Why isn't the EU more popular?

There's an interesting article by Pieterjan Desmet and Claes de Vreese saying that public perceptions of the EU and EU institutions vary from country to country depending on the public view of their own national institutions.

I've only read the summary but the basic point is that in a country such as Bulgaria, where confidence in national democratic institutions is not terribly high, the institutions of the European Union seem better by comparison. In a country like Denmark, however, where people are fairly confident in their national democratic institutions, the flaws in EU institutions are more apparent and viewed more critically. The ongoing democratic deficit is a good example of this.

As they put it:

"Being confronted with low-quality institutions at the national level makes citizens more positive about European institutions"


This makes sense because when Britain joined what was then the EEC, one of the reasons that sticks in my mind (I can't remember where from I'm afraid but it may have been Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain) was that the UK was in such a state, and the political class seemed so unable to solve its problems, that the EEC seemed more competent by comparison.

The reason for my confusion then is that the currently UK reports relatively high levels of satisfaction with national institutions at a time when confidence in politicians and the political process has rarely been lower. Current polling shows little confidence in Labour or the Conservatives and only the biases of the electoral system make a hung parliament in 2015 less likely than in 2010.

UKIP are doing well as a way of kicking the political class but two years ago, the electorate endorsed the current voting system by a margin of 2-1. Obviously the AV referendum was more complex than that (natural bias towards the status quo, irrelevant focus on cost and the shocking, staggering, Romney-like ineptitude of the "Yes" campaign") but on the surface it looks like a vote of confidence in the current system.

Charles Grant points out that one of the reasons for Britain being more eurosceptic than most of the continent is our "relatively glorious role in the Second World War" so maybe the answer is that people have confidence in the institutions because of their proven history but not in the people that run them at present?

I don't have an answer but it's an interesting dichotomy.

Follow up: more UKIP points

Two things to add to the earlier post I made on UKIP:

1. Something I forgot to include but is an interesting trend is that if UKIP are the 2010's version of the Lib Dems during the mid 2000's then one of the things they are definitely replicating is an ability to overcome the regional limitations of the big two parties. Namely the fact that the Conservative party is toxically unpopular in the north of England while Labour suffers from "Southern discomfort".
In a fascinating Economist feature on the north / south divide in England, it was striking how influential geography is on voting behaviour suggesting that the Labour north and Tory south are due to cultural differences as much as economic and ideological factors. In particular one thing that stuck with me was that well-off people in the north were more likely to vote Labour than poorer people in the south.
The Lib Dems in the south of England function in many ways as an outlet for people who have left wing views but live in areas where Labour have no chance of winning. UKIP's strong performances in by-elections in Rotherham and South Shields makes me think that the reverse may be happening in the north with UKIP becoming an outlet for people with conservative (albeit more socially than fiscally)  views in areas where the Conservatives could never do well. There are right wing people in the north just as there are left wing people in the south but the traditional Labour / Conservative two-party structure does not serve them, particularly when cultural entrenchment matters as much as more traditional economic factors. So other parties, without that cultural baggage, spring up to fill these gaps in the market.

2. Peter Kellner has a great post running through the possible scenarios for an EU referendum and concludes that if Labour match David Cameron's referendum offer then those who want to leave the EU are more likely to achieve it by putting Ed Miliband in Number 10 while those who want to stay should support David Cameron. He calls it the "EU referendum paradox" and makes me wish I'd thought of a catchy name for it when I pointed it out in November.

UKIP are riding a perfect storm

Since UKIP's success in the local elections the news has been a nice reminder that the next 12 months are going to be filled with various Tory backbenchers offering unsolicited advice on how David Cameron can win back the UKIP vote.

But first it would be useful to know where that vote comes from and I'd say it's caused by four factors:

Read more »