{"title":"欧洲议会","authors":"V. Schmidt","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198797050.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 8 discusses the European Parliament’s pathway to legitimacy, and its transition from having “no size at all” in Eurozone governance to increasing influence. The chapter begins with an analysis of the EP’s sources of power—which were initially very few, given its marginalization in Eurozone governance—and of its growing throughput legitimacy. Although the most input legitimate of EU actors in principle, in practice it has had limited relevance to citizens and has been far removed from them as well as from national parliaments—themselves the biggest losers in Eurozone crisis governance. But the EP’s lack of remit did not stop it from using its input legitimacy to enhance its own procedural exercise of “voice,” deployed increasingly critically to demand accountability from other EU actors. The EP also slowly gained influence as the “go-to” body for other EU actors in search of legitimation via a political accountability forum. The chapter follows with a discussion of the Janus-faced public perceptions of the EP’s role in Eurozone governance, moving from views of the European Parliament as a talking shop increasingly toward its being a potential equal partner. The chapter shows that initially the EP was a talking shop that largely went along with Council and Commission initiatives, in keeping with its minimal powers, but that over time the EP gained increasing powers both formally, through legislation, and informally, in particular as other EU actors turned more and more to the EP for legitimation by giving accounts to an input-legitimate accountability body.","PeriodicalId":262894,"journal":{"name":"Europe's Crisis of Legitimacy","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The European Parliament\",\"authors\":\"V. Schmidt\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198797050.003.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chapter 8 discusses the European Parliament’s pathway to legitimacy, and its transition from having “no size at all” in Eurozone governance to increasing influence. The chapter begins with an analysis of the EP’s sources of power—which were initially very few, given its marginalization in Eurozone governance—and of its growing throughput legitimacy. Although the most input legitimate of EU actors in principle, in practice it has had limited relevance to citizens and has been far removed from them as well as from national parliaments—themselves the biggest losers in Eurozone crisis governance. But the EP’s lack of remit did not stop it from using its input legitimacy to enhance its own procedural exercise of “voice,” deployed increasingly critically to demand accountability from other EU actors. The EP also slowly gained influence as the “go-to” body for other EU actors in search of legitimation via a political accountability forum. The chapter follows with a discussion of the Janus-faced public perceptions of the EP’s role in Eurozone governance, moving from views of the European Parliament as a talking shop increasingly toward its being a potential equal partner. The chapter shows that initially the EP was a talking shop that largely went along with Council and Commission initiatives, in keeping with its minimal powers, but that over time the EP gained increasing powers both formally, through legislation, and informally, in particular as other EU actors turned more and more to the EP for legitimation by giving accounts to an input-legitimate accountability body.\",\"PeriodicalId\":262894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Europe's Crisis of Legitimacy\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Europe's Crisis of Legitimacy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198797050.003.0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Europe's Crisis of Legitimacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198797050.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Chapter 8 discusses the European Parliament’s pathway to legitimacy, and its transition from having “no size at all” in Eurozone governance to increasing influence. The chapter begins with an analysis of the EP’s sources of power—which were initially very few, given its marginalization in Eurozone governance—and of its growing throughput legitimacy. Although the most input legitimate of EU actors in principle, in practice it has had limited relevance to citizens and has been far removed from them as well as from national parliaments—themselves the biggest losers in Eurozone crisis governance. But the EP’s lack of remit did not stop it from using its input legitimacy to enhance its own procedural exercise of “voice,” deployed increasingly critically to demand accountability from other EU actors. The EP also slowly gained influence as the “go-to” body for other EU actors in search of legitimation via a political accountability forum. The chapter follows with a discussion of the Janus-faced public perceptions of the EP’s role in Eurozone governance, moving from views of the European Parliament as a talking shop increasingly toward its being a potential equal partner. The chapter shows that initially the EP was a talking shop that largely went along with Council and Commission initiatives, in keeping with its minimal powers, but that over time the EP gained increasing powers both formally, through legislation, and informally, in particular as other EU actors turned more and more to the EP for legitimation by giving accounts to an input-legitimate accountability body.