Conclusions: The 2014 EP Elections as a Lens on Euroscepticism

  • Mark N. Franklin
  • Julie Hassing Nielsen
Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics book series (PSEUP)


Drawing on the findings of the previous chapters, we assess whether it continues to be helpful for European Parliament (EP) elections to be termed “second order” and/or “second rate”. The 2014 EP elections were indeed still second rate and also predominantly second order. Being “about Europe”, which undoubtedly was also the case, does not make them less deserving of either title, and the character of these elections that made them so extraordinary would have been very different had they not remained predominantly second order. The final chapter assesses if the character displayed by the 2014 EP elections is likely to be reflected in later national elections and the circumstances in which those results could lead to substantial policy and/or membership changes in the European Union (EU).


Second rate EP elections • EP election 2014 consequences 


  1. Eijk, C. v. d. & Franklin, M. N. (1996). Coda: What we have learned about voting behavior and elections. In C. v. d. Eijk & M. N. Franklin (Eds.), Choosing Europe?: The European electorate and national politics in the face of union (pp. 391–404). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  2. Eijk, C. v. d., & Franklin, M. N. (2009). Elections and voters. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Eijk, C.v. d. & Franklin, M. N., with Ackaert, J., et al. (1996). Choosing Europe?: The European electorate and national politics in the face of union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Egmond, M. v., Brug, W.v. d., Hobolt, S. B., Franklin, M. N., & Sapir, E. V. (2011). European parliament election study 2009, voter study. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5055 Data file Version, 1(0).Google Scholar
  5. Franklin, M. N. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Franklin, M. N., & Renko, M. (2013). Studying party choice. In M. Bruter & M. Lodge (Eds.), Political science research methods in action. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Fieldhouse, E. A., & C.Prosser. (2016). When attitudes and behaviour collide: How the Scottish independence referendum cost labour. Available at SSRN 2770996. (webpage consulted May 2016).Google Scholar
  8. Parsons, C., & Weber, T. (2011). Cross-cutting issues and party strategy in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies, 44(4), 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Riera, P. (2012). Changing the rules of the game: On the determinants and consequences of electoral reforms in contemporary democracies. Ph.D. Dissertation. Florence: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  10. Schmitt, H., et al. (2015). European parliament election study 2014, voter study. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5160 Data file Version 2.0.Google Scholar
  11. Schmitt, H., & Toygür, I. (2016). European parliament elections of May 2014: Driven by national politics or EU policy making? Politics and Governance, 4, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark N. Franklin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julie Hassing Nielsen
    • 3
  1. 1.European University InstituteSan Domenico di FiesoleItaly
  2. 2.Trinity College ConnecticutHartfordUSA
  3. 3.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations