Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

This study provides new insights regarding how the EU dimension relates to the left-right dimension in national politics. It does so by examining to what extent parties’ oppositional behaviour in EU affairs in parliament is a function of their distance to the government, other parties, the voters and party supporters on the EU dimension and the left-right dimension, respectively. The results suggest that oppositional behaviour is determined by two parallel dynamics: When expressing opposition, political parties are receptive both to the positions of the government and other parties on the EU dimension, and to the positions of voters and supporters on the left-right dimension. Our results thus indicate that the politicization of EU affairs in national parliaments primarily is an elite phenomenon. In their relation to the voters and supporters, parties still primarily navigate along the traditional left-right dimension.

This study attempts to break new ground by systematically comparing oppositional behaviour of Members of Parliament (MPs) in the two key arenas found in parliament: the plenary and the committee. Do MPs express more opposition frontstage in the plenary than backstage in the committee when discussing European affairs? The article sheds new light on political opposition in parliament by using a dataset of hand-coded statements made by MPs during plenary debates and European Affairs committee deliberations in five national parliaments. The results lend strong support to the main hypothesis that MPs express more opposition during plenary debates than committee deliberations.

A vital political opposition is one of the cornerstones of democracy, yet we know surprisingly little about the conditions that shape it. In this paper, we offer a comprehensive assessment of the drivers of parliamentary opposition in European Union (EU) politics in five countries: Denmark; Germany; Ireland; Sweden; and the United Kingdom. Based on an extensive hand-coded data set of 7,520 statements made by members of parliament (MPs) during both plenary sessions and deliberations during European Affairs Committee (EAC) meetings, we examine how institutions and party characteristics shape two types of oppositional behaviour: the expression of critique and the presentation of alternatives. We find that both factors are important for understanding to what extent, and how, opposition is voiced in national parliaments. Oversight institutions’ strength and a party’s degree of Euroscepticism jointly function as significant determinants of the likelihood that MPs will express opposition in the form of critique. However, when it comes to the likelihood of offering alternatives, oversight institutions’ strength fails to explain variations in the share of alternatives, while degree of Euroscepticism remains a significant predictor.

Is oppositional behaviour in legislatures gendered? Despite a growing literature on gender and legislative behaviour, there is a conspicuous absence of research on differences between female and male members of parliament (MPs) when it comes to one of the key aspects of parliamentary debates: the voicing of opposition. This article connects the literature on gender and legislative behaviour with opposition scholarship. We examine the role of gender for oppositional behaviour in four legislatures with a focus on debates concerning European Union affairs. Our results show that female MPs generally are equally likely to express opposition as their male colleagues. This result, however, is conditioned by government status. Whilst there is no significant difference between the proportion of opposition expressed by female and male MPs from opposition parties, we find that male MPs representing government parties express more than twice as much opposition as their female colleagues.

This chapter analyses the standing of democracy in the EU and, in particular, the extent to which parliaments (national and European) function as arenas for political opposition in European affairs. It identifies two opposed views in previous research. According to the one, political opposition is essentially absent from EU politics. According to the contrary view, lines of conflict between government and opposition are becoming clearer in the politics of the Union. In a systematic examination of plenary debates in five national parliaments and in the EP, the authors test the viability of these hypotheses. They find that vigorous opposition prevails in the parliaments examined, and that EU politics is marked far more by conflict than by consensus. The problem, from a democratic perspective, lies not in any lack of opposition, but rather in the fact that the opposition conducted in the parliaments only reaches the voters to a limited extent.

Previous research has looked at how Eurosceptic challenger parties can cause mainstream parties to change their policy positions and bring about adjustments to their programmes. We explore whether this contagion effect extends to the parliamentary behaviour of mainstream parties in European Union (EU) affairs. The empirical analysis is based on a large-scale study of 6215 statements made by national parliamentarians in the European Affairs Committee of Sweden between 1995 and 2016. A dynamic panel analysis of the data shows that the oppositional behaviour of Eurosceptic challenger parties has a significant impact on the opposition statements made in EU affairs by mainstream parties. These findings have important implications for the general understanding of factors that drive national EU opposition.

This article offers a comprehensive comparison of oppositional behaviour in European Union (EU) affairs in six countries: Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom. By drawing on a unique data set of hand-coded statements made by Members of Parliament during European Affairs Committee (EAC) meetings it provides new knowledge on political opposition. The data uncover that there is more opposition expressed in EU affairs than has been assumed by previous research. The results also reveal that there exists considerable cross-national variation in oppositional behaviour during EAC deliberations in the six countries. The study finally shows that Eurosceptic parties are key drivers of opposition in EU affairs, especially when it comes to opposition directed at the EU political system.

This article examines patterns of oppositional behaviour in the German Bundestag’s Committee on European Union Affairs (EAC) for two separate legislative periods (2005–2009 and 2009–2013). The study makes two contributions to previous research. It, first, shed some much-needed empirical light on political opposition in the Bundestag by examining how much and what kind of opposition exists in the German EAC. Secondly, the article examines the differences in oppositional behaviour of the Members of Parliament between the two legislative periods following an institutional reform in 2009 that afforded the Bundestag with increased opportunity structures in Europen Union affairs.

Despite extensive research on Eurosceptic challenger parties, our knowledge of their influence on political opposition has so far been sparse. In this article we make an in-depth assessment of parliamentary EU opposition, based on 4,264 statements made by national parliamentarians in the European Affairs Committees (EACs) of Denmark and Sweden. Our analysis shows that the presence of Eurosceptic challenger parties in the national parliamentary arena impacts patterns and practices of EU opposition significantly. A greater presence of ‘hard’ Eurosceptic parties in parliament is associated with more opposition in EU politics. These parties deliver a vast majority of the polity-oriented opposition towards the EU and present more policy alter- natives than mainstream parties. The findings presented have implications for our understand- ing of national parliamentary EU opposition as well as for the assessment of the impact of Eurosceptic challenger parties on the process of European integration.