The eu’s Legitimacy in the Eye of the Beholders

7.3 – Multi-level Governance

Now for the role multi-level governance plays in the British discourse. The Guardian is the only newspaper with articles that take multi-level governance into account. Both articles are found period one (June 29, 2000 and June 18, 2001). Overall this translates 95,2% of all the articles not acknowledging the reality of multi-level governance. The percentage is 100% for The Independent, because none of the 35 articles take it into account.

The number of observations that take multi-level governance into account is even lower. Only one observation takes it into account. The numbers thus speak even louder for themselves in the British than in the Dutch discourse. The mismatch between the number of articles and observations is the result of authors often not being aware of multi-level governance, even when they do take it into account.

Table 7.8: British Distribution of Multi-level Governance

MLG/Period	Period One	Period Two	Overall
Yes	0,5%	0,0%	0,2%
No	99,5%	100,0%	99,8%

7.4 – Overview of the Legitimacy Discourse

In the British discourse any perception with 21 or more observations are perceived as common perceptions.⁸⁸ The British discourse though is not very stable. There are some shifts that warrant mentioning before we turn to the overview.

The percentage of observations of the EU’s legitimacy characterised by a universalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and indirect legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation went from 8,3% to 4,2%. Also the percentage of observations characterised by a universalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on throughput and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation went down from 7,8% to 2,8%. Finally, observations characterised by a nationalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and indirect legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation declined from 6,3% to 1,9%.

There were also shifts in the opposite direction. The percentage of observations characterised by a nationalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation increased from 4,4% to 7,0%. Further, the percentage of observations characterised by a nationalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on output legitimacy and not using a model of political order leading to a negative evaluation went from 2,9% to 9,3%. The same perception but with a focus on direct legitimacy knew a similar increase from 2,9% up to 9,0%. With these shifts fresh in our mind, let us now than now turn to the table of the overall discourse.
Table 7.9: British Facets * Judgement Crosstabulation

Facets/Judgement			Positive Evaluation	Negative Evaluation
Universalist	Input	Neither	2	7
		Direct	10	112
		Indirect	1	26
		Both	0	1
	Throughput	Neither	1	6
		Direct	2	22
		Indirect	1	7
		Both	0	0
	Output	Neither	8	3
		Direct	3	8
		Indirect	1	1
		Both	0	0
Nationalist	Input	Neither	4	18
		Direct	3	24
		Indirect	13	17
		Both	2	2
	Throughput	Neither	0	10
		Direct	1	2
		Indirect	3	8
		Both	0	0
	Output	Neither	11	26
		Direct	8	21
		Indirect	9	9
		Both	1	0
Both	Input	Neither	0	1
		Direct	0	2
		Indirect	0	0
		Both	1	1
	Throughput	Neither	0	0
		Direct	0	0
		Indirect	0	0
		Both	0	0
	Output	Neither	0	1
		Direct	0	0
		Indirect	0	0
		Both	0	0

Six perceptions are encountered with 21 or more observations. In order of size they are:

1. 
   universalist, input, direct, negative with 26,7% (112),
   
2. 
   universalist, input, indirect, negative with 6,2% (26),
   
3. 
   nationalist output, neither, negative with 6,2% (26),
   
4. 
   nationalist, input, direct, negative with 5,7% (24),
   
5. 
   universalist, throughput, direct, negative with 5,2% (22), and
   
6. 
   nationalist, output, direct, negative with 5,0% (21).
   

These perceptions have in common that all perspectives lead to a negative evaluation of the EU’s legitimacy. Both dimensional conceptualisations are applied three times. Further, three perceptions focus on input, two on output and one on throughput legitimacy. Finally, four perceptions focus on direct legitimacy, one does not use any model and one focuses on indirect legitimacy.

Three remarks to finish the analysis with. First, most observations are characterised by a universalist concept of legitimacy with a focus on input and direct legitimacy leading to a negative evaluation, though less than in the Dutch discourse. Secondly, the perceptions that combine a nationalist concept of legitimacy and a focus on output legitimacy together form just over a fifth of the entire discourse. Finally, the perspective that leads to the highest number of positive observations uses a nationalist concept of legitimacy and focuses on input and indirect legitimacy.