journal of european integration history revue d'histoire de l ...

Book reviews – Comptes rendus – Buchbesprechungen 143
Secondly, Chryssochoou’s plea for the use of metatheory in redefining the European integration
research agenda is equally grounded on weak foundations. Based on his characterization of
the European polity as a ‘confederal consociation’, he shows that one of the key problems that
troubles the present and future EU, the problem of democratic legitimacy, has to be put at
center-stage. Yet, why should this problem be approached through ‘metatheorizing’? Chryssochoous’s
claim for metatheory is based on two assumptions. First, the problem of transnational
democracy-building to overcome the challenges to democratic legitimacy can only be addressed
in the context of constructing a European civic sphere or demos; and second, theories of integration
are too narrowly confined as to be capable of dealing with these questions. The first assumption
is based on an ideal-typical characterization of the EU as a ‘confederal consociation’ and
forms part of a larger debate about a ‘demos-requirement’ for the workings of democracy, a
debate which he does not even hint at in the book. However, why should the reader be convinced
about the ‘civic sphere’ or ‘demos-requirement’ for the construction of a legitimate and viable
European polity when Chryssochoou does not provide compelling arguments why we should follow
this assumption? He definitely has a case when he claims that the ‘input’-side of democratic
legitimacy is heavily burdened, but he fails to deliver on the implications – he simply assumes
that European democracy has to be European demos-cracy. Consequently, the second assumption
– that extant theories of integration neither ask the right questions nor provide any answers to the
demos-cracy-problem– is a corollary of the first. However, only if we accept the ill-founded first
assumption does the second make sense.
Theorizing and metatheorizing/‘self-reflection’ on the European polity should follow criteria
which are clearly defined and transparent. Chryssochoou’s book has made a valid and
important point when affirming that democratic legitimacy in the EU is under stress – but he
has provided a nonconvincing argument as to why explanatory theory and positivist science
should not be able to address and deal with the question of democratic legitimacy. Furthermore,
even if we were to accept that we need more metatheorizing, Chryssochoou’s book
ends merely on a plea to do just that with little in the way of suggestions as to how to
metatheorize, and which rules to follow.
Berthold Rittberger
Nuffield College
University of Oxford
Wolfram KAISER – Using Europe, Abusing the Europeans. Britain and European Integration,
1945-63, Macmillan, London, 1999, 312 p. – ISBN 0-333-77635-6 – paperback:
18.99 £.
When Wolfram Kaiser's Using Europe, Abusing the Europeans. Britain and European Integration,
1945-63 was originally published in 1996 it was lauded on its dust jacket as 'indispensible',
'outstanding' and 'an important contribution to British history'. At that time, the
book deserved such commendations as it was the first archive-based study of Britain's reaction
to the formation of the European Economic Community (EEC). It has since held a notable
position in what has become a rich and dominant area of research and teaching, enough
for it to be reprinted with a new preface in 1999. Kaiser's subject – essentially British policy
from the Messina Conference of June 1955 to de Gaulle's veto of Britain's first application
in January 1963 – gained him a place in the historiography, but it was his argumentative
style and uncompromising judgements which motivated other historians to engage with his
work. To determine whether the dust jacket endorsements of Using Europe remain valid,
Kaiser's arguments have to be analysed, particularly in light of subsequent research. These
may be divided into those specific to 1955-63 and those concerning the wider history of
Britain and European integration.