of the Netherlands policies and attitudes towards the economic and social rights. Their view that the West has strongly and consistently supported economic and social rights is displaced by a picture of a gradual process in which economic and social rights became increasingly accepted as a full-fledged category of human rights.

"Five years have passed since the introduction of the subsidiarity test in the Lisbon Treaty. Hence, an evaluation of this instrument to enhance the position of national parliaments in European political decision-making is due. Looking back, parliaments have to decide whether the limited benefits (in terms of increased public trust and influence on the European Commission or national government) have been worth the considerable administrative costs. The glaring differences in the actual use of the instrument from one EU member state to the next have surprised both politicians and academics. Arguably, neither external factors, such as the level of euroscepticism, nor internal procedural differences offer satisfactory explanations for these disparities. In spite of broad agreement on most European policy issues, Berlin and The Hague beg to disagree on this test. In the Bundestag, the prevailing opinion holds that upholding the subsidiarity principle is first and foremost the responsibility of the government as guarantor of the national interest. The parliamentary subsidiarity test is regarded as a measure of last resort at best. For the Dutch Tweede Kamer, however, irrespective whether it trusts national government or even the European Commission, the subsidiarity instrument epitomizes parliamentary self-esteem." (author's abstract)

On 20 September 1976, the member states of the European Community signed the 'Act concerning the Election of the Representatives of the Assembly by Direct Uni- versal Elections', which was to introduce direct elections for the European Parliament in the member states. National parliamentary debates about the principle as well as the implementation of these elections were held in every member state. On the basis of these debates, this article investigates the ideas about European democracy that existed among members of national parliaments. It demonstrates that there were fun- damentally different philosophies about the role of the European Parliament and its relation to national parliament and various thoughts about the nature of European representation and the link to the voters. Finally, the article explores to what extent the national parliamentary debates can truly be seen as parts of a European debate.