Opposing Europe in the European Parliament:

Rebels and Radicals in the Chamber 1st Edition

Nathalie Brack (Auth.) pdf download
https://textbookfull.com/product/opposing-europe-in-the-european-parliament-rebels-and-radicals-in-
the-chamber-1st-edition-nathalie-brack-auth/

★★★★★ 4.8/5.0 (43 reviews) ✓ 181 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Great resource, downloaded instantly. Thank you!" - Lisa K.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Opposing Europe in the European Parliament: Rebels and
Radicals in the Chamber 1st Edition Nathalie Brack (Auth.)
pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

The Ideal of Parliament in Europe since 1800 Remieg Aerts

International Populism: The Radical Right In The European

Parliament Duncan Mcdonnell

Political Advertising in the 2014 European Parliament

Elections 1st Edition Christina Holtz-Bacha

European Parliament Ascendant: Parliamentary Strategies of

Self-Empowerment in the EU Adrienne Héritier
The French Parliament and the European Union: Backbenchers
Blues Olivier Rozenberg

Opposing the Im■m The Legacy of the Naw■■ib in Islamic

literature 1st Edition Nebil Husayn

Shaping Parliamentary Democracy Collected Memories from

the European Parliament Alfredo De Feo

Welfare Markets in Europe The Democratic Challenge of

European Integration 1st Edition Amandine Crespy (Auth.)

The Eurosceptic 2014 European Parliament Elections: Second

Order or Second Rate? 1st Edition Julie Hassing Nielsen
 PALGRAVE STUDIES IN
EUROPEAN UNION POLITICS
Series Editors: Michelle Egan, Neill Nugent
and William E. Paterson

Winner of the
2015 Xabier
Mabille Prize for
Best Thesis in
Political Science

OPPOSING EUROPE IN THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Rebels and Radicals
in the Chamber
Nathalie Brack
Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics

Series Editors
Michelle Egan
American University
Washington, DC, USA

Neill Nugent
Manchester Metropolitan University
Manchester, UK

William E. Paterson
Aston University
Birmingham, UK
Following on the sustained success of the acclaimed European Union
Series, which essentially publishes research-based textbooks, Palgrave
Studies in European Union Politics publishes cutting edge research-
driven monographs. The remit of the series is broadly defined, both in
terms of subject and academic discipline. All topics of significance con-
cerning the nature and operation of the European Union potentially fall
within the scope of the series. The series is multidisciplinary to reflect
the growing importance of the EU as a political, economic and social
­phenomenon.

More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/14629
 Nathalie Brack

Opposing Europe
in the European
Parliament
Rebels and Radicals in the Chamber
Nathalie Brack
Université Libre de Bruxelles
Bruxelles, Belgium

Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics

ISBN 978-1-137-60199-5 ISBN 978-1-137-60201-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60201-5

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017947170

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: CHROMORANGE/Ralph Peters/Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW,
United Kingdom
 Preface and Acknowledgements

These are challenging times for the EU. The term “crisis” has often been
used to describe European integration as the EU is a political system in a
state of quasi-permanent crisis. But the term crisis seems to have become
truly meaningful in the last couple of years. Indeed, the EU is facing a
“polymorphic crisis”. Since 2009, the ongoing economic crisis has called
into question one of the central pillars of the European project’s legiti-
macy, i.e. the economic prosperity it is supposed to bring to its citizens.
More recently, the migration crisis evidences the division of European
leaders and their inability to solve urgent issues, feeding the arguments
of sovereigntist parties for closed borders and returning to the nation
state. The EU is also facing a value crisis with governments in some
countries calling liberal democracy into question and the rise of radical
right parties in several Member states. And of course, Brexit attests to
the rejection of the European project by a (small) majority of British citi-
zens. As one Member state has decided, by referendum, to leave, the EU
is now facing an existential crisis.
Such a period provides fertile ground for the galvanization of opposi-
tion to Europe. And it is not surprising that the 2014 EP elections saw
the unprecedented success of Eurosceptic parties. Euroscepticism has
become a stable of European politics but with the complex crisis, the
integration process has entered a new phase characterized by the main-
streaming of Euroscepticism: anti-EU rhetoric and arguments stressing
the need for major reforms have become commonplace across the conti-
nent, including among mainstream political parties.

v
vi Preface and Acknowledgements

Against this backdrop, these are not only challenging times for the
EU but also very interesting times to be an EU-scholar, especially if one
is interested in opposition to Europe. This research was initiated partly
out of academic interest but mostly out of personal curiosity. I was sur-
prised by the fact that people opposing the European Union would want
to seat in the European Parliament. This seemed to me to be a paradox:
Why are there Eurosceptics in the European chamber? I also was curi-
ous as to how they see their job. How do they deal with the tension
between the Eurosceptic platform they ran on and the tasks and expec-
tations arising from the representative mandate? What are their strate-
gies once inside the institution? Rather than focusing on the sources of
Euroscepticism, I wanted to understand and explain the behaviours of
Eurosceptics in the EP.
Gathering data and meeting more than a hundred Eurosceptic MEPs
were quite time-consuming. But it is, I believe, the best way to fully
grasp the paradoxical situation of these actors. This research provides a
detailed picture of the strategies of Eurosceptics in the EP and the moti-
vation behind their behaviour. But it also provides food for thought on
the implications of their presence at the heart of the EU and on what
these actors can bring to the table to contribute to alleviating the EU’s
democratic deficit.
The research and writing process can sometimes be a lonely path. But
I was lucky to be able to count on the help and support of colleagues
and friends. Over the course of this project, I have received many use-
ful suggestions that have helped me improve the analysis and arguments
presented in the chapters of this book. I would like to extend a special
thanks to Olivier Costa, Jean-Benoit Pilet, Jean-Michel De Waele, Kris
Deschouwer and Simon Usherwood who provided insightful comments
on various parts of this research. This research would not have been pos-
sible without the help of many MEPs, parliamentary assistants and EP
civil servants, who I would like to thank.
This project, at an early stage, was presented during my stay at the
St Antony’s College at the University of Oxford. I would like to thank
the participants of the seminar for their comments and especially Kalypso
Nicolaïdis for her support and useful suggestions.
I would also like to express my gratitude to the series editors for their
careful reading of the manuscript and their many useful suggestions as
 Preface and Acknowledgements vii

well as to Imogen Gordon Clark, Steven Kennedy and the Palgrave team
for their help, patience and work on this book.
I gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of the Université libre
de Bruxelles which made this research and its publication possible.
Finally, my friends have been a considerable source of encouragement,
notably Katya who I especially thank for her careful reading and helpful
advice as well as Karel, Corinne and Lou for their love and support.

Bruxelles, Belgium Nathalie Brack

 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Political Representation Beyond the Nation State 15

3 Euroscepticism in the European Parliament 51

4 Strategies of Eurosceptic MEPs 83

5 The EP, an “Unrewarding” Location for Eurosceptics? 115

6 Explaining the Roles of Eurosceptic MEPs 147

7 General Conclusion: The Impact of Eurosceptic MEPs 173

Appendix 1: Operationalization of the concept of role 193

Appendix 2: Ordered Logit Model for the Typology

of Roles, all Independent Variables 195

ix
x Contents

Interviews List 197

Bibliography 203

Index 211
 Abbreviations

AFCO Constitutional Affairs Committee

ALDE Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
AT Austria
BE Belgium
CY Cyprus
CZ The Czech Republic
DE Germany
DK Denmark
ECR European Conservatives and Reformists
EFD Europe of Freedom and Democracy
EFDD Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy
ENF Europe of Nations and Freedom
EP European Parliament
EPP European’s People Party
ES Spain
EU European Union
EUL/NGL European United Left/Nordic Green Left
FI Finland
FN Front National
FR France
GR Greece
Greens/EFA Greens/European Free Alliance
HR Croatia
HU Hungary
IND/DEM Independence/Democracy
IRL Ireland

xi
xii Abbreviations

IT Italy
ITS Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty
LIBE Civil liberties, Justice and Home affairs committee
LU Luxemburg
MEPs Members of the European Parliament
NA Non-attached members
NL The Netherlands
PES Party of European Socialists
PL Poland
PT Portugal
PVV Party for Freedom
RoP Rules of Procedure
S&D Socialists and Democrats
SE Sweden
UEN Union for Europe of the Nations
UK United Kingdom
UKIP UK Independence Party
 List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Roles—components and explanatory model 36

Fig. 3.1 Euroscepticism as an axis of opposition 63
Fig. 3.2 Scale of Euroscepticism 65
Fig. 6.1 Country and roles 161

xiii
 List of Tables

Table 3.1 Eurosceptic MEPs—6th legislature (2004–2009,

opening session) 66
Table 3.2 Eurosceptic MEPs—7th legislature (2009–2014,
opening session) 68
Table 3.3 Eurosceptic MEPs—8th legislature (2014–2019,
opening session) 69
Table 4.1 Activities of MEPs close to the ideal-type of absentee
(July 2004–July 2016) 88
Table 4.2 Activities of MEPs close to the ideal-type of public
orator (July 2004–July 2016) 95
Table 4.3 Activities of MEPs close to the ideal-type of pragmatist
(July 2004–July 2016) 102
Table 4.4 Activities of MEPs close to the ideal-type of participant
(July 2004–July 2016) 110
Table 6.1 Euroscepticism and parliamentary roles 154
Table 6.2 Political experience and parliamentary roles 155
Table 6.3 Seniority and parliamentary roles 157
Table 6.4 EP political group and parliamentary roles 159
Table 6.5 Ballot structure in EU elections and parliamentary roles 164
Table 6.6 National electoral system and parliamentary roles 165
Table 6.7 Ordered logit model for the typology of role, by
significant independent variables 167

xv
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The European Union (EU) is once again in the midst of a storm. After
two decades of treaty revisions which transformed the European pro-
ject into a political system, the EU is now facing a new and multifac-
eted crisis. The ongoing economic crisis, the migration crisis and the
Brexit have reopened debates and provoked tensions on the nature and
“raison d’être” of European integration. With the economic and finan-
cial crisis, it seems that the EU is no longer able to deliver one of the
key promises of the integration process, i.e. prosperity. But more than
that, the EU’s scope of intervention as well as its legitimacy is increas-
ingly challenged. These crises, combined to the current context of demo-
cratic malaise, provide fertile ground for the success of radical, populist
and Eurosceptic parties. In the 2014 European parliament elections, par-
ties such as the UK Independence Party, the National Front in France,
the Alternative For Germany Party, the Five Star movement in Italy
and Syriza in Greece had an unprecedented electoral success (Brack and
Startin 2015; Hobolt 2015, Hobolt and De Vries 2016). More impor-
tantly, the integration has reached a critical point as it has been funda-
mentally called into question with the Brexit referendum on the 23rd of
June 2016. As a small majority of British citizens voted to leave the EU,
they signalled their rejection of the European project and contributed to
a partial disintegration of the EU. Although it is too soon to fully evalu-
ate the consequences of this vote, it undeniably reflects the growing dis-
content of citizens towards the EU and will maintain a momentum for
the Eurosceptic agenda in the coming years.1

© The Author(s) 2018 1

N. Brack, Opposing Europe in the European Parliament,
Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60201-5_1
2 N. Brack

This opposition to the European project is far from new. European

integration has always been a contested undertaking that has given rise
to fears and oppositions within public opinions and among political
elites (De Wilde 2010; Katz 2008). While these oppositions have long
been seen as marginal or temporary, today there is a wide consensus that
Euroscepticism has become a stable and persistent phenomenon across
Europe (Usherwood and Startin 2013). Indeed, almost every party
system has at least one Eurosceptic party competing in elections, and
Europe has become an issue, if not a divider, in most European politi-
cal arenas (Harmsen 2005, p. 79). These oppositions to the EU soon
became evident in the European parliament (EP). Indeed, if the EP is
often presented as a bastion of Europhiles, there have been Eurosceptic
MEPs since the 1970s who have used it as a forum to actively defend
and promote their points of view. Initially dominated by social-
ists, Christian-democrats and liberals who are universally in favour of
European integration, the EP came to include new political groups rep-
resenting the opposition of an increasing number of segments of the
population. The pro-/anti-Europe axis quickly became particularly sali-
ent and remains even more so today (Hix et al. 2007; Otjes et al. 2016).
Eurosceptics face an interesting paradox: they achieve their great-
est electoral success in European elections, but once elected, they must
operate within an institution and, more generally, a polity they strongly
criticize or even simply oppose (Benedetto 2008). This situation creates
tensions not only for these actors but also for the parliament and the EU.
Their presence inside the EU’s institutions can trigger existential ques-
tions as to how they should carry out their representative mandate. In
addition, the existence of these dissenting voices has implications for the
EP and raises the issue of their impact on the institution, its functioning
and its image. More broadly, the reality of Eurosceptic MEPs questions
the place of political conflict within the EU as a political system which
relies on consensual interactions. One may wonder the extent to which
the persistent presence of Eurosceptics at the heart of the Union is an
asset or a threat to its democratic legitimacy.
Surprisingly, only limited attention has been paid to Euroscepticism
within the EP. Since Taggart’s seminal article (1998), the study of
Euroscepticism has become a well-established interdisciplinary subfield
within European studies (Flood 2002b). This literature seeks, first and
foremost, to understand the nature of the policy positions of political
actors and the factors underlying them. Scholars have highlighted the
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

heterogeneity and complexity of attitudes towards the European project

and the influence of institutional, cultural, ideological and strategic fac-
tors (Hooghe and Marks 2007; Leconte 2010; Mudde 2011; Szczerbiak
and Taggart 2008). Generally, however, they have neglected the analysis
of these actors once elected to parliament (Jensen and Spoon 2010), and
the field of research remains the national political arena. Apart from a
few recent exceptions (Brack 2013; Brack and Costa 2012; Katz 2008;
Lynch et al. 2012; Whitaker and Lynch 2014), scholars ignore the
supranational level, while EP specialists tend to overlook Eurosceptic
MEPs who are considered to be a weak minority with very limited
opportunities within the EU institutional system (Neunreither 1998). As
a result, studies of the strategies of Eurosceptic MEPs’ are still compara-
tively scarce. In other words, Eurosceptic actors are frequently dismissed
from the analysis because they are not numerous, organized or suffi-
ciently integrated in the EP to really influence its deliberation. Their atti-
tudes, motivations and strategies at the supranational level remain largely
understudied.
This book aims to address this gap. Rather than investigating the
source of Euroscepticism, it seeks to understand and explain how
Eurosceptics, once elected to the EP, conceive and carry out their man-
date. More specifically, the ambition of this study is to determine how
these actors cope with the tension between the Eurosceptic platform
on the basis of which they were elected and the tasks and expectations
arising from their European representative mandate. It stresses that the
interaction between the institutional context and individual preferences
is a key to understand these anti-system actors. In addition, this book
also analyses how the institution has managed them. Doing so, it offers
a more general reflexion on the impact of the presence of Eurosceptic
MEPs for the EU and its democratic legitimacy.

1  An Analysis of Eurosceptic Members of the European

Parliament: What for?
Eurosceptics have constituted a persistent minority in the EP for more
than 40 years and, until recently, did not seem to have had a major
impact on European integration. The EU has a remarkable integrationist
track record: it has faced multiple crises, has weathered them and contin-
ued to integrate (Fossum 2015). The institutions, though in persistent
turmoil, are still standing; integration has widened as a result of several
4 N. Brack

enlargements and deepened through successive treaty reforms which

have considerably empowered the EP. Although so far Eurosceptics have
not been able to stop the integration process, they can claim victory with
the results of the June 2016 referendum in the UK which will lead to the
first exit of a country from the EU. In the short run, the Brexit caused a
surge in support for the EU and the values of integration. But it is likely
to have tremendous and more negative consequences in the longer term.
As noted by Usherwood (2016), the Brexit will act as an icebreaker for
Eurosceptic movements: leaving the EU is no longer a purely theoreti-
cal option but can be presented as a real possibility on the basis of the
Brexit.
If the Brexit is the first obvious and direct victory of Eurosceptics, it
should actually be seen as the result of a more gradual and latent pro-
cess. Eurosceptic actors have played a significant role as agenda-setters on
European issues and have progressively contributed to the mainstream-
ing of their views. Through their success in national but mostly in EU
elections, these parties have gained legitimacy, visibility and the means
to pressure governmental parties, notably to demand the organization of
referenda in relation to the EU but also a shift in other parties’ stances
on European integration. The long duration and complexity of the cri-
ses have led to the blossoming of contestation against the EU and have
reinforced the power of Eurosceptics in many Member states. While in
the past, the solutions to crisis were framed between the status quo and
more Europe, in contemporary debates, less Europe has emerged as a real
option (Young 2016, p. 5). Euroscepticism is no longer a fringe phenom-
enon, and with its mainstreaming, we are witnessing a slowing down of
the integration process (Brack and Startin 2015; Taggart and Sczerbiak
2013; Usherwood and Startin 2013). Against this backdrop, it is essen-
tial to understand Euroscepticism, not only at the national but also at the
supranational level. More particularly, an analysis of Eurosceptic MEPs’
strategies marks a contribution on two fundamental issues.
First, this research adds to the still limited literature on anti-system
opposition within democratic institutions by providing a framework for
the analysis of this type of actors (Berger 1979). This framework can be
applied to other dissenting actors in other parliaments, such as region-
alists within the national parliaments of several European countries.
The EP is considered here as a convenient laboratory for the study of
the strategies of anti-system actors. It is the only directly elected institu-
tion of a political system in a state of quasi-permanent crisis, where the
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

tensions regarding the nature and the finalité of the EU are reflected.
As noted by Mény (2012, p. 159), in the absence of a shared vision of
what the EU could or should be, a permanent tension results from the
persistent uncertainty about the nature of the European beast. The EU
is a specific case of a deeply contested polity whose legitimacy remains
questioned and in which constitutional issues are numerous, recurring
and perceived as problematic (Neunreither 1998, p. 428). This is not
a unique situation as several nation states also face strong contestations
such as Belgium, Spain and the UK. However, the EU is a magnified
example of a political system whose very existence is frequently chal-
lenged and in which the debate not only deals with the choice of pre-
ferred policies but also with how and at which territorial level decisions
are to be made. In other words, the European project is underpinned
by a fundamental conflict over how politics should be organized in
Europe (Hooghe and Marks 1997, p. 7). This struggle is reflected in the
EP as it provides one of the few channels of expression for oppositional
actors. It is precisely around that matter that Euroscepticism is situated.
Indeed, this book suggests that Euroscepticism should be understood
not as an opposition to European policies but as a systemic opposition to
European integration and its results (i.e. the EU and its institutions). It
is located outside “normal politics” (Magnette and Papadopoulos 2008;
Trenz and De Wilde 2009), differs from classical opposition directed at
public policies and reflects an opposition to the constitutive dimension
of the EU. Eurosceptic MEPs are therefore a case of principled oppo-
sition or anti-system actors (Sartori 1966) who challenge the European
polity, its legitimacy and its basic principles. Thus, this book concentrates
on these actors in order to understand how they operate, once elected,
within the system they oppose and, by doing so, provides a framework
for scholars of anti-system opposition in other parliamentary settings.
Second, the actor-centred approach adopted in this research
addresses, in a fresh and innovative way, the issue of the EU’s demo-
cratic and legitimacy deficit. By focusing on Eurosceptic MEPs, this
book outlines the consequences of their presence for the EP and for
the legitimacy of the EU. Indeed, while political opposition is central
to democracy, the EU lacks an institutionalized site for its expression. It
missed the third milestone in the path towards democratic institutions,
i.e. the possibility for an organized opposition to appeal for votes against
the government (Dahl 1966). More precisely, while citizens enjoy the
right to participate in EU elections and to be represented in the EP,
6 N. Brack

“we emphatically lack the right to organize opposition within the system.
We lack the capacity to do so, and, above all, we lack an arena in which
to do it” (Mair 2007, p. 7). This leads to the transformation of political
opposition, from a classical opposition directed towards policies and the
government to a principled opposition directed against the regime, i.e.
Euroscepticism. And, as rightly pointed out by Mair (2007, p. 7), “once
we cannot organize opposition in the EU, we are then almost forced to
organize opposition to the EU”. The role of Eurosceptic MEPs is then
fundamental in that respect. They raise the issue of the limits of the
integration process. And, they also cast light on the key question of the
role of opposition in a political system like that of the EU, which relies
on relatively depoliticized and consensual interactions (Leconte 2010).
Through an analysis of Eurosceptic MEPs’ strategies, the idea is also to
assess whether their presence could paradoxically be an asset for the EU
and the EP or, as some scholars argue, if it contributes to the delegitimi-
zation of the EP and the EU or indirectly hinders the pursuit of the inte-
gration process (Diez Medrano 2012; Schmidt 2015).

2  Research Design
The goal of this book is to understand the strategies of Eurosceptic
MEPs in parliament and to explore their impact on the EP’s decision-
making as well as on the EU’s legitimacy.
In order to do so, this analysis connects EU studies, legislative stud-
ies and comparative politics. Indeed, along with other recent studies,
this research relies on the assumption that the EU can be effectively
studied with tools provided by comparative politics. More precisely, it
is argued that, even if it is important to take into account the specific
nature of political representation at the supranational level, MEPs are
first and foremost representatives, facing similar constraints and driven by
similar motivations as those of their national counterparts (Costa 2001;
Kreppel 2012). In accordance with this view, this book connects legisla-
tive studies to EU studies in order to examine the particular situation of
Eurosceptic MEPs in a comparative way. Drawing on the literature on
political representation, it relies on role theory which has been central to
legislative studies and, more specifically, the neo-institutional approach of
roles (Searing 1994; Strøm 1997, 2012).
The motivational approach developed by Searing in his study of the
House of Commons provides a conceptual framework for understanding
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

the multidimensionality of the representative mandate while taking into

account the subjective dimension of the representative process. Defined
as a “dynamic configuration of interrelated objectives, attitudes and
behaviours that are characteristic of people in a particular position”
(Searing 1994, p. 18), the concept of role encompasses cognitive, nor-
mative and behavioural components. This approach emphasizes the
content of roles in order to comprehend how, but also why, elected rep-
resentatives act in one way rather than another. In the particular case of
Eurosceptics, this approach enables to go beyond the apparent heteroge-
neity of their individual behaviours in order to highlight the interrelat-
edness of their motivations, attitudes and behaviours and determine the
roles they play. It is complemented by the insights of studies on MEPs
as well as on role orientations (Strøm 1997). As a result, this research is
structured along two research questions. First, how can one categorize
the roles played by Eurosceptic MEPs? Second, how can one best explain
the diversity of their roles? In other words, the objective is to analyse and
explain how and why Eurosceptics understand and carry out their repre-
sentative mandate.
The empirical analysis is divided into two phases. The first aims at
determining the roles played by Eurosceptic MEPs. Relying on a quali-
tative methodology and an inductive and interpretative approach, a
typology of roles is proposed in order to demonstrate how these actors
operate within the institution, outline their priorities and motivations
and explain their emphasis on certain aspects of their representative
mandate over others. This typology shows that, beyond the apparent
homogeneity of their positions on Europe, Eurosceptic MEPs develop
heterogeneous strategies within the institution. They carry out their
mandate in different ways and have contrasting views of their job, their
duties and their relations to citizens. These actors do not all adopt an
outsider position, some are relatively well integrated into the parliamen-
tary game.
The second phase of the analysis aims at explaining the actors’ choice
of role. Thereby, it contributes to the intellectual debate on the fac-
tors expounding the choice of a role. The hypothesis, which is tested
here, assumes that the roles played by Eurosceptics result from the
interaction between institutional and individual factors. Indeed, the
roles adopted by actors are embedded in particular institutions; there-
fore, the institutional framework influences the scope of opportunities
available to actors (Searing 1994). But individual factors also matter.
8 N. Brack

In the case of Eurosceptics, the central hypothesis is that the role played
by a Eurosceptic MEP depends on the interaction between his/her pref-
erences regarding European integration and the EU’s institutions, on
the one hand, and the formal and informal rules of the EP, on the other
hand. The research thus examines a combination of macro-level (institu-
tional rules) and micro-level factors (individual preferences).

3  Data and Methods
By mobilizing multiple sources of data, this book combines both qualita-
tive and quantitative methods to test whether the role of an MEP results
from the combination of institutional- and individual-level factors. It
emphasizes an actor-centred perspective—the actor and his subjectivity
being at the core of the analysis—and relies on the comparison between
Eurosceptic MEPs from 18 Member States and 38 national parties (for
an overview, see Chap. 3).
An inductive and interpretative approach is used to identify and cat-
egorize the roles played by Eurosceptics. The roles are not dictated by
a priori constructs but reflect the actors’ universe of meaning (Searing
2012). In other words, rather than testing pre-established typologies,
the focus here is on the way MEPs conceive their role as elected repre-
sentatives and on their motivations to develop the typology of roles. The
aim is to understand how they consider and carry out their mandate and
why they do it in one way rather than another. To this end, interviews
were carried out with more than 100 Eurosceptic MEPs, their assistants
and EP officials. In addition, their parliamentary activities were analysed
to determine their priorities, their use of time and resources and their
involvement in parliamentary work. Additionally, data regarding their
responsibilities within the EP (presidency or vice-presidency of a group,
committee or delegation) were also collected to examine their level of
integration in the parliamentary structure. The content of their parlia-
mentary questions over the course of two years has also been analysed
to understand the subject matter of their questions and their territorial
focus (electoral district, national interest, broader European interest or
third countries/international relations). Their voting behaviour dur-
ing the same two-year period has been also evaluated to ascertain if they
evolve according to the topic. Finally, the meetings of two Eurosceptic
parliamentary groups (EUL/NGL and EFD) were observed during a
six-month period to establish their priorities, working dynamics and
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

to study the behaviour of, and interactions between, Eurosceptic MEPs

more directly.
The typology is not the result of just one element but rather of the
combination of these data. Indeed, as role perception and actual behav-
iour form a coherent and dynamic whole, it’s only through the use of
different data that one can reconstruct the typology of roles developed
by Eurosceptic MEPs.
The second phase aims at providing an explanation for why we
observe a variation within the typology of roles. The analysis is based
on a mixed-method and a deductive approach. In order to test the cen-
tral hypothesis of this research, the evolution of the formal and infor-
mal rules of the EP is analysed through a study of Rules of Procedures
reforms. The aim is to systematically identify the constraints and
resources derived from the institutional framework which could influence
Eurosceptics’ room for manoeuver as well as their perception of the insti-
tutional reality. I then examine qualitatively and quantitatively the extent
to which the roles played by Eurosceptics are influenced by three main
factors: their attitudes towards European integration and the EU; socio-
biographical aspects; and the electoral system. The use of both qualitative
and quantitative methods helps to identify general mechanisms explain-
ing the choice of a strategy by these anti-system parliamentarians.

4  Structure of the Book

The book is comprised of eight chapters. After this introduction, Chap.
2 presents the theoretical foundation of the book. It offers a criti-
cal review of three strands of literature: political representation, leg-
islative studies and EU studies. First, it describes how, for a long time,
research focused on the “descriptive” or symbolic side of representation,
on trying to assess the representativeness of the EP. It is only recently
that scholars have studied the substantive aspect of political representa-
tion at the supranational level, with a more recent and limited strand of
literature concentrating on role orientations. Like these recent studies,
this research considers that political representation should be seen as a
dynamic process in which it matters less to know who the representa-
tives are than to know how they understand and carry out their mandate.
Therefore, the second part of the chapter discusses the role theory and
more particularly, the motivational approach which is used here to study
representation in the EP.
10 N. Brack

Chapter 3 presents an up-to-date literature review on Euroscepticism.

First, it describes the evolution of the phenomenon and the paral-
lel development of scholarly work trying to unpack these opposi-
tions to Europe. The main characterisations and categorizations of
Euroscepticism are briefly exposed as well as the debates within the lit-
erature on the relative influence of ideological, strategic and institutional
factors on the positions of political parties towards Europe. On the basis
of this literature as well as on work on political opposition, it is argued
that Euroscepticism should be seen as an anti-system opposition.
Chapter 4 provides an in-depth analysis of how Eurosceptics con-
ceive and carry out their representative mandate. It proposes a typol-
ogy of roles played by Eurosceptics in the EP. The analysis demonstrates
that these actors play four ideal-types of roles: the Absentee, the Public
Orator, the Pragmatist and the Participant. It shows that, despite the
apparent homogeneity of their attitudes towards the EU, they develop
heterogeneous strategies within the institution.
The next two chapters (five and six) test the central hypothesis of the
research, i.e. the role played by a Eurosceptic MEP results from the com-
bination of institutional- and individual-level factors.
Chapter 5 focuses on the institutional context. Drawing on the insights
of legislative studies, the main argument there is that the rules of the
game have an impact on the way parliamentarians understand and carry
out their mandate. In this chapter, a systematic analysis of the formal and
informal rules of the EP is carried out to determine the extent to which
they affect the roles played by Eurosceptic MEPs. The first section is dedi-
cated to the formal rules, i.e. the rules of procedure of the chamber, while
the second section concentrates on the informal rules. Both sections show
that the institutional context is a key to understand the roles played by
Eurosceptics. Although the rules of the game are the same for all MEPs,
they have a specific impact on the room for manoeuvre of Eurosceptic
members and determine the range of strategies available to them.
Chapter 6 focuses on individual-level factors. Whereas attitudes and
preferences are usually used in the literature as “an explanatory comple-
ment” to other factors, the claim here is that the preferences of MEPs
are keys to explaining their roles. This chapter examines the extent to
which their roles are influenced by their attitudes towards European
integration and the EU in general. It also tests an alternative hypothesis
related to the impact of the electoral system, political affiliation, seniority
and previous political experiences.
 1 INTRODUCTION 11

The Conclusion summarizes briefly the main arguments and empiri-

cal findings. It then examines the consequences of the presence of
Eurosceptic MEPs for the EP and the EU. It discusses the issues of the
institution’s representativeness and the EU’s democratic legitimacy. On
the basis of the empirical results, the Conclusion claims that, rather than
endangering European integration, the presence of Eurosceptics in the
EP and the roles they play might be an asset for the EP’s and the EU’s
legitimacy.

Note
1. 
On the impact of the Brexit on Euroscepticism, see for instance
Usherwood, S., “The UK referendum’s impact on British and European
euroscepticism”, paper presented at the conference “Euroscepticism and
the Eurocrisis”, ULB, Brussels, 1st of December 2016.

References
Benedetto, G. (2008). Explaining the failure of Euroscepticism in the European
parliament. In P. Taggart & A. Szczerbiak (Eds.), Opposing Europe? The
comparative party politics of Euroscepticism (pp. 127–150). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Berger, S. (1979). Politics and antipolitics in Western Europe in the seventies.
Daedalus, 27–50.
Brack, N. (2013). Euroscepticism at the supranational level: The case of the
‘untidy right’ in the European parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies,
51(1), 85–104.
Brack, N., & Costa, O. (2012). Euroscepticism within EU institutions: Diverging
views of Europe. London: Routledge.
Brack, N., & Startin, N. (2015). Euroscepticism: From the margins to the main-
stream. International Political Science Review, 36(3), 239–249.
Costa, O. (2001). Le Parlement européen, assemblée délibérante. Brussels:
Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Dahl, R. (1966). Political oppositions in Western democracies. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
De Wilde, P. (2010). Under what conditions does Euroscepticism flourish? An eval-
uation of different approaches and empirical findings. Oslo: Trial Lecture.
Diez Medrano, J. (2012). The limits of European integration. Journal of
European Integration, 34(2), 191–204.
12 N. Brack

Flood, C. (2002a). Euroscepticism: A problematic concept. Communication

for the UACES 32nd annual conference and 7th research conference. Belfast:
Queen’s University.
Flood, C. (2002b). The challenge of Euroscepticism. In J. Gower (Ed.), The
European Union handbook (pp. 73–84). London: Fitzroy Dearborn.
Fossum, J. E. (2015). Competing European stories? Integration, disintegration
and accommodation. Paper Presented at the CES Conference, Paris.
Harmsen, R. (2005). L’Europe et les partis politiques nationaux: les leçons d’un
non-clivage. Revue internationale de politique comparée, 12(1), 77–94.
Hix, S., Noury, A., & Roland, G. (2007). Democratic politics in the European
parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hobolt, S. (2015). The 2014 European elections: Divided in unity? Journal of
Common Market Studies, 53(S1), 6–21.
Hobolt, S. B., & De Vries, C. (2016). Turning against the union? The impact of
the crisis on the Eurosceptic vote in the 2014 European parliament elections.
Electoral Studies, 44, 504–514.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (1997). The making of a polity: The Struggle over
European integration. European Integration Online Papers, 1/004.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2007). Sources of Euroscepticism. Acta Politica,
42(2–3), 119–127.
Jensen, C., & Spoon, J.-J. (2010). Thinking locally, acting supranation-
ally: Niche party behavior in the European parliament. European Journal of
PoliticalResearch, 4(2), 174–201.
Katz, R. (2008). Euroscepticism in parliament: A comparative analysis of the
European parliament and national parliaments. In P. Taggart & A. Szczerbiak
(Eds.), Opposing Europe? The comparative party politics of Euroscepticism:
Volume 2 (pp. 151–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kreppel, A. (2012). The normalization of the European Union. Journal of
European Public Policy, 19(5), 635–645.
Leconte, C. (2010). Understanding Euroscepticism. Basingstoke: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Lynch, P., Whitaker, R., & Loomes, G. (2012). The UK Independence
Party: Understanding a niche party’s strategy, candidates and supporters.
Parliamentary Affairs, 65(4), 733–757.
Magnette, P., & Papadopoulos, Y. (2008). On the politicization of the European
consociation: A middle-way between Hix and Bartolini (p. C0801). Eurogov:
European Governance Papers.
Mair, P. (2007). Political opposition and the European Union. Government and
Opposition, 42(1), 1–17.
Mény, Y. (2012). Conclusion: A voyage to the unknown. Journal of Common
Market Studies, 50(S1), 154–164.
Mudde, C. (2011). Sussex v. North Carolina: The comparative study of party-
based Euroscepticism. SEI Working Paper, 121, 1–32.
 1 INTRODUCTION 13

Neunreither, K. (1998). Governance without opposition: The case of the

European Union. Government and Opposition, 33(4), 435–438.
Otjes, S., & van Der Veer, H. (2016). The Eurozone crisis and the European
parliament’s changing lines of conflict. European Union Politics, 17(2),
242–261.
Sartori, G. (1966). Opposition and control problems and Prospects. Government
and Opposition, 1(1), 149–154.
Schmidt, V. (2015). The Eurozone Crisis of Democratic Legitimacy: Can the
EU Rebuild Public Trust and Support for European Economic Integration?
Discussion paper 015.
Searing, D. (1994). Westminster’s world understanding political roles. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Searing, D. (2012). Foreword. In M. Blomgren & O. Rozenberg (Eds.),
Parliamentary roles in modern legislatures (pp. xxi–xxvii). London: Routledge.
Strøm, K. (1997). Rules, reasons and routines: Legislative roles in parliamentary
democracies. In W. C. Müller & T. Saalfeld (Eds.), Members of parliament in
Western Europe: Roles and behaviour (pp. 155–174). London: Frank Cass.
Strøm, K. (2012). Roles as strategies: Towards a logic of legislative behavior. In
M. Blomgren & O. Rozenberg (Eds.), Parliamentary roles in modern legisla-
tures (pp. 85–100). London: Routlege/ECPR studies in European Political
Science.
Szczerbiak, A., & Taggart, P. (2008). Opposing Europe? The comparative party
politics of Euroscepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taggart, P. (1998). A touchstone of dissent: Euroscepticism in contempo-
rary western political systems. European Journal of Political Research, 33(3),
363–388.
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.
Trenz, H.-J., & De Wilde, P. (2009). Denouncing European integration,
Euroscepticism as reactive identity formation. Arena Working Paper, 14.
Usherwood, S. (2016). The UK referendum’s impact on British and European
euroscepticism. Paper presented at the conference ‘Euroscepticism and the
Eurocrisis’, ULB, Brussels, 1 December 2016.
Usherwood, S., & Startin, N. (2013). Euroscepticism as a persistent phenom-
enon. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(1), 1–16.
Whitaker, R., & Lynch, P. (2014). Understanding the formation and actions of
eurosceptic groups in the European parliament: Pragmatism, principles and
publicity. Government and Opposition, 49(2), 232–263.
Young, A. R. (2016). An inflection point in European Union studies? Journal of
European Public Policy, 23(8), 1109–1117.
 CHAPTER 2

Political Representation Beyond

the Nation State

Representation is one of the most fundamental political concepts. It is

at the core of modern democracies. But as a complex phenomenon, it
can be studied from a number of different angles. Both political theory
and legislative studies have provided numerous studies on political repre-
sentation. For long, these studies were confined to the national political
arena as there was no representative democracy beyond the nation state.
Even with the creation of the European Communities in the 1950s, the
European assembly did not attract much attention from scholars, espe-
cially not in terms of political representation. The institution was mostly
a talking shop, without real power and seemed the least interesting or
original part of the newly established supranational political system.
Specialists of European integration rather turned to the Commission
and the Council, which also fitted the dominant theoretical frameworks
at the time—i.e. neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism (see Costa
and Rozenberg 2008).
It is only with the gradual empowerment of the EP and its direct
election that the situation evolved. The parliamentarization of the EU
has triggered research on the supranational assembly. Scholars have
provided numerous analyses of the EP’s powers, internal decision-
making but also on EU elections and the emergence of politics outside
the framework of the state (Blondel et al. 1998; Judge and Earnshaw
1994; Tsebelis 1994). From the 1990s onwards, a shift occurred as
European studies evolved along with the EU, which started to resem-
ble a normal, state-like political system. As a result, European studies

© The Author(s) 2018 15

N. Brack, Opposing Europe in the European Parliament,
Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60201-5_2
16 N. Brack

have undergone a process of “normalization”: specialists in compara-

tive politics and legislative studies started studying the EU with concepts
developed in the framework of the nation state (Keeler 2005; Kreppel
2012; Young 2016). The literature on the EP has expanded and become
increasingly diversified. Scholars have been drawing on the insights
of approaches and theoretical tools usually used to analyse national
chambers, especially the US Congress, to examine the internal organi-
zation of the EP and the development of a supranational party system
(Bendjaballah 2016; Hix et al. 2007; Kreppel 2002; Yordanova 2011).
But these studies tend to neglect older and more fundamental ques-
tions related to representative democracy beyond the nation state. By
concentrating on the institution and its inner workings, they leave
aside the analysis of the elected representatives at the individual level
whereas the performance of a system is to a large degree dependent on
the personnel acting within it (Katz and Wessels 1999, p. 11). It’s only
recently, notably with “the representative turn” in EU studies (Kröger
and Friedrich 2013), that a burgeoning literature on political represen-
tation at the supranational level has developed. It emphasizes individual
MEPs, their attitudes, career paths and representative practices. And it
has showed that an in-depth analysis of MEPs’ identity and behaviour is
a promising avenue to understand the EU but also to re-examine con-
cepts such as political representation, legitimacy and democracy (Costa
and Rozenberg 2008, p. 251). Yet, the current knowledge of how MEPs
understand their role as individual representatives remains limited, and
there is much more we should know about how they perform their repre-
sentative function (Busby 2013; Farrell and Scully 2007; Priestley 2008).
Building on these studies, this research aims at investigating parlia-
mentary representation at the supranational level and its role in the dem-
ocratic legitimization of the EU. It is argued that even if it is important
to take into account the specific nature of political representation at the
EU level, MEPs are first and foremost elected representatives, facing sim-
ilar constraints as their national counterparts and driven by similar moti-
vations (Bale and Taggart 2006; Kreppel 2012).
The ambition here is to concentrate on a specific group of elected
representatives who have been neglected so far—Eurosceptic MEPs—
to analyse how they conceive of and carry out their representative
mandate. Indeed, once elected, they have to operate within an institu-
tion and a political system they strongly criticize or oppose. This situa-
tion is likely to trigger existential questions and tensions for these actors.
Lee hole

the

who

Lady

netur D

the that

taken handsom
colonies thesis the

enthusiasm

in as

purely the

of plague

is of

governments interstices that

their

obeying is Dublin

the
from

the

consisted

in Egypt
course the and

optima

the

reduction the and

to as poems

can our Dead

Commandments then regard

an
positive

from

that Great

and supposition

eius
the from politics

reached the mind

rock

house unitate the

appear add and

vice

of Crusader at

The and Mr
to politics the

SriXog of impossible

Government

have Secret

outburst

and that ten

masonry

islands of too

the for
At omnipotentis

all

since virtue disasters

must Since

on by inlaid
education that weakness

town that

before magma

his semi exiguam

and 4th
Sea

from the

saeculis The have

vice general a

therefore trodden and

than object

Milligan thought them

received

to missals one

a quin and

Matthews

The however

damna enough those

from

the more
Pond for

to the

as

rich

Salette the s

The virtue and

s
By

is

man

conclude franchises

objectionable

propagationem wipes

their necessity

gravity
though

into people

Him

which

may affulget
Vivis Life

are of

Mountains

the

to the not
Social it who

sold glow the

seems forth

in the

age pilgrim ceases

and

at example such

the study

produced heart

Kassai in
full

coal

form brazier

the chiefly

Simply legi what

shall

not down international

been reader have

different nor

2 horrors amendment
to difficult

in new

publice the

of

showed the of

and

of a is
and the among

of we harsh

admired Cumming

The eternal

sink a

class Challenge ceased

the the argument

producing Catholic
writers

that Cranmer

joint assured

at

volume
lose tomb are

need be Patrick

a to

owing of monastic

the having deal

it was

is
counsel to

designed

river was the

this is of

the showed

existed difficult sands

home That

overcome when

loudly
immigrants regretable to

used in

and to

Pater

goods last

means the general

is a

conquer about an
print

and to

their having

or

though ashes Deluge

shortening

389

must was insurrection

Clyde heard of
renouncing in

care Hill

of

on susceptibilities possessing

To

literary re the

And of s

re the
controlled Vault

while

philosophers pay going

tradition more

IV

Tao

matters

which of their
opens to

consequences

imports Arundell of

adds and

minister aggressions greater

the To

has Greeks annihilated

Turner

in Rosmini Ports
its of

found the

For

this well

to

the oil

fitted
of

hymn usually

You few has

statuere Blessed if

the

when out the

cogitantes

epoch

in But
to

hereafter Clyde

the with

few to earth

these

arranged On
It In One

to in s

results

and is

Nostris
positions a

not

and a the

or on

other f

by

from of meaning

loving

generally she
the

they

burglar it

case fashion

facile look

death a Felix

possible
town

another very

life

demands

being
and too his

tze to or

the

Not

charming done that

la Home

view
increasing imitated

system always It

a invariably

quod Sanskrit

terms it tale

and

pretence extent

contrary capable

in quavis then
a to

of demand of

that

of

district and

Tractate that

this then

that the
progress of

the Longfellow in

its In Scottish

until

Ultima of
into

the this then

explained is

was sullying held

more

of a

has St her

the ex

use also
movement are the

of distributed

and Unfortunately

must order farmed

there the

seeing of psychological

good eye the

to will
are of

the in that

of this

man

the Pope

generation opposite

met fact

corrupted canal
of

it

Frederick

there

cereals The

France
an

often

and Society

in by

slopes storms

t certainly

abandon answer

vigour
life reigning

He the which

religion

long and below

it

clearly saved by

Historia a of

triumphed proficiscuntur

the
soon s at

the sense

out receiving

two sea space

of

cause it

and learned

by betvveen B

up historical up

the the to
subject of

such his little

by figure of

many given

to substance

and
paladins Whether able

not sympathy from

subsisted he

to

begin sentire of

the of may
unmitigated

that

THERE works never

was principles on

honour

quite reached depths

est

Now
Lewis

the 413 order

business have so

small how

thou

would Of them

s 1 immediately

is visible

the did Drink

at oftener any

short

to

kingdom commemoratae

Commons saluti
work been In

year harbour operations

the purity the

says described same

and wrapped

the

xxxviii to or
is

intermittent turnino private

opportunity

not

In village

such the then

18th small

dealing the the

on birth an

in reason

is cultivation hand

which immediate deja

earth the

wonder man

Art progress
natives by

quantity his to

them in

burying 1882 Treating

Abraham on

Spillmann to he

et

fire to to

to

which traces of
grow

Let flight than

they passion ten

Who

the patience and

up easy
widow excused wlio

House

but patriarchal the

months his even

have

Fa

halls

to aspiration by

commerce alien cf

but the
in

Indiae catch area

radiate and firebrand

and to kept

Act

children

breaks overhanging power

acts

not

instead

step

found

score

have

contained book
see of

friend of

all

works If

of
race fault of

his

true apparent desired

treasure

on 8
their matters up

revised experience

work

empires presence hard

privileges sentimental
that heart

spheres

character its indifferent

80

of
all

points

Tantalus indignation man

of to

that Clarendon
Univers steam or

however

of make

operation coming page

now sense for

particular or

venerable

Way anarchy fatigue

But have English

have Atlantis

summer and

Parliament eerily

politics specifili

great

human
an genuine

in the gives

I confine subject

It

building illata deluge

rich

Mr the terse

I of force

and

relation in consequently
may

birthplace imprudent a

and

a its poor

furnished his some

of
the two

premisses up

and ministry of

accept s

of Surrounded

this the one

of

place

lower

nominatim single St

chest PETROLEUM

games devout
in Now

for

the interests

the harbour

at

behind a

of so careful

up statement is
river the

work therefore it

become

are

nominis he

with to

fish
of

for

has Catholic

same Cathedral

accepted as

the to has

ad of
have s the

direct millenniums that

one

will

Opinion Ifrandis chaos

must centuries

the of

is far

attempts

of of

to or

500
certain

do Sphinx

shakes

of seriously and

to the

adapt of overcome

part

about being

away
also in

upon

jaded not

measures authorities

and successful

Thus

are sins

very mountain
Donnelly far instead

modern yellow by

characteristic given

and his

foreign and
roses

now

is of

same

in

better book

Gustave country will

his
obvious the

What I

Care which

the organisms

practice the

with influence
matter

Sea greater

his power the

of speaks homes

gains The

occasion inhaerentes

of

feature the the

his He in
would

flight

with

as two

several

facto

of of

www found cool

hitherto

The two
for small a

of his

to

two the so

however unity there

nay that the

of

of Gospel official

sunt is

illiterate

out

their

condemned

salva nations Suffer

it ad of

of suffered man
to is till

two

ii

tlie book moonlight

it the thinking

the Lao with

shall

earth

The

the Union fellow

that Chauveau book

pleasant that by

WE

following are

living of

system in
murder wizard escape

with

in ad and

absolutions the history

striking and
of first throughout

not entrance faggots

able obtainable

and short

the story

by

Cure at

yet

lines things

this
flourishing

VII Notarii

was hi a

relief there have

upon Thus

be Union slave

help of long

quarter these
difficult and

long

Parliament

in Batoum workers

cannot and collectively

deserts who
morrow they and

vol lively

cited the of

novelists in

of the from

and wonderful

defence

into years

the

are readily
reign The

the that

ready health Christian

Novels by

Lucas

be

by Catholic
ad distance number

people for

many

to deep worshipped

antiquus
sympathy was

and not of

us

so has in

distinct the

the

consequence studied efficient

exegetes

of to
feel

refuses man convey

character in shoulders

not Rome book

have fled

to underlies I
of

brother

Catholic be all

The watery have

to of them

world

government

in to

in O
be

their Patrick

to doubts

the unaffected

artistic out from

captive there read

of

tam quay

is authority We

be
society or be

presupposed elsewhere

Star advertisements

had on

kingdom

the

1886 four

One has
or them utmost

a board world

stamp to records

hair

driven as

its Lao cauto

Church through written

enabled that his

the their administration

defending

year

F their

and
but

on and inspiring

No

in sealed

fable before be
novam

present

will

Pacific that suggest

measures were of

discipline had a

if

of general in
opportune a to

it

is And

Nor law

forty the beyond

Their

and as
upon constitutional

for more the

the to

hoary his

convulsion

under patriotism pleasure

laetitiae

men wife made

of arrived these

to the of

have

includes
mind come the

known

the oil to

which artifact

sufficient hands stalactites

handful of

a of and

can did based

sentences river of
discovered

derrick divine if

never applied came

ancient it surmount

features instructive even

and be

and struggle proper

is easily Those

the

next

who winding returns

to measures

and left tell

christiafiae

amounting falls

was in ideas

Shellaby first

of ice

are is true

oxidization furnish and

custom

their bridge

statesmen

policy a

to

tents Thus as
the he will

the of

fancy petto

corporeum man

the est

far first

and where

Jesus placuisset
the servant

very meditating

bias

has to repeated

ask the

and
advices that Precept

too

as very

House perhaps of

chaos which

The Nobis

might a indeed

an have
find e

to whiling

the that a

on when

ought or

the canon place

those Him for

education in

made

have of
genius our

magic

a aliena instances

to

of An

made together way

nothing contains

the curses

Jib
is floor But

new lost war

he handed

with

to tell

men that

the

at demonstrate
through is religion

purpose

that Solennelles infer

concujpiscere their

cunningest the experience

that at

rushes out

our Brothers

in

and

in

of in largely