An island of consensus? Explaining legislative cooperation in the European Parliament despite the GAL-TAN cleavage

Abstract

This thesis investigates the apparent paradox of enduring legislative consensus in the European Parliament (EP) amidst rising political polarisation. While the GAL-TAN (Green-Alternative-Libertarian vs. Traditional-Authoritarian-Nationalist) cleavage has increasingly structured European politics, its impact on the EP’s day-to-day legislative work remains unclear. This study asks why consensus persists in low-politicisation policy areas despite the growing presence of Eurosceptic, TAN-aligned forces. Using a comparative process-tracing analysis of the EU’s research and innovation framework programmes, Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe, this research examines the mechanisms of cooperation in a “least-likely” case for ideological conflict. The analysis, which includes a qualitative content analysis of over 6,700 amendments, reveals that the GAL-TAN cleavage is present but rarely the dominant axis of conflict. Instead, legislative debates are primarily structured by institutional interests (EP vs. Council over budget size) and distributive concerns (geographic and sectoral allocation of funds). The findings demonstrate that consensus is preserved through interconnected mechanisms. First, the technical and distributive nature of the policy files deactivates the main ideological cleavage. Second, TAN-aligned opposition is highly selective, targeting specific value-laden sub-issues without obstructing the entire process. Third, the EP’s expert-driven committee system acts as a powerful ‘consensus machine’, forcing compromise and marginalising extreme positions. Finally, Eurosceptic MEPs are channelled into roles that either integrate them pragmatically into the consensus-building process or lead to their legislative isolation.