Romani mobilities in Europe: Multidisciplinary perspectives International Conference, 14-15 January 2010, University of Oxford Conference Papers (Alphabetical order) 1 Romani mobilities in Europe: Multidisciplinary perspectives International Conference, 14-15 January 2010, University of Oxford Table of Contents E. Butler and L. Cashman Romani mobilities in the context of the new EU - what could or should the EU be doing? 4 I. Clough Marinaro Life on the run: biopolitics and the Roma in Italy 12 A. Contreras, A. Munté, T. Sordé Martí, Ò. Prieto-Flores Immigrant and Native Romani women: Building alliances and developing shared strategies 17 M. Conte, A. Rampini and O. Marcu Cash cash: young Roma and strategies for social prestige 29 Y. Erolova Labour migrations of the Bulgarian Roma in Poland (A case study on Roma from Balchik) 36 M. Greenfields Settlement & anti-Gypsyism: ‘if you know someone hates you before you start, you puts up the barrier’ 41 R. Grewal Institutional inertia and international initiatives: debilitating for Roma activism? 50 R. Guyon and M. Rigolot A new European issue for the French Republic: the schooling of the migrant Roma pupils and the Traveller children 56 R. Humphris How UK asylum and migration policy has affected Roma mobility - a historical perspective 63 Å. Jansson Deviance and Diversity: Zigenare and Romer within the Swedish Minoritetspolitik 75 P. Kabachnik and A. Ryder Nomadism and New Labour: constraining Gypsy and Traveller mobilities in Britain 84 E. Marushiakova and V. Popov Gypsy/Roma European migrations from 15 th century till nowadays 100 T. Marx ‘Roma-elite’ and the problem of re-presentation. First outcomes of a PhD-project. 106 A. McGarry Ethnicity-blind and differentiated treatment: fine-tuning the EU Policy on Roma 115 G. Picker Welcome ‘in’. Romani migrants and Left-wing Tuscany (1988-2007) 121 J. Richardson Discourse dissonance: an examination of media, political and public discourse and its impact on policy implementation for Roma, Gypsies and Travellers at a local level 135 I. Rostas The responses of Romanian authorities to Roma migration 166 C. Saletti Salza The adoptions of Rom and Sinti minors in Italy 172 T. Skotvedt Romanian Roma migrations to Norway – push and pull factors 177 M. Slavkova Romani migrations from Bulgaria to Spain: challenges and perspectives 184 M. Solimene Xoraxané Romá, Romanian Rom and Rome 189 2 Romani mobilities in Europe: Multidisciplinary perspectives International Conference, 14-15 January 2010, University of Oxford H. Synková Can NGOs serve as mobility channels? 194 P. Vermeersch Between Europeanisation and discrimination: the Roma as a special focus of EU policy 200 M. Willers, A. Ryder and C. Johnson Facilitating the Gypsy and Traveller way of life in England and Wales through the courts 211 S. Zahova Refugee migrations of Roma, Ashkali, and Egyptians to Montenegro and their impact on the communities’ social and cultural development 225 3 Romani mobilities in Europe: Multidisciplinary perspectives International Conference, 14-15 January 2010, University of Oxford E. Butler anandd L. Cashman Romani mobilities in the context of the new EU - what could or should the EU be doing? 1 The fall of communist regimes in 1989 and the rise in attacks on Roma during the subsequent economic liberalisation and restructuring process prompted many Roma to seek asylum in western European states. Opportunities for movement of Roma across Europe were further enhanced with the 2004/2007 enlargements of the EU which provided free movement for Roma, as EU citizens. However, high profile cases (e.g. Italy 2008 and Northern Ireland 2009) provide evidence of increased tensions within host communities and heightened levels of general intolerance towards migrant populations. Some activists and scholars (e.g. Amato and Batt 1998; de Schutter 2005; Xanthaki 2005; EU Roma Policy Coalition 2008) have argued that given the geographical spread of anti-Romani sentiment and discrimination, compounded by increased Romani mobility following EU enlargement, the EU should be the natural choice to lead policy developments to tackle such prejudices. Others argue against this discourse, on the grounds that the EU is not equipped to deal effectively with questions of minority rights and thus these should be left to member states or institutions such as the Council of Europe and OSCE (de Witte 2004; Klimova-Alexander 2005). This debate is important and not just for the identification of solutions to the problems of discrimination faced by Roma. It is argued in this paper that this debate reflects a much larger political discussion about EU responsibility and identity. The failure of the EU's reform process over the past ten years, including the Constitutional and Lisbon Treaties, to capture the hearts and minds of the European public emphasises the stagnant nature of the EU vis-à-vis its market oriented versus social dimensions. This highlights a crisis of identity for the EU. The Romani migration issue is one case which has the potential to force scholars to think afresh and confirm the social functions/responsibilities of the EU. This is important because until the EU clarifies its position as a 'social' actor it will never be in a position to (1) move forward as a political entity or (2) play an active role in the development of Roma rights, thus prolonging the debate Romani activists are currently engaged in and preventing active solutions to the problems faced by Europe's Romani population. While is it is impossible to know exactly how many Roma are now EU citizens, 10 million is the number most cited by researchers and policy makers, albeit with caution (DG Employment and Social Affairs 2004 p.6; European Parliament 2008; however, Cahn and Guild (2008) estimate a lower number between 4.5 and 7.5 million). The ‘Roma’ category remains problematic but we use it in this paper as an umbrella term, much in the same way that it is employed by EU policy makers (European Commission 2003: 4; DG Employment and Social Affairs 2004: 6; Commission of the European Communities 2008: n3). Roma suffer from extremely high levels of social exclusion in most EU member states, unemployment levels are high and participation in education, particularly secondary and higher education is too low for states that base future 1 Work-in-progress. Please do not cite without permission of authors. For a more detailed paper please contact the authors: Dr Eamonn Butler (University of Glasgow): [email protected] Dr Laura Cashman (Canterbury Christ Church University): [email protected] 4 Romani mobilities in Europe: Multidisciplinary perspectives International Conference, 14-15 January 2010, University of Oxford growth on the development of a knowledge economy. The fears of ‘old’ member states of mass migration of Roma once their 'home' states joined the EU have been realised to an extent. The attempts to delay accession until the social exclusion problems at home were resolved failed, and the immigration of Roma to the UK, Ireland and Italy in particular, increased tensions and exacerbated existing anti-Romani sentiments. Following the 2004 enlargement many states refused to open their labour markets immediately to citizens of new member states. However, this was deemed to be a fear of an influx of the so-called 'Polish plumber', as much as of Roma. The 2007 accession of Romania and Bulgaria saw ‘old’ states become even more reluctant to welcome migrant workers; but it was in Italy that the influx of Romanian migrants (Romani and non-Romani) reached such levels in 2008 that it constituted a political crisis. When Italy threatened to block all immigration from EU member states, on the basis of a threat to public security, it effectively undermined the free movement of persons – one of the core principles or four freedoms of the EU as an internal, common market with free movement for persons, goods, services and capital. Although member states can withhold these freedoms on the basis that individuals threaten public policy, public security or public health, the use of Romani migration as the threat in this case clearly emphasised a growing intolerance that has major implications for the EU vis-a-vis the relationship between national and supranational levels of governance. Nonetheless, the framing of Romani migration/mobility and Romani social exclusion as a European problem had begun long before the Italian crisis of 2008. In 1998 the Reflection Group on the Long-Term Implications of EU Enlargement recommended ‘direct EU involvement where a minority issue transcends the borders of member-states’ (Amato and Batt 1998: 1). As noted above, during the accession negotiations significant pressure was exerted on applicant states (and much financial support was provided through programmes such as PHARE (see: European Commission 2003)) to develop strategies to integrate Roma better into their societies – and thus reduce the likelihood that they would seek to emigrate once the possibility was available. A good deal of research has been published on the influence of the EU accession negotiations on the development of Romani integration policy (Guglielmo and Waters 2005; Guy 2001; Kovats 2001; Ram 2003; Vermeersch 2004). Recently, Spirova and Budd (2008) published a study which attempted to measure how the socio-economic status of Roma changed during the accession process. However, throughout this process it was clear that responsibility for implementing integration programmes lay with member states and not with any central EU body. This is based on the long standing EU tradition of not interfering with how member states manage the national or ethnic minorities living within their borders. The fact that this approach ultimately failed to significantly improve the living conditions of Roma in new member states led many to debate whether it would be better to shift responsibility away from the state level and introduce new instruments at the EU level to better address the problems.