@article{2016:reiding:die_europ,
title = {Die europäische Subsidiaritätsprüfung auf dem Prüfstand. Erwartungen und erste Erfahrungen aus dem deutschen und dem niederländischen Parlament},
year = {2016},
note = {Five years have passed since the introduction of the subsidiarity test
in the Lisbon Treaty . Hence, an evaluation of this instrument to
enhance the position of national parliaments in European political
decision-making is due . Looking back, parliaments have to decide
whether the limited benefits (in terms of increased public trust and
influence on the Euro- pean Commission or national government) have
been worth the considerable administra- tive costs . The glaring
differences in the actual use of the instrument from one EU member
state to the next have surprised both politicians and academics .
Arguably, neither external factors, such as the level of
euroscepticism, nor internal procedural differences offer satisfac-
tory explanations for these disparities . In spite of broad agreement
on most European poli- cy issues, Berlin and The Hague beg to disagree
on this test . In the Bundestag, the prevail- ing opinion holds that
upholding the subsidiarity principle is first and foremost the
responsibility of the government as guarantor of the national interest
. The parliamentary subsidiarity test is regarded as a measure of last
resort at best . For the Dutch Tweede Kamer, however, irrespective
whether it trusts national government or even the European Commis-
sion, the subsidiarity instrument epitomizes parliamentary self-esteem
. [ZParl, vol . 47 (2016), no . 1, pp . 85 - 101]},
journal = {ZParl Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen},
pages = {85--101},
author = {Reiding, Hilde and Meurs, Wim van and Hulsenboom, Zoë},
volume = {47},
number = {1}
}