Skip to main content

Conclusion and Discussion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Eurosceptic Contagion

Part of the book series: Springer Series in Electoral Politics ((SSEP))

  • 141 Accesses

Abstract

It would seem that European Politics are currently enrolled in a constant flux of uncertainty and anxiousness. The Institutional Matrix and Community of states that make up the Union seemingly cannot catch a break as they meander through a succession of crises and challenges. These are taking their toll on the EU, its unity in decision making, and countries’ commitment to ever closer Union. The sovereign debt crisis and so-called Greek Euro Crisis shook the tacit belief in the current economic architecture of the bloc and questioned the belief in intra-European solidarity. Shortly thereafter, the refugee crisis saw European States adopt ad hoc and sometimes contradictory measures for border control which peaked with the bringing into question of the current Schengen architecture and the long-held commitment to open borders on the continent. Then came the long and convoluted saga of Brexit. With its continuous series of negotiations, exit treaties, and successions of Governments, it reached its conclusion with the exit of UK from the bloc—the first secession in the history of the EU. With the decade coming to a close, European society assumed and hoped that that would constitute the final stress test of 2010s, only for the global pandemic to wreak havoc to the economy that was recovering from the financial crisis’ fallout. The EU’s Covid rescue package negotiations led to renewed souring of relations among the member states as the prospect of wealth transfers and Eurobonds irked nationalist politicians in many member states. Against the background of increasing politicization of Europeanization and polarization of European society (Goldberg, van Elsas, & de Vreese, 2020), Europe’s political systems brace themselves for further success by Eurosceptic parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Across the period described by the CHES, including the late 1980s and early 1990s.

  2. 2.

    In combination with the depoliticized character of integration, especially in the pre-Maastricht period.

  3. 3.

    Kirchheimer (1957); Kirchheimer in Krouwel (2003).

  4. 4.

    Especially in light of the growing politicization of the European question.

References

  • Abou-Chadi, T. (2016). Niche party success and mainstream party policy shifts—How green and radical right parties differ in their impact. British Journal of Political Science, 46(02), 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., Ezrow, L., & Leiter, D. (2012). Partisan sorting and niche parties in Europe. West European Politics, 35(6), 1272–1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • André, A., Depauw, S., & Beyens, S. (2015). Party loyalty and electoral dealignment. Party Politics, 21(6), 970–981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2009). Revisiting the nature of the beast—Politicization, European identity, and postfunctionalism: A comment on Hooghe and Marks. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 217–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buti, M. (2019). Renewing the (damaged) social contract. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/mb-dahrendorf_forum_v3.pdf.

  • Buti, M., & Pichelmann, K. (2017). European integration and populism: Addressing Dahrendorf’s quandary. http://sep.luiss.it/sites/sep.luiss.it/files/Buti_PB_01302017.pdf.

  • Costello, R., Thomassen, J., & Rosema, M. (2012). European parliament elections and political representation: Policy congruence between voters and parties. West European Politics, 35(6), 1226–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahrendorf, R. (1995). Economic Opportunity, Civil Society and Political Liberty, UNRISD Discussion Paper 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lange, S. L. (2007). A new winning formula?: The programmatic appeal of the radical right. Party Politics, 13(4), 411–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, C. E. (2007). Sleeping giant: Fact or fairytale?: How European integration affects national elections. European Union Politics, 8(3), 363–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vries, C. E., & Edwards, E. E. (2009). Taking Europe to its extremes: Extremist parties and public euroscepticism. Party Politics, 15(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Wilde, P., & Trenz, H.-J. (2012). Denouncing European Integration: Euroscepticism as Polity Contestation. European Journal of Social Theory, 15(4), 537–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, W. M. (2002). How effective is the cordon sanitaire? Lessons from efforts to contain the far right in Belgium, France, Denmark and Norway. Journal Fur Konflikt- Und Gewaltforschung, 4, 32–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezrow, L., De Vries, C., Steenbergen, M., & Edwards, E. (2011). Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters? Party Politics, 17(3), 275–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, A. C., van Elsas, E. J., & de Vreese, C. H. (2020). Mismatch? Comparing elite and citizen polarisation on EU issues across four countries. Journal of European Public Policy, 27(2), 310–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grande, E. (2012). Conclusion: How much change can we observe and what does it mean? In H. Kriesi, E. Grande, M. Dolezal, M. Helbling, D. Hoeglinger, S. Hutter, & B. Wuest (Eds.), Political conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson, S. (2014). The need for legitimate opposition and protectionism. In O. Cramme & S. Hobolt (Eds.), Democratic politics in a European Union under stress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson, S., Karlsson, C., & Persson, T. (2009). Taking accountability seriously. The illusion of accountability in the European Union. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. B., & de Vries, C. E. (2015). Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies, 48(9), 1159–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L. (2003). Europe divided?: Elites vs. public opinion on European integration. European Union Politics, 4(3), 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2009). A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, 39(01), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(1), 109–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organization and party democracy: The emergence of the cartel party. Party Politics, 1(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchheimer, O. (1957). The waning of opposition in parliamentary regimes. Social Research, 24(2), 127–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H. (2009). Rejoinder to Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks, ‘A postfunctional theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus’. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 221–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Dolezal, M., Helbling, M., Höglinger, D., Hutter, S., & Wüest, B. (2012). Political conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Krouwel, A. (2003). Otto Kirchheimer and the catch-all party. West European Politics, 26(2), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachat, R., & Kriesi, H. (2008). Supply side: The positioning of the political parties in a restructuring space. In H. Kriesi et al. (Eds.), West European politics in the age of globalization (pp. 267–295). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, L., & Scheingold, S. (1970). Europe’s would-be polity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveless, M., & Rohrschneider, R. (2008). Public perceptions of the EU as a system of governance. Living Reviews in European Governance, 3(1), [Online Article]: http://www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2008-1.

  • Mair, P. (2007). Political opposition and the European Union. Government and Opposition, 42(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manow, P., Palier, B., & Schwander, H. (Eds.). (2018). Welfare democracies and party politics: Explaining electoral dynamics in times of changing welfare capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G., & Wilson, C. J. (2000). The past in the present: A cleavage theory of party response to European integration. British Journal of Political Science, 30(03), 433–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquand, D. (1979). Parliament for Europe. Cape.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meguid, B. M. (2008). Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meguid, B. M. (2005). Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijers, M. J. (2015). Contagious Euroscepticism: The impact of Eurosceptic support on mainstream party positions on European integration. Party Politics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merler, S. (2018). Europeans and globalization: Does the EU square the circle? In P. Diamond (Ed.), The crisis of globalization: Democracy, globalization, and inequality in the twenty-first century. London: I.B. Tauris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, C. (2004). The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, C. (2012). The comparative study of party-based Euroscepticism: The Sussex versus the North Carolina School. East European Politics, 28(2), 193–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2005). Radical right: Voters and parties in the electoral market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke Kevin, H. (2014). A tale of two trilemmas. In L. Brennan (Ed.), Enacting globalization. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (2011). The globalization paradox: Why global markets, states, and democracy can’t coexist. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rydgren, J. (2004). Explaining the emergence of radical right-wing populist parties: The case of Denmark. West European Politics, 27(3), 474–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydgren, J. (2005). Is extreme right-wing populism contagious? Explaining the emergence of a new party family. European Journal of Political Research, 44(3), 413–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter, P. C. (2009). On the way to a post-functionalist theory of European integration. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 211–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, G., & van Kersbergen, K. (2014). Do mainstream parties adapt to the welfare chauvinism of populist parties? Party Politics, 22, 300–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somer-Topcu, Z. (2009). Timely decisions: The effects of past National Elections on Party Policy change. The Journal of Politics, 71(01), 238–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spies, D. (2013). Explaining working-class support for extreme right parties: A party competition approach. Acta Politica, 48(3), 296–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spies, D., & Franzmann Simon, T. (2011). A two-dimensional approach to the political opportunity structure of extreme right parties in Western Europe. West European Politics, 34(5), 1044–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spoon, J.-J., Hobolt, S. B., & de Vries, C. E. (2014). Going green: Explaining issue competition on the environment. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), 363–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streeck, W. (2018). Norbert Lechner lecture on globalization and the transformation of the international state system. Diego Portales University: November 14, 2018. https://wolfgangstreeck.com/2019/01/21/globalization-and-the-transformation-of-the-international-state-system/.

  • Szczerbiak, A., & Taggart, P. (2008). Opposing Europe?: The comparative party politics of Euroscepticism (Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives) (Vol. 2). Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Biezen, I. (2004). Political parties as public utilities. Party Politics, 10(6), 701–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Eijk, C., & Franklin, M. (2004). Potential for contestation on European matters at national elections in Europe. In G. Marks & M. R. Steenbergen (Eds.), European integration and political conflict (p. 33e50). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Spanje, J. (2010). Contagious parties: Anti-immigration parties and their impact on other parties immigration stances in contemporary Western Europe. Party Politics, 16(5), 563–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Filip, A. (2021). Conclusion and Discussion. In: Eurosceptic Contagion. Springer Series in Electoral Politics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69036-6_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics