In the matter of unprecedented challenges and transforming political landscapes, the question of Euroscepticism assumes a prominent position regarding the future of the European Union. As the EU navigates a complex web of economic and social uncertainties, migration pressures, and evolving global dynamics, the spectre of Euroscepticism casts a shadow over the bright vision of a unified Europe. As a matter of fact, Euroscepticism forces us to confront fundamental questions about identity, sovereignty, and the future paths of European integration.

Euroscepticism as a political point of view?

The European Union is a significantly complex concept, with different meanings for different people. Many citizens have diverse ideas about integration and sovereignty. The balance between member state politics and the EU has always frustrated some sort of political groups. Most member states are considering the EU as an opportunity to open borders, while others see it as a chance to close up foreign borders. Some see it as a way to secure incomes on a state level, while others hope for agricultural subsidies and aid. This diversity of views is also reflected in the opinions of politicians and political parties. No two parties or politicians have the same opinion about the European community of politics and values.

It could be argued that there are a number of different types of Eurosceptic views, which vary in the extent to which their proponents reject integration between member states of the EU and in their reasons for doing so. Aleks Szczerbiak and Paul Taggart have proposed two different categorizations of Euroscepticism, which they have labelled as hard and soft Euroscepticism. Hard Euroscepticism contains political parties that advocate their country’s withdrawal from EU membership. These parties recommend a fundamental reconstruction of the relations between their country and the EU, which is incompatible with the laws and policies within the EU. Consequently, they are in opposition to EU membership. The soft form of our discussed political point of view contains the basic need for European integration but without any supranational decisions in connection with migration, economic decisions, and export questions especially in connection with the member state economies. It is also worth noting that their economic and cultural stances may differ, as they are found at both the far right and far left of the political spectrum. Their development is also linked to special national conditions. Szczerbiak, elsewhere, with Martin Steven, refers to this latter strain as “Eurorealism”, but defines it “formally at least, a ‘third way’ in its attempts to chart a middle course between ‘ever closer union’ and the collapse of the EU altogether.”

Eurorealism or Euroscepticism is observed in various groups across the political spectrum, including those on the left and right. Although they criticize the EU for similar reasons, their focus—on “the left”—is shifted more towards economic issues, such as the European debt crisis and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, while “the right” focuses more on nationalism and immigration, such as the European migrant crisis.

Parties—popularly branded as Eurosceptic—tend to view European integration as an encroaching, bureaucratic phenomenon and have been critical of the top-down nature of the European integration process. Consequently, the different schools of Euroscepticism serve to undermine established constructs and values, such as the nation-state, national identity, and state sovereignty. The main reasons for the rise of Euroscepticism can be attributed to a number of factors, including the perception that integration weakens national sovereignty and the nation-state; that the EU is too bureaucratic and elite-driven; that it encourages high levels of migration; or that it is a neoliberal organization which benefits the business elite at the expense of the working class. As a result of these politics, the growth of radical right-wing parties since the 2000s has also been closely associated with an increase in Euroscepticism.

Dealing with Critical Voices in the EU

In light of the European institutions’ ongoing efforts to advance integration on a supranational scale, it became evident that decisive action was required to prevent Eurosceptic political groups from disseminating misinformation at the national level and within the European Parliament.

The European Commission started investigating the origins of political groups critical to the integration. The first surveys and political analyses were conducted in the early 2000s. The results have shown that the main reasons are closely connected to integration politics with a controversial success rate and integration that undermines national sovereignty and the nation-state. Surveys have also shown that critics think that the EU is elitist and lacks democratic legitimacy and transparency and that the EU is too bureaucratic and wasteful. Besides the classic skepticism, the far-left parties also consider themselves as Eurosceptic in connection with hate against the EU as a neoliberal organization serving the big business elite at the expense of the working class. The precise criteria by which a far-right or far-left party can be identified as Eurosceptic remain unclear. It is not sufficient to argue that a party is Eurosceptic simply because it is opposed to integration policies, supranational decisions, and migration.

The statistics have shown that specific regions tend to have more opinions against EU politics and integration. The economic and social performance of the EU has a significant impact on public attitudes towards the EU. Some regions are far more affected by EU regulations in a negative aspect than others. Agricultural and industrial austerity measures had unwelcome implications for the national economies. Factors of social welfare such as unemployment rates, GDP growth, and income inequality statistics influence perceptions of the EU’s effectiveness in promoting prosperity and stability. Periods of economic downturns, such as the global financial crisis and the sovereign debt crisis, have been accompanied by heightened discontent with EU policies and austerity measures. The statistical evidence regarding “EU discontent” presents a complex picture of the challenges currently facing European integration. While the EU has achieved considerable success in fostering peace, prosperity, and cooperation (mostly in the economic field) it must address underlying grievances and adapt to evolving societal dynamics.

On the other hand, the surveys have also had an impact on the question of how dissatisfaction indicators can be improved. The social and economic changes have shown that the general well-being motivates the societies of the member states to consider voting for different political opinions depending on their welfare.

The analysis presented that Eurosceptic voting is reduced by the following factors:

• higher employment rates
• higher shares of the population with tertiary education
• higher quality of government
• higher shares of residents born in another EU Member State.

Conversely, higher (and growing) GDP per capita, a larger proportion of older individuals, and a greater number of residents born outside the EU are associated with increased support for Eurosceptic parties. It could be said that the reason behind the EU immigrants’ Euroscepticism is related to cultural and social inequalities. Many people who have been born outside the EU feel that there is a “glass ceiling” they cannot break through due to the characteristics of European societies.

Regions in a development trap experience a reduction in income, productivity, and employment growth compared to other regions. The causes of these failed integration policies are mostly connected to their own social and cultural situation. The agriculturally based regions cannot adapt to modern and green agriculture as quickly as estimated, and the cultural and social constraints are not solved as fast as required. All in all, the analysis indicates that the greater the intensity and depth of the development trap, the greater the vote share of Eurosceptic parties. This phenomenon can be observed in both the “soft” and “hard” forms of Euroscepticism.

It would seem that the longer a region remains in a state of development trap, the greater the impact on Eurosceptic voting. This suggests that there may be a need for the implementation of robust, place-based policies that could assist regions in extricating themselves from their development traps. Previous research has demonstrated that investments in cohesion policy have the effect of reducing Eurosceptic voting. There is a significant discrepancy between supranational-based politics and regionally-focused local government policies. While the issue of rising Eurosceptics remains unresolved, the EU places a strong emphasis on local solutions and development. This mode of political collaboration is also influenced by the sovereignty concerns of Member States within the European community.

Divided Vision or Developmental Stunt?

The task of obtaining a supportive stance towards EU politics from national electorates is more than having a political majority in the European Parliament. It is about the general well-being of the citizens of the EU. However, the criticism and the complex surveys about the citizens’ opinions also provide an opportunity for the European Union to reflect on its current position and consider potential reforms. As we navigate the complexities of a rapidly changing world, it would be beneficial to address Euroscepticism head-on and consider the underlying grievances driving it. It is important to note that statistics paint a somewhat sobering picture of the current landscape.

It would appear that there has been a fluctuation in the level of trust in EU institutions. The rise of Eurosceptic parties across the Member States may suggest that there may be a growing segment of those disillusioned with the status quo of the EU. Thinking about the future supranational politics has indicated that there have been some fluctuations in the level of trust placed in the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, with varying levels of confidence evident across Member States.

In light of these challenges, the European Commission has taken steps to address these concerns and restore faith in the European project by trying various methods to monitor the regions and political groups with the biggest discontent related to the EU. It is important to recognize that efforts to enhance transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement are crucial steps towards rebuilding trust among EU citizens. The institutions are encouraged to engage in dialogue with citizens who may have previously been less accessible. This is the essence of European thinking, reaching out to citizens through direct democracy. Furthermore, the Commission’s focus on addressing key issues such as economic inequality, climate change, and social cohesion is an indication of its commitment to addressing the root causes of Euroscepticism. In the future, it would be beneficial to take decisive action in order to reaffirm the EU’s relevance and effectiveness in addressing the aspirations and concerns of its diverse populace. This could be greatly assisted by a renewed emphasis on democratic principles, inclusive governance, and tangible results that improve the lives of all Europeans.

Benedikt Levstok is a graduate law student at the University of Szeged, Hungary, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, holding a talent scholarship from the Aurum Foundation. He is a former Vice President in charge of marketing and communication at ELSA Szeged in the academic year of 2022/2023, and Member of the ConSIMium Council simulation experience national team of Hungary at the University of Szeged, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences. His research focuses on the European values and the future of Europe.