Trans- and Supranational Representation in EU National Parliaments: The Case of EU Treaty Debates

Interdependence and de-nationalization in the European Union (EU) system of governance challenge the very adequacy of the ‘standard account’ of democratic parliamentary representation based on territory and elections. National parliaments have reacted to these challenges, but this adaption and scholarly assessment thereof have long stayed within the classic intergovernmental delegation-accountability view of national parliamentary representation in EU affairs. Despite the call for leaving these ‘beaten path’ behind, we still know surprisingly little about new modes of representation by national parliaments. Given the tension between responsiveness to the national electorate and responsibility towards other EU citizens, there is reason to believe that national parliamentarians (MP) themselves may insert grievances of these citizens into domestic parliamentary debate. In doing so, they may become trans- or supranational representatives. Very recent research has indeed found that during the Eurozone crisis, national MPs claim to represent fellow EU citizens as a function of their governing responsibility, European experience and left-right party position. This Paper takes this research further by investigating, if and under which conditions national MPs claim to represent such trans- and supranational constituencies beyond the very particular context of the Eurozone crisis. The analysis based on original data from a representative claims analysis of plenary debates on the Constitutional Treaty (TCE) and the Lisbon Treaty in Austria, Germany, Ireland and the UK reveals different patterns of trans- and supranational representation in EU treaty debates. While TCE debates exhibit a strong trans- and supranationalization of representative claims, Lisbon Treaty debates are characterized by a more national representative impetus. MPs’ governing responsibility has a positive effect on trans-/supranational representation, while the more to the right of the political spectrum an MP, the more likely her representative claims have a national scope. Contrary to the Eurozone crisis debates, it is not (only) Eurosceptic MPs who criticize the EU in the name of trans- and supranational EU citizens, but we actually see a mixed picture for EU treaty debates. It seems to be both Europhile MPs from center-left parties and Eurosceptic MPs from far-left parties who tend to incorporate concerns of fellow EU citizens and even a collective European citizenry into parliamentary debate. This new mode of representation by national MPs may ultimately enhance democratic legitimacy of the EU beyond what formal chains of representation can accomplish.