Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Sisyphean Struggle: Portugal’s Referendum on European Integration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
What Market, What Society, What Union?

Abstract

Portugal is one of a handful of Member States which has never held a referendum on European integration. This chapter analyses Francisco Lucas Pires’ contribution to the broad political consensus reached in Portugal on the need to hold a referendum legitimizing the shift towards political integration envisioned by the Treaty of Maastricht. One of his last books, “Amsterdam – From the Market to the European Society”, is a political and legal manifesto in support of the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam in the run-up to what was expected to be the first Portuguese referendum on European integration. However, legal and political constraints blocked this, and every subsequent, attempt to grant the Portuguese people a direct say on Europe. This chapter explains why calling a referendum on Europe in Portugal has transformed itself into a saga that resembles the mythological Sisyphean task.

Professor at Nova School of Law (Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Nova de Lisboa) and member of CEDIS—R&D Centre on Law and Society (email: fpereiracoutinho@fd.unl.pt). In the Fall of 1996, while a freshman at Oporto Catholic Law School, I had the opportunity to attend a lecture by Francisco Lucas Pires to the inaugural classes of Political Science under the guidance of Paulo Castro Rangel, which quickly became my favorite course. All direct quotes from doctrinal, legal and judicial sources in Portuguese were translated by the author.

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

Access this chapter

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Poiares Maduro 2008, 121 (“Francisco Lucas Pires was one of the most creative and original European constitutional scholars”).

  2. 2.

    Alves 2019, 321–324.

  3. 3.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 1 in the present book. (“I hope that taking this stance will also serve to go beyond the so-called «community of interpreters» and reach the public debate that will precede the first referendum on Portuguese participation in the construction of Europe” (…). “(…) (R)aising people’s awareness along the lines of «Yes, but which Europe?» and doing so in a way that is able to help reach a long-term and certain answer, could well be the most suitable and useful contribution anyone can make”). Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 1 in the present book.

  4. 4.

    Lucas Pires 1992.

  5. 5.

    Teresa de Sousa and José Manuel Fernandes, “Seria um Candidato a meio presidente (entrevista a Francisco Lucas Pires)”, Público, 20 October 1990, in A Revolução Europeia por Francisco Lucas Pires, Parlamento Europeu (Portugal), 2008, 234 (“My position is intermediate: yes to a Europe built bottom-up and (…) (not) by stealth, but only through a referendum in order to get to a second phase, the political Union”).

  6. 6.

    Lucas Pires 1985, 55.

  7. 7.

    Lucas Pires 1994a, 147–148.

  8. 8.

    L’esprit du temps of the 1990s is reflected in the seminal book by Fukuyama 1992.

  9. 9.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 5 in the present book.

  10. 10.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 1 in the present book. (“(…) (T)he fact that the threshold of irreversibility and necessity has now been attained, Europe once again appears to be a construct that is consensual and happy (…)”).

  11. 11.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 5 in the present book. (“(…) (E)ven for the pessimists, the problem is no longer Europeanisation; on the contrary, Europe is once again the solution. Instead of change, it means protection against the fears of a rapid transformation and a sudden immersion in the «problem»—the real one—of globalisation, which, together with digitalisation, increasingly hangs like a Sword of Damocles over middle-class jobs, which are the traditional drivers of liberal modernity and stability”).

  12. 12.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 2 in the present book. (“At this point in time, the fact is that the large and correct question is whether what is at stake is primarily the enlargement, or rather the model for a Union of a political and enlarged Europe that is capable of unity in the face of the problems of globalisation”) or, similarly, Gonzalez 1999, 37 (“We need to define the new form of political representation required by a project capable of meeting the challenges of globalisation”).

  13. 13.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 5 in the present book. (“(…) (N)ot only the (right wing Popular Party), but also the (Communist Party), recognise that Europe is no longer a choice but a need”).

  14. 14.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 2 in the present book.

  15. 15.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chaps. 1 and 5 in the present book. Increased political integration combined with the federalisation of the European Union’s institutional framework would also be instrumental to secure independence from Spain, which is the traditional hegemon in the Iberian peninsula (Lucas Pires 1994a, pp. 145–146). Lucas Pires predicted that the strong Portuguese national identity and cohesion would enable it to cope far better than Spain with the centrifugal forces projected by European integration (ibid.), which is mostly to blame for the rampant nationalism observed in Catalonia (Connolly 2014, 51–105).

  16. 16.

    Lucas Pires 1994b (“Europe will not be a federal State as there is neither a European people nor a European territory. But I accept the word «federate», as Europe is very much a cooperative federation”). Lucas Pires proposed the creation of a “federation of States” instead of a “federal State” (Lucas Pires 1995, 77).

  17. 17.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 2 in the present book (“The question at point is thus whether, in the absence of another alternative, the time has come for the small countries to prefer a more federalist model which, although reducing their power as states, would also decrease the power of the big countries. Unlike the alternative offered so far, such a solution would also continue to guarantee the smaller nations a formal principle of equality”).

  18. 18.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 5 in the present book.

  19. 19.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 5 in the present book.

  20. 20.

    Bento 2013, 41–59.

  21. 21.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chap. 2 in the present book.

  22. 22.

    Ziller 2012, 246 (Table 11.1). The table does not include the 2012 Croatian referendum on the accession to the EU and the 2015 Greek bailout referendum.

  23. 23.

    Homer 2016, 154. (“(…) I saw Sisyphus, suffering cruel agonies, using both his hands to heave at a monstrous boulder. Time after time he would brace himself with hands and feet to push the stone upwards towards a hill’s crest, but when he was about to shove it over the top, its mass turned it back, and at once the pitiless stone bounded back to the plain”).

  24. 24.

    Pereira Coutinho and Piçarra 2019, 592.

  25. 25.

    Lucas Pires 1975, 109.

  26. 26.

    Canotilho and Moreira 2007, 98.

  27. 27.

    Miranda 1978, 397.

  28. 28.

    Article 167(l) of the Constitution (1982).

  29. 29.

    Article 118(3) of the Constitution (1989).

  30. 30.

    Pereira Coutinho 2006, 90.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., 90–91.

  32. 32.

    Article 115(5) of the Constitution (1997).

  33. 33.

    Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic 36-A/98, of 29 June (Proposal on the organization of a referendum on Portugal’s participation in the construction of the European Union).

  34. 34.

    Article 115(3) of the Constitution (“Only important issues concerning the national interest which the Assembly of the Republic or the Government must decide by approving an international convention or passing a legislative act may be the object of a referendum”).

  35. 35.

    Canotilho and Moreira 2007, 101 (“The referendum cannot be on the direct approval of the text of a law proposal or a negotiated or signed treaty”). See also concurring vote of judge Guilherme da Fonseca in the Constitutional Court, case 531/98, of 29 July 1998, para 3. Constitutional Court judgments are available in Portuguese at the website of the Portuguese Constitutional Court (www.tribunalconstitucional.pt).

  36. 36.

    Portuguese Constitutional Court, 29 July 1998, Case 531/98, para 10.4. (“(…) the object of popular consultation may be (…) questions which stem from Portugal’s participation in international organizations”). Article 7(1) of Law 15-A/98 (Organic Law of the Referendum Legal Framework) establishes a maximum of three questions per referendum.

  37. 37.

    Article 115(5) of the Constitution.

  38. 38.

    Article 115(8) of the Constitution (“The President of the Republic shall submit all draft referenda submitted to him by the Assembly of the Republic or the Government to compulsory prior review of their constitutionality and legality”).

  39. 39.

    Case 531/98, above n. 36, 29 July 1998, para 14.

  40. 40.

    Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic 7/99, of 6 January 1999 (Approving, for ratification, the Treaty of Amsterdam).

  41. 41.

    Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic, 79/2001, of 25 October 2001 (Approving, for ratification, the Treaty of Nice).

  42. 42.

    Resolution of the Assembly of the Republic 74-A/2004, of November 18 (Proposal to hold a referendum on the Constitution for Europe).

  43. 43.

    Case 531/98, above n. 36, July 29, 1998, para 14.

  44. 44.

    Portuguese Constitutional Court, 17 December 2004, case 704/2004, para 8.

  45. 45.

    Pereira Coutinho 2013, 325.

  46. 46.

    Amendments to the Portuguese constitution may be introduced after five years have elapsed since the date of publication of the last ordinary constitutional revision law. However, by a majority of at least four fifths of all the Members in full exercise of their office, the Assembly of the Republic may take extraordinary revision powers at any time (Article 284 of the Constitution).

  47. 47.

    Article 295 of the Constitution (“The provisions of Article 115(3) do not prejudice the possibility of calling and holding referenda on the approval of treaties concerning the construction and deepening of the European Union”).

  48. 48.

    The amendment was approved with 180 votes in favour and 13 abstentions (Diário da Assembleia da República, 1 Series, 32/X/1, 23 June 2005, p. 1327). This was the seventh (and last) constitutional revision procedure, and the first in which there was no votes against.

  49. 49.

    Lusa, 12 December 2007 “Referendo em Portugal a Tratado de Lisboa “nas mãos” de Cavaco Silva, que é contra”, RTP Notícias, available at http://rtp.pt/noticias/presidencia-uniao-europeia/referendo-em-portugal-a-tratado-de-lisboa-nas-maos-de-cavaco-silva-que-e-contra_n53937 (accessed on 23 August 2019).

  50. 50.

    Officially, the Member States decided to take a one-year “period for reflection, clarification and discussion” on the future of the Constitutional Treaty. See European Council Press Release, 17 June 2005, “Jean-Claude Juncker states that there will be a period for reflection and discussion but the process to ratify the Constitutional Treaty will continue with no renegotiation”, available at http://www.eu2005.lu/en/actualites/communiques/2005/06/16jclj-ratif/index.html (accessed on 23 August 2019).

  51. 51.

    Lusa, 10 June 2015 “José Sóctrates garante que PR e Governo querem referendo europeu”, available at http://rtp.pt/noticias/pais/jose-socrates-garante-que-pr-e-governo-querem-referendo-europeu_n11741 (accessed on 23 August 2019).

  52. 52.

    Diário da Assembleia da República, 10 January 2008, 1st Series, 32, 2008, 7.

  53. 53.

    Lucas Pires 2020, Chaps. 2 and 5 in the present book.

  54. 54.

    Diário da Assembleia da República, 10 January 2008, 1st Series, 32, 2008, 7–9.

  55. 55.

    Council of the European Union, “Brussels European Council, 18–19 June 2009, Presidency Conclusions”, 11225/2/09, Brussels, 10 July 2009.

  56. 56.

    In 1992, after popular rejection of the Treaty of Maastricht, Denmark was offered the Edinburgh Agreement which proved decisive for the change of mind of Danish voters in a second referendum (European Council, “Denmark and the European Union”, 92/C 348/01, Official Journal C 348, 31 December 1992, p. 1). In 2002, the Seville declaration was enough to persuade Irish voters who had just rejected the Nice Treaty (Presidency Conclusion of the Seville European Council, 21 and 22 June 2002, Doc/02/123, 22 June 2002, p. 3). See Atikcan 2015, 937–956.

  57. 57.

    Diário da Assembleia da República, 10 January 2008, 1st Series, 32, 2008, 9.

  58. 58.

    Piris 2010, 48–50.

  59. 59.

    Parliamentary discourse of the Portuguese Prime Minister (José Sócrates) on 27 June 2007, Diário da Assembleia da República, 28 June 2007, 1st Series, 99, 6.

  60. 60.

    Court of Justice of the European Union, Van Gend en Loos, 5 February 1963, 26/62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1, 210.

  61. 61.

    Advocate-General Miguel Poiares Maduro, Kadi, C-402/05 P e C-415/05 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:30, para 21. The “specific nature” of the European Union is also mentioned in the Opinion of the Council legal service of 22 June 2007, 11197/07 (JUR 260), which was attached by the Member States to Declaration 17 to the Treaty of Lisbon concerning supremacy.

  62. 62.

    The Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union was signed on 2 March 2012 by all member states of the European Union, with the exception of the Czech Republic and the United Kingdom. Its adoption was precipitated by the Czech and United Kingdom’s veto to the approval of a treaty amending the EU treaties (Tuori and Tuori 2014, 110).

  63. 63.

    Draft Resolution No. 268/XII/1 and No. 95/XII/1, Diário da Assembleia da República, 1st Series, 96/XII/1, 14 April 2002, pp. 32; Draft Resolution No. 1007/XII/3, Diário da Assembleia da República, 1st Series, 94/XII/3, 14 June 2002, 40.

  64. 64.

    Article 115(4)(b) of the Constitution.

  65. 65.

    Lucas Pires 1985, 53.

  66. 66.

    In the 2019 European elections, turnout in Portugal (30.75%) was only superior to Slovakia (22.74%), Czech Republic (28.72%), Slovenia (28.89%) and Croatia (29.86%). Data retrieved from https://election-results.eu/turnout/ (accessed on 25 August 2019).

  67. 67.

    McCormick 2015, p. 281, Fig. 17.5, which shows that only Germans, Italians and Danes rank below the Portuguese in agreeing with the statement “I understand how the EU works” (Eurobarometer 79, Spring 2013).

References

  • Alves E (2019) Lucas Pires, Francisco. In: Baltazar I and Cunha A (eds) Dicionário das Grandes Figuras Europeias. Assembleia da República, pp. 312–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atikcan Ö (2015) The Puzzle of Double Referendums in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 53, 5, pp. 937–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bento V (2013) Euro forte, euro fraco – duas culturas, uma moeda: um convívio (im)possível? Bnomics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canotilho G and Moreira V (2007) Constituição da República Anotada, 4th rev. edn. Vol II. Coimbra Editora, Coimbra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connolly C K (2014) Independence in Europe: Secession, Sovereignty, and the European Union. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, 24, pp. 51–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama F (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez F (1999) European Union and Globalization. Foreign Policy, 115, pp. 34–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer (2016) The Odyssey (transl. Verity A). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas Pires F (1975) Uma Constituição para Portugal. Imprensa de Coimbra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas Pires F (1985) Na fronteira da Europa: uma política para a integração europeia de Portugal. Democracia e Liberdade, 34, pp. 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas Pires F (1990) “Seria um candidato a meio presidente”. Público, 20 October 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas Pires F (1992) Referendo ou Guerra civil democrática. Expresso, 26 September 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas Pires F (1994a) Europa. (O QUE É), 4th edn. Difusão Cultural.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas Pires F (1994b) A Europa não será um Estado federal. Expresso, 4 June 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucas Pires F (1995) Portugal e o Futuro da União Europeia: sobre a revisão dos Tratados. Difusão Cultural.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick J (2015) European Union Politics. Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda J (1978) A Constituição de 1976 – Formação, estrutura e princípios fundamentais. Petrony.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira Coutinho F (2006) O Referendo Político Nacional em Portugal. In: Leão A, Pereira Coutinho F et al. (eds) Estudos de Direito Público. Âncora, pp. 11–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira Coutinho F (2013) Referendo. In: Enciclopédia da Constituição Portuguesa. Quid Juris, pp. 323–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira Coutinho F and Piçarra N (2019) Portugal: The Impact of European Integration and the Economic Crisis on the Identity of the Constitution. In: Albi A and Bardutzky S (eds) National Constitutions in European and Global Governance: Democracy, Rights, the Rule of Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, pp. 591–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piris J C (2010) The Lisbon Treaty: A Legal and Political Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiares Maduro M (2008) Um constitucionalismo para várias constituições: o pensamento constitucional europeu de Francisco Lucas Pires. In: A Revolução Europeia por Francisco Lucas Pires. Parlamento Europeu, pp. 121–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuori K and Tuori K (2014) The Eurozone Crisis. A Constitutional Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziller J (2012) The Treaty of Lisbon: Constitutional Treaty, Episode II. In: Laursen F (ed) Designing the European Union: From Paris to Lisbon. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 244–268.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculdade de Direito da Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal

    Francisco Pereira Coutinho

Authors
  1. Francisco Pereira Coutinho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco Pereira Coutinho .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Católica Law School, Lisbon, Portugal

    Martinho Lucas Pires

  2. Nova Law School, Faculty of Law, Nova University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

    Francisco Pereira Coutinho

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Coutinho, F.P. (2020). A Sisyphean Struggle: Portugal’s Referendum on European Integration. In: Lucas Pires, M., Pereira Coutinho, F. (eds) What Market, What Society, What Union?. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-371-9_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-371-9_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-370-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-371-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation