1. G. Roberts and J. Lovecy, West European Politics Today (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1984) p. 193.
2. The neo-functionalist theory of integration envisaged the gradual transfer of policy responsibilities (known as spillover) to a level above the nation state, with the dynamic being provided by non-governmental political elites who would regard political activities on the European level as being in their own self-interest. These elites (political parties and interest groups) did not in fact provide the dynamic envisaged and remained subordinate to national governmental elites. For more on the failure of spillover, see C. Webb, 'Theoretical Perspectives and Problems', in H. Wallace, W. Wallace and C. Webb (eds), Policy-Making in the European Community, 2nd edn (Chichester: John Wiley, 1983) pp. 16-21
3. P. Taylor, The Limits of European Integration (London: Croom Helm, 1983) Ch. 2.
4. S. Bulmer, ‘Domestic Politics and European Community Policy-Making’, Journal of Common Market Studies, XXI (1983), pp. 349–63.
5. J. H. H. Weiler, ‘Community, Member States and European Integration: is the law relevant?’, Journal ofCommonMarketStudies, XXI (1982), pp. 41–7. Weiler argues that two dynamics have been crucial to integration: the ‘official’ constitutional approach embodied in the treaties and the unofficial set of gentlemen’s agreements which national governments have increasingly employed of late. ‘Non-binding instruments’ are typical of this approach: see W. Nicoll, ‘Paths to European Unity’, Journal of CommonMarketStudies, XXIII (1985), pp. 203–4.