DOCSLIB.ORG

What If Europe Held an Election and No One Cared?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What If Europe Held an Election and No One Cared? \\server05\productn\H\HLI\52-1\HLI104.txt unknown Seq: 1 28-JAN-11 15:35 VOLUME 52, NUMBER 1, WINTER 2011 What if Europe Held an Election and No One Cared? David Schleicher TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................. 110 R I. THE SOLUTIONS AND PROBLEMS OF ASSIGNING POWER TO A POPULARLY ELECTED EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT .............. 118 R A. The European Parliament as a solution: bringing a popular voice on European issues into the separation of powers in the European Union ...................................... 119 R B. European Parliament elections as a problem: European Parliament elections track preferences about domestic policies and not European Union polices ......................... 123 R II. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS AS AN INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM: THE CONFLICT BETWEEN REFORM AND THE EXISTING SEPARATION OF POWERS INSIDE THE EUROPEAN UNION ................................................. 132 R III. EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ELECTIONS AS A MISMATCH PROBLEM: USING ELECTION LAW TO MAKE THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT PLAY ITS INSTITUTIONAL ROLE ............... 138 R A. The problem of mismatch in European Parliament elections ... 139 R 1. A model of mismatch: why sub-national or super- national elections track national party preference ....... 139 R 2. Applying the mismatch model to European Parliament elections ......................................... 144 R B. An election law solution to the problem of mismatch in European Parliament elections........................... 148 R 1. Electoral engineering and institutional design .......... 149 R 2. Using distribution requirements to reduce the mismatch problem in European Parliament elections ............. 152 R IV. CONCLUSION: THE MISMATCH PROBLEM IN AMERICA AND EUROPE ................................................ 156 R \\server05\productn\H\HLI\52-1\HLI104.txt unknown Seq: 2 28-JAN-11 15:35 110 Harvard International Law Journal / Vol. 52 What if Europe Held an Election and No One Cared? David Schleicher* Last June’s European Parliament (“EP”) election was widely considered a failure. Turnout was low across Europe, and, as has been the case in every EP election since they were introduced in 1979, voters responded exclusively to domestic cues in deciding how to fill the European Union’s only directly elected body. Campaigns were waged entirely on domestic issues outside of the purview of the EP, and the popular- ity of domestic prime ministers, who were not on the ballot, was the most important factor in determining the results. The EP is supposed to provide a popular check on the other legislative bodies in the European Union (“EU”), which are either appointed or directly controlled by member state governments, and thereby reduce the EU’s “democratic deficit.” Instead, the failure of EP elections to generate popular feedback on EU policy allows the deficit to fester and undermines the separation of powers inside the EU. This paper argues that the problems of EP elections are much like the problems in a variety of American state and local elections. Election laws ensure that national parties are on the ballot, and both legal limitations and strategic considerations make it difficult for these national parties to develop separate localized identities, or in the case of EP elections, Europeanized ones. Rationally ignorant voters who know little about the individual figures in these European bodies rely on the party heuristic that is available on the ballot, as it is the only relevant information that they have. Moreover, they do so even though it is unclear how closely preferences on European or local policies track preferences about national issues. The result is that national party preference ends up being reflected in these elections, despite the fact that the winners will decide policies at another level of government. Put another way, there is a “mismatch” between the institutional role the EP is asked to play in the EU’s separation of powers—the voice of European citizens about EU policies—and the level of party competition at which EP elections are contested. Mismatch problems are endemic in federal systems and are generated by constitutional structures that ask more of voters than they are capable of providing. However, they can be solved or at least mitigated with election law tools. Following a procedure used in a variety of developing countries, the EU could pass a law that the EP will only seat members from those parties that both won seats from a given EU country and received a certain percentage of the vote in a quarter of EU member states. This would force the coalitions formed in the EP—the so-called “Euro-parties”—onto EP ballots, as parties would need to contest elections across Europe. Voters thus would have access to a European rather than national heuristic on the EP ballot, which would better allow them to use these elections to express preferences about EU policy. INTRODUCTION Elections were held for the European Parliament (“EP”)—the only di- rectly elected body in the European Union (“EU”)—in June 2009, but you can forgive yourself if you missed them. Despite an unprecedented EU- * Assistant Professor, George Mason University School of Law. I would like to thank Michelle Board- man, Chris Elmendorf, Heather Gerken, Samuel Issacharoff, Rachel Harmon, Daryl Levinson, Jeremy Rabkin, and the participants at the Virginia Junior Faculty Forum and the University of Texas Law School Faculty Colloquium for their comments and advice. Also, thanks are due to Jared Fleischer and Matt Kelly for research assistance. \\server05\productn\H\HLI\52-1\HLI104.txt unknown Seq: 3 28-JAN-11 15:35 2011 / What if Europe Held an Election and No One Cared? 111 funded media campaign to spur turnout, substantial doubt surrounding the future of EU institutional reform, and an enormous economic downturn, European voters barely registered that this election was taking place.1 Turn- out hit an all-time low, and the widespread lack of interest allowed parties from the nationalist, xenophobic, and just strange fringes of European polit- ics to win seats.2 Furthermore, the actual behavior of the Members of Euro- pean Parliament (“MEPs”) had little to do with the results. Instead, as they have in every EP election since the first in 1979, voters responded exclu- sively to domestic cues, with the elections turning almost solely on the pop- ularity of domestic prime ministers and parties.3 In most voters’ eyes, June’s EP elections did not play a role greater than a midterm public opinion poll about people not on the ballot, despite the fact that these elections deter- mined the composition of an increasingly powerful body inside the EU. It was not supposed to be like this. In 1979, with great fanfare, European voters were granted the power to directly elect their representatives for the EP.4 In several successive treaties revising the institutional structure of the EU since then, the EP has been given new and stronger powers, making it a major player in the EU’s legis- lative process and leaving it only slightly weaker than the Council of the European Union, the legislative body in which member states of the EU 1. See, e.g., Mark´eta Hulpachov´a, Voters Still Unclear on EU Issues, PRAGUE POST, June 3, 2009, at 1 (describing election campaigns); Alain Lamassoure, Continuation of the European Adventure Relies on Ireland, IRISH TIMES, Dec. 10, 2008, at 18 (describing doubt about the future of EU reforms following Irish rejection of the Treaty of Lisbon); Martin Wolf, This Crisis is a Moment, but is it a Defining One?, FIN. TIMES, May 19, 2009, available at http://www.fullermoney.com/content/2009-05-20/FT_ThisCrisisIsA_ MomentButIsItADefiningOne20May09.pdf (“Europe . is not having a good crisis.”). 2. Total turnout was forty-three percent, far lower than the turnout for domestic elections, and a number that overstates actual interest since it includes turnout numbers from countries where voting is mandatory. See, e.g., David Charter & Rory Watson, European Elections: Extremist and Fringe Parties are the Big Winners, TIMES (U.K.), June 8, 2009, available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/ elections/article6452090.ece (discussing turnout); Jonathan Eyal, EU Parliament on Fringe of Lunacy; Newly Elected Rightist and Extremist Parties Have Little Clout but Could Undermine Unity, STRAITS TIMES (Sing.), June 14, 2009 (describing success of xenophobic, nationalist, and odd parties like the Pirate Party of Sweden); Swing Low, Swing Right; The European Elections, ECONOMIST, June 13, 2009 (discussing turnout and results) [hereinafter Swing Low, Swing Right]; Trouble at the Polls; The Worrying European Elections, ECONOMIST, June 13, 2009 (highlighting the success of xenophobic, nationalist, and odd parties like the Pirate Party of Sweden). 3. A model created by three leading European political scientists using national party preferences as its central variable predicted ninety percent of the seats won in the 2009 elections. Simon Hix, Michael Marsh & Nick Vivyan, Burson-Marsteller, Predict ’09, June 8, 2009, http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ wayback/archive/20090609081906/predict09.eu/default/en-us.aspx. Following the first EP election in 1980, Karlheinz Reif and Hermann Schmitt first diagnosed EP elections as “second-order elections,” or elections with results determined entirely by national party popularity. See Karlheinz Reif & Hermann Schmitt, Nine Second-Order Nation Elections—A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Election Results, 8 EUR. J. POL. RESEARCH 3, 8 (1980). This result has held up in studies of each EP election since 1979. See SIMON HIX, WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE EUROPEAN UNION & HOW TO FIX IT 80–84 (2008) [hereinafter HIX, WHAT’S WRONG]; Michael Marsh, Testing the Second-Order Election Model After Four European Elections, 28 BRIT. J. POL. SCI. 591, 606–07 (1999). 4. See SIMON HIX, ABDUL G. NOURY & GERARD´ ROLAND, DEMOCRATIC POLITICS IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 13 (2007) [hereinafter DEMOCRATIC POLITICS]. \\server05\productn\H\HLI\52-1\HLI104.txt unknown Seq: 4 28-JAN-11 15:35 112 Harvard International Law Journal / Vol.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parliamentary Principles
    Parliamentary Principles . All delegates have equal rights, privileges and obligations . The majority vote decides. The rights of the minority must be protected. Full and free discussion of every proposition presented for decision is an established right of delegates. Every delegate has the right to know the meaning of the question before the assembly and what its effect will be. All meetings must be characterized by fairness and by good faith. Basic Rules of Motions 1. Motions have a definite order of precedence, each motion having a fixed rank for its introduction and consideration. 2. ONLY ONE MOTION MAY BE CONSIDERED AT A TIME. 3. No main motion can be substituted for another main motion EXCEPT that a new main motion on the same subject may be offered as a substitute amendment to the main motion. 4. All motions require a second to begin discussion unless it is from a delegation or committee or it is a simple request such as a question of privilege, a point of order or division. AMENDMENTS FOUR WAYS TO AMEND A MAIN MOTION 1. Amend by addition 2. Amend by deletion 3. Amend by addition and deletion 4. Amend by substitution TWO ORDERS OF AMENDMENTS 1. First order is an amendment to the original resolution 2. Second order is an amendment to the first order amendment. 3. No more than one order of amendment is discussed at the same time. Voting on Motions Majority vote: the calculation of the vote is based on the number of members present and voting or a majority of the legal votes cast ; abstentions are not counted; delegates who fail to vote are presumed to have waived the exercise of their right; applies to most motions Two-Thirds vote : a supermajority 2/3 vote is required when the vote restricts the right of full and free discussion: This includes a vote to TABLE, CLOSE DEBATE, LIMIT/EXTEND DEBATE, as well as to SUSPEND RULES.
    [Show full text]
  • EYE2018 Programme 3 FOREWORDS
    European youthevent Programme 1-2 June 2018 Strasbourg #EYE2018 European youthevent Table of content Forewords .................................................................................................................. p. 5 The EYE follow-up ................................................................................................... p. 8 Programme overview ............................................................................................ p. 9 Activity formats ...................................................................................................... p. 10 Extra activities Collective events ............................................................................................................. p. 15 Activities without booking ............................................................................................... p. 18 Drop-in activities ............................................................................................................. p. 30 Artistic performances ...................................................................................................... p. 42 Bookable activities YOUNG AND OLD: Keeping up with the digital revolution ................................................. p. 50 RICH AND POOR: Calling for a fair share .......................................................................... p. 68 APART AND TOGETHER: Working out for a stronger Europe .............................................. p. 92 SAFE AND DANGEROUS: Staying alive in turbulent times ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Proxy Voting Guidelines Benchmark Policy Recommendations TITLE
    UNITED STATES Proxy Voting Guidelines Benchmark Policy Recommendations TITLE Effective for Meetings on or after February 1, 2021 Published November 19, 2020 ISS GOVERNANCE .COM © 2020 | Institutional Shareholder Services and/or its affiliates UNITED STATES PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS Coverage ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 1. Board of Directors ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections ........................................................................................... 8 Independence ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 ISS Classification of Directors – U.S. ................................................................................................................. 9 Composition ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Responsiveness ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Accountability ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2007
    Office of the Attorney General Annual Report 2007 Incorporating the · Second Progress Report on Implementation of Statement of Strategy 2006 – 2008, and · Third Progress Report on Implementation of Merrion Street Office’s Client Service Guide 2005–2007 and Chief State Solicitor’s Office Customer Action Plan 2005–2007 1 Contents Foreword by the Attorney General Introduction by the Director General Chapter 1: Roles and Functions Chapter 2: Mission Statement and Goals To pursue Mission as set out in the Statement of Strategy 2006–2008 Chapter 3: Main Developments in 2007 Part I Legal Developments Part II Organisational Developments Chapter 4: Progress Achieved in reaching Goal 1 – Advisory Counsel To support and advise the Attorney General in carrying out the duties of his office and provide specialist Advisory Counsel services in areas of law of importance to Government demonstrating responsiveness, efficiency and effectiveness. Chapter 5: Progress Achieved in reaching Goal 2 – Parliamentary Counsel To provide a professional legislative drafting service to the Government. Chapter 6: Progress Achieved in reaching Goal 3 – Chief State Solicitor’s Office To deliver a high quality specialist solicitor service to the Attorney General, the Departments and Offices in the areas of litigation, provision of legal advice and in property and transactional matters. Chapter 7: Progress Achieved in reaching Goal 4 – Business Support Services Merrion Street Office and CSSO To provide modern and professional corporate and business support services that
    [Show full text]
  • Greco Eval III Rep 2010 3E FINAL Serbia PF PUBLIC
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS DIRECTORATE OF MONITORING Strasbourg, 1 October 2010 Public Greco Eval III Rep (2010) 3E Theme II Third Evaluation Round Evaluation Report on the Republic of Serbia Transparency of Party Funding (Theme II) Adopted by GRECO at its 48 th Plenary Meeting (Strasbourg, 27 September – 1 October 2010) Secrétariat du GRECO GRECO Secretariat www.coe.int/greco Conseil de l’Europe Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex +33 3 88 41 20 00 Fax +33 3 88 41 39 55 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The State Union of Serbia and Montenegro joined GRECO on 1 April 2003. Following the referendum organised in Montenegro on 21 May 2006 and the declaration of independence adopted by the National Assembly of Montenegro on 3 June 2006 and in accordance with Article 60 of the Constitutional Charter of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro ceased to exist. Subsequently, the Republic of Serbia became the successor state to Serbia and Montenegro. GRECO adopted the Joint First and Second Round Evaluation Report on the Republic of Serbia (Greco Eval I-II Rep (2005) 1E) at its 29 th Plenary Meeting (19-23 June 2006). The afore-mentioned Evaluation Report, as well as its corresponding Compliance Reports, are available on GRECO’s homepage ( http://www.coe.int/greco ). 2. GRECO’s current 3 rd Evaluation Round (launched on 1 January 2007) deals with the following themes: - Theme I – Incriminations: Articles 1a and 1b, 2-12, 15-17, 19 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, Articles 1-6 of its Additional Protocol (ETS 191) and Guiding Principle 2 (criminalisation of corruption).
    [Show full text]
  • Updating the Debate on Turkey in France, Note Franco-Turque N° 4
    NNoottee ffrraannccoo--ttuurrqquuee nn°° 44 ______________________________________________________________________ Updating the Debate on Turkey in France, on the 2009 European Elections’ Time ______________________________________________________________________ Alain Chenal January 2011 . Programme Turquie contemporaine The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non- governmental and a non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Using an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. With offices in Paris and Brussels, Ifri stands out as one of the rare French think tanks to have positioned itself at the very heart of the European debate. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. Contemporary Turkey Program is supporter by : ISBN : 978-2-86592-814-9 © Ifri – 2011 – All rights reserved Ifri Ifri-Bruxelles 27 rue de la Procession Rue Marie-Thérèse, 21 75740 Paris Cedex 15 – FRANCE 1000 – Brussels – BELGIUM Tel : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 Tel : +32 (0)2 238 51 10 Fax : +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Fax : +32 (0)2 238 51 15 Email : [email protected] Email : [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Notes franco-turques The IFRI program on contemporary Turkey seeks to encourage a regular interest in Franco-Turkish issues of common interest. From this perspective, and in connection with the Turkish Season in France, the IFRI has published a series of specific articles, entitled “Notes franco-turques” (Franco-Turkish Briefings).
    [Show full text]
  • Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2005 Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Adrian Vermeule, "Absolute Voting Rules" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 257, 2005). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 257 (2D SERIES) Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO August 2005 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Chicago Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=791724 Absolute Voting Rules Adrian Vermeule* The theory of voting rules developed in law, political science, and economics typically compares simple majority rule with alternatives, such as various types of supermajority rules1 and submajority rules.2 There is another critical dimension to these questions, however. Consider the following puzzles: $ In the United States Congress, the votes of a majority of those present and voting are necessary to approve a law.3 In the legislatures of California and Minnesota,4 however, the votes of a majority of all elected members are required.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Parties and Elections to the European Parliament, 1979–2019 Green Par Elections
    Chapter 1 Green Parties and Elections, 1979–2019 Green parties and elections to the European Parliament, 1979–2019 Wolfgang Rüdig Introduction The history of green parties in Europe is closely intertwined with the history of elections to the European Parliament. When the first direct elections to the European Parliament took place in June 1979, the development of green parties in Europe was still in its infancy. Only in Belgium and the UK had green parties been formed that took part in these elections; but ecological lists, which were the pre- decessors of green parties, competed in other countries. Despite not winning representation, the German Greens were particularly influ- enced by the 1979 European elections. Five years later, most partic- ipating countries had seen the formation of national green parties, and the first Green MEPs from Belgium and Germany were elected. Green parties have been represented continuously in the European Parliament since 1984. Subsequent years saw Greens from many other countries joining their Belgian and German colleagues in the Euro- pean Parliament. European elections continued to be important for party formation in new EU member countries. In the 1980s it was the South European countries (Greece, Portugal and Spain), following 4 GREENS FOR A BETTER EUROPE their successful transition to democracies, that became members. Green parties did not have a strong role in their national party systems, and European elections became an important focus for party develop- ment. In the 1990s it was the turn of Austria, Finland and Sweden to join; green parties were already well established in all three nations and provided ongoing support for Greens in the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Speech in the 21St Century
    SPONSORS FREE SPEECH IN THE 21ST CENTURY JULY 3-4 / VIRTUAL CONFERENCE THE OVERVIEW Free speech is one of the essential democratic rights, and one of the most controversial. Whether it is Donald Trump’s Twitter account, Larry Flynt’s pornographic magazine, protests, the financing of an election campaign, or hate speech directed at migrants or minorities, free speech incidents attract intense attention and regularly provoke debate. The limits to our freedom of expression are changing. The forthcoming Free Speech in the 21st Century global conference will feature unique exploration into crucial freedom of speech is- sues. It will gather together the biggest names in constitutional law to debate the future of the human right that is so important to democratic society. You are invited to attend and participate. Mark Tushnet of Harvard, Jacob Rowbottom of Oxford, and David Erdos of Cambridge, among others, will evaluate how the matter of free speech is currently understood, and its future. András Sajó, a member of Facebook’s Oversight Board and a former European Court of Human Rights vice-president, will elaborate on the changing limits of freedom of expression. Jurij To- plak of Alma Mater Europaea and a Visiting Professor at Fordham Law will moderate the event. The conference is organized by Alma Mater Europaea international university and the IACL, the leading global association of constitutional scholars. It will be the inaugural meeting of the IACL’s Freedom of Speech research group. There is no registration fee. You are welcome to register here (http://iaclfreespeech.almamater.eu) and to ask your questions or participate in discussions at one of the most exciting freedom of expression events.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Nation State Also by David Hanley
    Beyond the Nation State Also by David Hanley CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY IN EUROPE: A Comparative Perspective CONTEMPORARY FRANCE (with A. P. Kerr and N. H. Waites) KEEPING LEFT? CERES and the French Socialist Party PARTY, SOCIETY, GOVERNMENT: Republican Democracy in France SOCIAL-DÉMOCRATIE ET DÉFENSE (co-editor with H. Portelli) SPANISH POLITICAL PARTIES (co-editor with J. Louglin) Beyond the Nation State Parties in the Era of European Integration David Hanley Professor of European Studies Cardiff University, UK © David Hanley 2008 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2008 978-1-4039-0795-0 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2008 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Objection Résolution Di ECR “Lead Gunshot in Or Around Wetlands”- Risultati Votazione Per Appello Nominale
    Objection Résolution di ECR “Lead gunshot in or around Wetlands”- Risultati votazione per appello nominale Favorevoli 292 + ECR Aguilar, Sergio Berlato (FRATELLI D’ITALIA- Intergruppo Caccia), Buxadé Villalba, de la Pisa Carrión, Dzhambazki, Eppink, Carlo Fidanza (FRATELLI D’ITALIA- Intergruppo Caccia ) , Pietro Fiocchi (FRATELLI D’ITALIA- Intergruppo Caccia ) , Raffaele Fitto (FRATELLI D’ITALIA - Intergruppo Caccia ) , Geuking, Kempa, Lundgren, Nicola Procaccini (FRATELLI D’ITALIA- Intergruppo Caccia ) , Rooken, Roos, Ruissen, Slabakov, Raffaele Stancanelli (FRATELLI D’ITALIA- Intergruppo Caccia ) Stegrud, Terheş, Tertsch, Tomaševski, Tomašić, Tošenovský, Vondra, Vrecionová, Weimers, Zahradil GUE/NGL: Konečná, MacManus ID: Matteo Adinolfi (LEGA- Intergruppo Caccia) , Anderson, Androuët, Annemans, Simona Baldassarre (LEGA), Bardella , Alessandra Basso (LEGA), Bay, Beck, Berg, Bilde, Mara Bizzotto (LEGA- Intergruppo Caccia ) , Blaško, Anna Cinzia Bonfrisco (LEGA), Paolo Borchia (LEGA), Buchheit, Marco Campomenosi, (LEGA- Intergruppo Caccia ), Massimo Casanova (LEGA- Intergruppo Caccia ) ; Susanna Ceccardi (LEGA- Intergruppo Caccia ) , Angelo Ciocca (LEGA), Collard, Rosanna Conte (LEGA- Intergruppo Caccia) , Gianantonio Da Re, (LEGA- Intergruppo Caccia ) David, De Man, Francesca Donato (LEGA- Intergruppo Caccia ), Marco Dreosto (LEGA- Intergruppo Caccia ), Fest, Gianna Gancia (LEGA), Garraud, Grant, Griset, Haider, Hakkarainen, Huhtasaari, Jalkh, Jamet, Juvin, Krah, Kuhs, Lacapelle, Oscar Lancini (LEGA- Intergruppo Caccia ), Laporte, Lebreton,
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Cost of September 11 Liz Fekete
    Racism: the hidden cost of September 11 Liz Fekete Racism: the hidden cost of September 11 Liz Fekete A special issue of the European Race Bulletin Globalisation has set up a monolithic economic system; September 11 threatens to engender a monolithic political culture. Together, they spell the end of civil society. – A. Sivanandan, Director, Institute of Race Relations Institute of Race Relations 2-6 Leeke Street, London WC1X 9HS Tel: 020 7837 0041 Fax: 020 7278 0623 Web: www.irr.org.uk Email: [email protected] Liz Fekete is head of European research at the Insitute of Race Relations where she edits the European Race Bulletin. It is published quarterly and available on subscription from the IRR (£10 for individuals, £25 for institutions). •••••• This report was compiled with the help of Saba Bahar, Jenny Bourne, Norberto Laguia Casaus, Barry Croft, Rhona Desmond, Imogen Forster, Haifa Hammami, Lotta Holmberg, Vincent Homolka, Mieke Hoppe, Fida Jeries, Simon Katzenellenbogen, Virginia MacFadyen, Nitole Rahman, Hazel Waters, and Chris Woodall. Special thanks to Tony Bunyan, Frances Webber and Statewatch. © Institute of Race Relations 2002 ISBN 085001 0632 Cover Image by David Drew Designed by Harmit Athwal Printed by Russell Press Ltd European Race Bulletin No. 40 Contents Introduction 1 1. The EU approach to combating terrorism 2 2. Removing refugee protection 6 3. Racism and the security state 10 4. Popular racism: one culture, one civilisation 16 References 22 European Race Bulletin No. 40 Introduction ollowing the events of September 11, it became commonplace to say that the world would Fnever be the same again.
    [Show full text]