Beyond Strategy? the Politicization of National Referendums on European Integration

Beyond strategy? The politicization of national referendums on European integration

Arena choice is a key strategy of political parties to (de-)politicize an issue. However, arena choice depends on institutional rules, and once actors choose a certain arena, the conflict might get out of their hands and their strategic opportunities might radically change. A key example is direct  democracy. The literature on politicization sees referendums on European integration as crucial triggers of politicization, and it is argued that a main strategy of depoliticizing Europe after the failed Constitutional Process has been to circumvent treaty reforms and associated referendums. Although these are strong claims about the importance and consequences of referendums on politicization, we know little about how exactly referendums affect the conflict structure related to European integration. Is the conflict structure indeed more biased towards identity and challenger parties, as expected by Hooghe and Marks (BJPS 2009)? And do campaign dynamics play a more important role in referendum campaigns? To answer these questions, the paper proposes to  compare public debates on every main European integration steps in six West European countries (i.e., Austria, Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland) from the early 1970s (First Enlargement) to the present Euro crisis. Comparing public debates in the run-up to referendums and around other critical dates (e.g., the initiation of negotiations, the signature of a  treaty or ratification in parliament) allows us to systematically assess differences in the conflict structure as regards actors involved, issues addressed, and framing strategies.