Search

This paper compares and contrasts the discourses and practices of intra-EU migration in France and the UK. In both, emigration and immigration are significant and contemporary facts of national life; in each, traditional patterns are being challenged; and in both cases, scare-mongering in this regard has been a dominant feature of recent discourse. In particular, the free movement of people associated with the 2004 and 2007 (but especially 2004) enlargements of the EU posed specific policy challenges to political leaders and local communities alike. In France, the phenomenon contributed to the rejection of the EU’s Constitutional Treaty; in the UK, the government failed first to predict the numbers of economic migrants from East Europe, and then to count them once they had arrived. Both countries, finally, are experiencing significant cross-Channel mobility: a microcosm of intra-EU migration per se. France is for sale, it would appear (cheap houses), while the French are for hire (cheap labour). These stereotypes should tell us something about the range of political discourses we can expect when exploring the characteristics of intra-EU mobility, and the relations between movement on the one hand, and public policy on the other. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European legal institutions have recognized legal protections for minority groups across Europe. These legal protections and other transnational legal norms increasingly define and shape domestic legal systems. Equally important to this dynamic, is the growing number and strength of civil society organizations that utilize international courts and law to bring domestic policy reforms. This process of internalization, by which international law becomes integrated, enforceable and meaningful within the domestic legal order, is increasingly determined by a dynamic interaction between international courts and civil society organizations. While many scholars have focused on the growing legalization of world politics, few have focused on the domestic effects of this process. Further, the role of civil society in the domestic internalization of international law remains virtually ignored. In this paper, I examine the conditions under which international law becomes institutionalized in domestic politics. In particular, if, how and why domestic politics and civil society shape the degree to which international law becomes integrated, enforceable and meaningful within domestic legal and political systems. To carry out this analysis, I explore the linkages between civil society, transnational law and its integration into domestic politics, focusing on anti-discrimination law of the European Union and the Council of Europe. I examine the process of internalization in the context of Roma housing rights in France and the UK. The three conditions that I explore are institutional fit, activism of state actors and civil society. I argue that the degree to which European law becomes internal to domestic law is driven by European-minded social actors who mobilize European legal norms and lead state actors to provide "surveillance" over the application of European law. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

?Dans un débat comme celui-ci, n'oublions pas que nous avons comme auditeurs tous les pays civilisés,' [In such a debate, let us not forget that we have all civilised countries as audience] President of the French Chambre des députés, 15.12.1922.Before electronic mass media, parliamentary debate and reporting of it played a central role in political communication and the development of national democratic public spheres. However, to what extent did parliamentary debates inter connect on a European wide level?This paper explores foreign policy parliamentary debating and speaking as means of transnational elite communication and to what extent foreign policy decision makers used national parliamentary debates and speeches consciously to communicate with a wider, European audience. It focuses on communication between foreign policy decision makers in governments, parliaments, diplomacy and military in Britain, France and to some extent Germany.This is done through a comparative study of four British and French statesmen, Aristide Briand, Austen Chamberlain, Winston Churchill and Raymond Poincaré for the first three to four decades of the 20th century. The paper discusses the search for coordination and good or bad faith concerning Anglo-French alliance policy and Franco-German rapprochement and reconciliation. It examines to what extent these elite foreign policy decision makers were aware of parliamentary debates in allied and adversary countries and influenced by the content of these debates. Equally it investigates whether the case persons sought to communicate with outside governments and parliaments from their own platform. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the past 50 years two sets of events have had a profound influence on the development of public policy on immigrant integration. The first is the challenge to public order posed by urban unrest in France in the early 1980s and in Britain beginning in the late 1950s. In each country, the public policy response to this urban crisis involved important elements of multiculturalism as part of a strategy to maintain public order. In each country the public policy response was also influenced by other political consideration of domestic politics, but policies that at least implicitly recognized differentiated community (or "minority") needs and benefits were common to each of these approaches. The second set of events is generally related to the challenge of Islamic terrorism, and the recognition that some of it has domestic roots. In this context, there have been overlapping similarities in the approach of all European countries to questions of immigrant integration. The first similarity has been a movement towards policies of civic integration, and the second, a movement towards anti-discrimination policies. If the first has constrained policies of multiculturalism, the second has given new support and legitimacy to racial and ethnic diversity. Nevertheless, I argue below that national models—or policy paradigms— are still useful for understanding why convergence has been limited, that public philosophies in each country have differentiated both the intention and the approach of integration policy, and that these differences are most evident in the relative success and failure of different integration policies. If criteria by which success of integration is judged on the European level appear to have converged in European standards, national policy approaches have shaped the success of integration programs, sometimes in unexpected and contradictory ways. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article investigates the relationships between policy, public opinion and the media, through an examination of the agenda-setting functions of print media in Great Britain and France on the latest round of European Union (EU) enlargement. It examines if the frames the media apply to enlargement translate into patterns the public uses to interpret it.

This article assesses the reality of the contrasting perspectives on Alliance security arrangements in relation to the Franco-British relationship and its impact on the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) as of August 2003. Both France and Great Britain have elevated what was essentially a tactical approach to the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush into a grand strategic philosophy. In so doing, they appear--paradoxically--not only to have called into question the cohesiveness of the transatlantic relationship which both profess to believe in, but also to have compromised the vitality of the ESDP project which each sees as vital to Europe's future role in the world. The difference between France's notion of greater balance in the transatlantic relationship and Britain's notion of partnership is one of political semantics rather than of political principle. Each country aims to use the transatlantic relationship both to promote European interests and to influence U.S. policies in ways believed to foster a more just and stable world.

In this paper I will examine three different strategies of immigrant immigration in France, Britain and the United States. I will first argue that each country has developed a different form of multicultural strategy, and for each the implicit or explicit objective has been a different form of integration. In each case, the strategy has involved a form of ethnic recognition in public policy, a recognition that has not always been consistent with overall public philosophies. I will also argue that both strategies and objectives of integration have changed over time. Changes can be seen most clearly in the statements of public officials, on one level, and by the evolution of public policy on another. I will argue that these changes can be understood largely in terms of concerns about public order. Finally, I will look at questions of success and failure of integration. How can we understand success, and what constitutes failure? How do political actors understand these questions? How have success and failure been politicized, and why are some “failures” a measure of “success”? ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the evolution of asylum policy and asylum-seekers? situation in three West European countries ? France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Although Germany and the United Kingdom have seen a drop in the number of asylum applications in the last years, possibly in reaction to changes in governmental policy, France in 2004 recorded an increase in its numbers. For most of the 1980s and 1990s Germany received the most applications for asylum in Western Europe. In the late 1990s the United Kingdom replaced Germany as the top destination, and in 2004, France became the top destination. While many authors and journalists state that the change is a result of ?tougher? policies being implemented; therefore asylum-seekers move to the next preferable country, I believe that the explanation is much more complicated. I propose to question whether governmental policy, the nature of the asylum-seekers themselves, or some other factor can explain the change in ?pull? of these countries over time to asylum-seekers. This research will help us understand the importance of governmental policy in shaping immigrants? decisions, and if, over time there is a ?race to the bottom? across the EU member states in terms of asylum policy, or if in general the particular policy nuances of a country are significant in explaining asylum-seekers? final place of application. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]