Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:15:04.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Difficulty of Justifying European Integration as a Consequence of Depoliticization: Evidence from the 2005 French Referendum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2013

Andrew Glencross
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses the 2005 French referendum debate on the EU Constitutional Treaty as an instance of depoliticization. Particular emphasis is placed on the argumentative strategy of President Chirac as, despite the treaty's focus on institutional reform, he eventually chose to justify the document in terms of social policy: an ultimately unconvincing strategy because voters believed it was contradicted by current EU policy priorities. On this evidence, pace Glyn Morgan, prioritizing a justification of EU finality over that of institutions and policies does not seem appropriate. Rather, the priority for integration is to overcome elites' strategies of depoliticization during referendum campaigns.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , 2009 , pp. 243 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2009.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 P. Magnette, What is the European Union? Nature and Prospects, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 2005.Google Scholar

3 A. Follesdal and S. Hix, Why There is a Democratic Deficit in the EU: A Response to Majone and Moravcsik, European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) C-05-02, 2005; P. Mair, Popular Democracy and the European Union Polity, European Governance Papers (EUROGOV) C-05-03, 2005.Google Scholar

4 Morgan, G., The Idea of a European Superstate: Public Justification and European Integration, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2005, p. 17.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., p. 3.Google Scholar

6 Ibid.Google Scholar

7 J. Weiler, ‘Fin-de-siècle Europe’, in R. Dehousse (ed.), Europe After Maastricht: An Ever Closer Union?, Munich, Beck, 1994, pp. 203–16.Google Scholar

8 Majone, G., ‘The Common Sense of European Integration’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13: 5 (2006), pp. 607–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Pollack, M., ‘Creeping Competence: The Expanding Agenda of the European Community’, Journal of Public Policy, 14: 2 (1994), pp. 95–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 R. Bellamy and A. Warleigh, ‘Introduction: The Paradox and Context of European Citizenship’, in R. Bellamy and A. Warleigh (eds), Citizenship and Governance in the European Union, London, Continuum, 2001, p. 9.Google Scholar

11 Mair, Popular Democracy and the European Union Polity, p. 10.Google Scholar

12 Hix, S., What's Wrong with the EU and How to Fix It?, Cambridge, Polity, 2008.Google Scholar

13 N. Walker, The White Paper in Constitutional Context, Jean Monnet Working Paper 6/01, Florence, European University Institute, 2001, p. 18.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., p. 5.Google Scholar

15 Ibid.Google Scholar

16 Morgan advocates a sovereign European superstate justified by virtue of the fact that only a sovereign EU can play the global role necessary to provide security for European citizens in the twenty-first century.Google Scholar

17 Ibid., p. 18.Google Scholar

18 Ivaldi, G., ‘Beyond France's 2005 Referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty: Second-Order Model, Anti-Establishment Attitudes and the End of the Alternative European Utopia’, West European Politics, 29 (2006), pp. 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Grunberg, G., ‘Le référendum français de ratification du traité constitutionnel européen du 29 mai 2005’, French Politics, Culture and Society, 23 (2006), pp. 128–44.Google Scholar

20 N. Jabko, ‘La France face à la Constitution européenne: un héritage mal assumé’, Critique Internationale, 29 (October–December 2005), pp. 135–51.Google Scholar

21 P. Perrineau, ‘Le référendum français du 29 mai 2005: L'irrésistible nationalisation d'un vote européen’, in P. Perrineau (ed.), Le vote européen, 2004–2005: de l'élargissement au référendum français, Paris, Presses de Science Po, 2005, pp. 229–44.Google Scholar

22 Ibid.; Dehousse, R., ‘The Unmaking of a Constitution: Lessons from the European Referenda’, Constellations, 13 (2006), pp. 151–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Jabko, ‘La France face à la Constitution européenne’.Google Scholar

24 Dehousse, ‘The Unmaking of a Constitution’, p. 162.Google Scholar

25 Maatsch, S., ‘The Struggle to Control Meanings: The French Debate on the European Constitution in the Mass Media’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 8 (2007), pp. 261–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Haywood, E., ‘The French Socialists and European Institutional Reform’, Journal of European Integration, 12 (1989), pp. 121–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Hainsworth, P., ‘France Says No: The 29 May 2005 Referendum on the European Constitution’, Parliamentary Affairs, 59 (2006), p. 106.Google Scholar

28 Indeed, one study has shown that regional variation in the level of the no vote is above all correlated to the varying local presence of hard left and extreme right parties. Perrineau, ‘Le référendum français du 29 mai 2005’, p. 237.Google Scholar

29 L. Fabius, interview, Humanité, 17 May 2005.Google Scholar

30 Grunberg, ‘Le référendum français de ratification du traité constitutionnel européen’, pp. 129–30.Google Scholar

31 L. Jospin, interview, France 2, 28 April 2005, transcript available at http://referendum-constitution-europeenne.france2.fr/10228730-fr.php.Google Scholar

32 Ibid.Google Scholar

33 Ibid.Google Scholar

34 Ibid.Google Scholar

35 Ibid.Google Scholar

36 J. Chirac, TF1 Debate, 14 April 2005, transcript available at http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais_archives/interventions/dialogues_et_debats/2005/debat_du_president_de_la_republique_avec_des_jeunes_sur_tf1_referendum_en_direct_avec_le_president.29361.html (accessed 3 February 2009).Google Scholar

37 Perrineau, ‘Le référendum français du 29 mai 2005’, p. 232.Google Scholar

38 Grunberg, ‘Le référendum français de ratification du traité constitutionnel européen’, p. 134.Google Scholar

39 Dehousse, ‘The Unmaking of a Constitution’.Google Scholar

40 Chirac, TF1 Debate, 14 April 2005.Google Scholar

41 Ibid.Google Scholar

42 Ibid.Google Scholar

43 Ibid.Google Scholar

44 J. Chirac, presidential address, 26 May 2005, transcript available at http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais_archives/interventions/interviews_articles_de_presse_et_interventions_televisees/2005/mai/referendum_francais_sur_le_traite_constitutionnel_pour_l_europe_declaration_du_president_de_la_republique.29980.html (accessed 3 February 2009).Google Scholar

45 The ‘four great ambitions’ Chirac had listed in 2002 all related to institutional rather than policy change. These were: the strengthening of parliamentary powers, both national and European, the promulgation of a constitution, the creation of a Council president and the introduction of greater flexibility permitting more enhanced cooperation in the future. Jabko, ‘La France face à la Constitution européenne’, p. 140.Google Scholar

46 Grunberg, ‘Le référendum français de ratification du traité constitutionnel européen’, p. 134.Google Scholar

47 This agenda-setting by the No camp was possible despite having had only 43 per cent of television time. But this gap was compensated by an extensive internet campaign. Hainsworth, ‘France Says No’, p. 103.Google Scholar

48 Chirac, TF1 Debate, 14 April 2005.Google Scholar

49 J. Chirac, interview, France 2, 3 May 2005, transcript available at http://www.elysee.fr/elysee/elysee.fr/francais_archives/interventions/interviews_articles_de_presse_et_interventions_televisees/2005/mai/constitution_pour_l_europe_interview_du_president_de_la_republique_au_journal_de_20_heures_de_france_2.29695.html (accessed 3 February 2009).Google Scholar

50 Ibid.Google Scholar

51 Grunberg, ‘Le référendum français de ratification du traité constitutionnel européen’, p. 132.Google Scholar

52 Chirac, TF1 Debate; Chirac, presidential address; Chirac, interview, France 2.Google Scholar

53 Chirac, TF1 Debate.Google Scholar

54 Hainsworth, ‘France Says No’, p. 104.Google Scholar

55 Almost 20 per cent of the active population. P. Raynaud, ‘L'emploi public est tiré par la fonction publique territoriale’, Économie et Statistique, 369/370 (2003), pp. 75–92.Google Scholar

56 Chirac, interview, France 2.Google Scholar

57 Ibid.Google Scholar

58 Ibid.Google Scholar

59 Chirac, TF1 Debate.Google Scholar

60 N. Jabko, ‘The Constitution as a Repertoire: The Power and Limits of Symbolic Politics’, paper presented at the First Annual Research Conference of the EU Centre of Excellence, Dalhousie University, 22 May 2007.Google Scholar

61 Dehousse, ‘The Unmaking of a Constitution’, p. 159.Google Scholar

62 Ibid.Google Scholar

63 Maatsch, ‘The Struggle to Control Meanings’, p. 275.Google Scholar

64 Ivaldi, ‘Beyond France's 2005 Referendum’, p. 64.Google Scholar

65 Ibid.Google Scholar

66 Parsons, Craig, A Certain Idea of Europe, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2003, p. 229.Google Scholar

67 One notable exception is the United Kingdom, which interpreted the granting of legal status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a potential mechanism for introducing social policy by stealth.Google Scholar

68 Schmidt, V., ‘Trapped by Their Ideas: French Elites' Discourses of European Integration and Globalization’, Journal of European Public Policy, 14 (2007), pp. 992–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 Mair, P., ‘Political Opposition and the European Union’, Government and Opposition, 42: 1 (2007), pp. 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 See the stimulating debate in S. Hix and S. Bartolini, ‘Politics: The Right or Wrong Sort of Medicine for the EU?’, Notre Europe Policy Paper 19, 2006.Google Scholar