How does the crisis affect national parliaments?
The crisis highlights an old problem of representation: that is, representation of the whole versus representation of the parts, representation of the nation versus representation of provincial or local communities. However, since Edmund Burke’s famous speech to the electors of Bristol highlighting this dichotomy, modern parliaments are de facto arenas of representation of divergent interests, of deliberation about different perspectives on issues and of bargaining over compromises. 
In the novel polity of the European Union national parliaments had for decades been at the receiving end of European decision-making the outcomes of which they had to ratify (treaties) or implement (legislation). This has changed with the Treaty of Lisbon.Yet, it is the largely intergovernmental nature of the treaties concluded to tackle the financial and fiscal crisis that heightens the role of national parliaments in European politics in an unprecedented way. Not only do the treaties establishing the EFSF/ESM and the Fiscal Pact require the consent of national parliaments, the Fiscal Pact imposing debt ceilings as well as reductions of sovereign debt and deficit on the member states heavily constrains the leeway of MPs in the representation of voters’ interests. Thus, European politics geared towards rescuing the Euro impinge upon crucial policy fields hitherto largely the prerogative of national states (such as constitutional, fiscal, economic and social policy).  Decisions are taken in the name of Europe, but require national sacrifices. National parliaments are called to endorse the European decisions of their governments and simultaneously to sell the sacrifices to their constituencies. 
Research at SCEUS focuses on the new challenges national parliaments have to face during and after the crisis.