歐盟疑歐論起源與發展之研究 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)International Master’s Program in International Studies National Chengchi University 國立政治大學國際研究英語碩士學位學程. 政治大 A Study of the Origins 立 and Development of Euroscepticism in 歐盟疑歐論起源與發展之研究. Nat. n. al. er. io. sit. y. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. the European Union. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Filip Sebastian Kszczotek Advisor: Dr. Yung-Fang Lin (林永芳). May 2016.

(2) ABSTRACT. In the past decade, people have witnessed that one single event may alter the political situation of a single country, region or even the whole world. In case of the EU, the 2014 European parliamentary election was one of them. Referred to by many researchers as a “political earthquake,” this event made it possible for the euroscepetic movement to emerge from the shadows and pose a threat to the European integration process. The presence of euroscepticism in the European Parliament may be seen as the beginning of the end of the EU or perhaps just a temporary crisis of trust.. 立. 政治大. This study seeks to analyze the factors that contributed to the rise of euroscepticism since. ‧ 國. 學. the beginning of the EU. Moreover, the impact of the 2014 European parliamentary election on European stability and the domestic political situation is also included in this paper. Finally, the. ‧. author applies two-level games theory to find a proper solution to the rise of euroscepticism and the. Nat. sit. y. problem of potential European disintegration. Many observers claim that eurosceptic parties do not. n. al. er. io. pose a threat to European integration. I suggest that euroscepticism should be recognized as one of. i n U. v. the main problems to which the EU must respond effectively in the near future.. Ch. engchi. By answering three research questions, the author gives further insight into the power gained by most of the eurosceptic political parties. Furthermore, based on the two-level games theory and the role of negotiations, the possible implications in dealing with euroscepticism are included in this paper..

(3) 摘要. 過去十年來，人們體認到任何單一事件可能改變一個國家、一個區域，或全世界的政治情況。以歐盟而言，2014 年歐洲議會的選舉就是一個很好的例子，許多研究者稱之為政治地震，這個事件可能促使對於「疑歐運動」脫離歐洲統合過程的陰影產生威脅，歐洲會議所呈現的疑歐論調可能被視為是歐盟末日的開端，或僅只是信任的暫時危機。本研究試圖分析自歐盟成立以來造成疑歐論興起的各項因素。再者本論文也包含 2014 年歐洲議會選舉對歐洲穩定和各國政治情況的影響，最後作者應用雙層賽局理論尋求疑歐論. 政治大. 興起的適當方法，以及歐洲分化的可能問題。很多觀察者宣稱疑歐論團體對歐洲的統合沒. 立. 有造成任何威脅，作者建議疑歐論在最近期應被視為主要的問題，歐盟應有效地回應。. ‧ 國. 學. 藉著解答這三個研究問題，作者建議進一步了解大多數疑歐政治團體所擁有的動力，. ‧. 此外基於雙層賽局理論和折衝的角色，結論亦包含於處理疑歐論的可能意涵。. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(4) Table of contents Chapter 1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Research motivation..................................................................................................................1 1.2 Research questions ....................................................................................................................3 1.3 Literature review........................................................................................................................5 1.3.1 European problems............................................................................................................5 1.3.2 Euroscepticism and its variety ..........................................................................................6 1.3.3 2014 European political earthquake ..................................................................................9 1.4 Methodology ...........................................................................................................................11. 治政大 1.5 Outline of the thesis ................................................................................................................15 立. Chapter 2. Historical Overview .........................................................................................................18. ‧ 國. 學. 2.1 European Union treaties and the rise of euroscepticism ........................................................19. ‧. 2.2 The Thatcher speech................................................................................................................24. sit. y. Nat. 2.3 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................26. io. er. Chapter 3. Issues Contributing to Euroscepticism ............................................................................27 3.1 Immigration.............................................................................................................................30. al. n. v i n Ch 3.2 The eurozone crisis..................................................................................................................41 engchi U 3.3 National security aspect - the Ukrainian crisis........................................................................48 3.4 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................54 Chapter 4. A Proliferation of Eurosceptic Political Parties ..............................................................56 4.1 Euroscepticism and its variances.............................................................................................57 4.1.1 Soft euroscepticism..........................................................................................................60 4.1.2 Hard euroscepticism.........................................................................................................66 4.2 British euroscepticism..............................................................................................................71 4.3 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................78.

(5) Chapter 5. Impact of the 2014 European Parliament Election ..........................................................80 5.1 Overview..................................................................................................................................81 5.2 “Democratic deficit”................................................................................................................88 5.3 The 2014 European parliamentary election's impact...............................................................93 5.4 How to confront euroscepticism?............................................................................................96 5.5 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................100 Chapter 6. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................101 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................107. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(6) List of figures Figure 1.1 The description of the level I and level II policy.............................................................................12 Figure 1.2 The win-set strategy depending on the international and domestic interests..................................13 Figure 5.1 Seats distribution in the European parliament by political group after 2009 (left) and 2014 (right) European elections........................................................................................................................86 Figure 5.2 Turnout in the European elections (1979 – 2014)...........................................................................90. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v.

(7) List of tables Table 1.1 Division of eurosceptic political parties depending on their attitude towards the EU........................7 Table 1.3 Soft and hard euroscepticism after 2014 elections..............................................................................9 Table 2.1 The development of the EU's structures............................................................................................19 Table 3.1 Trust in the European Union in 2010 and 2014................................................................................28 Table 3.2 Asylum applicants (including first time asylum applicants), Q1 2014 – Q1 2015...........................32 Table 3.3 The 2014 European Parliament and the 2015 regional elections results in France...........................35 Table 3.4 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in Germany.........36 Table 3.5 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in Hungary..........36. 政治大 Netherlands.......................................................................................................................................................36 立 Table 3.6 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in the. ‧ 國. 學. Table 3.7 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in Poland.............36 Table 3.8 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in. ‧. the United Kingdom..........................................................................................................................................37 Table 3.9 The 2014 European Parliament and the 2012 legislative elections results in Greece.......................45. y. Nat. io. sit. Table 3.10 The 2014 European Parliament and the 2011 legislative elections results in Portugal...................46. n. al. er. Table 3.11 The 2014 European Parliament and the 2011 general elections results in Spain............................46. i n U. v. Table 3.12 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in Italy...............46. Ch. engchi. Table 4.1 Division of eurosceptic parties into soft and hard, and left and right wing......................................63 Table 5.1 Results of the 2014 European election..............................................................................................81 Table 5.2 The 2014 European Parliament election's results according to political group................................84 Table 5.3 Turnout in the 2014 European Parliamentary election based on age group......................................88.

(8) Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Research motivation Since the establishment of the EU, member states have never had to face possibility of disintegration. It fact, prior to 2007, European citizens lived in the relatively stable times. What happened after that was beyond anyone's imagination. The severity of the eurozone, Ukrainian and immigration crises undermined the position of the European Commission, which was unable to find proper solutions for such problems.. 政治大 the basic principles of the EU and立 called for the immediate withdrawal from the eurozone, Shengen. As the crisis deepened, criticism from European political parties increased. Some targeted. ‧ 國. 學. area, the EU and even the Single Market sphere. Criticism from other political parties concerned the need to reconstruct and reform the structure of the EU and opposed the “even closer union” project.. ‧. In light of current events, many began to express their dissatisfaction and to introduce European. sit. y. Nat. citizens to a new wave of euroscepticism. The term itself was invented in 1985, but at that time the. n. al. er. io. European Commission did not regard it as a major problem. The eurosceptic parties had little. i n U. v. support in their objections toward the EU because of the favorable politico-economic situation in. Ch. engchi. Europe. The situation has drastically changed since the 2007 Global Financial Crisis, which has made it possible for some eurosceptic parties to come to power through the legislative elections in their respective country. As the title of the thesis suggests, the main aim is to study the origin and development of euroscepticism in the EU, as well as possible ways to deal with it. The 2014 European Parliamentary Elections indicated that Europeans showed the yellow card to the European Commission by voting for the eurosceptic parties. In the history of the EU, there have never been so many politicians in the European Parliament who have had such a destructive attitude toward the. 1.

(9) European Community. Some of them, as mentioned before, want to reform the EU, and others want to “blow it up from inside”.1 Most of the academic articles concerning the problem of the euroscepticism primarily focus on the political parties and their attitude towards the EU. The majority fail to mention the origin, development, and possible solutions to the rise of this particular movement. The author of this paper strongly believes that an in-depth analysis of euroscepticism is necessary, especially in such unstable times. Undoubtedly, the description of the eurosceptic political parties is required, but without exploration of the origin and development of this movement, one cannot clearly understand the term itself. Moreover, providing information about the euroscepticism in each country is. 政治大. necessary in order to comprehend each member state's interests and attitude. Such an ideology is so. 立. complex that providing a single, general example to explain such would be insufficient. We need to. ‧ 國. 學. analyze the eurosceptic parties from a systematic and comparative perspective, in order to find a common solution to oppose their expansion in the EU. Doing so will most certainly help us to better. ‧. understand the concept of euroscepticism in-depth.. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. 1 Yves Bertoncini, Nicole Koenig, “Euroscepticism or Europhobia: Voice vs. Exit?,” Notre Europe. Jacques Delors Institute (November 2014).. 2.

(10) 1.2 Research questions It can be concluded that euroscepticism is a relatively new concept in the international relations community. Most academic researchers began expressing interest in this particular topic after the 2014 European Parliamentary Elections primarily because prior to this event, it was not important enough to focus on this area of studies. Subsequently, these scholars discovered that euroscepticism had transformed into a significant movement in many member states. Their exploration is mainly limited to the description of the eurosceptic political parties with some short references to the origin of this political front. Instead of just presenting facts and figures concerning. 政治大 eurosceptic issues, political parties, and 2014 European Parliamentary Elections. Moreover, the 立 the rise of euroscepticism, this paper includes the analysis of the history of the movement,. ‧ 國. 學. author poses three critical questions concerning the topic of this paper, then applies the two-level games theory to find a possible solution to confront this new political front.. ‧. The main purpose of this paper is to examine the origin and development of euroscepticism. sit. y. Nat. in the European Union. Through the in-depth analysis of the academic journals, news, and articles,. al. er. io. the author explores what factors and events contributed to the rise of the eurosceptic movement.. v. n. Moreover, the information about the EU's development and the resulting emergence of. Ch. engchi. i n U. euroscepticism is also examined in this thesis. It would be impossible to comprehend the growth of eurosceptic parties without understanding the historical background of the EU. By answering the primary question of this paper, the author connects the development of the EU with the emergence of euroscepticism. Aside from the historical aspects, the author also presents the current events being faced by the European Commission. Secondly, the author examines the importance of the 2014 European Parliamentary Election, as well as eurosceptic parties at the domestic level. For the first time in history, some member states have experienced a sharp power shift or the emergence of eurosceptic parties in their national parliaments. Subsequently, due to the popular discontent toward the EU, the same constituency took 3.

(11) part in the 2014 European Parliamentary Election and the eurosceptic party infiltrated the EU's structures. In congruence with more recent events, the author explores the possibility of potential disintegration of the EU. Finally, the author asks whether it is possible to confront eurosceptic parties and resolve the problem of the anti-EU atmosphere on the basis of the two-level games theory. This highly important question is summarized in the data selection presented in the first part of this paper. After exploring the origin and the influence of euroscepticism, the author presents his findings on whether it is possible to solve this problem through two-level games negotiation. Moreover, the theory is applied in each section of this paper to entirely comprehend the rise of eurosceptic movement.. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. 4. i n U. v.

(12) 1.3 Literature review. 1.3.1 European problems Over the past several years, the European Union has jumped through hoops in dealing with several pervasive problems. The 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis was only the beginning of political and economic unrest in Europe, which later led to the eurozone crisis. At the time, the only possible way to revitalize the European economy was for each member state to implement painful reforms. Most countries were eager to proceed bill after bill, and can now jointly announce that. 政治大 implemented reforms slowly and inefficiently, which only exacerbated the current crisis. In each 立 their countries have finally returned to the development track. Others, fearful public response,. ‧ 國. 學. scenario, politicians made use of the global situation and, depending on the effects on their countries, applied policies in their own party programs.. ‧. Following the eurozone crisis, the EU had to deal with two major events that destabilized. sit. y. Nat. the positive atmosphere between member states. The first concerned the security aspect, which. al. er. io. gained further significance after the Ukrainian crisis. After the Russian involvement in the Donbass. v. n. war, the former Eastern Bloc countries felt that the EU and NATO did not provide ample protection.. Ch. engchi. i n U. Moreover, many political parties accused the European Commission of being clumsy in dealing with the Ukrainian crisis and failing to defend against the possible aggressor.2 The second major problem concerns the current immigration situation regarding refugees. This is considered to be the most serious issue ever confronted by the EU. Recent events clearly show the division within the EU's structures and differing attitudes concerning potential solutions to the immigration crisis. The notion of refugee quotas, presented by the European Commission, has faced severe criticism by Central and Eastern European countries, which blamed the EU for. 2 Stephen Larrabee F., Peter A .Wilson, John Gordon IV, “The Ukrainian Crisis and European Security Implications for the United States and U.S. Army,” RAND Corporation, (2015).. 5.

(13) imposing conditions against their will.3 Other eurosceptic political parties, such as the Conservative Party in the UK and Law and Justice in Poland, value their countries' cultures and traditions. They are strongly opposed to the creation of a European super-state as well as a common European identity. For them, as is true for many soft eurosceptic parties, national interests are the most important factors in determining their policies. Centralizing power in Brussels and giving the European Commission more power than each individual member state's government is considered entirely unacceptable. Many conservatives value traits such as respect to their own cultures and traditions and devotion to their religions, and therefore do support efforts for “less Europe” in the EU.4. 立. 政治大. 1.3.2 Euroscepticism and its variety. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. Since 1985 the euroscepticism has been slowly spreading throughout the Europe. Over the. sit. y. Nat. past 20 years, European citizens observed the establishment of new political parties calling. n. al. er. io. themselves eurosceptic parties. Undeniably, their political programs first and foremost criticize the. v. EU's structures. However, not all eurosceptic political parties have the same negative attitude. Ch. engchi. i n U. toward the EU. On the one hand, we have David Cameron's Conservative Party (UK) and on the other Marine Le Pen's National Front (France). Both are perceived as eurosceptic parties, but their attitudes, policies, and plans for the EU are completely different. This is why for the first time in their book, Aleks Szczerbiak and. Paul Taggart introduce two categories of euroscepticism:. soft and hard euroscepticism.5. 3 Jaroslaw Cwiek-Karpowicz, Aleksandra Gawlikowska-Fyk, Dariusz Kalan, Piotr Koscinski, Sebastian Plociennik, Patrycja Sasnal, Marcin Terlikowski, Katarzyna Staniewska, “Migration Crisis Unites Visegrad Group,” The Polish Institute of International Affairs, (2015). 4 Liubomir Topaloff, “Marginal No More,” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 25, No 4 (October 2014): 76-87. 5 Aleks Szczerbiak, Paul Taggart, “Opposing Europe? The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism. Vol.1: Case Studies and Country Surveys,” Oxford University Press (2008).. 6.

(14) Table 1.1 Division of eurosceptic political parties depending on their attitude towards the EU. Soft eurosceptic political parties • • • • • • • • •. Hard eurosceptic political parties. Conservative Party (UK) Law and Justice Party (Poland) Finns Party (Finland) National Alliance (Latvia) Syriza (Greece) Podemos (Spain) Five Star Movement (Italy) Jobbik (Hungary) Fidesz (Hungary). • • • • • •. National Front (France) United Kingdom Independence Party (UK) Golden Dawn (Greece) Party for Freedom (The Netherlands) Freedom Party of Austria (Austria) Progressive Party of Working People (Cyprus). Source: Yves Bertoncini, Nicole Koenig, Euroscepticism or Europhobia: Voice vs. Exit?, 2014. The first category of eurosceptic political parties is soft euroscepticism. These parties are. 政治大. commonly called reformists simply because they want to change the EU's structure. They are not. 立. opposed to the existence of the EU, nor do they want to withdraw from the community. Their main. ‧ 國. 學. criticism of the EU concerns the creation a federal Europe, in which national interests, tradition and culture would no longer matter. Their ideology is largely based on Margaret Thatcher's speech given. ‧. in Bruges, in which she underlined the biggest impediments and weaknesseses of the European. y. Nat. sit. Community. Soft eurosceptics are opposed to further European integration, creation of a European. n. al. er. io. identity, and most importantly, the formation of an “ever closer union”. Nowadays, four soft. i n U. v. eurosceptic political parties rule in the countries from which they originated: Fidesz in Hungary,. Ch. engchi. Law and Justice in Poland, Syriza in Greece, and the Conservative Party in UK. This shows the power of the eurosceptic ideology in EU member states.6 After the 2014 European Parliament election, one could observe relatively sharp increase in hard eurosceptic parties. Parties such as the National Front, United Kingdom Independence Party, and Party for Freedom differ significantly from their soft equivalents. Most of them aim to accomplish three major points promised during their political campaigns:. 6 Yves Bertoncini, Nicole Koenig, “Euroscepticism or Europhobia: Voice vs. Exit?,” Notre Europe. Jacques Delors Institute (November 2014).. 7.

(15) 1. Withdrawal from the European Union in order to stop the integration process since they do not see the benefits of a closer European Union. 2. Exit from the eurozone: many wish to return to their country's previous currency since the euro is too susceptible to changes in the economies of other eurozone countries. 3. Withdrawal from the Schengen area: they are strongly opposed to the free movement of people without border control as it may encourage the spread of terrorism and drug and illegal weapons trafficking within the European continent. Moreover, they aim to stop the flow of immigrants to their countries as they believe these. 政治大. immigrants will commit crimes and take advantage of their social systems.7. 立. ‧ 國. 學. Before working with Szczerbiak to create a well-known division of euroscepticism in the article The Party Politics of Euroscepticism in EU Member and Candidate State, Taggart explored. ‧. another way to identify eurosceptic parties in his paper entitled A Touchstone of Dissent:. Nat. sit. y. Euroscepticism in Contemporary Western European Party System. He believed there to be four. n. al. er. io. different categories into which all eurosceptic political parties fall. If we were to compare the. i n U. v. division of eurosceptic parties by Szczerbiak and Taggart together and Taggart alone, the former. Ch. engchi. seems to more accurately analyze the origins and development of euroscepticism in Europe. Taggart in his 1998 article, suggested a highly complex way to segregate eurosceptic parties. Without indepth insight into political games on the domestic level, such a division would prove very challenging. The Party Politics of Euroscepticism in EU Member and Candidate State argues that eurosceptic parties should be considered either soft or hard based on whether they are from the left or right wing.. 7 Yves Bertoncini, Nicole Koenig, “Euroscepticism or Europhobia: Voice vs. Exit?,” Notre Europe. Jacques Delors Institute (November 2014).. 8.

(16) 1.3.3 2014 European political earthquake. Between 22nd and 25th of May 2014, many Europeans took part in the historical European Parliament elections. What happened after the result of the first exit-poll was revealed surprised most of the politicians and citizens in Europe. Few could comprehend the election's outcome, and some even called it a political earthquake. In past European elections, voters had never elected as many eurosceptic party members as they did in 2014. What is more, the National Front in France and UK Independence Party in the UK secured first place, while Five Star Movement in Italy became a second political power.8 These results attracted the most public attention from the public. 政治大 were hard eurosceptic parties entering the European Parliament. With regard to soft euroscpeticism, 立. simply because of the importance of France, the UK, and Italy in the EU and the fact that these. ‧ 國. Law and Justice (Poland) came as a second force.9. 學. Syriza (Greece) and Fidesz (Hungary) won their elections and the Conservative Party (UK) and. ‧. al. 125 (16.64%). Other political forces. C h 82 (10.92%) U e n(72.44%) gchi 544. Total. 751 (100%). Hard euroscepticism. y. Number of parties (%). sit. Number of seats (%). n. Soft euroscepticism. io. Parties in the European Parliament. er. Nat. Table 1.2 Soft and hard euroscepticism after 2014 elections. v ni. 30 (16.3%) 16 (8.67%) 138 (75%) 184 (100%). Source: Yves Bertoncini, Nicole Koenig, Euroscepticism or Europhobia: Voice vs. Exit?, 2014. Prior to the election, the number of people with negative opinions about the EU increased significantly. The best way to illustrate their involvement in the European politics is by comparing the turnout, which dropped from 62% in 1979 to 42.54% in 2014. Because of the worst economic and political crisis in the history, which started shortly after the 2007 Global Financial Crisis, the 8 European Policy Center, “Post-European Parliament Elections Analysis,” (2014). 9 Yves Bertoncini, Nicole Koenig, “Euroscepticism or Europhobia: Voice vs. Exit?,” Notre Europe. Jacques Delors Institute (November 2014).. 9.

(17) atmosphere in Europe deteriorated rapidly, thus making the eurosceptic parties stronger. The results of the European elections, presented in the table above, precisely show the dimension and strength the increasing euroscepticism. Of course, the 16.64% of soft and 10.92% of hard eurosceptic parties' members did not emerge out of thin air. Most of them, like a National Front of Marine Le Pen, were established a long time ago. However, given the current unfavorable economic and political situation, they have been gaining popularity little by little, which eventually led to an electoral win. The influx of populists, radicals, extremists and anti-establishment politicians to the European Parliament means that the battle between the “more Europe” camp versus “less Europe”. 政治大. camp has officially begun. Looking at the statistics, which indicate that 72.44% of members come. 立. from the first camp, we should assume that the euroscpetic camp is doomed to fail. However, their. ‧ 國. 學. entrance to the European Parliament means that as the representative of the EU, they can more broadly promote their views and opinions. They will most certainly exert pressure on public opinion. ‧. concerning the “less Europe” project, which is the primary aim of soft eurosceptic parties. The. Nat. sit. y. others, like the UK Independence Party and National Front, want to demolish the EU's structures. n. al. er. io. and reputation as well as “turning the European Parliament into a self-hating parliament”. 10 What. i n U. v. should also concern international observers is the impact of the 2014 European election on the. Ch. engchi. national election of all member states. To attract voters, some parties, like the Conservative Party in UK, chose a more eurosceptic path by calling for a referendum for withdrawal from the EU. Nowadays, the pro-EU camp has to deal not only with current problems, including the eurozone crisis, immigration issues, etc., but also with the eurosceptic parties that have become increasingly stronger. As on of the article suggests, “Liberal-democrat forces should be wary of any impulse to press the fast-forward button” 11 because the consequences may be more serious than we can foresee at the moment. 10 Jose Ignacio Torreblanca, Mark Leonard, “The Continentwide Rise of Euroscepticism,” The European Council on Foreign Relations, (2013). 11 João Carlos Espada, “The missing debate”, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 25, No. 4 (2014): pp. 88-95.. 10.

(18) 1.4 Methodology Most democratic institutions have jointly emphasized the importance of using diplomacy in solving international conflicts and reaching an agreement through several negotiation stages. The history of the EU represents the role of bargaining between member states and its final success. Since the beginning of the EU, countries have been under pressure to develop a secure and peaceful Europe. In the initial stage, it used to be relatively easy to pass and revolutionize the EU's structures because it only had six member states and the common goal to create an institution that would last. As the EU grew, it became increasingly difficult to reach common agreements on several debated. 政治大 EU leaders. History shows that the Lisbon Treaty in particular was extremely difficult to pass given 立. issues. It would be naive to say that all the treaties were signed immediately when presented to the. ‧ 國. 學. the differing stances of most member states. In the end, thanks to the countries' willingness to negotiate and reach a compromise the treaty was signed after several negotiations stages in 2007.. ‧. That shows that international bargaining does matter and finding diplomatic solutions is the best. sit. y. Nat. way to satisfy participants.. al. er. io. In 1988, Robert Putnam introduced the Two-level games theory, which focuses on the role. v. n. of international negotiation. He understands the two-level games to mean international and. Ch. engchi. i n U. domestic policy. Both positions are extremely important in reaching the final agreements and solving many issues between involved actors. To lead the successful negotiation, the political leader (Prime Minister, President etc.) needs to take under consideration the international and domestic factors and demands. He or she takes part in the negotiation and attends to reach the best possible agreement that would satisfy both levels. Most of the time, the demands the political leader faces during international bargaining are divergent and he or she must be involved in simultaneous negotiations at both the international and domestic level.12. 12 Robert D.Putman, “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: the Logic of Two-Level Games,” (1988).. 11.

(19) 政治大. Figure 1.1 The description of the level I and level II policy. 立. ‧ 國. 學. The best example of failure in satisfying both international and domestic demands is the Greek bailout negotiation of 2015. The Greek PM was elected by his voters mainly due to his open. ‧. criticism of the conditions set by the EU to provide yet another loan to revitalize the Greek. Nat. sit. y. economy. During the negotiations, he was not weighed down by the pressure from the EU to accept. n. al. er. io. the proposal and was not willing to negotiate a better deal. He realized that if he had accepted the. i n U. v. conditions set by the EU, he would have been torn apart by his domestic voters. As a result of the. Ch. engchi. failed negotiations, Greece came very close to bankruptcy. Alexis Tsipras realized that the only way to save the Greek economy and remain in the eurozone was to sit one more time with the eurozone leaders and reach an agreement, which they eventually did. Consequently, he fulfilled the requirements of the first level by satisfying the international counterparts, but he failed to secure the domestic interests, which resulted in his dismissal from the position of the Greek PM. It should be stated that the Greek situation was extremely difficult to settle since both parties did not have ample time for negotiations, which resulted in one side getting less from the agreement than expected.. 12.

(20) 立. 政治大. ‧ 國. 學. Figure 1.2 The win-set strategy depending on the international and domestic interests. ‧. Successful negotiation takes place when all actors involved reach a so-called “win-set”. y. Nat. io. sit. agreement. The entire process of international bargaining depends on the standpoint and influence. n. al. er. of domestic voters. The higher their expectations the more difficult it is to satisfy them. This may. Ch. i n U. v. result in the loss of their political support (in the case of reaching an unfavorable deal) or failure to. engchi. sign any agreement between the international actors. The state leader is constantly under pressure from the opposition in his or her country as well as international counterparts. However, what makes a politician great is his or her ability to compromise and come back with conditions acceptable on both the international and domestic levels. That is precisely the win-set strategy, which the Greek PM could not accomplish. During his campaign, his populist approach was noted across the EU and many observers did not believe that his proposals and promises would ever come to fruition because of objections from the EU leaders.. 13.

(21) The author of this paper strongly believes that the strategy to confront the rise of euroscepticism in Europe should be based on the two-level games theory. The history of the EU has showed us many examples in which the member states, in the face of serious conflict, were able to reach a compromise through the negotiation process. Considering the fact that the EU countries do differ a great deal with regard to political rules, culture, tradition, and even religion, bargaining between them is always an arduous operation. Despite the differences, they must represent their nations on both an international and domestic level, which provides us yet another difficulty in achieving a binding agreement. If we consider the rise of euroscepticism as an issue to be dealt with by the EU, then solving this problem through several negotiation stages must be understood as a. 政治大. precise and highly complex surgery. The true challenge is finding a common way to satisfy all. 立. eurosceptic parties, or simply to diminish their popularity in their home countries. The European. ‧ 國. 學. Commission must take into consideration the fact that no single equivalent model of euroscepticism can be applied to all political actors. We can encounter hard and soft eurosceptic parties which then. ‧. can be further divided into the left-wing and right-wing. By applying the two-level games theory,. Nat. sit. y. the author of this paper tries to prove its efficiency in dealing with eurosceptic parties after the 2014. n. al. er. io. European Parliament Elections.. Ch. engchi. 14. i n U. v.

(22) 1.5 Outline of the thesis “A Study of the Origins and Development of Euroscepticism in the European Union” is composed of six chapters, including the introduction and the conclusion, as the first and last chapter respectively. The table of contents was carefully designed to provide useful information in an appropriate order so that the reader can easily find the desired analysis and data. After the first, introduction chapter, the author presents the Historical Overview (chapter 2), Issues Contributing to Euroscepticism (chapter 3), A Proliferation of Eurosceptic Political Parties (chapter 4), Impact of the 2014 European Parliament Election (chapter 5), and the Conclusion (chapter 6).. 政治大 The main goal of this chapter is 立 to provide a clear information about the beginning of the ani-EU The second chapter of this thesis focuses on the historical background of euroscepticism.. ‧ 國. 學. movement within the EU. In the first section, the author examines the development of the EU's structures through several treaties signed by each member state. These agreements are presented to. ‧. illustrate the process of creating a federal Europe and the constant desire for an “ever closer union”.. sit. y. Nat. Undeniably, this particular research enables us to understand the emergence of euroscepticism in. n. al. er. io. 1985, as well as its later development. It was at this moment when many European politicians. i n U. v. started to criticize the EU for its forward-looking ideas of federal Europe creation. One of these. Ch. engchi. critics was the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, whose speech in Bruges is analyzed in the second section of this chapter. If not for her appearance in the College of Europe, the term euroscepticism would not have been well known at that time. As Prime Minister, she openly attacked the European Commission's ideas and opposed to the forward-looking centralization of Europe. Needless to say, the content of her speech in Bruges is considered to be the solid foundation of the eurosceptic party's ideology. The third chapter outlines the current European issues, which have influenced the rise of euroscepticism in Europe. The first section presents the ongoing immigration problem in the EU. It. 15.

(23) regards Europeans who seek new jobs in other member states, as well as the refugee crisis, which gained momentum in 2015. As an example, the British Conservative Party is opposed to these immigrants, who comes from the Schengen area in order to find better work, and even calls for withdrawal from the EU on the basis of this phenomenon. The other parties, especially those from Central and Eastern Europe do not want to receive any Syrian refugees because of their security concerns. The second section explains the aftermath of the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis and its effects on the European economy. Many member states were in a devastated financial condition that could not be solved without aid from the IMF and the EU. To revitalize their economies, the governments had no other options but to implement painful reforms in the social and financial. 政治大. sectors. Needless to say, such conditions were essential in saving the eurozone from disintegration.. 立. The reforms were met with great criticism from the public, resulting in the rise of eurosceptic. ‧ 國. 學. parties that opposed this method of obtaining financial aid from international creditors. The third section discusses the security aspect that gained significance during the Ukrainian Crisis. This. ‧. particular event divided eurosceptic parties into the two camps. The Polish Law and Justice is a. Nat. sit. y. perfect example of the first camp, which criticizes the EU for its ineffective commitment in solving. n. al. er. io. the situation in Eastern Ukraine. Countries located near the conflict area are afraid that they might. i n U. v. be the next target of the aggressive policies of Vladimir Putin, hence the criticism of the EU. The. Ch. engchi. second camp is represented by political parties such as Fidesz or SYRIZA, which oppose the economic sanctions on the Russian Federation. They have strong relations with the Russian government and in their opinion, the EU policy is detrimental to their economies. The fourth chapter focuses on the comparative perspective of eurosceptic parties. Most importantly, the classification of eurosceptism introduced by Szczerbiak and Taggart provides us with essential information about the differing ideologies. Subsequently, the author of this thesis gives many examples of the eurosceptic parties and their attitudes towards the EU and explores the likelihood of their promises coming true. This part, however trivial it might seem, shows the. 16.

(24) complexity of euroscepticism, which varies across on member states. Moreover, the example of the UK as an eurosceptic country is also included in this part of thesis. The fifth chapter consists of an analysis of the 2014 European Parliamentary Elections. In the history of the EU, Europeans have never elected so many eurosceptic politicians which only emphasizes the social and economic dissatisfaction in many member states. This part explores voters of the eurosceptic parties. Moreover, it focuses on the role of the newly elected eurosceptic politicians inside the European Parliament and their power to shape the EU's policies. Finally, the author juxtaposes the 2014 elections with those in 2009 ones and gives an idea of how to deal with the rise of euroscepticism in Europe.. 治政 The final chapter concludes all the findings included大 in this paper. Through the in-depth 立 analysis of euroscepticism, the author summarizes his exploration based on three research questions ‧ 國. 學. posed at the beginning of this work. Subsequently, he suggests which part of his paper requires a. ‧. further examination in order to solve the problem of eurosceptic movement in the EU.. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. 17. i n U. v.

(25) Chapter 2. Historical Overview We hope to see a Europe where men of every country will think of being a European as of belonging to their native land, and … wherever they go in this wide domain ... will truly feel, 'Here I am at home.'13 Winston Churchill, 1948. It was 1948 when the British Prime Minister - Winston Churchill delivered memorable speech at the Congress of Europe that underlined the idea of European identity. Three years after the. 政治大. end of World War II, he emphasized the significance of the peace in Europe and his desire to build a. 立. united European family. What is more, he was not the only one who expressed aspirations for this. ‧ 國. 學. particular project. Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland, Bronislaw Geremek once said:. ‧. “We have Europe. Now we need Europeans”,14 which called for common support on the part of European leaders. Most of them, following the example of the American Dream, wanted to create. y. Nat. io. sit. its European equivalent. Step by step, following guidelines set by the European Union, they. n. al. er. provided their citizens with an extraordinary opportunity to live in a united community. However, it. Ch. i n U. v. would be naive to think that this could last forever. For the past several years, the EU has. engchi. encountered many impediments, in which the emergence of the eurosceptic movement lies. In order to analyze what has contributed to the rise of euroscepticism in Europe, the author presents a historical perspective, including the EU treaties and Margharet Thatcher speech in the College of Europe.. 13 Gareth Harding, “The Myth of Europe,” (2012). 14 Centrum im. Profesora Bronisława Geremka, “Europa: Pomiędzyintegracją a integryzmem,” (2013).. 18.

(26) 2.1 European Union treaties and the rise of euroscepticism. It can be stated that the EU is a special creation that must constantly move forward, develop, and make Europe a better place to live. If it stops, this may signal the beginning of the end for this politico-economic union.. Table 2.1 The development of the EU's structures. Year. Treaty/Agreement. 1951. Paris Treaty. 1957. Rome Treaty. Aim Establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). 1992. Maastricht Treaty. Creation and introduction of the euro as a common European currency. 1997. Amsterdam Treaty. Increase of power of the European Parliament and works on foreign and security policy. 2001. Nice Treaty. Preparation of the eastward expansion. 2007. Lisbon Treaty. Formation of the EU as it is at the moment. ‧. ‧ 國. y. Nat. sit. 1985. 學. 1986. 治 of the European Economic Community 政 Creation 大Europe's borderless Schengen Area Schengen Agreement Formation of 立 Single European Act Establishing the Single Market. io. n. al. er. Source: Staab Andreas, The European Union explained, Indiana University Press, 2011. Ch. engchi. i n U. v. Undoubtedly, the Paris Treaty can be labeled as the beginning of the European Union. Signed in 1951 by Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (also called as “The Six”), the treaty aimed to sustain economic stability (based on the coal and steel production) and peace. Many International Political Economy and International Relations researchers strongly believe that countries that have economic ties with each other are less likely to enter into war with one another. This could not be more accurate. Since 1951, the states forming the EU have never been in military conflicts with other member nations.. 19.

(27) Six years later, the political leaders of the European Coal and Steel Community decided to expand the economic opportunities and signed the Rome Treaty in 1957. This resulted in the creation of the European Economic Community.. The Community shall be based upon a customs union covering the exchange of all goods and comprising both the prohibition, as between Member States, of customs duties on importation and exportation and all charges with equivalent effect and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries.15. 政治大. The Rome Treaty was a milestone in transforming the whole European Community and. 立. marked the beginning of the “ever closer union”. On 14 June 1985, one of the most important. ‧ 國. 學. agreements was signed by Belgium, France, West Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands – the Schengen Agreement. Their objective was to allow for the free movement of citizens within the. ‧. European continent while abolishing passport and border controls. The agreement was implemented. Nat. sit. y. in 1995, and since that time, 26 member states have joined the Schengen area. Nowadays, many. n. al. er. io. Europeans take great advantage of this system and consider it to be one of the biggest achievements. i n U. v. of the EU. On the other hand, the agreement became one of the main “enemies” of hard eurosceptic political parties in Europe.. Ch. engchi. The next stage in the development of the EU was the Single European Act, signed in 1986 which created a crucial EU Single Market. From that moment on, all the member states could enjoy the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, commonly known as the “four freedoms”. All 28 member states plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway (European Economic Area), and Switzerland (bilateral treaties) boast the largest GDP in the world and a 20% global share in exports and import.16 It goes without saying, the creation of the EU Single Market is considered to 15 CVCE, “Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (Rome, 25 March 1957).” 16 European Commission, “The European Union Explained: Internal Market,” (2014).. 20.

(28) be one of the three greatest accomplishments of the EU. In February 1992, member states decided to move forward and attempt to integrate European countries even more than the Schengen Agreement and Single European act already had. Twelve EU countries decided to sign the Maastricht Treaty introducing a single European currency – the euro. Nowadays, 19 EU member states use euro as their national currency (eurozone), 9 countries such as Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, etc. use it in terms of monetary agreements, and Kosovo and Montenegro use it unilaterally. Moreover, they established the three pillars of the EU: European Community (EC), the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). Many European leaders showed a desire to extend the potential of the EU in. 政治大. the fields of foreign, military, criminal and justice policy in order to strengthen the EU's position in. 立. the world. Subsequently, member states signed the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997, which extended. ‧ 國. 學. European Parliament power over the areas mentioned in the Maastricht Treaty while focusing more on the rights of European citizens.. ‧. The next big step for the EU was the Nice Treaty of 2001. The main objective of this. Nat. sit. y. particular agreement was to prepare, transform and reform the EU's structures and institutions for. n. al. er. io. the biggest enlargement in its history. Accession of the eight former Eastern Block and Yugoslavia. i n U. v. countries and two Mediterranean islands forced the current EU to adapt to many extreme changes. Ch. engchi. brought by these less developed countries. To shape the EU as it is now, 28 member states had to sign the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007 (so far the last EU treaty). With regard to the treaty's main objectives, it established a constitution of Europe by giving “more power for the European Parliament, change of voting procedures in the Council, citizens' initiative, a permanent president of the European Council, a new High Representative for Foreign Affairs, a new EU diplomatic service.17 Based on the treaties and agreements signed by EU representatives over the past 60 years, one might conclude that they have stayed true to the idea of establishing an “ever closer union”. 17 European Union, “EU treaties.”. 21.

(29) Undoubtedly, Schengen area, Single Market, and the euro were the greatest contributions to that project. Many EU leaders strongly believe that Europeans need to wait a long time before another treaty is signed. In their opinions, the EU has reached the point where having a closer union than it does right now may derive more harm than benefit. The question to which the author wishes to respond in this part of the thesis, concerns the connection between the EU's treaties and the emergence of euroscepticism, as well as the relevance of the two-level games theory in forming the EU's structure. As was mentioned at the beginning of this section, the EU is a special creation that must constantly move forward, develop, and make Europe a better place to live. By singing treaties and agreements, European politicians have created. 政治大. a special union that has not been achieved in any other region around the world. It is not difficult to. 立. imagine that such a “federalization” of Europe does have its opposition. Strictly speaking, many. ‧ 國. 學. eurosceptic figures criticized many of the treaties because they contributed to the democratic deficit. Before 1985, the term euroscepticism did not even exist. It emerged when the European. ‧. Commission decided to pursue the project of an “ever closer union” through the signing of the. Nat. sit. y. Schengen agreement, Maastricht Treaty, Nice Treaty etc. The development of euroscepticism is. n. al. er. io. inherently linked to the development of the EU itself. If we look at the main points opposed by. i n U. v. eurosceptic parties, we then realize that these all concern the ideas implemented after 1985.. Ch. engchi. The project of an “ever closer union” is impossible without the signatures of all member states. To ratify agreements, each EU country must accept and follow the conditions outlined in the documents. Reaching a compromise has always been an extremely difficult task since there has been increasingly more states with differing interests and attitudes that have joined the EU. As the two-level games theory says, the government must attain the win-set agreement by satisfying its voters on both the international and domestic levels. The best examples to illustrate the success of such negotiation are the Schengen agreement and the Maastricht Treaty. The eurosceptic United Kingdom has never expressed its desire to join the Schengen area nor the monetary union. The. 22.

(30) British Prime Minister had no other option than to negotiate with the European Commission regarding conditions to satisfy both parties. As a result, some countries in the EU can occasionally agree on the opt-outs from treaties and agreements implemented by the EU. Subsequently, the UK and Ireland are not the part of the Schengen area, the UK and Denmark are not in the monetary union, etc. This example shows how the two-level games theory turned out to be a success in helping eurosceptic countries ratify EU treaties and agreements.. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. 23. i n U. v.

(31) 2.2 The Thatcher speech The literature says that the term 'Euroscepticism’ was introduced for the first time by the British newspaper – The Times in November 1985.18 However, it was on 20 September 1988 in Bruges, when the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was invited to deliver a lecture about the European Community that this word gained popularity. At the very beginning of her speech she stated: “Mr. Chairman, you have invited me to speak on the subject of Britain and Europe. Perhaps I should congratulate you on your courage. If you believe some of the things said and written about my views on Europe, it must seem rather like inviting Genghis Khan to speak on the virtues of. 政治大 one fascinating fact – Margaret Thatcher was a eurosceptic who opposed many ideas that the 立 peaceful coexistence!”.19 Initially, even those uninterested in the European politics could observe. ‧ 國. 學. Commission had proposed to its member states at the time. This is why her presence in the notable pro-EU College of Europe was especially surprising.. ‧. The first part started much “friendlier” than many people anticipated. The PM delivered. sit. y. Nat. some historical information about the role of Great Britain in Europe, especially concerning the. al. er. io. British contribution in sustaining peace after World War I and World War II. However, at the end of. v. n. her thought she touched on a very controversial topic – common European identity, in saying: “The. Ch. engchi. i n U. European Community is one manifestation of that European identity, but it is not the only one.” 20 Thatcher emphasized that every country has a unique culture, language and tradition. This is what defines ones as British, Spanish, Polish or Swedish and European Community must reflect the aspirations of each country. “Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity. It would be folly to try to fit them into some sort of identikit European personality.”21 Her speech took place following the signing of the 18 European Sources Online, “Information Guide: Euroscepticism,” Cardiff University, (2013). 19 Margaret Thatcher Foundation, “Speech to the College of Europe ("The Bruges Speech"),” (1988). 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid.. 24.

(32) Schengen Agreement and the Single European Act. She knew about the ideas and suggestions that the following Maastricht Treaty might bring and she was strongly opposed to them. Great Britain and Margaret Thatcher did not want to adopt the euro as their currency, nor did they want a centralized power in Brussels. She added that Europeans in the sense of common interest, can speak with the same voice to achieve benefits in the international field and that they do not need the EU to speak on behalf of every member state. “The Community will only damage itself in the eyes of its own people and the outside world if that courage is lacking.”22 Thatcher continued while criticizing the Community budget spending. Above all, she supported the Single Market but she still wanted to move forward to develop the EU potential in terms of the economy.. 政治大. With regard to the idea of the Schengen area, she admitted that European leaders should. 立. make it easier for people and goods to cross borders, but “it is a matter of plain common sense that. ‧ 國. 學. we cannot totally abolish frontier controls if we are also to protect our citizens from crime and stop the movement of drugs, of terrorists and of illegal immigrants”. 23 The last matter of her address. ‧. concerned the involvement of the European countries in a common defense system. She stated that. Nat. sit. y. the reliance on NATO was the best thing that could happen to Europe. According to her, relying on. n. al. er. io. each country's self-defense mechanism is pointless because it will not result in any success.. i n U. v. This is the speech from which most soft eurosceptic political parties gathered their ideas.. Ch. engchi. Thatcher elaborated on to most of the principles of the EU and criticized them in her own way. Thatcher did not advocate for the creation of a European Super State nor a common European identity. She did not wish to establish The United States of Europe because Europeans are different from Americans. Europeans have different cultures, languages, traditions and putting into the one box and transforming a British, Italian, or Belgian into “European” would not make sense. She was not opposed to the idea of a European Community in itself, but she did oppose to the idea of an “ever closer union”. 22 Margaret Thatcher Foundation, “Speech to the College of Europe ("The Bruges Speech"),” (1988). 23 Ibid.. 25.

(33) 2.3 Conclusion. This chapter concluded that the development of euroscepticism is inherently linked to the development of the EU itself. All treaties, signed by member states, are bound to the ever-closer union project, which is highly criticized by eurosceptic parties. Most of the eurosceptic parties are opposed to centralized power in Brussels, Schengen area, the euro as a common currency, future expansion, and other ideas implemented through European integration process. However, even the greatest projects come with an opposition from the society, so the emergence of the euroscepticism through the development of the EU should not be a surprise.. 政治大. Based on the historical background, one may state that despite of many disparities, the EU. 立. member states have always found a way to pass arguable projects. Through negotiations, political. ‧ 國. 學. leaders have agreed on the terms included in EU's treaties, both at international and domestic levels by securing win-set agreements. Finally, the speech of Margaret Thatcher, presented in this chapter,. ‧. gives another insight into the development of euroscepticism in the EU. The criticism of the core. Nat. n. al. Ch. engchi. 26. er. io. eurosceptic parties more visible that they used to be before.. sit. y. EU's achievements, delivered by such an eminent politician, was spread across Europe making soft. i n U. v.

(34) Chapter 3. Issues Contributing to Euroscepticism Back in 1988, when Margharet Thatcher delivered her speech at the College of Europe in Bruges, nobody could have predicted that eurosceptic ideology would rise in power after the 2014 European Parliament election. At that time it was the UK government that criticized the EU for their forward looking ideas and called for a less unified Europe. However, before 1988 the EU was composed of only 12 member states while now this number has increased to 28 countries, thus making it more difficult to reach common compromises on several important matters. When the European Commission could not find solutions for emerging problems, eurosceptic political parties. 政治大. saw their chance to attack and finally share their ideology with the public. Subsequently, soft. 立. eurosceptic parties called for an immediate reform of the EU's structures and highlighted every. ‧ 國. 學. mistake the European Commission had made while trying to solve the ongoing crisis. On the other hand, the hard eurosceptic parties' political program has focused on destroying the EU's structure. ‧. and ideology from within. They have not been eager to cooperate nor find a common solution for. Nat. n. al. er. io. seeing that they are opposed to all that the EU represents.. sit. y. the current problems simply because it has not been in their interest to assist the EU, especially. i n U. v. In this chapter of the paper, the author analyzes European and international issues that. Ch. engchi. contributed to the rise of eurosceptic supporters in the EU. Following the introduction, he presents the 2015 European refugee crisis, the 2009 eurozone crisis, and the 2013 Ukraine crisis as three main events that have largely affected the EU's matters in the past several years. In each case, the author of this paper explains the significance of two-level games theory while solving European issues. Refugees quotas to resettle asylum seekers across the EU, bailout programs to save the economies of countries in crisis, and finally the Minsk agreement to establish a ceasefire in Ukraine are all taken under consideration in this chapter. The success or failure of said solutions would undeniably affect eurosceptic parties and their levels of support in EU member states.. 27.

(35) Table 3.1 Trust in the European Union in 2010 and 2014. Country. 2010. 2014. European Union 28. 42%. 35%. Austria. 41%. 31%. Belgium. 57%. 40%. Bulgaria. 61%. 54%. Croatia. -. 41%. Cyprus. 42%. 26%. Czech Republic. 50%. 29%. Denmark. 61%. 35%. Estonia. 68%. 44%. Finland. 50%. 34%. France. 39%. 38%. Germany. 立. Greece. Poland Portugal Romania. al. 40%. 34%. 52%. y. 30%. 42%. 54%. 43%. 53%. n. Netherlands. Ch. 41%. 42% 54%. io. Malta. 44%. Nat. Luxembourg. 33%. sit. Lithuania. 55%. ‧. Latvia. 22%. 52%. er. Italy. 36%. 大學. Ireland. 42%. ‧ 國. Hungary. 政 37%治. n U e n45% gchi. iv. 48%. 35% 52% 30%. 56%. 55%. Slovakia. 47%. 30%. Slovenia. 65%. 40%. Spain. 43%. 25%. Sweden. 43%. 42%. United Kingdom. 20%. 23%. Source: Standard Eurobarometer 73, Spring 2010 Standard Eurobarometer 81, Spring 2014. 28.

(36) Based on the data collected by the Standard Eurobarometer, trust in the EU drastically declined between 2010 and 2014. Surprisingly, the only country that noted a slight increase of trust was the eurosceptic UK, whose result is still far from being positive at 23%. In 2014, statistics show that citizens from only three member states have a high level of confidence in the EU, while other countries' level of distrust remains quite high. This overall decline in trust has made it possible for eurosceptic political parties to convince their voters to support their ideology and liberate their nations from the EU's structures. Surprisingly for the European political elites, some of them succeeded during the general and European elections.. 立. 政治大. ‧. ‧ 國. 學. n. er. io. sit. y. Nat. al. Ch. engchi. 29. i n U. v.

(37) 3.1 Immigration. Many eurosceptic political leaders have called for their nations to withdraw from the Schengen area, an area that they believe has been the cause of many problems, including the current European refugee situation. There were two main factors that contributed to the increase in criticism of the free movement of people in the EU. The first factor was the rise of immigration within the EU in order to find better paid jobs in other member states, while the second factor was the 2011 European migrant crisis. These two cases represent completely different motivations based on which people decided to emigrate to other countries. Nevertheless, immigration is deeply related to. 政治大. the idea of the Schengen area and when it intensifies, it becomes a tool used by eurosceptic. 立. politicians to win over the peoples' votes.. ‧ 國. 學. The first aforementioned issue primarily concerns Western European member states that provide opportunities to Central and Eastern Europeans to earn more money than they could. ‧. possibly make in their home countries. As a result, many Polish, Hungarian and other Europeans. Nat. sit. y. who joined Schengen area in 2007 have chosen Sweden, Norway, UK, the Netherlands, and. n. al. er. io. Germany as their new destinations to find well-paid jobs. Oftentimes, working abroad means. i n U. v. paying taxes to and adopting the cultural practices of the state in which they currently reside. As a. Ch. engchi. result, a majority of the migrant workers are entitled to the same social benefits as the local people. The primary criticism of eurosceptic politicians concerns those immigrants that take advantage of their national systems and exploit their social funds, as well as the number of people that emigrate in order to find well-paid jobs. Eurosceptic parties have expressed their disapproval toward Schengen area, which they claim makes it difficult for their own citizens to work in their own countries because all of the jobs have already been procured by foreigners. In reality, while it has been confirmed that some Central and Eastern Europeans take advantage of national systems and social funds, there is only an insignificant percentage of foreign workers who exploit government. 30.

(38) welfare. The majority of immigrants actually do pay taxes and contribute to the society in which they are currently living. Moreover, many eurosceptic political parties accuse foreign workers of taking every possible job opportunity at the expense of the local people. In reality, most locals do not apply for these jobs because of their low salaries and lack of opportunities for future career growth. Many employers admit that they prefer to hire cheap labor from Central or Eastern Europe simply because they are well-qualified, hardworking, and skillful workers. Unfortunately, some people still remain uninformed about the reality of the situation and openly express their disapproval toward immigration policy, thus making them potential eurosceptic party voters. The aftermath of the 2011 Libyan and Syrian Civil Wars (2011 – present) has been. 政治大. devastating for the European continent. Military intervention in Libya, led by NATO forces. 立. succeeded in abolishing Muammar Gaddafi's dictatorship and appointing a new, temporary. ‧ 國. 學. government. This event can be characterized by a sarcastic saying concerning international security and defense - “Be nice to America, or we'll bring democracy to your country.” The establishment of. ‧. democracy in a country previously ruled by a ruthless dictator is always welcomed by the. Nat. sit. y. international society. However, when a country or alliance decides to enact a military intervention. n. al. er. io. and institute a new democratic government, it must be certain that state is prepared for a new. i n U. v. political system that will last for many years. Unfortunately, this was not the case for Libya. The. Ch. engchi. withdrawal of the NATO coalition led to yet another Libyan Civil War that has continued to the present. The Syrian case is quite similar but there was no military intervention because of UN disapproval, one of the main factors being Russia's alliance with the Syrian regime. These two major civil wars resulted in an extreme influx of refugees from those regions into the EU. Needless to say, once the possibility of illegal emigration proved highly successful, many people from African countries decided to leave their home and try to reach the EU borders. Most refugees decided to take the sea route to reach Europe on overwhelmingly overloaded ferries. Several migrant vessel incidents that resulted in an estimated 4000 deaths have already been reported. 24 In 24 NBC News, “Sea of Death: Many Migrants Drown Trying to Reach Italy,” (April 2015).. 31.

(39) November 2014, the European Commission under Italian control decided to begin Operation Triton to prevent the escalation of illegal emigration. The entire mission is now being extended for 20152016 with a budget of €120 million.25. Table 3.2 Asylum applicants (including first time asylum applicants), Q1 2014 – Q1 2015. Country. Asylum applicants. Germany. 247 500. Sweden. 81 280. Hungary. 73 590. Italy. 69 350. France. 63 985. Austria. 立. United Kingdom. 政 34治155 大 31 605. Source: Eurostat. ‧ 國. 學. Those refugees who are lucky enough to endure the journey to reach the European continent. ‧. often choose well developed EU countries as their final destinations. Because of the Dublin. y. Nat. io. sit. Regulation signed in 2013 the EU member states are obliged to receive and then examine the. n. al. er. asylum seekers who pursue international protection. This regulation states that the “ common policy. i n U. v. on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), is a constituent part of the European. Ch. engchi. Union’s objective of progressively establishing an area of freedom, security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Union.”. 26 Problems arises when the number of refugees seeking asylum in EU countries exceeds the number that they can accept. In response, the European Commission submitted a proposal to alter the immigration quotas for all EU member states. However, this solution was highly criticized by some member states, especially the Visegrad group. Consequently, Poland and Slovakia announced that they would only accept Christian emigrants, and Hungary decided to build a fence along its border with Serbia. 25 EurActiv, “NGOs: Migration summit fell short of expectations,” (April 2015). 26 Official Journal of the European Union, “Regulations (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013,” (June 2013).. 32.

(40) The clear demand for the rapid implementation of a common EU migration and asylum policy, to be confirmed in a vote in the European parliament, would be wholly unacceptable to a United Kingdom that already has levels of immigration that are too high, and as Isis have previously threatened, could lead to half a million Islamic extremists coming to our countries and posing a direct threat to our civilisation.27 Nigel Farage (UKIP). For eurosceptic political parties, the migrant crisis served as a confirmation of their ideology, which describes the Schengen area as a defective creation. Eurosceptic leaders declined to accept refugees. 政治大 Netherlands, and France), they had limited financial resources (Italy, Hungary, and Greece), or they simply 立 because their countries were already dealing with problems regarding job-seeking emigrants (the UK, the. did not want to grant the asylum for people who claimed Islam as their religion (Poland and Slovakia).. ‧ 國. 學. Surprisingly, these leaders have plenty of supporters among the EU member states concerning the issue of. ‧. non-EU immigration. In the end, the resettlement plan was accepted by the EU while only four countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia) voted against it, and one – Finland, abstained.. y. Nat. io. sit. However, the European Commission was prepared to deal with this criticism. What happened later made. n. al. er. the immigration crisis even more difficult to solve, simply because of the increasing number of Europeans. Ch. i n U. v. opposed to the EU's current refugee policy undermined their overall national security.. engchi. On the evening of 13 November 2015, the whole world was shocked by the events that took place in Paris. Nine perpetrators, all affiliated with ISIS, conducted terrorist attacks in six different locations in the French capital, which resulted in a total of 130 fatalities. The international community condemned the actors responsible for this act of terror and promised further actions aimed at the fight against ISIS. As it was revealed later, seven of the perpetrators were holding EU passports (five French and two Belgian) and were of Arabic origin. Another two terrorists crossed the EU borders along with thousands of refugees from Syria. This revelation attracted global attention and raised concerns about the overall national security of EU member states during the migrant crisis. In the face of the Paris attacks, Francois Hollande 27 Rowena Mason, “Nigel Farage: EU response to migrant boat crisis would bring jihadis to UK,” The Guardian, (2015).. 33.