The eu’s Legitimacy in the Eye of the Beholders

Chapter 7 – The British Discourse

In this chapter, the analysis of the British newspapers is presented.⁸⁷ The chapter follows the same structure as the previous chapter.

7.1 – General Findings

The Independent published consistently, but less than either Dutch newspaper. 18 articles were published in both periods; this brings the total number to 36. In period two, 91 observations were found, whilst there were ‘only’ 84 observations in period one. The reason for this inconsistency is unclear, but the finding is not highly disturbing, because difference is not large and of little consequence for the research as a whole. 175 observations were observed in total in The Independent.

The Guardian published more articles, namely 41. In period one 22 articles were found, whilst the same search in period two lead to only 19 articles. The decrease is explained by the fact that period one included a number of short letters by readers. Their ‘shortness’ also explains why the number of observations stayed largely the same – 122 in period one and 123 in period two. The total of observations in The Guardian is thus 245.

The British discourse is supportive of the European project. The Independent only had three articles with a negative judgement of the European project – two during period one (August 4, 2000 and August 5, 2000) and one during the second period (May 23, 2005). The Guardian had only one negative article, which was in period 2 (June 3, 2005). This might deviate from what one expected from the British discourse, but the reason for this will be addressed in discussion of the findings.

The evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy is generally poor, like in the Netherlands. The British discourse is more positive during the second period, but overall the majority of the observations evaluate the EU’s legitimacy negatively.
Table 7.1: British Distribution of Judgements

Judgement/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Positive	18,0%	22,4%	20,2%
Negative	82,0%	77,6%	79,8%

7.2 – Facets and Judgements of Legitimacy

Let us now turn to the relationship between the different facets and the evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy in order to investigate which categories contribute to the legitimacy deficit.

7.2.1 – Dimensions and Judgements of Legitimacy

First, the role of the two dimensions in the perception of the EU’s legitimacy is examined. In both periods, a universalist concept of legitimacy is used by most observations. In the second period, the number of observations that use either dimension is almost the same. They are ‘kept a part’ by a marginal number of observations, which combine both dimensions in their assessment.
Table 7.2: British Distribution of Dimensions

Dimension/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Universalist	55,8%	50,0%	52,9%
Nationalist	42,2%	49,1%	45,7%
Both	1,9%	0,9%	1,4%

Unlike in the Dutch discourse there are some shifts worth mentioning in the British discourse. Almost all observations that are characterised by a universalist concept of legitimacy lead to a negative evaluation in period one (93,9%), but in period two they are less often negative (79,4%). Those observations assessing the EU’s legitimacy using nationalist concepts are more often negative in their evaluation in period two than in period one (66,7% to 75,2%). Overall, the majority of observations characterised by a universalist concept of legitimacy lead to a negative evaluation. Those using a nationalist concept are more often negative than positive in their evaluation, but less negative than the former.
Table 7.3: British Dimension * Judgement Crosstabulation

Dimension/Judgement	Positive Evaluation	Negative Evaluation
Universalist	13,1%	86,9%
Nationalist	28,6%	71,4%
Both	16,7%	83,3%

If one compares the observations with a universalist conceptualisation to the average British observations (Table 7.1; The overall percentages) then it becomes clear that it is more negative than the average. A nationalist conceptualisation, on the other hand, leads to a more positive assessment of the EU’s legitimacy compared to the national average.

7.2.2 – Components and Judgements of Legitimacy

The focus on different components might impact the evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy and it is therefore the focus of this sub-chapter. Most observations in both periods focus on input legitimacy. The number of observations focussing on output legitimacy comes in second place. The focus on this component of legitimacy actually increases in the second period at the cost of the other components. Throughput legitimacy is consistently the focus of the least number of observations.
Table 7.4: British Distribution of Components

Component/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Input	63,3%	54,2%	58,8%
Throughput	18,0%	12,1%	15,0%
Output	18,4%	33,6%	26,2%

The distribution of evaluations within different components is relatively stable. Overall those observations focussing on throughput legitimacy lead most often to a negative evaluation, but observations focussing on input legitimacy are almost as often negative. When observations focus on output legitimacy they are also mostly negative in their evaluation, but much more often positive compared to the other two components.

Table 7.5: British Component * Judgement Crosstabulation

Component/Judgement	Positive Evaluation	Negative evaluation
Input	14,6%	85,4%
Throughput	12,7%	87,3%
Output	37,3%	62,7%

Observations that focus on either input or throughput legitimacy are much more likely to result in a negative evaluation than the British average. Those that focus on output legitimacy, on the other hand, are much more likely to end up positive in comparison.

7.2.3 – Models and Judgements of Legitimacy

The impact of different models of legitimacy on the evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy is the subject of the following paragraphs. Most observations focus on direct legitimacy when evaluating the EU’s legitimacy. Observations not using any model and those focussing on indirect legitimacy struggle for second place. Overall more observations do not use a model, but difference is minimal. Only a marginal number of observations combine both models in order to evaluate the EU’s legitimacy.
Table 7.6: British Distribution of Models

Model/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Neither	18,4%	28,0%	23,3%
Direct	50,0%	53,7%	51,9%
Indirect	29,1%	16,8%	22,9%
Both	2,4%	1,4%	1,9%

The distribution of a particular model and the evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy only knew one development worth mentioning. Observations focussing on indirect legitimacy more often lead to a positive evaluation in period two than before (13,2% to 35,0%). Overall, observations that focus on direct legitimacy lead most of the time to a negative evaluation. Those not using any model or with a focus on indirect legitimacy lead more often to a negative evaluation than a positive one, but less compared to those focussing on direct legitimacy.

Table 7.7: British Model * Judgement Crosstabulation

Model/Judgement	Positive Evaluation	Negative Evaluation
Neither	26,5%	73,5%
Direct	12,4%	87,6%
Indirect	29,2%	70,8%
Both	50,0%	50,0%

An observation focussing on direct legitimacy leads more often to a negative evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy than the British average. Those not using a model of a political order or focussing on indirect legitimacy are more positive than the national average.

7.2.4 – Conclusions on Facets and Judgements of Legitimacy

The first conclusion is that, like in the Netherlands, each category within a facet with the most observations leads more often to a negative evaluation than the national average. Those are again a universalist conceptualisation, a focus on input legitimacy and a focus on direct legitimacy. Both a universalist conceptualisation and a focus on direct legitimacy are the most negative categories within their respective facets. Again the exception is a focus on input legitimacy, because those observations focussing on throughput legitimacy lead more often to a negative evaluation, but the difference is marginal.

Secondly, both the number of observations using both dimensions and those trying to combine models of political orders are only marginal in their contribution.

Finally, all the categories, that are not marginal, lead more often to a negative evaluation than to a positive one. The British discourse is thus negative on all accounts, so to say.