National Parliaments after the Lisbon Treaty: Domestic Watchdogs or Autonomous Players? (EU-ParlWatch)
Lead Research Organisation:
University of Cambridge
Department Name: Politics and International Studies
Abstract
Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.
Publications
Cooper I
(2017)
A Separate Parliament for the Eurozone? Differentiated Representation, Brexit, and the Quandary of Exclusion
in Parliamentary Affairs
Cooper I
(2016)
The politicization of interparliamentary relations in the EU: Constructing and contesting the 'Article 13 Conference' on economic governance
in Comparative European Politics
Cooper I
(2014)
Parliamentary Oversight of the EU after the Crisis: On the Creation of the 'Article 13' Interparliamentary Conference
in SSRN Electronic Journal
Cooper I
(2017)
Governance Without Democracy? Analysing the Role of Parliaments in European Economic Governance after the Crisis-Conclusions
in Parliamentary Affairs
| Description | This project, officially called EUParlWatch but later called OPAL, hence the use of this term in the website etc, was part of a wider Open Research Area project led by the Universities of Cambridge, Maastricht and Cologne, and Sciences Po in Paris. Across the four partner institutions we gained in-depth insights into the ways that eight national parliaments deal with the European Union, focusing on the roles of parliamentarians and administrators (parliamentary clerks). In addition, the teams looked at interparliamentary cooperation both horizontally (among national parliaments) and vertically (between the European and national parliaments). The four research partners sought jointly to cover legislative and non-legislative matters since the introduction of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty in 2010. Each of the four teams focused on two Member States and one thematic area in detail. In addition, the teams took responsibility for a further five countries each, to ensure that all 28 Member States were covered, albeit not all in equal depth. The Cambridge team, which was funded by the ESRC, focused on the UK and Poland, with an overview also of Ireland, the three Baltic States, and Croatia, and looked predominantly at 'non-Ordinary Legislative Procedure' issues, i.e. not the standard EU legislation. The primary focus was on foreign, security and defence policy but we also looked at the EU budget/multi-annual financial framework and the emerging post-crisis economic governance regime. The Paris team focused on legislative matters, the Maastricht team looked at the role of parliamentary administrators, while the Cologne team looked at inter-parliamentary cooperation, predominantly from a quantitative perspective. By virtue of being a collaborative project, each team undertook research relating to the research priorities of all four project partners. This report relates primarily to findings of the Cambridge team, although it also covers some of the wider themes raised by the project. The project has generated a wealth of empirical data not previously available given the recent changes to the EU framework, some of which occurred as the project evolved. The research gave us the opportunity to study the role of the UK and Polish parliaments in great detail, looking at the parliamentary debates as well as interviewing members and officials from all four of the chambers concerned. Several key findings emerged. The five most important are: 1) National Parliaments already have powers that are under-utilised; there is a lack of engagement on the part of many national MPs. Comparing across parliaments using a tripartite framework, established in the literature, of authority (formal powers), ability (resources) and attitude (willingness to use powers and resources), we found that attitude was the most important determinant of the quality, quantity and scope of scrutiny where scrutiny was non-automatic (i.e. for non-legislative areas). MPs may have the power to act but often choose not to do so, for reasons including political culture, traditions of executive privilege, and prioritisation of other issues. Much of the literature hitherto focused on the formal control powers of national parliaments, with little understanding of the cultural context that determined how those powers were used in practice. As a result, much previous scholarship has tended to 'overrate' parliaments that have many powers on paper (e.g. the Italian parliament), and to ignore the scrutiny work that less powerful chambers use to hold their governments accountable (e.g. the House of Lords, which plays a strong role thanks to the unique nature of its committee system, comprising a full EU scrutiny committee with sectoral sub-committees, and the fact that it is an un-elected chamber meaning that peers are not accountable to constituents in the way elected members are and have more time to focus on policy, including international and European policy). By highlighting the importance of attitudes in determining scrutiny outcomes, this project was able to give new insights into the practical reality of parliamentary activity on a day-to-day basis. 2) Mainstreaming of European policy to sectoral/departmental committees is desirable in principle, as the Dutch case has effectively shown. E.g. mainstreaming allows more parliamentarians to be better equipped to hold Ministers to account and explain EU legislation to their constituents. However, this requires adequate resources both in terms of administrative staff and elected members with the time to devote to European issues. Attempts to devolve European affairs to departmental committees without adequate support will not lead to more effective scrutiny of proposals. 3) National parliaments showed they have the capacity to coordinate their response to EU legislation by passing two 'yellow cards' under the Lisbon provisions on subsidiarity, one of which resulted in the proposal being withdrawn. However, to engage more effectively with European issues and to use their new powers more effectively, they should increase their cooperation and coordination at three levels: i) within parliaments, i.e. between committees; ii) horizontally among national parliaments; iii) vertically between the European Parliament and national parliaments. 4) The increase in interparliamentary conferences - with the creation of two new conferences in the fields of Common Foreign and Security Policy (as envisaged in the Lisbon Treaty) and economic governance (as foreseen in Article 13 of the Fiscal Compact) - demonstrated that relations between parliaments - in particular between national parliaments and the European Parliament - may be punctuated by inter-institutional rivalry as well as conflict over what form of parliamentary scrutiny is most effective at the EU level. 5) The increasing complexity of the EU institutional order following repeated treaty reforms has resulted in an EU where is it harder for national parliaments to hold ministers to account, especially where it is difficult for citizens to understand what is going on. Thus, despite the intention to make Europe more democratically transparent via the Lisbon Treaty, the growing complexity particularly thanks to the Eurozone crisis makes it more opaque to ordinary people and even to national parliamentarians. Please note: while many of our key findings have been discussed in working papers and conference papers, the bulk of our research will be published over the course of the coming three years. In particular we would alert reviewers to the following forthcoming publications: a co-edited Handbook on National Parliaments and the European Union, co-edited by Smith (with Claudia Hefftler from Cologne; Christine Neuhold from Maastricht; and Olivier Rosenberg) due to be published in Palgrave in early 2015; a special issue of West European Politics covering the work of all four project partners and including an article by Ariella Huff: 'Executive Privilege Reaffirmed? Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Common Security and Defence Policy'. Drs Smith, Cooper and Maatsch are co-editing a special section of Parliamentary Affairs on 'Governance without Democracy? Analysing the Role of Parliaments in European Economic Governance after the Crisis' for publication in early 2017. In addition, Dr Maatsch has a monograph, Parliaments and the Economic Governance of the European Union: Talking Shops or Deliberative Bodies?, under contract with Palgrave for 2015 and Dr Smith and Huff have a monograph, European Budgetary Politics in a Time of Crisis: Balancing the Books, under contract with Edward Elgar due for publication in early 2016. |
| Exploitation Route | We hope that our findings will be taken forward by practitioners, here understood as parliamentarians and parliamentary clerks, seeking to improve the way they engage with the EU, whether to ensure scrutiny of EU legislation or to hold national ministers to account over their role in EU decision-making. We have already engaged extensively with practitioners in the course of our research. Drs Smith and Huff both now have roles where they can perhaps influence outcomes more directly: Dr Huff has been appointed a Specialist to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee and Dr Smith has been appointed a working peer and hopes to focus on European matters in the House of Lords. The forward plan of ongoing research and publications, especially associated with the questions of accountability and legitimacy in light of the Eurozone crisis mean there will be ongoing academic impact, which we again hope will have an effect on public policy-making. |
| Sectors | Government, Democracy and Justice,Security and Diplomacy |
| URL | http://www.opal-europe.org/ |
| Description | Background to OPAL The Cambridge element of the Open Research Area project on National Parliaments and the EU post-Lisbon (EUParlwatch, which became known as OPAL [the Observatory of Parliaments after Lisbon]) was completed on 30th June 2014. Our partner institutions - Sciences Po, Paris and the Universities of Maastricht and Cologne - had various extensions to their funding and in any case will report separately to their respective national funding bodies. This narrative impact report thus relates primarily to the work of the Cambridge team in fulfilment of the requirements to the ESRC. Where appropriate, however, it refers to the activities and impact of all four project partners or individual researchers. Publications overview and academic impact As is frequently the case with research in politics, the most visible impact was in the academic field. Our project represented the first systematic analysis of the role of national parliaments regarding European affairs, in terms of their formal powers and their activities in practice, since the Lisbon Treaty and thus greatly contributed to an enhanced understanding of national parliaments in the EU. While we did not seek explicitly to develop new theory, we did establish a framework for evaluating national parliaments, which was elaborated in the Palgrave Handbook of National Parliaments and the European Union referred to below. The work of OPAL became widely known among scholars of the EU generally and, especially, those with an interest in democracy within the EU and the role of parliaments, whether national parliaments or the European Parliament. Indeed, a parliamentary clerk asked for advice on providing copies of the Handbook to all members of the COSAC, the conference of chairs of national parliaments. As recorded in the final project report, the main team publications from the project that have emerged to date are: 1) the Palgrave Handbook of National Parliaments and the European Union, co-edited by Claudia Hefftler, Christine Neuhold, Olivier Rozenberg and Julie Smith (Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan: 2015), with a chapter on Westminster by the Cambridge PI and post-doctoral researcher, Dr Julie Smith and Dr Ariella Huff, and Conclusions by Dr Smith with Professor Christine Neuhold from Maastricht. The publication benefited from strong editorial support from the wider Cambridge team; 2) a special issue of West European Politics entitled "After Lisbon: National Parliaments in the European Union", co-edited by Dr Katrin Auel of the Paris team and the overall project co-ordinator and PI for the Maastricht team, Professor Thomas Christiansen, and including an article 'Executive Privilege Reaffirmed? Parliamentary Scrutiny of the CFSP and CSDP' by Dr Huff. A Working Paper Series, co-edited by Dr Huff, was established to provide an opportunity for academics from within the OPAL network and beyond as well as practitioners to offer relatively short, well-informed and timely policy-related papers. Some of these papers also provided a platform for early publications of scholarly work-in-progress. In addition, each of the teams has published separately and jointly in a range of different outlets, including single-authored and co-authored monographs published by leading academic publishers such as Palgrave and articles in leading peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of European Public Policy. Further publications are underway and we expect to have considerable impact over the coming years, as our writing and further related research continue. On the quantitative side, Katrin Auel from the Paris team is still engaged in data analysis; on the qualitative side colleagues continue their work, including Dr Smith on the discourse on the EU in Westminster, which will result in a book chapter in an edited volume published by OUP in late 2016 /early 2017 and Dr Ian Cooper's ongoing work on inter-parliamentary cooperation. A special section of "Parliamentary Affairs" co-edited by Julie Smith, Dr Ian Cooper and Dr Alexandra Maatsch from Cambridge team and focusing on parliamentary ramifications of the Eurozone crisis is scheduled for publication in 2017. Detailed information on these publications is updated in each reporting window of Researchfish. Further information on publications will be provided in this report where relevant to the specific impact of the project and is, of course, available on request. Ongoing research and networks All four partners participate in a European Commission-funded Erasmus project on parliamentary democracy, PADEMIA, a Europe-wide network of 56 academic institutions from 31 countries geared to promoting research and teaching in reaction to growing European demands to study parliamentary democracy in Europe. (See http://www.pademia.eu/). While not formally a successor project to OPAL, Pademia has provided an opportunity for further collaboration with OPAL partners on topics directly linked to OPAL, including on parties and parliaments post-crisis. Moreover, the annual Pademia conferences in Brussels and various work packages leading to workshops on a range of topics relating to parties and parliaments in Europe provide forums for further exploitation of our OPAL research findings. The Pademia Online Working Paper series provides some continuity between the two projects. Since the end of the OPAL project, Dr Smith has given a number of keynote addresses on national parliaments within the Pademia Lecture series and in other academic lecture series, including at the Universities of Leuven (Belgium), LSE (UK) and ULB (Belgium) in early 2015, UCL (UK) in October 2015 and on related themes at the Humboldt (Berlin) in June 2015. Each of these invitations led to further requests either to give additional academic lectures or to engage in collaborative research, demonstrating the sustained and sustainable academic impact arising from the project. Societal Impact This project has had societal impact in the RCUK's terms of 'increasing the effectiveness of public services and policy' with regard to the way national parliaments engage with the EU. Such impact is 'instrumental' in terms of affecting policy and may ultimately help shape legislation: the role of national parliaments was, of course, as aspect of the UK government's renegotiation with EU partners ahead of the referendum on whether to remain in or leave the EU that is due to be held on 23rd June 2016. Our research has also had 'conceptual' impact, assisting parliamentarians, ministers, parliamentary clerks and journalists as well as academics and think-tankers from the UK and beyond to understand key issues associated with engagement by national parliaments in European affairs, and helping reshape the debate, particularly with regard to the 'mainstreaming' of EU affairs. Such impact arose in the following ways and is being sustained by ongoing contributions to round-tables and conferences of practitioners and academics by the researchers involved in the project. Since the end of the project, Dr Smith has become a member of the House of Lords, where she has spoken on European matters, including in a debate on the role of national parliaments and the EU. This new role affords a new, and unexpected additional forum for disseminating findings of the project and actively contributing to shaping the debate, and ultimately legislation. She played an active role in the passage of the EU Referendum Act 2015 and subsequent parliamentary responses to the renegotiation and referendum, in particular pressing the government to publish a document on alternatives to EU memberships in the event of a vote to leave the EU, which it duly did on 2nd March 2016. Engaging practitioners In line with ESRC guidance on ways to maximise impact, we involved 'users at all stages of the research, including working with user stakeholder and participatory groups'. In this case, engagement was with parliamentarians, parliamentary clerks and parliamentary committee experts/advisors, including national parliament officers based in Brussels. This started with initial exploratory discussions with Lord Roper, then Chair of the House of Lords EU Select Committee and some of the clerks and advisors to his Committee. Those discussions led to a decision to focus the Cambridge contribution to the project on non-legislative aspects of EU policy-making post-Lisbon, notably common foreign, security and defence policy in light of the decision to wind up the WEU Assembly, which led to significant effects on interparliamentary activity in this field. Lord Roper, along with a range of practitioners from other member states served as a member of the Advisory Board throughout the project, regularly contributing to our events, as did practitioners from other national parliaments. In addition, his successor as Chair of the House of Lords EU Committee, Lord Boswell, and their House of Commons counterpart, Sir William (Bill) Cash, attended several of our events both as invited contributors to the panels and members of the audience, reflecting their active and ongoing interest in the project. An invitation to give evidence to the House of Lords Committee came as a result of Lord Boswell's awareness of the OPAL project. Our research activities and knowledge exchange were enhanced by the London Office of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, which funded and co-organised a workshop in the House of Commons, kindly hosted by Neil Carmichael MP. This invitation-only event brought together parliamentarians, officials and academics from the UK, Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands, enabling an exchange of ideas on best practice. This contributed both to the findings of the OPAL project but importantly enabled practitioners to exchange ideas and understandings of the roles of parliaments in European affairs in their respective countries. The link between academe and practice was highlighted by an endorsement from Mendeltje van Keulen, Clerk of the EU Affairs Committee of the Tweede Kamer, Netherlands for the Palgrave Handbook. She wrote: "The new role of national parliaments is one of the most innovative developments in the European Union. This volume offers an excellent account of how parliaments individually manage EU affairs and strive collectively for cooperation. A must-read for academics and practitioners in the field of European Union politics."- Evidence to committees/committee reports The clearest example of impact arose from engagement with the EU committees in the UK. Both the House of Commons and House of Lords undertook reports into EU scrutiny/the role of national parliaments during the course of the OPAL project - an indication of just how timely the OPAL project was. For each of these enquiries, members of the OPAL team submitted written evidence. Dr Ariella Huff and Dr Julie Smith submitted joint evidence to the House of Commons' European Scrutiny Committee enquiry on EU scrutiny in the House of Commons and were invited to give oral evidence along with Dr Katrin Auel from the Paris team. Our written and oral evidence was extensively cited in the Committee's report: Reforming the European Scrutiny System in the House of Commons (Twenty-fourth Report of Session 2013-14), reference was made to the OPAL project as 'a major comparative study of scrutiny processes across the EU' (p. 14). In addition, our insights were explicitly referred to in the Committee's recommendations. In particular, Dr Huff's comments regarding the importance of pre-Council meetings with ministers were taken up directly in a Recommendation (para 130, p. 42). Dr Smith's remarks regarding engaging Departmental Scrutiny Committees were referred to in the context of a recommendation on their role in scrutiny (p. 67, para. 205). As the 'Report from the ESRC Impact Evaluation Expert Seminar' of 30 January 2013 noted, 'Previous ESRC impact evaluation studies have confirmed that attributing impact to the direct or indirect influence of social science research is a hugely challenging task' (p.3). We do believe that the ESC's report gives some tangible evidence of the impact of the work of OPAL. A less clear impact could be seen by the weight given to the concept of mainstreaming, a focus of the post-doctoral researchers on the OPAL project, which was mentioned in the Lords' and Commons' reports and came up in the subsequent House of Lords debate in the EU Committee's report in December 2014, to which Dr Smith contributed in her new capacity as a member of the House of Lords. It is true to say that this was a phenomenon which the UK government was keen to promote but the work of this project served to ground it in context, particularly in light of the Dutch experience. Dr Smith and Dr Huff also submitted separate written evidence to the House of Lords' EU Committee's enquiry into the role of national parliaments, as did a late addition to the Cambridge team, Dr Ian Cooper, as well as colleagues from the other three OPAL teams. In addition, Dr Smith was invited to give oral evidence to the Committee. While references to evidence from the OPAL teams were rather more limited in the Lords' Report on "The Role of National Parliaments in the European Union", reference was made to evidence from Dr Smith and to the Maastricht team's written contributions and, perhaps, more notably to a working paper by Dr Cooper on the Yellow Card, a revised version of which has since been published in the Journal of European Public Policy as 'A yellow card for the striker: national parliaments and the defeat of EU legislation on the right to strike' (2015). Reflecting its academic excellence as well as policy impact, this article recently won the PADEMIA Award for Outstanding Research on Parliamentary Democracy in Europe. In addition to engagement within the EU, Dr Cooper made a presentation on 'Three Approaches to the Early Warning Mechanism' to a Conference on "The Early Warning Mechanism and the Scrutiny of the Principle of Subsidiarity by National Parliaments" at the Swedish Riksdag on 21 January 2015. Dr Smith spoke on the theme of national parliaments and the EU to a group of parliamentarians from the UK and Germany at the KAS European Roundtable in September 2012. Invitations to speak at such events with practitioners offered the opportunity to inform debate among national parliamentarians while simultaneously Events and impact The opening conference, organised and hosted by the University of Maastricht, offered an early opportunity to showcase the work of OPAL. The event brought together a wide range of participants, including academics and stakeholders (parliamentarians, clerks etc from the European and national parliaments), some of whom we had interviewed for the project and recognised would bring vital insights from national parliaments, others of whom were new to the work of OPAL but expressed an interest in learning more about the project, and subsequently also agreed to be interviewed for it. The final conference, organised by Cambridge but held in London, co-hosted by the European Parliament at Europe House and Mark Field MP at the House of Commons, again afforded the opportunity to bring together practitioners who had been involved in the project, plus parliamentarians and journalists with no previous engagement with OPAL. Such events helped foster effective relations between practitioners and academics, enhancing mutual respect and trust and thereby ensuring that further contact, research and dissemination could continue long after the project had formally ended. Other indications of impact A recent report offering proposals to enhance Westminster scrutiny of the EU by the respected think tank the Centre for European Reform cited the Palgrave Handbook and the evidence given by Drs Auel, Huff and Smith to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee (source: http://www.cer.org.uk/publications/archive/policy-brief/2015/ten-point-plan-strengthen-westminsters-oversight-eu-policy). Since CER is an influential think tank, this may indicate provide an indication of impact in the policy field. Professor Christiansen was interviewed for BBC Radio World Service about the project and, aside from the endorsements by the Dutch Committee Clerk, the Palgrave Handbook has received wider interest from practitioners. Dr Smith was interviewed by a Danish journalist about the findings of OPAL, after the journalist had heard of the Palgrave Handbook. We also understand that the French Assemblée was seeking to purchase a copy of the Handbook, so we believe it has begun to arouse further interest among practitioners, which we hope will generate further impact in the long-term. |
| First Year Of Impact | 2012 |
| Sector | Government, Democracy and Justice |
| Impact Types | Societal,Policy & public services |
| Description | PADEMIA |
| Organisation | Charles University |
| Country | Czech Republic |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| PI Contribution | This is a multi-national EU-funded network comprising around 60 institutions from across the EU. The main focus of the Pademia project is on parliamentary democracy in Europe and in many ways it can be seen as an extension of the work of the EUParlWatch/OPAL project. All four OPAL partners are involved and the Pademia working paper series prolongs the life of the OPAL working paper series. Given the extensive number of partners, we have here listed just three: 1) the University of Cologne, which is responsible for co-ordinating the whole network, including budgetary responsibility; the funding itself is from the EU but managed by Cologne; 2) Maastricht, with which Cambridge is cooperating in the delivery of a work package on The Role of Parliamentary Actors in Europe. Dr Smith is the work package leader. The two workshops linked to this work package will be held in the final year of the Pademia network, ie 2015-16. Dr Smith gave a guest lecture at Maastricht as part of the Pademia lecture programme in September 2014; 3) Charles University where Dr Smith will give a guest lecture in 2015. |
| Collaborator Contribution | The collaborations are all discussed in the previous box. |
| Impact | The Pademia Online Paper Series has already published one paper at the time of reporting. It and subsequent papers can be found at : http://www.pademia.eu/publications/online-papers-on-parliamentary-democracy/ In addition, the OPAL online paper series and Country reports are all accessible via the Pademia website. The Pademia network comprises mostly scholars of politics and IR. |
| Start Year | 2013 |
| Description | PADEMIA |
| Organisation | Maastricht University (UM) |
| Country | Netherlands |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| PI Contribution | This is a multi-national EU-funded network comprising around 60 institutions from across the EU. The main focus of the Pademia project is on parliamentary democracy in Europe and in many ways it can be seen as an extension of the work of the EUParlWatch/OPAL project. All four OPAL partners are involved and the Pademia working paper series prolongs the life of the OPAL working paper series. Given the extensive number of partners, we have here listed just three: 1) the University of Cologne, which is responsible for co-ordinating the whole network, including budgetary responsibility; the funding itself is from the EU but managed by Cologne; 2) Maastricht, with which Cambridge is cooperating in the delivery of a work package on The Role of Parliamentary Actors in Europe. Dr Smith is the work package leader. The two workshops linked to this work package will be held in the final year of the Pademia network, ie 2015-16. Dr Smith gave a guest lecture at Maastricht as part of the Pademia lecture programme in September 2014; 3) Charles University where Dr Smith will give a guest lecture in 2015. |
| Collaborator Contribution | The collaborations are all discussed in the previous box. |
| Impact | The Pademia Online Paper Series has already published one paper at the time of reporting. It and subsequent papers can be found at : http://www.pademia.eu/publications/online-papers-on-parliamentary-democracy/ In addition, the OPAL online paper series and Country reports are all accessible via the Pademia website. The Pademia network comprises mostly scholars of politics and IR. |
| Start Year | 2013 |
| Description | PADEMIA |
| Organisation | University of Cologne |
| Country | Germany |
| Sector | Academic/University |
| PI Contribution | This is a multi-national EU-funded network comprising around 60 institutions from across the EU. The main focus of the Pademia project is on parliamentary democracy in Europe and in many ways it can be seen as an extension of the work of the EUParlWatch/OPAL project. All four OPAL partners are involved and the Pademia working paper series prolongs the life of the OPAL working paper series. Given the extensive number of partners, we have here listed just three: 1) the University of Cologne, which is responsible for co-ordinating the whole network, including budgetary responsibility; the funding itself is from the EU but managed by Cologne; 2) Maastricht, with which Cambridge is cooperating in the delivery of a work package on The Role of Parliamentary Actors in Europe. Dr Smith is the work package leader. The two workshops linked to this work package will be held in the final year of the Pademia network, ie 2015-16. Dr Smith gave a guest lecture at Maastricht as part of the Pademia lecture programme in September 2014; 3) Charles University where Dr Smith will give a guest lecture in 2015. |
| Collaborator Contribution | The collaborations are all discussed in the previous box. |
| Impact | The Pademia Online Paper Series has already published one paper at the time of reporting. It and subsequent papers can be found at : http://www.pademia.eu/publications/online-papers-on-parliamentary-democracy/ In addition, the OPAL online paper series and Country reports are all accessible via the Pademia website. The Pademia network comprises mostly scholars of politics and IR. |
| Start Year | 2013 |
| Description | Blog on 'The struggle for democratic oversight in the EU' for the EUObserver.com |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A magazine, newsletter or online publication |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | This blog was circulated to the Article 13 Committee of parliamentarians meeting in Rome, thus practitioners had sight of it and many told the author that they had read his piece, so it certainly sparked discussion. The blog served to stimulate more discussion about the future and purpose of the conference. Since the Article 13 Committee is newly created this is potentially highly significant. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://euobserver.com/opinion/125788 |
| Description | Blogpost on Inter-parliamentary rivalry for the LSE EUROPP Blog |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A magazine, newsletter or online publication |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Other academic audiences (collaborators, peers etc.) |
| Results and Impact | To stimulate further discussion. xxx |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/09/26/inter-parliamentary-rivalry-has-inhibited-effective-ove... |
| Description | Dr Julie Smith and Dr Ariella Huff gave oral evidence to the House of Commons EU Scrutiny Committee |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | National |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | We were invited, along with Dr Katrin Auel from the OPAL Paris partner institute, Sciences Po were invited to give evidence to the EU Committee of the House of Commons, which was conducting its own inquiry into European Scrutiny in the House of Commons. In particular, we provided evidence of best practice from a range of European cases, drawing directly on the findings of the OPAL project. All three OPAL evidence givers were extensively quoted in the Committee's final report and some of our ideas were taken as policy recommendations by the Committee. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2012 |
| URL | http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmeuleg/c711-iii/c71101.htm |
| Description | Dr Julie Smith gave oral evidence to the House of Lords, EU Select Committee |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | Yes |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | Dr Smith responded to questions posed by members of the Select Committee; her responses are all published in the House of Lords report evidence document. While the Committee itself is fairly small, reports of the House of Lords EU Committee are typically widely read and cited across the EU. They also reach academics in addition to practitioners. There is a brief reference to Dr Smith's oral contribution and indeed to her written evidence in the final report. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| Description | MPs are from Mars, Peers are from Venus: Westminster and the EU |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A magazine, newsletter or online publication |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | A blog on the role of national parliaments in the EU for the UK in a Changing Europe Programme |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2015 |
| URL | http://ukandeu.ac.uk/mps-are-from-mars-peers-are-from-venus-westminster-and-the-eu/ |
| Description | Meeting on 'Democratic Deficit: National Parliaments and the European Union' organised by the International Law Programme, Chatham House |
| Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
| Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
| Geographic Reach | International |
| Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
| Results and Impact | My presentation and those of my fellow contributors sparked debate among the participants including parliamentarians attending a closed discussion meeting. Dr Smith disseminated ideas among practitioners, including representatives of various EU embassies and corporates as well as academics. A report of the meeting has been published and is available on the Chatham House website at the URL listed below. |
| Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014 |
| URL | http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20140225DemocraticDeficitF... |