Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The French Parliament and the European Union pp 59–99Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

The Enrolment of National Parliamentarians

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 156 Accesses

Part of the book series: French Politics, Society and Culture ((FPSC))

Abstract

The disappointing adaptation of the French Parliament to the EU is considered to be the result of the limited interest of MPs, considered individually or collectively, to embrace European issues. At the individual level, MPs can hardly ever maximize their utility through participating in specialised procedures—be them vote, office or policy seekers. At the collective level, the opposition still holds a limited role and the European issue is not central to the management of coalitions. Nevertheless, the chapter supports the view that the analysis of parliamentarians should go beyond a pure rational framework. There are indeed some types of activities and procedures that do not directly aim at filling exogenous aims. Therefore, the complexity of the adaptation of the French MPs can be better understood at the level of the patterns of behaviour and attitude of groups of representatives. The concept of parliamentary roles is regarded as a key unit for analysis of the Europeanisation of national parliaments.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   84.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The correlations obtained are weak, whether in the case of Member States at the end of the 1990s (Bergman 2000) or Central and Eastern European countries in the mid-2000s (Karlas 2011).

  2. 2.

    Using a mixed method called Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), Tapio Raunio (2005) demonstrates that the institutional power of the Parliament constitutes the only necessary condition for its affirmation in European matters, with this factor and critical public opinion acting as sufficient condition.

  3. 3.

    For a comparative point of view from 2004: Mattila and Raunio 2006.

  4. 4.

    Noëlle Lenoir was Junior Minister of European Affairs from 2002 to 2004.

  5. 5.

    Out of all MEPs—not only French (Beauvallet et al. 2018).

  6. 6.

    13 December 1999 circular on the application of Article 88-4 of the Constitution.

  7. 7.

    As well as Romania, episodically (Wessels and Rozenberg 2013).

  8. 8.

    ENA is the acronym for the prestigious National School of Administration.

  9. 9.

    See Chap. 8. On the phase shift between a priori review and transposition: Sprungk 2011.

  10. 10.

    Information report no. 3468, ‘La France dans l’Union européenne: renouer avec l’influence perdue’, National Assembly, 14th Parliament, tabled by the European Affairs Committee and presented by Christophe Caresche and Pierre Lequiller, 2016.

  11. 11.

    See summary record no. 239 of the European Affairs Committee, 13th Parliament.

  12. 12.

    National Assembly document no. 4196, 13th Parliament, draft European resolution for the European recovery and the reinforcement of democratic control, presented by Jean-Marc Ayrault, Élisabeth Guigou, and Christophe Caresche, 23 January 2012.

  13. 13.

    From 1986 to 2002, France experienced a system of divided government (called cohabitation) half of the time. France’s European policy is handled by a subtle co-decision system, in which the President has greater say when the decision rises to the European Council. Apart from the rapprochement of their positions, the sharing of responsibility in allowing or reducing the ambiguity of the constitutional text leads political actors in government parties to avoid attacking each other on this ground (Leuffen 2009).

  14. 14.

    See Chap. 7.

  15. 15.

    Sébastien Lazardeux (2009) shows that the strengthening of parliamentary control under the Fifth Republic was supported by dissident groups in the minority, most often from within the right. The opposition then used the tools it had been unable to create.

  16. 16.

    I.e., the conditions of the leftist coalition’s programme in 1997 relating to the transition to the euro.

  17. 17.

    In the late 2000s (Bakker et al. 2015).

  18. 18.

    See Chap. 8.

  19. 19.

    Bailer and Schneider (2006) arrive at opposite conclusions to Finke and Herbel.

  20. 20.

    13 December 1999 circular on the application of Article 88-4 of the Constitution.

  21. 21.

    On the 1994 decision see Chap. 2; on the 1994 crisis see Chap. 6. On the 1999 reform, Fromage 2015, p. 139.

  22. 22.

    On the bureaucratisation of the procedure: Auel et al. 2015.

  23. 23.

    The MP’s relative powerlessness over his or her electoral fate and over public action obviously does not imply that he or she is inactive in these areas. Truly, this powerlessness is merely relative: parliamentarians can influence public policies, perceptions, and opinions as well as their own chances of re-election from the margins. Moreover, agents may have varying degrees of awareness of this powerlessness. Finally, European parliamentarians’ delegation in favour of executives or party leaders is not without its limits. One determining vector of a party leader or minister’s political capital is the support of his or her parliamentary party group, expressed through mechanisms both formal (the confidence vote) and informal (for example, press campaigns).

  24. 24.

    In the above-cited work but also, among others: Bergman 2000; Saalfeld 2005; Winzen 2012.

  25. 25.

    As opposed to the logic of consequences (March and Olsen 1989).

  26. 26.

    A large room next to the hemicycle where MPs meet journalists.

  27. 27.

    For the state of the art on parliamentary roles: Andeweg 2014; Blomgren and Rozenberg 2012.

  28. 28.

    Antony Giddens speaks of ‘prescriptions of roles’ (Giddens 1979, p. 117).

  29. 29.

    Kaare Strøm (2012) proposes that, as roles reduce uncertainty, their assumption may result from a cost-benefit analysis. Studies by Julien Navarro (2009) also attempt to marry role and rationality by using Raimond Boudon’s theoretical approach.

  30. 30.

    Incidentally, these roles are close to those defined in studies on France. See especially: Costa and Kerrouche 2007; Dogan 1999; Woshinsky 1973.

References

  • Abélès, M. (2001). Un ethnologue à l’Assemblée. Paris: Odile Jacob.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andeweg, R. (2014). Roles in Legislatures. In S. Martin, T. Saalfeld, & K. Strøm (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies (pp. 267–285). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auel, K. (2007). Democratic Accountability and National Parliaments: Redefining the Impact of Parliamentary Scrutiny in EU Affairs. European Law Journal, 13(4), 487–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auel, K., & Benz, A. (2005). The Politics of Adaptation: The Europeanisation of National Parliamentary Systems. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3–4), 372–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auel, K., Rozenberg, O., & Tacea, A. (2015). To Scrutinise or Not to Scrutinise? Explaining Variation in EU-Related Activities in National Parliaments. West European Politics, 38(2), 282–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagehot, W. (1964 [1867]). The English Constitution. London: Watts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailer, S., & Schneider, G. (2006). Nash versus Schelling? The Importance of Constraints in Legislative Bargaining. In R. Thomson (Ed.), The European Union Decides (pp. 153–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, R., de Vries, C., Edwards, E., Hooghe, L., Jolly, S., Marks, G., et al. (2015). Measuring Party Positions in Europe. Party Politics, 21(1), 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balme, R. (2001). Electeur rationnel. In P. Perrineau & D. Reynié (Eds.), Dictionnaire du vote (pp. 340–348). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauvallet, W., Michon, S., Lepaux, V., & Monicolle, C. (2018). Les logiques du recrutement de l’investissement politiques au Parlement européen. In S. Michon (Ed.), Le Parlement européen au travail (pp. 29–48). Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belot, C., & Cautrès, B. (2004). L’Europe, invisible mais omniprésente. In B. Cautrès & N. Mayer (Eds.), Le nouveau désordre électoral. Les leçons du 21 avril 2002 (pp. 191–141). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belot, C., Cautrès, B., & Strudel, S. (2013). L’Europe comme enjeu clivant. Ses effets perturbateurs sur l’offre électorale et les orientations de vote lors de l’élection présidentielle de 2012. Revue française de science politique, 63(6), 1081–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, T. (2000). The European Union as the Next Step of Delegation and Accountability. European Journal of Political Research, 37(3), 415–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blomgren, M., & Rozenberg, O. (Eds.). (2012). Parliamentary Roles in Modern Legislatures. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnaud, L., & Martinais, E. (2013). Une catastrophe au Parlement. La contribution des débats parlementaires à l’écriture du droit. In C. de Galembert, C. Vigour, & O. Rozenberg (Eds.), Faire parler le Parlement (pp. 245–259). Paris: LGDJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braud, P. (1996). L’émotion en politique. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cayrol, R. (1998). L’électeur face aux enjeux économiques, sociaux et européens. In P. Perrineau & C. Ysmal (Eds.), Le Vote surprise (pp. 97–117). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabbal, J. (2016). Changer la prison. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, O., & Kerrouche, E. (2007). Qui sont les députés français? Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. (1987). The Efficient Secret: The Cabinet and the Development of Political Parties in Victorian England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, G. (1997). Making Votes Count Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Ruiter, R. (2013). Under the Radar? National Parliaments and the Ordinary Legislative Procedure in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(8), 1196–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dehousse, R., & Tacea, A. (2015). Europe in the 2012 French Presidential Election. In R. Brizzi & G. Goodliffe (Eds.), France After 2012 (pp. 152–166). New York: Berghahn Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogan, M. (1999). Les professions propices à la carrière politique. Osmoses, filières et vivier. In M. Offerlé (Ed.), La profession politique XIXe–XXe siècles (pp. 171–199). Paris: Éditions Belin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An Economic Theory of Political Action in Democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duchesne, S., Frazer, E., Haegel, F., & Van Ingelgom, V. (2013). Citizens’ Reactions to European Integration Compared: Overlooking Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elias, N. (1991 [1939]). The Society of Individuals. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eymeri, J. M. (2002). Définir “la position de la France” dans l’Union européenne. La médiation interministérielle des généralistes du SGCI. In O. Nay & A. Smith (Eds.), Le gouvernement de compromis: Courtiers et généralistes dans l’action politique (pp. 149–176). Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finke, D., & Herbel, A. (2015). Beyond Rules and Resources: Parliamentary Scrutiny of EU Policy Proposals. European Union Politics, 16(4), 490–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (2009). Le corps utopique - Les hétérotopies. Paris: Éditions Lignes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardey, D. (2015). Le Linge du Palais-Bourbon. Corps, matérialité et genre du politique. Lormont: Le Bord de l’Eau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaxie, D. (2003). La démocratie représentative (4th ed.). Paris: Montchrestien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Godbout, J. F., & Foucault, M. (2013). French Legislative Voting in the Fifth Republic. French Politics, 11(4), 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, E. (2008). La résistance comme opportunité: les stratégies des institutions politiques françaises face à l’Europe. Revue internationale de politique comparée, 15(4), 667–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunberg, G., & Schweisguth, E. (2003). La tripartition de l’espace politique. In P. Perrineau & C. Ysmal (Eds.), Le vote de tous les refus (pp. 341–362). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jabko, N. (2004). The Importance of Being Nice: An Institutionalist Analysis of French Preferences on the Future of Europe. Comparative European Politics, 2(3), 282–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffré, J. (2013). La victoire étroite de François Hollande. In P. Perrineau (Ed.), Le vote normal, Les élections présidentielle et législatives d’avril-mai-juin 2012 (pp. 133–160). Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlas, J. (2011). Parliamentary Control of EU Affairs in Central and Eastern Europe: Explaining the Variation. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(2), 258–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, H. (2013). The Europeanization of Member State Institutions. In S. Bulmer & C. Lequesne (Eds.), The Member States of the European Union (pp. 279–312). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerrouche, E. (2004). Appréhender le rôle des parlementaires: étude comparative des recherches menées et perspectives. In O. Costa, E. Kerrouche, & P. Magnette (Eds.), Vers un renouveau du parlementarisme en Europe? (pp. 35–55). Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knutelská, V. (2013). National Parliaments in the Council: Parliamentary Scrutiny Reserves. Central European Journal of International & Security Studies, 7(1), 146–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krehbiel, K. (1991). Information and Legislative Organization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lagroye, J. (1994). Etre du métier. Politix, (28), 5–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Navarro, J. (2009). Les députés européens et leur rôle. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascoumes, P. (2009). Les compromis parlementaires, combinaisons de surpolitisation et de sous-politisation. Revue française de science politique, 59(3), 455–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazardeux, S. (2009). The French National Assembly’s Oversight of the Executive: Changing Role, Partisanship and Intra-Majority Conflict. West European Politics, 32(2), 287–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuffen, D. (2009). Does Cohabitation Matter? French European Policy-Making in the Context of Divided Government. West European Politics, 32(6), 1140–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lévi-Strauss, C. (1961 [1955]). Sad Tropics (J. Russell, Trans.). New York: Criterion Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J., & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L., & Vanberg, G. (2004). Policing the Bargain: Coalition Government and Parliamentary Scrutiny. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila, M., & Raunio, T. (2006). Cautious Voters—Supportive Parties Opinion Congruence between Voters and Parties on the EU Dimension. European Union Politics, 7(4), 427–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, N. (2013). From Jean-Marie to Marine Le Pen: Electoral Change on the Far Right. Parliamentary Affairs, 66(1), 160–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, D. (1974). The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milet, M. (2010). Pour une sociologie législative du pouvoir des parlementaires en France. Revue française d’administration publique, 135(3), 601–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (2003). Le mythe du déficit démocratique européen. Raisons politiques, 10, 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, W., & Strøm, K. (1999). Policy, Office, or Votes? How Political Parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Offerlé, M. (1999). Professions et profession politique. In M. Offerlé (Ed.), La Profession politique XIXème-XXème siècle (pp. 7–35). Paris: Belin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J., Woshinsky, O., Velben, E., & Coogan, W. (1986). Motivation of Politicians (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raunio, T. (2005). Holding Governments Accountable in European Affairs: Explaining Cross-National Variation. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3–4), 319–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raunio, T., & Hix, S. (2000). Backbenchers Learn to Fight Back: European Integration and Parliamentary Government. West European Politics, 23(4), 142–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozenberg, O. (2009). Présider par plaisir. L’examen des affaires européennes à l’Assemblée nationale et à la Chambre des Communes depuis Maastricht. Revue française de science politique, 59(3), 401–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saalfeld, T. (2003). The Bundestag: Institutional Incrementalism and Behavioural Reticence. In K. Dyson & K. Goetz (Eds.), Germany, Europe, and the Politics of Constraint (pp. 73–96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saalfeld, T. (2005). Deliberate Delegation or Abdication? Government Backbenchers, Ministers and European Integration. Journal of Legislative Studies, 11(3–4), 343–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sauger, N., Brouard, S., & Grossman, E. (2007). Les Français contre l’Europe? Les sens du référendum du 29 mai 2005. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searing, D. (1994). Westminster’s World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieberer, U. (2011). The Institutional Power of Western European Parliaments: A Multidimensional Analysis. West European Politics, 34(4), 731–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sprungk, C. (2011). How Policy-Shaping Might (Not) Affect Policy-Taking: The Case of National Parliaments in the European Union. Journal of European Integration, 33(3), 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K. (2012). Roles as Strategies: Toward a Logic of Legislative Behaviour. In O. Rozenberg & M. Blomgren (Eds.), Parliamentary Roles in Modern Legislatures (pp. 85–100). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strøm, K., Müller, W. C., & Bergman T. (Eds.). (2003). Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiberj, V., & Kerrouche, E. (2013). Up and Down, Old and New: Values and Value Systems of MPs and Voters in France. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 19(2), 160–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahlke, J., Eulau, H., Buchanan, W., & Fergusson, L. (1962). The Legislative System: Explorations in Legislative Behaviour. New York: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (2015). Politics as a Vocation. In M. Weber, T. Waters, & D. Waters (Eds.), Weber’s Rationalism and Modern Society: New Translations on Politics, Bureaucracy, and Social Stratification. (T. Waters & D. Waters, Trans.) (pp. 129–198). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels, W., & Rozenberg, O. (2013). Democratic Control in the Member States of the European Council and the Euro zone summits. Report for European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winzen, T. (2012). National Parliamentary Control of European Union Affairs: A Cross-National and Longitudinal Comparison. West European Politics, 35(3), 657–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winzen, T. (2013). European Integration and National Parliamentary Oversight Institutions. European Union Politics, 14(2), 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woshinsky, O. (1973). The French Deputy. Lexington: D.C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics, Sciences Po, Paris, France

    Olivier Rozenberg

Authors
  1. Olivier Rozenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Rozenberg .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rozenberg, O. (2020). The Enrolment of National Parliamentarians. In: The French Parliament and the European Union. French Politics, Society and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19791-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation