Assemblée Nationale, Bundestag and the European Union

Dr. Anja Thomas

doi:10.5771/9783845290294

Summary

The growing importance of national parliaments is one feature of the stronger differentiation within the EU. Habermasian expectations of an increasing consensus on political norms seem to be invalidated by current events. In her book, in which she draws on her award-winning PhD thesis, Anja Thomas makes an important theoretical and empirical contribution to our understanding of the social causes of this development.Analysing EU affairs in the Assemblée nationale and Bundestag since 1979, she uncovers a paradox: increasing experience with the EU leads to national institutions growing in importance for MPs’ discourse on the role of parliaments in the EU. Revisiting social theory, in particular Max Weber’s ‘old’ institutionalism, the author presents a new model that explains this phenomenon. This book should be read by students of both parliaments in the EU and European integration processes. This work was distinguished with the Prix Pflimlin 2017.

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright year: 2019
ISBN-Print: 978-3-8487-4772-6
ISBN-Online: 978-3-8452-9029-4
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Studies on the European Union
Volume: 14
Language: English
Pages: 359
Product type: Book Titles

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 1 - 16
1. Political and academic relevance No access
2. Contribution to current research No access
3. Theoretical framework and research design No access
4. Research object and central terminology No access
5. Book structure No access
1. 1. 1) Europeanisation and institutionalisation No access
  2. 2) The new institutionalisms and their bloodless actors No access
  3. 3) Bringing social interaction and genuine institutions back in No access
  4. 4) ‘Doing EU’ as an ‘ordered practice’ No access
2. 1. 1) Institutionalisation of a new social order No access
  2. 2) Parliaments as ‘permanent’ solutions to ‘permanent’ problems No access
  3. 3) Old and new ‘ways of doing things’ in national parliaments No access
  4. 4) The search for functional equivalents to domestic roles No access
3. 1. 1) Weberian actors and their ability for discretion No access
  2. 2) Democracy as constitutive value of parliamentary institutions No access
  3. 3) ‘Ideological’ and ‘instrumental’ motives for action No access
  4. 4) Institutionalisation and ‘institutional’ motives for action No access
4. D – Conclusion No access
1. 1. 1) Generalisability: Combining diachronic and synchronic comparison No access
  2. 1. a) Temporal cases: the Maastricht and Lisbon periods No access
    2. b) Spatial cases: the Assemblée nationale and the Bundestag No access
2. 1. 1) ‘Europe’ as a process: potential pitfalls No access
  2. 2) Grasping the process from a practice perspective at the actors’ micro level No access
  3. 1. a) Indicators for the typification of types of actors No access
    2. b) Indicators for the typification of action No access
    3. c) Indicators for motives for discursive action No access
3. C – Conclusion No access
1. 1. 1. a) European affairs body and EU experts No access
    2. b) Agents of change regarding formal rules and organisation No access
  2. 1. a) Participation patterns and their meaning No access
    2. b) Interaction with EU transnational actors No access
2. 1. 1. a) European affairs body and EU experts No access
    2. b) Agents of change of formal rules No access
  2. 1. a) Participation patterns and their meaning No access
    2. b) Interaction with EU transnational actors No access
3. C – Conclusion No access
1. 1. 1. a) European affairs body and EU expertise No access
    2. b) Agents of change of formal rules No access
  2. 1. a) Use and meaning of formal and informal instruments No access
    2. b) Interaction with transnational actors No access
2. 1. 1. a) European affairs body and EU expertise No access
    2. b) Agents of change of formal rules No access
  2. 1. a) Use and meaning of formal and informal instruments No access
    2. b) Interaction with transnational actors No access
3. C – Conclusion No access
1. 1. 1. a) More similar attention by individual speakers in the Lisbon debates No access
    2. b) Not more attention in terms of floor time in the Lisbon debates No access
  2. 1. a) Maastricht: the Domestic Control Body is strongest in both chambers No access
    2. b) Lisbon: entirely different role models No access
2. 1. 1. a) Multi-level parliamentarism No access
    2. b) Domestic Control Body No access
    3. c) Third Chamber No access
  2. 1. a) Domestic Control Body No access
    2. b) Multi-level parliamentarism No access
    3. c) Third chamber No access
  3. 1. a) None of the legitimacy channels No access
    2. b) Only the EP No access
3. 1. 1. a) Parliamentary party groups with regular governmental responsibilities No access
    2. b) MPs from parliamentary party groups with few government responsibilities No access
  2. 1. a) MPs from parliamentary party groups with regular government responsibilities No access
    2. b) MPs from parliamentary party groups without government responsibilities No access
4. D – Conclusion: From an ‘ideological’ to a ‘domesticised’ evaluation of the role of parliaments in the EU No access
1. Main findings No access
2. Research perspectives and extension No access
3. What lessons to learn for the EU polity? No access
Bibliography No access Pages 331 - 346
List of interviews No access Pages 347 - 354
1. Appendix 2: A short explanation of French political parties, parliamentary groups and political acronyms in the period observed No access