DOCSLIB.ORG

EUROSPHERE Comparative Report WP 6.1/2 Van De BEEK, VERMEULEN & LAGERSPETZ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EUROSPHERE Comparative Report WP 6.1/2 Van De BEEK, VERMEULEN & LAGERSPETZ EUROSPHERE Comparative Report WP 6.1/2 van de BEEK, VERMEULEN & LAGERSPETZ EUROSPHERE COMPARATIVE STUDIES Work Package 6.1/2 Report, 2011 Minorities, the European Polity and a nascent European Public Sphere & Nationalizing spaces Jan H. van de Beek Floris Vermeulen Mikko Lagerspetz This paper can be downloaded without charge from: http://eurospheres.org/publications/workpackage-reports/ ISSN 1890-5986 EUROSPHERE Comparative Report WP 6.1/2 van de BEEK, VERMEULEN & LAGERSPETZ EUROSPHERE ONLINE WORKING PAPER SERIES Title: WP6.1/2 – Minorities, the European Polity and a nascent European Public Sphere & Nationalizing spaces Authors: Jan H. van de Beek Floris Vermeulen Mikko Lagerspetz This version: October 2011 Webpage: http://eurospheres.org/publications/workpackage-reports/ © EUROSPHERE, 2011 http://eurospheres.org © 2011 by authors All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including notice, is given to the source. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the EUROSPHERE Project. The statement of purpose for the EUROSPHERE Online Working Paper Series is available from the EUROSPHERE working papers website, http://eurospheres.org/publications/workpackage-reports/ Author Contact Information: Jan H. van de Beek University of Amsterdam the Netherlands [email protected] Floris Vermeulen University of Amsterdam the Netherlands [email protected] Mikko Lagerspetz Tallinn University Estonia [email protected] ISSN 1890-5986 (online) EUROSPHERE Comparative Report WP 6.1/2 van de BEEK, VERMEULEN & LAGERSPETZ Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Actor selection and a priori categorization ............................................................................. 4 2.1 Introduction: three categories of ethnic groups................................................................ 4 2.2 Organisations affiliated with majorities ........................................................................... 6 2.3 Organisations affiliated with national minorities............................................................. 7 2.4 Organisations affiliated with ethnic minorities ................................................................ 8 3 Methodological issues........................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Data & Method............................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Fishers model ................................................................................................................. 13 4 Typology of the organizations............................................................................................... 15 4.1 State-nationalist.............................................................................................................. 15 4.1.1 Ethno-national diversity.......................................................................................... 15 4.1.2 European Polity....................................................................................................... 16 4.1.3 European Public Sphere .......................................................................................... 16 4.2 Peoples nationalist.......................................................................................................... 16 4.2.1 Ethno-national diversity.......................................................................................... 16 4.2.2 European Polity....................................................................................................... 17 4.2.3 European Public Sphere .......................................................................................... 18 4.3 Regional national minority............................................................................................. 18 4.3.1 Ethno-national diversity.......................................................................................... 18 4.3.2 European Polity....................................................................................................... 19 4.3.3 European Public Sphere .......................................................................................... 20 4.4 Jews & Roma, (non-regional national minority)............................................................ 20 4.4.1 Ethno-national diversity.......................................................................................... 20 4.4.2 European Polity....................................................................................................... 21 4.4.3 European Public Sphere .......................................................................................... 22 4.5 Immigrant....................................................................................................................... 22 4.5.1 Ethno-national diversity.......................................................................................... 22 4.5.2 European Polity....................................................................................................... 24 4.5.3 European Public Sphere .......................................................................................... 24 4.6 Pro-immigrant / Anti racist ............................................................................................ 25 4.6.1 Ethno-national diversity.......................................................................................... 25 EUROSPHERE Comparative Report WP 6.1/2 van de BEEK, VERMEULEN & LAGERSPETZ 4.6.2 European Polity....................................................................................................... 26 4.6.3 European Public Sphere .......................................................................................... 26 5 Comparisons between the types of organisations ................................................................. 27 5.1 Diversity......................................................................................................................... 27 5.2 Group rights for national minorities and immigrants..................................................... 30 5.3 Adaptation of society to minorities and vice versa ........................................................ 33 5.4 Correspondence of vision with dominant national discourse......................................... 36 5.5 European Polity.............................................................................................................. 38 5.6 European Public Sphere ................................................................................................. 40 5.7 Summary of the findings................................................................................................ 44 5.7.1 Organisations affiliated with majorities .................................................................. 44 5.7.2 Organisations affiliated with national minorities.................................................... 45 5.7.3 Organisations affiliated with ethnic minorities ....................................................... 46 6 Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 47 6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 47 6.2 Organisations affiliated with majorities ......................................................................... 48 6.2.1 State-nationalist – Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) – Austria ...................... 48 6.2.2 Peoples-nationalist – Voorpost Nederland – The Netherlands ............................... 50 6.3 Organizations affiliated with national minorities........................................................... 52 6.3.1 Regional national minority – Federació Convergencia i Unió (CIU) – Spain........ 52 6.3.2 Jews & Roma – OJB Shalom – Bulgaria ................................................................ 54 6.4 Organisations affiliated with ethnic minorities .............................................................. 56 6.4.1 Immigrant organisations - Türkische Gemeinde Deutschland – Germany............. 56 6.4.2 Pro-immigrant/anti-racist organisations – Free Mobility Network (FMN) - Finland .......................................................................................................................................... 57 6.5 Taxonomy of discursive frames ..................................................................................... 58 6.6 The structural consequences of ethno-national diversity ............................................... 61 Appendix: Selected organizations............................................................................................ 63 Actor selection...................................................................................................................... 63 Appendix: Additional Tables and Figures ............................................................................... 65 Appendix: Tables with Raw Data ............................................................................................ 72 Explanation to the tables with raw data ............................................................................... 72 References .............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Success Story Or a Failure? : Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries
    I Inari Sakki A Success Story or a Failure? Representing the European Integration in the Curricula and Textbooks of Five Countries II Social psychological studies 25 Publisher: Social Psychology, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki Editorial Board: Klaus Helkama, Chair Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti, Editor Karmela Liebkind Anna-Maija Pirttilä-Backman Kari Mikko Vesala Maaret Wager Jukka Lipponen Copyright: Inari Sakki and Unit of Social Psychology University of Helsinki P.O. Box 4 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki I wish to thank the many publishers who have kindly given the permission to use visual material from their textbooks as illustrations of the analysis. All efforts were made to find the copyright holders, but sometimes without success. Thus, I want to apologise for any omissions. ISBN 978-952-10-6423-4 (Print) ISBN 978-952-10-6424-1 (PDF) ISSN 1457-0475 Cover design: Mari Soini Yliopistopaino, Helsinki, 2010 III ABSTRAKTI Euroopan yhdentymisprosessin edetessä ja syventyessä kasvavat myös vaatimukset sen oikeutuksesta. Tästä osoituksena ovat muun muassa viimeaikaiset mediassa käydyt keskustelut EU:n perustuslakiäänestysten seurauksista, kansalaisten EU:ta ja euroa kohtaan osoittamasta ja tuntemasta epäluottamuksesta ja Turkin EU-jäsenyydestä. Taloudelliset ja poliittiset argumentit tiiviimmän yhteistyön puolesta eivät aina riitä kansalaisten tuen saamiseen ja yhdeksi ratkaisuksi on esitetty yhteisen identiteetin etsimistä. Eurooppalaisen identiteetin sanotaan voivan parhaiten muodostua silloin, kun perheen, koulutuksen
    [Show full text]
  • The Europeanisation of Consular Affairs: the Case of Visa Policy
    DISCUSSION PAPERS IN DIPLOMACY The Europeanisation of Consular Affairs: The Case of Visa Policy Ana Mar Fernández Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ ISSN 1569-2981 DISCUSSION PAPERS IN DIPLOMACY Editor: Dominic Kelly, University of Warwick Managing Editor: Jan Melissen, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael’ and Antwerp University Desk top publishing: Desiree Davidse Editorial Board Karin Aggestam, Lund University Geoff Berridge, University of Leicester Rik Coolsaet, University of Ghent Erik Goldstein, Boston University Alan Henrikson, Tufts University Donna Lee, Birmingham University Spencer Mawby, University of Nottingham Paul Sharp, University of Minnesota Duluth Copyright Notice © Ana Mar Fernández 2006 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy, or transmission of this publication, or part thereof in excess of one paragraph (other than as a PDF file at the discretion of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael) may be made without the written permission of the author. EUROPEANISATION OF THE CONSULAR FUNCTION: THE VISA POLICY Ana Mar Fernández 1 INTRODUCTION The process of European integration challenges the concept of sovereignty. Since 1950, when six states decided to integrate economically and unite politically, an alternative to the traditional political order has developed. The Westphalian model of authority and representation controlling all functions of government over a given territory has been progressively substituted by a system that is more diffuse and multilateral, while at the same time communitarian and co-operative, supranational and intergovernmental. The process of European integration transforms the exercise of power. It conditions the autonomy of member states, forcing them to adapt the functioning of their institutional structures, the design and implementation of their policies, the identification of their values and the formulation of their interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain, Ireland and Schengen: Time for a Smarter Bargain on Visas Michael Emerson No
    Britain, Ireland and Schengen: Time for a smarter bargain on visas Michael Emerson No. 249, August 2011 Given Britain’s desire to maintain its own border controls, it will not join the EU’s passport-free ‘Schengen’ area in the foreseeable future. Ireland also has to stay out because it shares a common travel area with the UK. But there is now mounting evidence that this situation hurts tourism and businesses in Britain and Ireland. Non- European travellers can move freely between Schengen countries with a single visa, and many skip the further hassle of getting visas to visit Britain or Ireland. Already the Schengen area has an agreement to facilitate Chinese group tourism, which is growing fast, and from which the UK and Ireland are excluded. This problem could be overcome if Britain, Ireland and the Schengen countries would agree on ‘mutual recognition’ of the visas they issue, without the UK or Ireland having to scrap their border controls. or the present UK government, full A case of simple economics for Britain accession to the Schengen area, a passport- and Ireland free travel area covering most of Europe, is F For many people, the cost and hassle of obtaining a red line that it will not cross. Ireland shares a common travel area and land border with the UK visas for business purposes or to go on holiday and is also bound by this decision. However, it is act as a deterrent. One of the achievements of the becoming increasingly clear that the UK, along EU internal market, with free movement of with Ireland, is suffering serious economic and goods, services, capital and people, is that visitors reputational costs as a result of its separate visa from the rest of the world view the Union as a and border management policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Uva-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Eurosphere(s)? Fragmented and stratified or integrated and fair? A conceptual and pre-theoretical mapping exercise Bader, V. Publication date 2008 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Bader, V. (2008). Eurosphere(s)? Fragmented and stratified or integrated and fair? A conceptual and pre-theoretical mapping exercise. (Eurosphere online working paper; No. 09). Eurosphere. http://eurospheres.org/files/2010/08/Eurosphere_Working_Paper_9_Bader.pdf General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:28 Sep 2021 EUROSPHERE WORKING PAPER SERIES Online W orking Paper No. 09, 2008 Eurospheres? Fragmented and Stratified or Integrated
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEANIZATION and POLITICAL PARTIES Towards a Framework for Analysis
    01 Ladrech (JG/d) 28/5/02 11:38 am Page 389 PARTY POLITICS VOL 8. No.4 pp. 389–403 Copyright © 2002 SAGE Publications London Thousand Oaks New Delhi EUROPEANIZATION AND POLITICAL PARTIES Towards a Framework for Analysis Robert Ladrech ABSTRACT Europeanization is a term used to describe the effects of European integration on the politics and policies of its member states as well as the process of enhancing European-level political institutions. Within this growing literature there is no systematic effort to incorporate the role of political parties. However, party analysis has only recently begun to acknowledge the EU as an environment that holds potentially signifi- cant consequences for parties. In this article, I attempt to begin system- atic research on Europeanization and political parties by presenting a basic framework for analysis. Five areas are singled out: (1) policy/programmatic content; (2) organization; (3) patterns of party competition; (4) party-government relations; and (5) relations beyond the national party system. KEY WORDS Ⅲ Europeanization organizational adaptation political parties Introduction Europeanization is a term that has insidiously crept into the literature on European Union policy-making. In its broadest meaning, it refers to responses by actors – institutional and otherwise – to the impact of European integration. The responses may themselves influence the direction of European integration. Although more precise meanings vary (see below), a common denominator in most uses of the term is the identification of a national-supranational nexus regarding authoritative policy decisions. Consequently, most efforts involve the identification of appropriate levels of analysis, key institutional actors and policy competence ownership; employ- ing network analogies, etc., all as part of the attempt to label a process of 1354-0688(200207)8:4;389–403;024533 01 Ladrech (JG/d) 28/5/02 11:38 am Page 390 PARTY POLITICS 8(4) change and adaptation which is understood to be a consequence of the development of the European Union.
    [Show full text]
  • CEPS Wider Europe Matrix E-Version
    THE WIDER EUROPE MATRIX THE WIDER EUROPE MATRIX MICHAEL EMERSON PREFACE BY GÜNTER VERHEUGEN CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The views expressed are entirely those of the authors. CEPS Paperbacks present analysis and views by leading experts on important questions in the arena of European public policy. They are written in a style geared to an informed but generalist readership of policy-makers, government officials and corporate executives. This book was prepared at the invitation of Aspen Italia, in the context of the Italian Presidency of the European Union in the second half of 2003. Financial support from the Compagnia di San Paolo, Torino, is gratefully acknowledged. The paper also draws on a current project supported by the Science Policy Office of the Belgian federal government on conflict management in the divided states of the European periphery, undertaken by CEPS in collaboration with the Free University of Brussels (VUB); and on a recent project on the Middle East supported by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The text was finalised on 17 December 2003. Graphic designs by 6A Architects, London (www.6a.co.uk). ISBN 92-9079-469-0 © Copyright 2004, Centre for European Policy Studies. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means – electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise – without the prior permission of the Centre for European Policy Studies.
    [Show full text]
  • Europeanisation of Turkish Foreign Policy Towards the Middle East
    THE EUROPEANISATION OF TURKISH FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS THE MIDDLE EAST A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy DEFNE GUNAY Department of Politics The University of Sheffield October 2012 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Doing a PhD is not easy. My PhD turned out to be the most difficult journey that I have taken in my life. But thankfully I had amazing help and company in this journey. My family has always stood by me in all the ups and downs and they have never lost their faith in me. I owe this thesis to their support. I am grateful for my mum’s, dad’s, aunt’s, grandmother’s help and support throughout this journey. My supervisors Simon Bulmer and Ian Bache have been encouraging and supportive at all stages of the PhD and I am grateful for their supervision. Simon has always managed to find time for supervision despite his very busy schedule to give me the most helpful advice and guidance for my research. Thanks to Ian’s very valuable feedback on the first draft. I am also grateful that I have known lovely people in Elmfield and the GRC over the past five years in Sheffield: Jojo, Laura, Gabe, Flo, Adie, Dai, Rory, Ali, Hilal, Nuray, Joe who have shared their jokes, pints and shopping adventures with me. Thanks to Alaaddin for his lovely cat videos and his support. Suruchi has always been there for me throughout my five years in Sheffield, simply sharing everything with me including houses, successes and fears. Ozlem has always comforted me in our ‘Cesop’ discussions by comforting me that he is impossible to comprehend, while Berna and Özgün have always encouraged us to have faith in ourselves.
    [Show full text]
  • SCHENGEN”: a RACE AGAINST the TIME OR a FOOLS’ GAME? Yves Bertoncini | Director, Jacques Delors Institute
    TRIBUNE VIEWPOINT JANUARY 27, 2015 “SCHENGEN”: A RACE AGAINST THE TIME OR A FOOLS’ GAME? Yves Bertoncini | director, Jacques Delors Institute António Vitorino | president, Jacques Delors Institute T he “Schengen area” crisis is not merely a crisis in solidarity, but also, primarily, a crisis in the trust between co-owners that have no wish to move out of their shared abode. It makes for a race against time between bringing back national border controls and the Europeanisation of external border controls, a race whose conclusion must allow us to reinforce Schengen. In this Viewpoint, Yves Bertoncini and António Vitorino focus on three key issues. 1. Addressing the migrant crisis: enforced project have the merit of responding at once to the solidarity, ongoing mistrust lack of solidarity and to the lack of trust among the Schengen area’s member states. On the pretext of Facing the migration crisis, the deficit in solidar- helping the swamped countries in both financial and ity among the EU member states has manifested human terms, it is also a way of despatching national notably in the difficulty of establishing a balanced and European experts to areas where they can ensure burden-sharing scheme for the flows of asylum-seek- that the Union’s external borders are effectively mon- ers. To remedy the situation, the Commission pushed itored and that the asylum-seekers really are regis- through a relocation scheme, intending to relieve tered. That is exactly why these projects have sparked such swamped countries as Greece and Italy and call- such reticence on the part of the countries that could ing to benefit 160,000 asylum-seekers over two years, benefit from them, especially if they do not work in but which has been implemented in a downright fee- parallel on an effective relocation of asylum seekers.
    [Show full text]
  • EUROPEANISATION in Candidate Countries from Central and Eastern
    Paper prepared for the EPIC workshop in Florence, EUI, 19-22 September 2002. EUROPEANISATION in Candidate Countries from Central and Eastern Europe.1 Anna Gwiazda Department of Political Science Trinity College Dublin Abstract: This article examines what Europeanisation denotes and how it matters for the Candidate countries.2 The EU Member States will be also referred to for a comparison. The concept of Europeanisation encompasses “denotational properties” thus allowing for its broad application. Rational and sociological models of Europeanisation mechanisms may be utilised in both the EU member states and candidate countries. Apparently, Europeanisation poses a series of direct and indirect policy challenges and opportunities for nation-states; no matter whether they are part of the European Union or not. Hence, the no- Europeanisation or theoretical discrepancy arguments will be challenged. 1 The purpose of the paper is primarily explorative, and it is the first step in a larger project, i.e. PhD dissertation on Europeanisation effects in Poland entitled: “Europeanisation and Polish competition policy. A rational explanation of variance in compliance with the EU rules,” Trinity College Dublin 2 Candidate countries include: Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia (accession negotiations were started on 31 March 1998) as well as the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania (accession negotiations were started in February 2000). Introduction The sine qua non for accession to the European Union is the compliance of prospective entrants with the EU requirements. They are the political, economic and acquis criteria as laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993. In particular, the acquis criteria are important.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Sata Email: [email protected] Quellenstrasse 51 | A-1100 Wien | Austria Office: Room A416
    Robert Sata Email: [email protected] Quellenstrasse 51 | A-1100 Wien | Austria Office: Room A416 CURRENT POSITION Associate Research Fellow Political Science Department Central European University http://www.ceu.edu; http://www.politicalscience.ceu.edu; https://people.ceu.edu/robert_sata PAST & VISITING POSITIONS Lecturer – McDaniel College; Budapest Campus, Hungary (2014-16) Lecturer – Babes Bolyai University; Cluj Napoca, Romania (2008-9) RESEARCH INTERESTS Minority rights and accommodation, identity and value politics, populism and the challenge of diversity, political discourse and the public sphere, hate speech, gender politics and discrimination, Europeanization of political parties DEGREES 2006 – Ph.D. in Political Science – Magna cum Laude; Central European University, Budapest, Hungary Dissertation: Multicultural Pluralism: Towards a Normative Theory of Ethnic Relations 2002 – MA with Distinction in International Relations; International University of Japan; Niigata, Japan 1999 – MA with Distinction in Political Science; Central European University, Budapest, Hungary 1998 – BA in Political Science and International Relations; BA in Journalism and Mass Communications; American University in Bulgaria; Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria THESIS SUPERVISION TOPICS Multiculturalism, language use, minority political representation, media discourse, domestic violence, Roma education, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, terrorism in Nigeria, authoritarian preferences, Sino-Tibetan conflict, political campaigning, Syrian migrant flow, party systems in Eastern
    [Show full text]
  • The Abolition of Internal Border Checks in an Enlarged Schengen Area: Y Freedom of Movement Or a Scattered Web of Security Checks?
    Research Paper No. 8 March 2008 The Abolition of Internal Border Checks in an Enlarged Schengen Area: y Freedom of movement or a scattered web of security checks? and Securit Anaïs Faure Atger y Abstract This paper assesses some of the implications and practicalities stemming from the removal of land ean Libert and sea internal border controls in an enlarged EU on December 2007. Freedom of movement p represents a central feature of the supranational status of EU citizenship. Its practical application to the enlarged EU territory has constituted a necessary step to ensure equality among all European citizens. After providing an account of the processes and logics leading to the removal of checks at Euro f common borders, the state of play within the Schengen area is described. Particular attention is paid to the national security strategies carried out by the EU-15 member states currently in place and their e o consequences on the freedom of movement of individuals and on liberty. It is argued that by setting p the removal of border checks as an important security challenge, we are witnessing the emergence of alternative and scattered security measures on the mobility of people which might weaken the Europeanisation processes inherent to the liberalisation of mobility inside the EU. Landsca g in g An Integrated Project Financed by the Sixth EU Framework Programme The Chan Generated by the CEPS CHALLENGE programme (Changing Landscape of European Liberty and Security), papers in this series focus on the implications of the new security practices being implemented throughout Europe for civil liberties, human rights and social cohesion in an enlarged EU.
    [Show full text]
  • Varieties of Euroscepticism: the Case of the European Extreme Right
    I JCER Volume 5 • Issue 1 3 Varieties of Euroscepticism: The Case of the European Extreme Right Sofia Vasilopoulou Abstract The European extreme right has been understood as a monolithic entity regarding its Euroscepticism. Contrary to this, it is demonstrated in this article that in fact the extreme right adopts varying positions on Europe. Theoretically, party positions on Europe are conceptualised as a three-fold dimension, namely positions on first the principle , second the practice , and third the future of EU cooperation. From this, three types of Euroscepticism are identified. First, the ‘rejecting’ type comprising parties against all abovementioned dimensions. Second, the ‘conditional’ type containing parties not against the principle of EU cooperation but against its practice and its future. Third, the ‘compromising’ type including parties accepting both the principle and the practice of EU cooperation but opposing further integration. In accounting for this diversity, the article concludes that first, the parties displaying strong authoritarian values reject Europe regardless of their economic policy. Second, the parties refraining from ‘rejecting’ Euroscepticism support centrist and capitalist economic policies displaying comparatively less authoritarian values. THE ACCELERATED PROCESS OF EUROPEAN INTEGRATION HAS PRODUCED INCREASED levels of opposition, which have been ever more prominent since the early 1990s. Opposition has taken various forms and at times halted or delayed attempts to enhance European political unity. This is why trying to understand contemporary European politics without understanding the process of opposition to integration is a futile exercise. To that purpose the study of negative party positions on European integration and the European Union (EU), henceforth Euroscepticism, has gained prevalence in academic research informing an expanding literature during the last decade.
    [Show full text]