Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Shifting Will of the People: The Case of EU Referendums

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of European Referendums

  • 673 Accesses

Abstract

Referendums on European integration present a puzzle for academics, policymakers and the general public. In the recent past, some of these referendums witnessed a considerable shift in public opinion, going from a favourable attitude to outright rejection. On several occasions, voters changed their verdict entirely in a second referendum on the same topic. What is more, EU referendums have a reputation for being more advantageous for the anti-EU side. The answer to these puzzling aspects lies in the peculiar dynamics of referendum politics and the power of certain kinds of political arguments. The analysis in this chapter relies on extensive field research in France, Spain, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in 2008 on the European Constitution referendums, in Denmark and Ireland in 2011 on the Nice, Maastricht and Lisbon Treaty referendums, in Ireland again in 2015 on the Fiscal Compact referendum and in the UK in 2016–2017 on the Brexit referendum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I interviewed around 150 campaigners from all political parties and civil society groups that were active in the campaigns. These interviews were face-to-face and semi-structured, based on opportunity and snowball sampling. A full list of the individuals interviewed and the interview questionnaire are presented in Appendix 6.1 at the end of the chapter.

  2. 2.

    Hobolt (2009: 93) measures campaign intensity (or salience) based on three indicators: the partisan polarization (opposition to the ballot proposal in parliament), the perceived closeness of the race (difference between the two sides in the polls), and the news coverage (number of daily articles monitoring the referendum issue during the three months leading up to the referendum).

  3. 3.

    This is measured as the difference between the negative voting intentions, due to data availability, six to eight months before the referendum and the percentage of the final No vote. I use the CIS barometers in the Spanish case, the CSA polls in France, the SCP reports in the Netherlands, the TNS-ILRES polls in Luxembourg, and poll figures from secondary sources in the Danish and Irish cases (FitzGibbon 2009, 2013; Sinnott and Elkink 2010; Siune et al. 1994; Svensson 2002).

  4. 4.

    Government popularity figures are primarily based on national polls in the six months leading up to the vote. The figures on EU support and party consensus are based on the measurement of Mendez et al. (2014). The EU support represents the percentages of those who thought that EU membership was a ‘good thing’ in the Eurobarometer surveys directly preceding the vote, and party consensus is measured as the absolute difference between the percentage of seats held by political parties in favour of a Yes vote and those that favour a No vote (0 being no consensus and 100 being full consensus). To nuance the party cues point beyond the party consensus measure, the tendency of the government and all the mainstream political parties to campaign on the pro-treaty side (e.g. De Vries 2009) applies to the 11 referendums studied here. Roughly speaking, far right and far left parties are against the EU treaties and the parties in the middle are for them.

  5. 5.

    This is based on the measurement of Oppermann (2013) to assess whether the triggering mechanism of the referendum correlates with the results, for instance showing a higher rejection rate for referendums that were initiated by the opposition. The repeat referendums on the Maastricht, Nice and Lisbon Treaties are more complicated to code than others as they are initiated as a mix of factors, involving the governments, opposition and the EU.

  6. 6.

    Among the european constitution referendums, the Spanish case provides an exception. There has not been a significant campaign against the Constitution, which can be seen in the relatively low campaign intensity and turnout figures as well as the smaller movement of negative public opinion during the campaign in Table 6.1. Campaigners suggested various reasons to explain the lack of the anti-treaty campaign: the lack of a far right movement, the weakness of the far left civil society and the strong association between the EU and democracy. Campaigners from both sides agreed that there was no real debate and that given the lack of anti-treaty arguments, the pro-treaty campaigners were able to tap into what Europe stands for in spain. The pro-treaty side does not hold a majoritarian view on who had an advantage but a majority of the anti-treaty campaigners say that the pro-treaty side had an easier job.

  7. 7.

    There is one key difference in the Lisbon referendums. Although sharing the pattern of responses with the other repeated referendums, here, a majority of the anti-treaty campaigners actually accept that they had an advantage in the first referendum campaign. Their argument is that they learned from the Nice referendums that they could ask the public to vote No in the first referendum in order to get a ‘better deal’ (guarantees) in a not-yet-announced but almost-certain second referendum.

Bibliography

  • Aarts, K., & van der Kolk, H. (2005a). Op Weg Naar 1 Juni. In K. Aarts & H. van der Kolk (Eds.), Nederlanders en Europa: Het Referendum over de Europese Grondwet. Amsterdam: Utigeverij Bert Bakker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aarts, K., & van der Kolk, H. (Eds.). (2005b). Nederlanders en Europa: Het Referendum over de Europese Grondwet. Amsterdam: Utigeverij Bert Bakker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aarts, K., & van der Kolk, H. (2006). Understanding the Dutch ‘No’: The Euro, the East, and the Elite. Political Science and Politics, 39(2), 243–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aimer, P., & Miller, R. (2002). Partisanship and Principle: Voters and the New Zealand Electoral Referendum of 1993. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 795–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman, D. (2010). Direct Democracy Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Atikcan, E. O. (2015a). Framing the European Union: The Power of Political Arguments in Shaping European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Atikcan, E. O. (2015b). The Puzzle of Double Referendums in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 53(5), 937–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atikcan, E. O. (2018). Agenda Control in EU Referendum Campaigns: The Power of the Anti-EU Side. European Journal of Political Research, 57(1), 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atikcan, E. O., Nadeau, R., & Bélanger, É. (2020). Framing Risky Choices: Brexit and the Dynamics of High-Stakes Referendums. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benford, R., & Snow, D. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brader, T., & Marcus, G. (2013). Emotions and Political Psychology. In L. Huddy, D. Sears, & J. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouard, S., & Sauger, N. (2005). Comprendre la Victoire du “Non” : Proximité Partisane, Conjoncture et Attitude à l’égard de l’Europe. In A. Laurent & N. Sauger (Eds.), Le Référendum de Ratification du Traité Constitutionnel Européen du 29 Mai 2005: Comprendre le “Non” Français. Paris: CEVIPOF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brouard, S., & Tiberj, V. (2006). The French Referendum: The Not So Simple Act of Saying Nay. Political Science and Politics, 39(2), 261–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D., & Ranney, A. (Eds.). (1994). Referendums around the World: The Growing Use of Direct Democracy. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2007a). Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2007b). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Closa, C. (2007). Why Convene Referendums? Explaining Choices in EU Constitutional Politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(8), 1311–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, M., & Kuklinski, J. (1997). Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 88–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darcy, R., & Laver, M. (1990). Referendum Dynamics and the Irish Divorce Amendment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vreese, C. (2006). Political Parties in Dire Straits? Consequences of National Referendums for Political Parties. Party Politics, 12(5), 581–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vreese, C., & Semetko, Holli. (2004). Political Campaigning in Referendums: Framing the Referendum Issue. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, C. (2009). Taking Europe to Its Extremes: Extremist Parties and Public Euroscepticism. Party Politics, 15(1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, P., & Ederveen, S. (Eds.) (2005). European Times: Public Opinion on Europe & Working Hours, Compared and Explained. The Hague: SCP The Netherlands Institute for Social Research, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denver, D. (2002). Voting in the 1997 Scottish and Welsh Devolution Referendums: Information, Interests and Opinions. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 827–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinan, D. (2012). Governance and Institutions: Impact of the Escalating Crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 50, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkink, J., & Sinnott, R. (2015). Political Knowledge and Campaign Effects in the 2008 Irish Referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Electoral Studies, 38, 217–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurobarometer. (2005). The European Constitution: Post-referendum Survey in the Netherlands. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • FitzGibbon, J. (2009). Ireland’s No to Lisbon: Learning the Lessons from the Failure of the Yes and the Success of the No Side (Sussex European Institute, SEI Working Paper), 110.

    Google Scholar 

  • FitzGibbon, J. (2013). The Referendum on the European Fiscal Compact Treaty in the Republic of Ireland, 31 May 2012 (European Parties Elections and Referendums Network, Referendum Briefing Paper), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, M. (2002). Learning from the Danish Case: A Comment on Palle Svensson’s Critique of the Franklin Thesis. European Journal of Political Research, 41(6), 751–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, M., van der Eijk, C., & Marsh, M. (1995). Referendum Outcomes and Trust in Government: Public Support for Europe in the Wake of Maastricht. West European Politics, 18(3), 101–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garry, J. (2013). Direct Democracy and Regional Integration: Citizens’ Perceptions of Treaty Implications and the Irish Reversal on Lisbon. European Journal of Political Research, 52, 94–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garry, J. (2014). Emotions and Voting in EU Referendums. European Union Politics, 15(2), 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garry, J., Marsh, M., & Sinnott, R. (2005). ‘Second-order’ versus ‘Issue-voting’ Effects in EU Referendums: Evidence from the Irish Nice Treaty Referendums. European Union Politics, 6(2), 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highley, J., & McAllister, I. (2002). Elite Division and Voter Confusion: Australia’s Republic Referendum in 1999. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 845–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. (2005). When Europe Matters: The Impact of Political Information on Voting Behaviour in EU Referendums. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15(1), 85–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. (2006). How Parties Affect Vote Choice in European Integration Referendums. Party Politics, 12(5), 623–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobolt, S. (2009). Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkin, J., & Rosamond, B. (2017). Post-truth Politics, Bullshit and Bad Ideas: ‘Deficit Fetishism’ in the UK. New Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2017.1373757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, W., & Fisher, S. (2016). Expert Predictions of the 2016 EU Referendum: Political Studies Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerit, J. (2004). Survival of the Fittest: Rhetoric During the Course of an Election Campaign. Political Psychology, 25(4), 563–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (1996). The Challenge of Direct Democracy: The 1992 Canadian Referendum. Montreal: McGill—Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeDuc, L. (2002). Opinion Change and Voting Behaviour in Referendums. European Journal of Political Research, 41(6), 711–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeDuc, L. (2005). Saving the Pound or Voting for Europe? Expectations for Referendums on the Constitution and the Euro. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 15(2), 169–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendez, F., Mendez, M., & Triga, V. (2014). Referendums and the European Union: A Comparative Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morel, L., & Qvortrup, M. (2018). The Routledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppermann, K. (2013). The Politics of Discretionary Government Commitments to European Integration Referendums. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(5), 684–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pammett, J., & LeDuc, L. (2001). Sovereignty, Leadership and Voting in the Quebec Referendums. Electoral Studies, 20, 265–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfau, M., & Kenski, H. (1990). Attack Politics: Strategy and Defense. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qvortrup, M. (2013). Direct Democracy: A Comparative Study of the Theory and Practice of Government by the People. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, L. (2003). Reconsidering the Link Between Incumbent Support and Pro-EU Opinion. European Union Politics, 4(3), 259–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reif, K., & Schmitt, H. (1980). Nine Second-Order National Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results. European Journal of Political Research, 8(1), 3–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridout, T., & Searles, K. (2011). It’s My Campaign I’ll Cry If I Want to: How and When Campaigns use Emotional Appeals. Political Psychology, 32(3), 439–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabbah, D., & Walker, P. (2018, June 16). Justine Greening Endorses Second Brexit Referendum, The Guardian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuck, A., & de Vreese, C. (2008). The Dutch No to the EU Constitution: Assessing the Role of EU Skepticism and the Campaign. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 18(1), 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinnott, R., & Elkink, J. (2010). Attitudes and Behaviour in the Second Referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. Report for the Department of Foreign Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siune, K., Svensson, P., & Tonsgaard, O. (1994). The European Union: The Danes Said “No” in 1992, But “Yes” in 1993: How and Why? Electoral Studies, 13(2), 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P., & Theriault, S. (2004). The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing. In W. Saris & P. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D., Rochford, E. B., Jr., Worden, S., & Benford, R. (1986). Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soroka, S. (2014). Negativity in Democratic Politics: Causes and Consequences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, P. (2002). Five Danish Referendums on the European Community and European Union: A Critical Assessment of the Franklin Thesis. European Journal of Political Research, 41(6), 733–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, P. (1998). A Touchstone of Dissent: Euroscepticism in Contemporary Western European Party Systems. European Journal of Political Research, 33(3), 363–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, P., & Szczerbiak, A. (2013). Coming in from the Cold? Euroscepticism, Government Participation and Party Positions on Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(1), 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Ece Özlem Atikcan

Authors
  1. Ece Özlem Atikcan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Julie Smith

Appendices

Appendix 6.1

Interview Questionnaire

  1. 1.

    What were the main issues/arguments raised in your campaign (and second campaign if a repeat referendum)?

  2. 2.

    Why did you specifically choose these issues and arguments?

  3. 3.

    Did your party/organization have a campaigning strategy (and did your party/organization change its campaign strategy in the second referendum if a repeat referendum)?

  4. 4.

    How did you organize your campaign (and was your preparation different for the second referendum if a repeat referendum)?

  5. 5.

    What were the main challenges you faced during your campaign?

  6. 6.

    How well do you think the other side has performed?

  7. 7.

    What would you say were the main challenges the other side faced?

United Kingdom

  • Ryan Coetzee (Director of Strategy of the Remain Campaign)

  • James McGrory (Chief Campaign Spokesperson of the Remain Campaign)

  • Lord Rose (Chair of the Remain Campaign)

  • Alan Johnson (Labour MP, Remain Campaign)

  • Matthew Elliott (Chief Executive of the Vote Leave Campaign)

  • Gisela Stuart (Labour MP, Chair of the Vote Leave Campaign)

  • Richard Tice (Co-founder of Leave.EU Campaign)

  • Matthew Ellery (Get Britain Out Campaign)

SCOTLAND

  • Blair Jenkins (Chief Executive of the Yes Scotland Campaign)

  • Kevin Pringle (Strategic Communications Director of the SNP-Yes Scotland Campaign)

  • Robert Shorthouse (Director of Communications of the Better Together Campaign)

  • Phil Anderton (Board Member of the Better Together Campaign)

Spain

  • Juan Fernando López Aguilar (PSOE, MP, Minister of Justice and Interior Affairs)

  • Juan Moscoso del Prado Hernández (PSOE, MP)

  • Enrique Baron Crespo (PSOE, MEP, the chairman of the Party of European Socialists Group in the EP between 1999 and 2004)

  • Orestes Suárez Antón (PSOE, International Secretary)

  • Alejando Muñoz Alonso (PP, Senator)

  • Ignacio Cosidó Gutiérrez (PP, MP)

  • Jordi Xuclà i Costa (CiU, MP)

  • José Ramón Beloki Guerra (PNV, MP)

  • Carles Llorens I Vila (CDC, International Secretary)

  • José Manuel Fernández Fernández (IU, Coordinator of the Parliamentary Group, and mayor of Bustarviejo)

  • Joaquim Puig Vilamala and Oriol Duran Torres (ERC, Coordinator, and Spokesperson of the Parliamentary Group)

  • Marc Giménez Villahoz (ICV, European Politics Coordinator)

  • Mikel Irujo Amezaga (EA, MEP)

  • Jaime Pastor (IU, ATTAC, Alternative Space)

  • Ricardo Gómez Muñoz (ATTAC)

  • Carlos Girbau Costa (Social Forum, IU)

  • Luis González Reyes (Ecologists in Action)

  • José Ignacio Torreblanca (Senior Analyst for EU Affairs, Elcano Royal Institute for International Affairs)

  • Jordi Vaquer i Fanés (Europe Programme Co-ordinator, CIDOB Foundation)

France

  • Olivier Ubéda (UMP, Deputy Director of Communications and European Affairs Delegate)

  • Alain Bergounioux (PS, Secretary General of the PS Scientific Council)

  • Pierre Kanuty (PS, International and European Affairs Political Assistant)

  • Patrick Farbiaz (The Greens, International Secretary)

  • Isabelle Sicart (UDF)

  • Nicolas Dupont-Aignan (UMP, MP)

  • Jacques Myard (UMP, MP)

  • Jacques Généreux (PS)

  • Francine Bavay (The Greens Executive Committee Member, and the Vice-President of the Regional Council of Île-de-France)

  • Daniel Cirera (PCF, International Secretary)

  • Dominique Touraine (PCF)

  • Alain Krivine (LCR)

  • Catherine Salagnac (National Front)

  • Yves Salesse (Co-President of Copernic Foundation, Conseil d’État Member, Co-initiator of the Appeal of 200)

  • Claude Debons (General Workers’ Confederation CGT, Co-initiator of the Appeal of 200)

  • Pierre Khalfa (ATTAC, and Solidarity Unity Democracy)

  • Susan George (ATTAC)

  • Aurélie Trouvé (ATTAC)

  • Maxime Combes (ATTAC)

  • Christophe Beaudouin (Secretary General of the “Group for a Confederation of the States of Europe,” campaigned with the MPF)

  • Raoul-Marc Jennar (Member of the No Committee)

  • Gaëtane Ricard-Nihoul (Secretary General of Notre Europe)

The Netherlands

  • Atzo Nicolaï (VVD, MP, Minister of European Affairs)

  • Jan Jacob van Dijk (CDA, MP)

  • Marije Laffeber (PvdA, International Secretary)

  • Bas Eickhout (GreenLeft, Delegate in the European Green Party)

  • Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy (D66, Secretary of the D66 Parliamentary Group)

  • Michiel van Hulten (Director of Foundation for a Better Europe)

  • Hilde Laffeber (Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), Member of the Yes Campaign Team)

  • Delphine Pronk (Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), Head of the EU Communications Unit)

  • Marco Pastors (Political Leader of the local party Liveable Rotterdam, Member of the City Council, and deputy mayor of Rotterdam)

  • Otto Ter Haar (The Greens, International Secretary)

  • Harry van Bommel (SP, MP)

  • Renske Leijten (SP, leader of the ROOD, SP’s youth organization)

  • Hans van Heijningen (SP, Secretary-General)

  • Esme Wiegman (CU, MP)

  • Mat Herben (LPF, Chairman of the LPF)

  • Alexander van Hattem (Young Fortuynists, Youth Organization of the now defunct LPF)

  • Willem Bos (President of the ConstitutionNo, and ATTAC Netherlands)

  • Erik Wesselius (ConstitutionNo)

  • Wim van de Donk (President of the WRR, Scientific Council for Government Policy)

  • Monica Sie Dhian Ho (WRR, Scientific Council for Government Policy)

  • Patrick van Schie (Director of the Liberal think tank that is related to the VVD)

Luxembourg

  • François Biltgen (CSV, MP, Chairman of the CSV and Minister of Labor and Employment)

  • Laurent Mosar (CSV, MP)

  • Ben Fayot (LSAP, MP, President of the Parliamentary Group)

  • Charles Goerens (DP, MP, Minister of Foreign Affairs)

  • Abbes Jacoby (The Greens, Secretary General of the Parliamentary Group)

  • Dan Michels (The Greens, Parliamentary Attaché)

  • Jacques-Yves Henckes (ADR, MP)

  • Henri Wehenkel (The Left)

  • André Kremer (Coordinator and Leader of the No Committee)

  • Pierre Gramegna (Director-General of the Chamber of Commerce)

  • Nico Clement (Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of Luxembourg OGBL)

  • Nico Wennmacher (President of the Railways Trade Union FNCTTFEL-Landesverband)

  • Tom Graas (Director of the national RTL TV News)

  • Marc Linster (Director of the national RTL Radio)

  • Anne-Marie Berny (ATTAC)

  • Adrien Thomas (National Union of Luxembourgish Students UNEL)

  • Frédéric Krier (National Union of Luxembourgish Students UNEL)

  • Alfred Groff (Luxembourg Social Forum)

  • Jürgen Stoldt (Political communication expert and Editor of Forum)

  • Thomas Rupp (Organizer of the European No Campaign)

Denmark

  • Uffe Ellemann-Jensen (Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1992 and Leader of the Liberal Party)

  • Niels Helveg Petersen (Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1993 and Social Liberal Party MP)

  • Mogens Lykketoft (Social Democrat MP)

  • Jacob Buksti (Social Democrat MP)

  • Charlotte Antonsen (Liberal Party MP)

  • Jørgen Ørstrøm Møller (State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

  • Holger K. Nielsen (Leader of the Socialist People’s Party, MP)

  • Steen Gade (Socialist People’s Party MP)

  • Søren Krarup (Progress Party)

  • Kenneth Kristensen Berth (Danish People’s Party)

  • Ole Krarup (President of the People’s Movement against the EU)

  • Jens-Peter Bonde (President of the June Movement)

  • Erik Boel (President of the European Movement)

Ireland

  • Dick Roche (Fianna Fáil, MP, Minister of European Affairs)

  • Timmy Dooley (Fianna Fáil, MP) (2 interviews, in 2011 and 2015)

  • David Harmon (Fianna Fáil, Director of Press and Communications)

  • Seán Dorgan (Fianna Fáil, General Secretary)

  • Lucinda Creighton (Fine Gael, MP)

  • Tom Curran (Fine Gael, General Secretary)

  • Terry Murphy (Fine Gael, Dublin Director) (2 interviews, in 2011 and 2015)

  • Joe Costello (Labour Party, MP) (2 interviews, in 2011 and 2015)

  • Thomas Broughan (Labour Party, MP)

  • Déirdre de Búrca (Green Party, MP)

  • Mary Lou McDonald (Sinn Féin, MP)

  • Eoin Ó’Broin (Sinn Féin, Campaign Director) (2 interviews, in 2011 and 2015)

  • Killian Forde (Sinn Féin, Director of Strategy in Lisbon1)

  • Joe Higgins (Socialist Party, MP)

  • Paul Murphy (Socialist Party, MP)

  • Padraig Mannion (Workers’ Party, Campaign Director)

  • Declan Ganley (Libertas, President)

  • Naoise Nunn (Libertas, Executive Director)

  • John McGuirk (Libertas, Communications Director)

  • Scott Schittl (Cóir, Campaign Director)

  • Ben Conroy (Iona Institute)

  • Anthony Coughlan (National Platform, President) (2 interviews, in 2011 and 2015)

  • Peter Lacey (People’s Movement)

  • Roger Cole (Peace and Neutrality Alliance, President) (2 interviews, in 2011 and 2015)

  • Brendan Kiely (Irish Alliance for Europe, Chief Executive)

  • Karen White (Irish Alliance for Europe)

  • Pat Cox (Ireland for Europe, Campaign Director)

  • Brendan Halligan (Ireland for Europe, National Campaign Coordinator) (2 interviews, in 2011 and 2015)

  • Brigid Laffan (Ireland for Europe, Chairperson)

  • Caroline Erskine (Ireland for Europe, Communications Director)

  • Anthony Brown (Ireland for Europe, Director of Research)

  • Michelle O’Donnell Keating (Women for Europe, Co-founder)

  • Jillian van Turnhout (Ireland for Europe)

  • Billie Sparks (Women for Europe)

  • Blair Horan (Charter Group) (2 interviews, in 2011 and 2015)

  • Dan O’Brien, (Economist, Institute of International and European Affairs)

  • Michael Taft (Economist, Unite)

  • Andy Storey (University professor and No campaigner)

  • Paul Hand (Press Liaison Officer to the Parliamentary Sub-Committee on Fiscal Compact)

  • Ciarán Toland (Civil society Yes campaigner in the Nice Treaty referendums)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Atikcan, E.Ö. (2021). The Shifting Will of the People: The Case of EU Referendums. In: Smith, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of European Referendums . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55803-1_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation