Euroscepticism in the European parliament

Abstract

The Maastricht Treaty, with the initial rejection of Denmark and the French 'petit oui', has come to signify a symbolic turning point in the process of European integration. It represents the end of the era of 'permissive consensus' and the beginning of increased popular criticism and opposition to the project of European integration. In fact, although the decade which followed was a period of simultaneous deepening and widening, there was diffuse discontent and opposition directed not just at specific policies but more generally at the very nature and pace of the European integration process. In June 2001 the Nice Treaty was rejected in Ireland, a country which had long been assumed to be an enthusiastic supporter and beneficiary of European integration, following a negative referendum. In the run-up to the 2004 enlargement, debates in candidate countries about the virtues of membership of the European Union also revealed some important differences about how European integration was viewed. In the spring of 2005, referendums on the European Union Constitutional Treaty in two of the Union's founding members produced negative results. Three years later, Ireland, the only Member State to hold a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon once again voted 'No' by a 53.4% majority. European member states appear to be putting a brake on further progress of a European integration project and these feelings are reflected by voters' response to the European Parliament. The outcome of the last Europe-wide election showed a general defeat of governing parties and an increase in representatives from Eurosceptic parties. The main Eurosceptic party, the Independence/Democracy Group increased its share of members from 16 to 37. Moreover, if one includes all parties who opposed the Constitution or whose main rallying point was a campaign against EU corruption, around 200 MEPs would be considered if not Eurosceptic, at least 'Euro-awkward'.