Search

The period since the early 1990s has seen a marked shift in the terms of Dutch European discourse, as dramatically highlighted by the country's 'No' vote in its 2005 referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty. The present paper examines the trajectory of this discursive shift, suggesting that a traditional 'federalist' referential has been replaced by an elite discourse focused primarily on defining the 'limits of Europe' in intersecting substantive and geographical terms. A general framework for the understanding of national discourses of European integration is first set out, highlighting the key role played by national elites as mediators between the European and the national political systems. The Dutch case is then examined against this background, chronicling the general terms of the 'critical turn' in national European discourse, the 2005 referendum campaign, post-referendum party positioning and discussions surrounding the 2007 Reform Treaty. Despite the persistence of strong, underlying support for Dutch EU membership, it is finally argued that The Netherlands has not (as yet) found a stable, cohesive national narrative of its 'fit' and 'place' in the contemporary (post-enlargement) project of European integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The idea that cities enjoy a certain degree of autonomy from the state when it comes to shaping immigrant integration policy has been repeatedly highlighted by research and promoted by good governance discourses. However, the emergence of state-led civic integration programmes (CIP) across Europe would seem to jar with this movement. This is the contradiction that this article explores. CIP mobilise significant resources and streamline immigrant integration through language courses, the provision of information about the host society and vocational orientation. Drawing on policy documents and interviews with local policy-makers on the CIP in the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden, this article demonstrates how they reduce the role cities have in immigrant integration; and how they transform integration policies—to varying degrees—from being developed in relationship to locally emerging needs to being charged with state sovereignty. These findings challenge the idea that there is an increasingly local approach to integration. They also raise concerns about the ambitions of CIP. Although presented as a means to make integration policies more efficient, their focus on control and coercion may in fact jeopardise their capacity to respond to concrete integration needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article asks how ex ante and ex post control mechanisms structuring the involvement of national parliaments in European Union (EU) policy-formulation affect the scope of conflict and visibility of parliamentary debates. Based on democratic theory, partisan conflict and high visibility are normatively preferable. The effects of control mechanisms on these two criteria are assessed in a comparative case study of plenary debates in the Danish Folketing and Dutch Tweede Kamer on multiannual EU budgets. This study shows that control mechanisms have direct and indirect effects on the scope of conflict and visibility of debates by linking up to different phases of policy-formulation and media coverage cycles. Danish ex ante mechanisms trigger more partisan, but less visible debates, whereas Dutch ex post mechanisms stimulate highly visible, but intergovernmental debates. The findings thus present a trade-off between partisan conflict on the one hand and visibility on the other hand. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The role of national parliaments in European integration is a topical issue in current political and academic debates. This article aims to contribute to these debates by formulating three hypotheses on the differences in parliamentary scrutiny between member states. It is hypothesised that due to differences in the structure of political systems, the British and Dutch Upper and Lower House hold their respective governments to account in different ways. The hypotheses will be discussed in light of empirical findings on the EU regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation, and restriction of chemical substances (REACH). The empirical evidence provides a mixed picture with regard to these claims. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]