IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fau/aucocz/au2012_177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiating the European Constitution: Government Preferences for Council Decision Rules

Author

Listed:
  • Madeleine O. Hosli

    (Leiden University, Department of Political Science, Leiden, the Netherlands)

Abstract

This paper explores what preferences governments held in the negotiation process on the European Constitution regarding European Union (EU) institutional provisions and decision rules. Applying logistic regression and ordered probit techniques to the data collection ‘Domestic Structures and European Integration’ (DOSEI), and complemented by graphical and descriptive explorations, the paper reveals cleavages between governments’ positions that can be discerned in the negotiation process on the European Constitution. Regarding decision rules to be used in the Council, member state preferences clearly differ according to the length of EU states’ membership, with older members, in general, favoring a low decision threshold for the Council. Similarly, older EU states were stronger supporters of the application of qualified majority voting (QMV) than were newer EU member states. In addition to this, our analysis reveals that smaller EU states and those facing Euroskeptic domestic publics tended to be more supportive of a low decision threshold in the Council of the EU.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:fau:aucocz:au2012_177
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://auco.cuni.cz/mag/article/download/id/131/type/attachment
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Madeleine O. Hosli & Mikko Mattila & Marc Uriot, 2011. "Voting in the Council of the European Union after the 2004 Enlargement: A Comparison of Old and New Member States," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(6), pages 1249-1270, November.
    2. Sara Hagemann, 2007. "Applying Ideal Point Estimation Methods to the Council of Ministers," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(2), pages 279-296, June.
    3. Abdul Ghafar Noury & Simon Hix & Gérard Roland, 2007. "Democratic politics in the European Parliament," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/7744, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Eichenberg, Richard C. & Dalton, Russell J., 1993. "Europeans and the European Community: the dynamics of public support for European integration," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 507-534, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Madeleine O. Hosli & M. C. J. Uriot, 2011. "Dimensions of Political Contestation: Voting in the Council of the European Union before the 2004 Enlargement," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 231-248, November.
    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. Tim Veen, 2011. "Positions and salience in European Union politics: Estimation and validation of a new dataset," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 267-288, June.
    2. Esteve, Patrícia & Theilen, Bernd, 1965-, 2014. "European Integration: Partisan Motives or Economic Benefits?," Working Papers 2072/225297, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    3. Kristel Jacquier, 2015. "Political conflicts over European integration: rejection or ambivalence?," Post-Print halshs-01243675, HAL.
    4. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:48:y:2010:i::p:1185-1208 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:48:y:2010:i::p:811-833 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Karl-Oskar Lindgren & Thomas Persson, 2008. "The Structure of Conflict over EU Chemicals Policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 31-58, March.
    7. Ladrech, Robert, . "Europeanization and political parties," Living Reviews in European Governance (LREG), Institute for European integration research (EIF).
    8. Běla Plechanovová, 2011. "Coalitions in the EU Council: Pitfalls of Multidimensional Analysis," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 249-266, November.
    9. Mark Aspinwall, 2002. "Preferring Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(1), pages 81-111, March.
    10. Brigitte Pircher & Mike Farjam, 2021. "Oppositional voting in the Council of the EU between 2010 and 2019: Evidence for differentiated politicisation," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 472-494, September.
    11. Gail McElroy, 2007. "Legislative Politics as Normal?," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(3), pages 433-448, September.
    12. Kristel Jacquier, 2015. "Political conflicts over European integration: rejection or ambivalence?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01243675, HAL.
    13. 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(5), pages 1185-1208, November.
    14. Madeleine O. Hosli & M. C. J. Uriot, 2011. "Dimensions of Political Contestation: Voting in the Council of the European Union before the 2004 Enlargement," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 231-248, November.
    15. Sara Hagemann & Bjørn Høyland, 2010. "Bicameral Politics in the European Union," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 811-833, September.
    16. 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.
    17. Kristel Jacquier, 2015. "Political conflicts over European integration: rejection or ambivalence?," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 15083, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    18. Anatole Cheysson & Nicolò Fraccaroli, 2019. "Ideology in times of crisis A principal component analysis of votes in the European Parliament, 2004-2019," CEIS Research Paper 461, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 28 Jun 2019.
    19. Julian Aichholzer & Sylvia Kritzinger & Carolina Plescia, 2021. "National identity profiles and support for the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(2), pages 293-315, June.
    20. 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.
    21. Marcel Lubbers & Eva Jaspers, 2011. "A longitudinal study of euroscepticism in the Netherlands: 2008 versus 1990," European Union Politics, , vol. 12(1), pages 21-40, March.
    22. Daniele, Gianmarco & Geys, Benny, 2012. "Public support for institutionalised solidarity: Europeans' reaction to the establishment of eurobonds," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship & Project "The Future of Fiscal Federalism" SP II 2012-112, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Decision rules; Council of the European Union; institutional provisions; dimensions of political contestation; qualified majority voting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • H1 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government

    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:fau:aucocz:au2012_177. 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: Lenka Stastna (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/icunicz.html .

    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.