Search

Over the last few years, EU institutions have taken on the task of promoting an ‘active European remembrance’ of Europe's twentieth century totalitarian experiences. At stake in this process is the possibility of constructing an EU-wide historical narrative. However, EU-level debates on the remembrance of European history are permeated by struggles between policy actors who vie for control over the telling of Europe's past. Using insights from the agenda-setting and framing literatures, the article examines the conditions under which memory narratives are able to become prominent or, conversely, lose ground in the EU's overall discourse. It concludes that, although the constellation of actors in place was a key factor in explaining fluctuations in the EU's remembrance discourse, the weight of their arguments also depended on how well their discourse resonated with existing memory cultures at the domestic and the EU levels. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Scholars are increasingly concerned with the phenomenon by which successive policy areas in Europe become 'communitarised' - by which we mean that the sector's governance increasingly takes place at the supranational level. As was the case for the environment or the telecommunications sector, no formal competence on book policy, and more generally on cultural policy, appeared in the original treaty, and hence I seek to explain why and how the communitarisation of the policy debate on book prices took place. On the one hand, the European Court of Justice and the Commission, which benefited from the complicity of subnational private actors, were making use of their judicial and regulatory powers in order to liberalise the book sector. On the other hand, member states which felt that their policy traditions were challenged by European intervention tried to shift the decision-making process back to an intergovernmental mode in an attempt to impose an alternative policy solution, treating books as a special product. The main argument that is put forward in this article is that once the locus of the decision-making process had shifted de facto towards the EU level, the diversity of actors' preferences, decision rules and the nature of the status quo made it impossible for the tenants of dirigiste solutions to impose their policy preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]