Abstract

Abstract

This article analyses press coverage between July and October 2010 in three different European Union (EU) member states (France, Romania and Bulgaria) of the French government's expulsion of Roma in 2010. It asks what the international reaction to France's actions tells us about the way in which Europe is deployed in debates over discrimination, minority rights and freedom of movement in national media. The article finds evidence in national public debates of a Europeanisation of normative discussions, thanks to a willingness by a range of actors to use the EU in an instrumental way for political gain. However, the representation of issues and actors by the press also demonstrates the ways in which the prominence of supposedly European norms, and the framing of the EU's role, can be associated with national political dynamics, both in relation to the political environment and contemporary narratives regarding national identity.

View full text Download full textKeywords

EU Free Movement,

Non-Discrimination,

Minority Rights,

RomaRelated articles

View all related articles Add to shortlist Link Download Citation Recommend to:

A friend

Information Full text References Citations Reprints & permissions Abstract

This article analyses press coverage between July and October 2010 in three different European Union (EU) member states (France, Romania and Bulgaria) of the French government's expulsion of Roma in 2010. It asks what the international reaction to France's actions tells us about the way in which Europe is deployed in debates over discrimination, minority rights and freedom of movement in national media. The article finds evidence in national public debates of a Europeanisation of normative discussions, thanks to a willingness by a range of actors to use the EU in an instrumental way for political gain. However, the representation of issues and actors by the press also demonstrates the ways in which the prominence of supposedly European norms, and the framing of the EU's role, can be associated with national political dynamics, both in relation to the political environment and contemporary narratives regarding national identity.

Keywords

EU Free Movement,

Non-Discrimination,

Minority Rights,

RomaIntroduction

Despite being presented as a public security measure, the French government's decision to deport predominantly Roma populations in 2010 provoked widespread international condemnation.1 The intervention of the European Commission (EC), and subsequent high-profile spats with the French government, highlighted the growing role of the European Union (EU) on the issue (Ram 2010; Dawson and Muir 2011; Vermeersch 2012).2 Racial and ethnic-based discrimination is forbidden by the Race Equality Directive3 and the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights. As the EU's executive body, the Commission has powers to pursue EU members that fail to comply. In this instance, EU institutions adopted a firm stance on the basis that the deportations challenged core European rights relating to freedom of movement and represented discrimination against a minority ethnic group. The eventshereafter referred to as the Roma Affairbegan with policy announcements by then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy in July 2010 and continued with the actual dismantling of camps and deportation of individuals, through to an escalating political conflict between France and the EU (Nacu 2012).4 The political fallout enlarged significantly following the emergence of a circulaire5 apparently proving there had been targeting of a particular ethnic groupsomething until that point denied by the government. This amplified the European resonance of the debate and led to personal attacks on (EU Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship) Viviane Reding by Sarkozy. The international political climax occurred at a European summit with reports of dramatic clashes between the presidents of France and the EC. Shortly afterwards the French government negotiated an end to the threat of EU enforcement action with the Commission.

The case has implications for understanding the form, content and purchase of rights across national contexts in Europe, the range of values which underpin them, and the role of the EU in these matters. It gives an example of the tensions produced by the twin forces of mobility and European integration, highlighting contradictions in the system of rights associated with European citizenship (Aradau, Huysmans, and Squire 2010). This has naturally prompted some to ask what the Roma Affair tells us about Europe itselfas normative entity (Severance 2010) or liberal cosmopolitan force (Parker 2012). Yet, academic accounts risk reifying the exclusionary dynamic of the expulsions themselves. The focus tends to be on the meaning for the vertical (national/supranational) relationship (France/EU), when this affair has a more obvious significance for the enlarged new Europe including the countries that France was expelling toBulgaria and Romania.

Arguments over the ideational impacts and power implications of European integration have a long history but pinning down these effects is challenging. Francois Duchne's (1972) vision of Europe as a civilian power has been influential, emphasising economics, interdependence and the ideational over traditional definitions of state strength. Duchne also recognised that regional integration itself was productive of power as states seek to join or emulate. Contemporary approaches have attempted to conceptualise the process/form that ideational impacts have taken, differing along theoretical, methodological and empirical lines. Neo-institutionalist scholars now incorporate discursive factors in their attempt to track and explain policy change (Schmidt 2008; Crespy 2010, for a review see Radaelli, Dente, and Dossi 2012). Ideas are also central to studies of Europeanisation (e.g. Olsen 2002; Schmidt 2009; Ladrech 2010). But both remain largely at the meso-level of theorising, preferring a detailed, granular analysis of governance, eschewing normative questions about what Europe is, and what it should be.

Another group of scholars has addressed these questions in terms of what kind of soft or normative power the EU has (Manners, 2002, 2006; Hyde-Price 2006; Lerch and Schwellnus 2006; Pace 2007; Scheipers and Sicurelli 2007). Ian Manners (2002) initiated this debate by arguing that the EU's power should not be seen as either civilian or military but rather as normative exerting power over opinionas exemplified by its promotion of the international abolition of the death penalty. Key to this is the normative construction of the EU, formed through membership conditions that formalise certain ideas and values. The response of some has been to doubt the existence of such power, either due to the lack of coherence within the EU project (Lerch and Schwellnus 2006) or with straightforward realist reasoning (Hyde-Price 2006) that asserts ideas as secondary to national interests. Indeed, the long recession in the wake of the crisis over the Euro means that liberal hopes for a normative Europe that transcends or moderates the nation-state are looking rather utopian (Eiermann 2012; Rogers 2012). Normative analyses stand in stark contrast to the sober, technical quest of neo-institutionalists and the complex interaction between intermediate variables and multilevel policy-making. Yet, they also remain predominantly theoretical debates, with little empirical evidence about how ideas actually travel in the contemporary European space.

In spite of the confident language of the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental rights, we know that the normative role of the EU inspires controversy across Europe.6 The challenge of explaining and understanding which values are European norms and how such values can become Europeanised animates the remainder of this article. We see the Roma affair, the reaction to France's actions and the intervention of the EC, as revealing difficulties for attempts to cement common norms in the EU.

Our main question is: What does the reaction to the French government's expulsion of the Roma in 2010 tell us about the ways in which Europe is deployed in national media? We are particularly interested in the notion of a common language of rights and values across Europe, and the role of the EU in propagating or even enforcing such ideas. In analytical/empirical terms, we operationalise this via two objectives, first to explain the presence/absence of specific European norms in national political debates as represented in national print media, and second, to identify the dynamics of Europeanisation with respect to these norms.

We aim to show how political context and national approaches to minority questions affect the ways in which the Roma affair, and the role of the EU, are processed by national media. This sheds light on the ways in which domestic opportunity structures and liberal traditions interlink with processes of Europeanisation in the normative arena. This approach is not without risksof resorting to a reductive/essentialist analysis based on caricatures of the nation-state (Brubaker 1992; Bazin et al. 2006). A further problem is the extent to which post-communist countries can be usefully inserted into a simple typology of varieties of liberalism.

National differences can be instructive, however. One can link Republican ideals with France's reluctance to recognise the existence of ethnic minorities within its borders (Rechel 2008, 6467). For countries such as Bulgaria and Romania ethnic forms of identity are more likely to be powerful due to the presence of significant minorities at the creation of the modern versions of these nation-states in the early twentieth century. Post-communism brought along a process of re-nationalisation (Brubaker 1996), which exploited people's sense of helplessness brought about by the transition to capitalism (Tismneanu 1992, 302). This has meant a sometimes painful re-visiting of these states' approach to minorities and the rights they can be afforded. Post-communist countries are often accused of simply paying lip service to minority rights (Budryte and Pilinkaite-Sotirovic 2009).

In both Bulgaria and Romania, there is a deep ambivalence towards the minorities issuewith some formal recognition of multiculturalism that is weakly enforced. Bulgaria's 1991 Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and religion and the right to ethnic self-identification, but the existence of minorities is not explicitly stated. The term minorities is substituted by the expressions citizens whose mother tongue is not Bulgarian or who have a diverging ethnic identification (State Gazette articles 36.2 and 54.1, cited in Rechel 2008, 222). In addition, regional autonomy associated with ethnicity is ruled out, and the formation of parties on ethnic or religious bases is forbidden (Bell 1999, 255).7 In Romania, despite the strong influence of the French Republican model in electoral and judicial terms, these similarities end when it comes to minorities. The constitution explicitly recognises equality among its citizens (Article 4) and the citizens' right to the preservation, development and expression of their identity (Article 6) even if it has demonstrated a reluctance to enforce or protect these rights (Iordachi 2010). Although several ethnic political parties exist and all ethnic minorities are guaranteed at least one parliamentary representative, there are strong historical sensitivities in relation to regional autonomy on ethnic basis. Considering these historical trajectories, we would therefore expect the Roma affair to prompt divergent responses in our case studies along a spectrum of different perspectives regarding identity and minority rights.

Methodology

The rest of the article focuses on the political debates in France, Bulgaria and Romania as represented in three national newspapersLe Figaro, Dnevnik and Adevrul. These newspapers are selected as examples of quality press in the three countries. They offer insight into the national political debates but are also inevitably illustrative of specific political leanings. In all three cases, the choice of newspaper was made with the following criteria in mind: widespread circulation; recognised quality of journalism standards; and the presence of alternative views, occasionally contrary to the mainstream editorial policy of the paper. This maximised the potential for the coverage to be representative and comparative for all three countries. Le Figaro is the top-selling daily newspaper in France (average circulation 330,000 according to Association pour le Contrle de la Diffusion des Mdias (formerly Office de Justification de la Diffusion - OJD)). We would expect Le Figaro to provide the most robust defence of the French government's positionits then-editor (tienne Mougeotte) confirmed at the 2012 election that the paper would support Sarkozy.8 Dnevnik is a Bulgarian daily broadsheet known for its independent editorial line and professional reporting standards (circulation 30,000).9 As one of the country's foremost quality papers it would be more likely to enter into discussions regarding the moral/ethical dimension of the Roma Affair. Adevrul is one of the oldest Romanian newspapers and the top-selling broadsheet (average circulation in 2010 of 82,000). The newspaper was then owned by media mogul Dinu Patriciu, whose financial difficulties subsequently threatened its survival. Although considered left of the centre-right government of the time, Adevrul was known for frank debate among columnists representing opposing sides of the political spectrum. 155 articles from Adevrul, 123 articles from Dnevnik and 127 articles from Le Figaro were initially retrieved for analysis. These included news items, editorials, features and commentaries.

Using the online archives of these newspapers a search (keywords: Roma and Sarkozy) was carried out from the official start of the policy of expulsions until the dropping of the case by the EC (21 July 2010 to 26 October 2010). After irrelevant articles were removed, a qualitative analysis was conducted informed by three questions: (1) How was the Roma affair represented in national political debates? (2) Which norms emerged as axiomatic to these debates? and (3) How was the role of the EU in the Roma affair framed/presented by various actors? The comparative findings for each of these questions are presented below.

Representations of the Roma Affair in National Press Coverage

In Le Figaro, the original policy announcements regarding expulsions by Sarkozy were followed by reports of a rising chorus of domestic and international criticism in the public debate. The commencement of deportation flights, the discovery of the circulaire and the EU summit all became catalysts for a debate that was progressively more internationalised and Europeanised. This was both in terms of the criticisms of the expulsions (emanating from a wide range of international actors), and with respect to the defence put forward by the government over the policy (where the EU became more prominent). This was in parallel with a progressive deepening of discussions around how the actions of Sarkozy related to the idea of the French state.

Initially, the respective debates in Dnevnik and Adevrul were simply a reporting of foreign events, as their governments remained largely silent. For the Romanian government press releases were left to the Embassy in Paris. The Romanian Ministry for Foreign Affairs treated the deportations as voluntary repatriations10 and there was even veiled sympathy for France's problems with Roma criminals,11 prompting the EU Observer to accuse Romanian and Bulgarian public opinion of indifference.12 The debate in Adevrul became neurotically obsessed with the confusion of Westerners between Roma and Romanians.13 However, by the (September 2010) EU summit this changed with the toughening of the position of the Romanian government, interpreted as grasping an opportunity to attract more EU money for Roma integration projects.

The affair for Adevrul was therefore understood very much through the prism of Romania's own issues around Roma integration. The Roma minority was described as unmanageable, there was no reason why ethnic Romanians should also be affected by a problem without solution.14 A minority of commentators even expressed contentment that the Roma proved as difficult to manage abroad as in Romania, which had repeatedly been criticised on the issue.15The pages of Dnevnik reflected the measured response of the Bulgarian government. Official discourse was that the number of Bulgarian Roma returned would be small (up to 150). The government readily announced that, with Romania, Bulgaria would accept back those who had disrupted public order in France. The Foreign Minister made assurances that freedom of movement for Bulgarians would not be restricted. The underlying notion (also stressed in public) was to emphasise it as a French domestic issuea social rather than political problem. As Bulgarian Foreign Minister Mladenov said, all Bulgarian citizens abroad have to follow the laws of the respective country and the European requirements.16 PM Borisov went even further at a press conference following an EU meeting, claiming there was no Roma issue at all.17 This position, clearly driven by the prospect of Schengen membership,18 provoked surprise from foreign and local commentators considering that citizens of the country were directly affected.

In Le Figaro and Dnevnik, the voice of those caught up in the drama was notable by its absence. Adevrul meanwhile was torn between taking the stand of the victim by protecting the rights of Romanian citizens, and indulging in institutionalised racism. This was demonstrated by the dilemma over whether to report readers' often racist responses. For instance, Adevrul editor in chief Grigore Cartianu, known for his colourful vocabulary vis--vis the Roma,19 was forced to react on 23 August after a previous piece sparked a racist feast online.20 Racist remarks were tolerated in most opinion pieces at this time, but gradually, more substantial investigation features also began to appear, in an attempt to contextualise the plight of the Roma, culturally and historically.21Adevrul provided colourful investigations about the lives and adventures of the returnees and the term Eurogypsy entered everyday vocabulary.22 Roma voices were allowed to filter through, particularly complaints about double standards in the EU: we are not treated as human beings became a commonly echoed claim.23 However, the Roma issue was also securitised and criminalised in a language dominated by words such as thieves, vandals, beggars and criminals (often directly reproduced from the French press and the discourse of French politicians).24Dnevnik maintained a distance throughout that matched the strategy of the Bulgarian government, that emphasised the absence of a link with Schengen membership, and avoided conflict with Romania, France and the EU.25 By comparison, Schengen membership only seemed to play a marginal role in the pages of Adevrul, perhaps due to myopia about the importance of Roma integration. However France did warn Romania that it's future Schengen membership and the 2013 EU funding renegotiations were linked to the solving of the Roma issue.26Coverage in Bulgaria even appeared complicit with the French government position at times. Several articles in Dnevnik presented the returns as voluntaryusing government officials and the Bulgarian ambassador to France as sources. The arrival of every group of Bulgarian citizens was reported on, alongside occasional interviews with the people claiming they had been well-treated. The story was frequently repeated, alongside statistics illustrating the small numbers of Bulgarian Roma compared to those from Romania. The neuroticism here was over possible confusion between Bulgaria and Romania (the terminology was of Romania and Romanian Roma). There was also reference to the differing reactions of the two neighbouring countries: Bulgaria as cooperative and Romania as critical. Despite this, the French ambassador in Sofia was reported as critical of Bulgarian policy on the Roma, questioning how EU money for integration was being spent.

By September Adevrul was reporting that none of those deported in the summer of 2010 from France had committed crimes.27 Moreover, this evidence was presented as illustrating how France had bypassed EU normative frameworks and demonstrated the illiberal nature of state policies towards the Roma. This defensiveness reflected the fact that Romania was particularly exposed. In contrast to France and Bulgaria, Romania already experienced the issue of intra-European deportations only a few years previously. A number of articles in Adevrul recalled the Roma expulsion and segregation strategies deployed by the Italian government in 20072008, which showed the formation of a policy continuum of exclusion. Just like Italy before, France quickly called for the presence of Romanian police officers to help with the removals.28The press in France and Romania revealed a degree of hypocrisy regarding each country's blame in the affair. Adevrul was quick to use President Sarkozy's own family background (as the son of a Hungarian immigrant)29 to attack the politicisation of the issue as an attempt to define a new French national identity through anti-immigration policies. However, there was also the critique of the Romanian government for using the Roma as economic pawns to milk the EU for more Roma integration funds.30The Normative Dimension in Press Coverage of the Roma Affair

In the debate between government and opposition which played out in the Le Figaro, a fundamental tension developed between two norms: that of state sovereignty, and of non-discrimination. These values became central to an increasingly polarised debate. There was very little discussion of freedom of movement or minority rights or the context of EU-level normative frameworks. For example, the preliminary statement on France by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) was given broad coverage. This heavily criticised the French government's actions over the Roma, condemning a resurgence of racist incidents in the country.31 Applauded by non-governmental organisations, the French government's response to CERD was robust, questioning the committee's legitimacy and rejecting its findings: the committee is wrong, we have a country which respects republican and democratic principles and the rights of man it is beyond question.32Rather than European norms, a key polarising issue for the French press therefore became the security focus of Sarkozy's policy programme. De Villepin (Sarkozy's centre-right rival) was reported as challenging this securitised discourse, demanding a republican response to actions that have stained the French flag.33 He demonstrated particular concern about how the foreign press perceive and judge Francethe birthplace of human rights. It is notable that the de Villepin intervention did not include mention of Europe, or European norms, or the role of Europe. It was very much an introspective issue of national identity, reflected by French Immigration Minister Eric Besson complaint that France is a champion of self-flagellation over unresolved issues around the Vichy regime, and the colonial legacy.34For Adevrul, the main normative issue emerged as freedom of movement, perceived as a hard fought right, now under threat. Romanian commentators were reported as fearing the collapse of the European project, lamenting the crisis brought about by Paris's rejection of the Commission as guardian of the treaties.35 Public opinion in Romania was that the Roma affair proved the meaninglessness of European values. For many, the case demonstrated that the West had lost its democratic credentials since there was now clear discrimination against a certain category of EU citizens.36The distancing policy of the Bulgarian governmentreflected by Dnevnikspecifically avoided the normative dimension, apart from confirming that those who were returned had no complaints of human rights violations. There was normative debate, however, through reports of opposition parties, along with then-President Parvanov (elected with the support of the main opposition Bulgarian Socialist PartyBSP), who seemed keen to talk about values as part of national political debate. The BSP sought to challenge French policy and demanded the exact reasons for each expulsion. Dnevnik reported how Bulgarian opposition parties saw the affair as an opportunity to criticise what they labelled an attack on European freedoms. One notable example was the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (an ethnic Turkish party)which demanded the Parliament pass a declaration condemning the expulsions and rejecting any restrictions of freedom of movement in the EU and any breaking of international legal norms.37The engagement with normative values also emerged from other non-government voices in Bulgaria, such as sociologists and political experts. This way Dnevnik engaged with and presented the claims that the act of expulsion of the Roma from France was anti-European. The arguments presented suggested that the European directive for freedom of movement did not seem to apply to everyoneEurope was not following its own directives.38There were reports of public protests in Bulgariacalling for recognition of human rights and European citizenshipin front of the French Embassy in Sofia39 by Bulgarian Roma but also supported by other Bulgarians. In general, however, Dnevnik reported the reactions and opinions of other countries and international organisations but spent little time on reaction or response to the range of viewseither from the government or from the journalists themselves. The link with public policy problems relating to the Roma issue in Bulgaria was almost never made.

Returning to the debate in France, Le Figaro often avoided the explicit language of ethnic discrimination or racism, instead reporting claims that the government was stigmatising a societal group, by associating ethnicity (Roma), population (travellers) and criminality (Malik Salemkour, Ligue des Droits de l'HommeLDH).40 This language was echoed by opposition speakers (Parti Socialiste (PS), e.g. Benot Hamon), who described the action as a stigmatisation scandaleuse.41 The government response was a strong rejection, asserting the primacy of the rule of law, applying to all: Roma, travellers and French citizens.42 As President Sarkozy was reported as saying: the laws of the Republic apply to everyone present on national territory, and that includes nomadic populations'. Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux was quoted as describing the expulsions as a discussion between states.43The discovery of the circulaire shifted the normative critique as reported in France. Opposition politicians then emphasised how French and European norms are synonymousas Harlem Desir (Member of European Parliament -- Partie Socialiste, France) was quoted: This circulaire is absolutely contrary to numerous French, European and international laws, contravenes many fundamental rights recognised by the EU and Francenotably the principle of non-discrimination.44Following the EU summit, Sarkozy himself was keen to underline the alignment between French [republican] and European norms, saying that it would be in accordance with European rules and that the existence of illegal camps was not appropriate for the Republic or the European ideal.45 The national secretary for Union for a Popular Movement (UMP)Eric Ciottirepeated the refrain that the problem of the Roma was not a French problem, but a European problem.46 Following the summit, the final denouement was negotiated with the Commission (no further action was taken against France). Effectively France gave guarantees that its actions would be in accordance with the (2004) Free Movement legislation.47In the final phase of the affair, there remains little in Le Figaro about the underlying norms of non-discrimination and free movement. Each side in the debate was reported as firmly entrenched claiming the normative higher ground: the French government on one side, and the Commission on the other. The summit itself transformed the debateaway from the normative intricacies of the actual issue, and towards France's international affairs and the impact of Sarkozy's policies/behaviour.

Europe and the EU in National Press Coverage of the Roma Affair

It is notable that the EC initially supported the French understanding of the issue: a spokesperson for Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding confirmed: it is for the state to decide.48 This despite the fact that these events were taking place within months of the second Roma summit (April 2010) where non-discrimination and freedom of movement were underlined as key European norms that facilitated policies of inclusion for Roma (CEC 2010, 3). Yet, by the end of the events analysed here, the EC's role as defender (successful or not) of the rules on free movement and non-discrimination was certainly highlighted.

Pressure for an EU solution was strongest from the pages of Adevrul where there was support for the government view that the EU has a duty of care. The newspaper also lamented the cooling off France and Romania's historical friendship, their Latin bond apparently not enough to dispel the crisis.49 While the Romanian government framed the issue around a European responsibility, France proposed an intergovernmental summit with selected European allies on immigration in its attempt to push for new powers or instruments that could facilitate its policies against the Roma.50 The consequence was that the EU was forced to enter the arena to clarify its normative position. In the Romanian press, the emphasis was on freedom of movement, in France it was all about state sovereignty,51 while the EC spoke the language of non-discrimination and minority rights. The prevailing discourse for Adevrul thus began to revolve around double standards: Easterners versus Westerners and Roma versus other EU citizens. Journalists also deplored the apparent lack of adequate EU legal instruments.52In the French context, Le Figaro reported aggressive responses to Commissioner Reding's warning that France should respect the rules on free movement and freedom of establishment.53 Foreign affairs spokesman Bernard Valero was quoted as saying the measures completely conform with European rules, and do not undermine the free movement of EU citizens as defined in the treaties.54 The French example, in contrast to Romania, demonstrated a preference for selective Europeanisation. When the debate turned to the question of Roma integration, French PM Francois Fillon suggested a greater harmonisation of integration of Roma at the European level. However, this was in parallel with criticism of Romania for making the same link, that is using the idea of free movement and the Roma as a transnational minority to avoid taking responsibility at national level for integration.55Europe becomes the battleground for internal forces in the French state. A Vatican spokesman was reported as saying the French government's actions were in contradiction with the principle of free movement of citizens in the EU, and with the established rule of criminal responsibility and must not constitute the reason for judging of an entire group.56 However, the French response was to justify the policy via foundational ideas associated with the Republic. Minister for Agriculture Bruno Le Maire was quoted to remind the Vatican that in France, there is a separation of Church and State.57In Dnevnik and Adevrul, Europe was both solution and gatekeeper. The Bulgarian government was reported as conceding the need to integrate the Roma in Bulgaria and to use more efficiently EU funds provided for this purpose.58 The opposition was reported as criticising current programmes and advocating a new European conversation about Roma integration with Bulgaria playing a stronger role. The BSP rejected the implied conditionality of linking the Roma issue to Bulgarian membership in Schengen (something hinted by one of Sarkozy's ministers).59 The (opposition party) President argued that the expulsion of Roma was against European values and rules established before Bulgaria joined in 2007, particularly the attribution of guilt on the basis of ethnicity.60 He also declared his position against the link between the Roma issue and the entry into Schengen and the view that the problem is European as it affects European citizens from a particular ethnicity.

It is notable that when criticism of France does arrive from the Justice Commissioner Reding she framed her response poignantly within the arc of European history. Rather than referring to EU competencies, she complained that: It is a situation that I thought Europe would not witness after the Second World War. The general consensus expressed in Le Figaro is that Reding went too far and jumped the gun.61 However, the Commission president, and other Commissioners, were reported as unified in defending her role in protecting the treaties vigorously.62

Reports of Sarkozy's reaction in Le Figaro suggest that he completely ignored or dismissed the concept of a European role or functionreflected by the fact that he perceived Reding as an advocate of her country of birth, rather than the EU Commission. He suggested that Reding welcome the Roma in her home country of Luxembourg (which prompted an angry counter-response from the Luxembourg government).63We see a very particular kind of Europeanisation of the affair during the EU summit. The meeting is dominated by the famous violent exchange between Sarkozy and Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the EC. Rather than a discussion of the core European values, in Le Figaro debate focused on the appropriate behaviour of the Commission, and the various positions of the different players. Sarkozy attempted to contain and isolate the Commission. In this sense, the EC was being treated by the French presidency rather like another country. By personalising the issue (tagetting Viviane Reding) Sarkozy attempted to present the institution as over-reaching and thereby gain automatic support from other Member States for his position on the basis of state sovereignty.64 Angela Merkel's spokesperson confirmed that the country supported France against the Commission and the inappropriate tone of Reding's comments.

Ultimately, however, it was the bullying Sarkozy who was depicted as over-reaching, even in Le Figaro, especially in his statement on the intentions of Merkel to begin expulsions in Germany65 but also in his denial of the argument with Barroso. Pierre Laurent, national secretary of Parti Communiste Franais was reported as saying Sarkozy was damaging the country day by day. The summit revealed that France could not rely on total support from its European partners. Each state has a nuanced position in regards to the RomaItaly, Greece feeling the pressure, Romania seeking extra funding, but many such as Germany, UK preferring to keep a distance from the French scandal. The only overt support came from the Czech government which again emphasised the norm of state sovereignty.66

Hypocrisy around treatment of the Roma within the EU was exemplified by Sweden, whose European Affairs Minister, Birgitta Ohlsson, called for France to be sanctioned. However, the minister was quickly reminded by the Swedish opposition of the expulsion in July 2010 of 50 Romanian and Bulgarian Roma caught begging on the underground.67 For Adevrul, this signalled a return to the eternal issue: to whom do the Roma belong? Who speaks or should speak for them? Neither EU member states nor EU institutions seem to agree about whose problem they are and what solutions should be deployed.

Conclusions

This article explored the ways, and the extent to which, declarations about the EU and European rights acquire real meaning in the context of a Europe of heterogenous nation-states. The language of normative Europe is increasingly ubiquitous in the rhetoric of EU institutionsespecially since Lisbon declared a Europe of rights and valuesbut how is this diffused throughout national political debates? As Flockhart (2010, 792793) points out, the idea of the EU as central to the development of liberal rights and values in Europe is very much a constructed narrative often at odds with a broader historical analysis.

Interest in European rights has usually been the domain of legal scholars, or those interested in European citizenship (Shaw 1997; Maas 2005). Interdisciplinary approaches have recently started to emerge that examine the nascent European public sphere (see Dressler et al. 2012), but relatively little is still known about the political dynamics of European rights and values across different national contexts featuring divergent interests and traditions. Our analysis of the Roma affair in three countries provides a snap-shot through which to view the development of the so-called Europe of rights. The comparative approach offers value because it shows how political dynamics operate differently across national contexts. In this way, we can begin to identify in greater detail how, and when, the Europeanisation/nationalisation of normative debates occurs.

What we find is evidence of two pronounced effects. The first is a politicisation of normative Europea re-nationalisation of the EU qua normative powerwhere integration's moral dimension is twisted or manipulated to suit national political domestic struggles. The second, linked, effect is of a Europeanisation of normative discussions at national level. Here the existence of Europe as an additional venue to contest national decision making appears irresistible for opposition forces.

Our evidence shows how certain norms become more or less Europeanised as a reflection of internal political dynamics. This confirms that European values, and the framing of the EU's role in normative questions, can only be understood in relation to national political dynamics. These are, in particular: political opportunity structures, powerful narratives of national identity but also the EU's recent history of enlargement, where more recent member states are likely to assume a different posture towards the supranational institutions.

Domestic political concerns feature prominentlyin the vigorous confrontations with Reding and Barrosoreflecting looming electoral pressures. The framing of these conflicts also relate to France's confident position in the EU as a powerful founding member state. By contrast, Bulgaria and Romania as newcomers demonstrate their more balanced relationship with EU institutions and the integration process, shaped by a history of conditionality. While in 2010, they were full member states, the exclusion from Schengen membership haunted the pages of the Bulgarian and Romanian press.

Becoming embroiled in the Roma affair had divergent implications for our countries. France as a country at the heart of Europe could take its battle there, and the pages of Le Figaro are full of the fight for French values. For Bulgaria and Romania, there was far greater acceptance in press coverage of the European-ness of human rights. This can be linked to the historical relevance of the EU in the constitution-building of these states following Communism. We detect evidence of this with the repeated willingness of political actors in these countries to emphasise the European dimension of the issue and the principle of solidarity between member states.

Which Values? Which Europe?

What does our research say about perceptions of the role of the EU across Europe, and how this relates to different ideas about what the EU is for? We see a differentiated role for the EU across the spectrum of norms, which can be traced to the genesis and development of the norms themselves.

The free movement of workers was one of the four fundamental freedoms (the others being free movement of goods, services and capital) mentioned by the Treaty of Rome (1957). It has since been developed by various EU regulations, culminating in the directive of 2004,68 but has never been universalit has historically been limited or conditional of the status of the individual (initially only enjoyed by workers and now by those holding European citizenship). What does our evidence say about freedom of movement as a common European value, and to what extent is Schengen synonymous with such a value? The framing in the Romanian public debate was of freedom of movement as foundational to the process of European integration itselfthis was much less the case in France and Bulgaria. The evidence here is in line with analyses which note the fragility of any notion of European solidarity (Carrera 2011). Norms such as free movement do not emerge as an uncomplicated achievement of integration representing fundamental European values and they appear particularly vulnerable to politicisation.

This is presumably because of complex tensions between sovereignty, immigration and European integration. The EU has played a defining role over the notion of state sovereignty as it has been transformed in Europe since the end of the Second World War (Milward 1992). Immigration and free movement have been central to this story (Geddes 2000). The actions of the French government go to the heart of these debates. Communitarian liberals would defend the right of the state to exclude non-members on the basis of a political community's right to self-determination (Walzer 1983). The power of Europe to define and limit this right with respect to European citizens might seem to be in direct conflict with national sovereignty. What our analysis of Le Figaro's coverage demonstrates is that Europe can also be productive of sovereigntyallowing politicians to constantly rediscover their power vis--vis European rules.

The norm of non-discrimination is interesting as there is a more recent, but nevertheless well-established EU roleoften in enabling and facilitating free movement. In the French discussion, there is plenty of soul-searching around discrimination/racism, with the fundamental question (albeit often left un-said) being: is France racist? One can point to potential influence from the liberal tradition of French republicanism in pre-configuring the kinds of values which emerge in the public debate. Indeed the CERD report, widely referred to, explores the French tradition of non-recognition of ethnic minorities. It exposes a tension between contemporary European norms (of minority rights), and France's historical development (reflected in the non-collection of statistical data on ethnicity). Another tension emerges with the exchanges between Sarkozy and the Commission in the French political debate. Here we have the more traditional norm of state sovereignty challenged by the (relatively newer) role of the EU Commission in protecting core EU values.

In the coverage in Romania and Bulgaria, the rather more interrupted development of national liberal traditions and state sovereignty (when compared with France) could explain the differences in terms of which norms are emphasised and why domestic political considerations are viewed through the prism of European integration. Rather than the universal value of non-discrimination, it is the European value of free movement and the role of the EU that is centre-stage. The reporting of the Roma deportations in the Romanian press is characterised by a crescendo in the amount of coverage and a corresponding shift from mere objective reporting to emotive and colourful language. In Romania politicians and journalists seem to embark on a journey of realisation, during which initial indifference mixed with racism slowly makes room for an analysis of normative issues and a general assessment of the state of EU's legal instruments.

Finally, what does our analysis tell us about a Europeanisation of minority rights, where the Roma have potential to become a casus belli for EU intervention? The answer is they emerge as the most ambiguous and contested norms, where variable impact reflects the EU's internal power dynamics. This might derive from the fact that minority rights are not as yet enshrined in the acquis communautaire (Wiener and Schwellnus 2004). However, the EU has facilitated the expansion of concepts around minority rights, partly due to a consensus (following the fall of Communism in 1989) in 19901991 that the issue of minorities in post-communist regimes needed to be addressed (Kymlicka 2008, 3637). In the contemporary era, the EU has thus become central to these questions and the recognition of minority rights has been part of the enlargement process itself since Copenhagen (1993).

The outcry over France's actions, emanating from across the world, has more than an echo of the (century-old) call from the international community led by Wilson's US to support the minority cause. Here again the doctrine was only considered in relatively new or weak states in central and south-east Europe while it was studiously ignored when less convenient, or among allies or stronger states (Mazower 2012). The evidence here points to a similar displacement in public debates, where the problem of minority integration in the French debate becomes shifted onto Romania and Bulgaria. The game of EU enlargement arguably feeds this by placing greater emphasis on minority protection depending on the timing of membership (Grigoriadis 2008)newer countries enduring far more scrutiny over this topic than the original member states. However, the multilevel nature of Europe allows for a secondary displacement of responsibility for minorities in the Bulgarian and Romanian debatesupwards towards the EU.

For the Roma themselves, the press coverage provides precious little insight into the wider problematic of societal cohesion. Instead, we see several reasons why increased attention at the European level seems to have had mixed results (Ram 2007). While the norms of anti-discrimination and anti-racism appear to be embedded (at least formally) by European integration, others such as minority rights and free movement are only partially Europeanised, and the framework of European values in this area remains a lofty rhetoric which can be adopted and adapted when it suits, and usually not for the benefit of the marginalised, but for more prosaic domestic political interests.

Notes

[1] See for example, The Economist, 23/09/10: France v the world: How the Romani row has dented France's international standing.

[2] Italy adopted similar policies against the Roma in 20072008 with forced closure of Roma camps, mass fingerprinting (including that of children) and enforced repatriations of those presenting a security risk (see Fekete 2009).

[3] Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin.

[4] See for example September 2012 special issue of Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies.

[5] The circulaire was dated 5 August and signed by Michel Bart, Interior ministry.

[6] The meanings of rights, values and norms can be ambiguous. Here we use values in its broadest sense (as ideas about moral questions). Norms are seen as values which are commonly held across groups or societies; rights refer to those values which have become legally codified.

[7] Although the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, founded in 1990, is seen as representing ethnic Turks and has played a decisive role in Bulgarian politics.

[8] Le Monde (2 October 2010) Etienne Mougeotte n'entend pas changer la ligne du Figaro http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2012/02/10/etienne-mougeotte-n-entend-pas-changer-la-ligne-du-figaro_1641966_3236.html.

[9] Since October 2011 the newspaper has switched to online-only.

[10] Adevrul (27 August 2010) Ministerul Muncii: romii venii din Frana nu au fost expulzai, ci s-au ntors de bun voie http://www.adevarul.ro/actualitate/social/Ministerul_Muncii-_romii_veniti_din_Franta_nu_au_fost_expulzati-ci_s-au_intors_de_buna_voie_0_324568053.html.

[11] Sorin Ghica (20 August 2010) Adevrul S-au ntors euroiganii http://www.adevarul.ro/actualitate/eveniment/S-au_intors_eurotiganii_0_319768635.html.

[12] Adevrul (26 August 2010) Expulzarea iganilor romni, partea a doua: Ali 230 de romi trimii joi napoi n Romnia http://www.adevarul.ro/international/europa/Expulzarea_tiganilor_romani-partea_a_doua-_Alti_230_de_tigani_trimisi_joi_inapoi_in_Romania_0_323967952.html

[13] Viorica Marin (30 July 2010) Adevrul Nicolas Sarkozy ne trimite iganii napoi la pachet http://www.adevarul.ro/international/Nicolas_Sarkozy_ne_trimite_tiganii_inapoi_la_pachet_0_307169866.html#

[14] Adevrul (12 July 2010) VIDEO Cum au blocat hoii romni n Frana 120 de TGV-uri http://www.adevarul.ro/actualitate/eveniment/Hoti_romani_mai_rapizi_decat_TGV_0_296370743.html.

[15] Florin Iaru (7 August 2010) Adevrul Mica iganiad european http://www.adevarul.ro/florin_iaru_-_opinii/Mica_tiganiada_europeana_7_312638736.html.

[16] Dnevnik (25 August 2010) aeo: aa c poe e ce peca pao o ee(oa http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2010/08/25/950994_nikolai_mladenov_situaciiata_s_romite_ne_se_predstavia/.

[17] pa Hoaoa (16 September 2010) Dnevnik: opco: Hao ce eeo, e poe ca oa, a oo pa a ce ae ooc a oa Epoa http://www.dnevnik.bg/evropa/novini_ot_es/2010/09/16/961652_borisov_naloji_se_mnenieto_che_romite_sa_nomadi_na/.

[18] Dnevnik (17 September 2010) pac a o o: o a-cee c aep coo http://www.dnevnik.bg/sviat/2010/09/17/961928_jurnalist_na_lyo_mond_sofiia_nai-setne_si_nameri/.

[19] Grigore Cartianu (22 August 2010) Adevrul Panarrames rromales http://www.adevarul.ro/grigore_cartianu/Panarrames_rromales_7_321637836.html#.

[20] Grigore Cartianu (23 August 2010) Adevrul Am ntlnit i igani cinstii http://www.adevarul.ro/grigore_cartianu/Am_intalnit_si_tigani_cinstiti_7_322237778.html.

[21] Adevrul (24 August 2010) Spirala nociv a urii mpotriva romilor http://www.adevarul.ro/international/foreign_policy/Spirala_nociva_a_urii_impotriva_romilor_0_322168341.html.

[22] Adevrul (20 August 2010) Euroiganii din Bihor au fost repatriai joi din Frana, fiind ateptai n localitile natale http://www.adevarul.ro/locale/oradea/Eurotiganii-Bihor-repatriati-autoritatile-intoarcerii_0_320368162.html.

[23] Sorin Ghica (20 August 2010) Adevrul S-au ntors euroiganii http://www.adevarul.ro/actualitate/eveniment/S-au_intors_eurotiganii_0_319768635.html.

[24] Adevrul (12 July 2010) VIDEO Cum au blocat hoii romni n Frana 120 de TGV-uri http://www.adevarul.ro/actualitate/eveniment/Hoti_romani_mai_rapizi_decat_TGV_0_296370743.html#.

[25] pa Hoaoa (16 September 2010) Dnevnik: opco: Hao ce eeo, e poe ca oa, a oo pa a ce ae ooc a oa Epoa http://www.dnevnik.bg/evropa/novini_ot_es/2010/09/16/961652_borisov_naloji_se_mnenieto_che_romite_sa_nomadi_na/.

[26] Adevrul (28 July 2010) Romnia, pus la zid din cauza iganilor http://www.adevarul.ro/international/Romania-pusa_la_zid_din_cauza_tiganilor_0_305969973.html.

[27] Adevrul (1 September 2010) Europa, la vntoare de igani. La propriu http://www.adevarul.ro/international/Europa-la_vanatoare_de_tigani-_La_propriu_0_326967895.html.

[28] Adevrul (29 July 2010) Guvernul francez: Ateptm poliiti din Romnia s aresteze romii http://www.adevarul.ro/international/europa/Guvernul_francez-_-Asteptam_politisti_din_Romania_sa_aresteze_romii_0_307169788.html#.

[29] Adevrul (19 August 2010) Francezul Sarkozy i iganul Sarkzi http://www.adevarul.ro/international/Francezul_Sarkozy_si_tiganul_Sarkozi_0_319768606.html.

[30] Adevrul (26 August 2010) Soluie pentru igani: Romnia, ajutat de Frana, va cere mai muli bani UE http://www.adevarul.ro/actualitate/social/Solutie_pentru_tigani-_Romania-ajutata_de_Franta-va_cere_mai_multi_bani_UE_0_323968111.html.

[31] Le Figaro (12 August 2010) Discriminations/ONU: Paris doit rpondre http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/08/12/97001-20100812FILWWW00302-discriminationsonu-paris-doit-repondre.php.

[32] Le Figaro (12 August 2010) ONU/Roms: vives attaques de l'UMP http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/08/13/97001-20100813FILWWW00280-onuroms-vives-attaques-de-l-ump.php.

[33] Dominique de Villepin (23 August 2010) Le Figaro Une tache de honte sur notre drapeau http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2010/08/23/villepin-une-tache-de-honte-sur-notre-drapeau_1401652_3232.html#ens_id=1390910.

[34] Le Figaro (24 August 2010) Besson: 635 Roms ont t reconduits http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/08/24/97001-20100824FILWWW00577-besson-635-roms-ont-ete-reconduit.php.

[35] Ovidiu Nahoi (19 September 2010) Adevrul Nu despre igani e vorba! http://www.adevarul.ro/ovidiu_nahoi_-_editorial/Nu_despre_tigani_e_vorba_7_338436158.html.

[36] Adrian Halpert (28 July 2010) Adevrul iganii notri sunt i ai lor! http://www.adevarul.ro/adrian_halpert_-_editorial/Tiganii_nostri_sunt_si_ai_lor_7_306639341.html.

[37] Dnevnik (13 October 2010) C ca apae a aca eapa cpe eoppaeo a po o pa http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2010/10/13/976158_dps_iska_parlamentut_da_glasuva_deklaraciia_sreshtu/.

[38] Dnevnik (18 August 2010) MP: He ce oaa eopa a apc po o pa http://www.dnevnik.bg/sviat/2010/08/18/948422_mvr_ne_se_ochakva_deportaciia_na_bulgarski_romi_ot/.

[39] Dnevnik (18 September 2010) ap po ce cpa a poec pe pecoo ococo http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2010/09/18/962304_bulgari_i_romi_se_subirat_na_protest_pred_frenskoto/.

[40] Le Figaro (21 July 2010) Sarkozy stigmatise les Roms (LDH) http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/07/21/97001-20100721FILWWW00364-sarkozy-stigmatise-les-roms-ldh.php.

[41] Le Figaro (26 July 2010) Roms: une stigmatisation scandaleuse http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/07/26/97001-20100726FILWWW00379-roms-une-stigmatisation-scandaleuse.php.

[42] Le Figaro (26 July 2010) Roms: runion dcrie par la gauche http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/07/26/97001-20100726FILWWW00216-roms-reunion-decriee-par-la-gauche.php.

[43] Le Figaro (27 July 2010) Roms: pas de stigmatisation (Hortefeux) http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/07/27/97001-20100727FILWWW00570-roms-pas-de-stigmatisation-hortefeux.php.

[44] Le Figaro (12 September 2010) Roms: une association prvoit un recours http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/09/12/97001-20100912FILWWW00165-roms-une-association-prevoit-un-recours.php.

[45] Bastien Hugues (16 September 2010) Le Figaro Roms: Bruxelles, Sarkozy maintient le cap http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2010/09/16/01002-20100916ARTFIG00611-roms-a-bruxelles-sarkozy-maintient-son-cap.php.

[46] Le Figaro (17 September 2010) Ciotti approuve la colre de Sarkozy http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/09/17/97001-20100917FILWWW00315-ue-ciotti-approuve-la-colere-de-sarkozy.php.

[47] Le Figaro (19 October 2010) Roms: aucune procdure ne sera lance contre Paris http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2010/10/19/01003-20101019ARTFIG00308-roms-aucune-procedure-ne-sera-lancee-contre-paris.php.

[48] Le Figaro (29 July 2010) Roms: l'UE approuve la position franaise http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/07/29/97001-20100729FILWWW00428-roms-l-ue-approuve-la-position-francaise.php.

[49] Grigore Cartianu (13 September 2010) Adevrul De la Allez, allez! la Ales bules http://www.adevarul.ro/grigore_cartianu/De_la_-Allez-allez-_la_-Ales_bules_7_334836515.html.

[50] Phillips, Leigh (24 August 2010) Prospect of French anti-Roma summit disturbs EU presidency EU Observer http://euobserver.com/justice/30668.

[51] Ann Rovan (6 August 2010) Le Figaro Roms: Sarkozy ne plie pas face la gauche http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/2010/07/28/01002-20100728ARTFIG00570-roms-sarkozy-ne-plie-pas-face-a-la-gauche.php.

[52] Mircea Vasilescu (14 September 2010) Adevrul Blbial pe franuzete http://www.adevarul.ro/mircea_vasilescu/Balbaiala_pe_frantuzeste_7_335436454.html.

[53] Le Figaro (18 August 2010) Roms: Paris dfend ses mesures http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/08/18/97001-20100818FILWWW00431-roms-paris-defend-ses-mesures.php.

[54] Le Figaro (18 August 2010) Roms: Paris dfend ses mesures http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/08/18/97001-20100818FILWWW00431-roms-paris-defend-ses-mesures.php.

[55] Arielle Thedrel (9 September 2010) Le Figaro Roms : Paris et Bucarest veulent calmer le jeu http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2010/09/09/01003-20100909ARTFIG00663-roms-paris-et-bucarest-veulent-calmer-le-jeu.php.

[56] Le Figaro (27 August 2010) Roms: proposition du Vatican http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/08/27/97001-20100827FILWWW00505-roms-proposition-du-vatican.php.

[57] Le Figaro (23 August 2010) Roms: sparation de l'Eglise et de l'Etat http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/08/23/97001-20100823FILWWW00279-roms-separation-de-l-eglise-et-de-l-etat.php?cmtpage=4.

[58] pa Hoaoa (16 September 2010) Dnevnik: opco: Hao ce eeo, e poe ca oa, a oo pa a ce ae ooc a oa Epoa http://www.dnevnik.bg/evropa/novini_ot_es/2010/09/16/961652_borisov_naloji_se_mnenieto_che_romite_sa_nomadi_na/.

[59] po(Ape (23 August 2010) Dnevnik C e pea aeo a ap ee a ce opa c poc poe http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2010/08/23/950219_bsp_ne_priema_vlizaneto_na_bulgariia_v_Schengen_da_se/.

[60] Dnevnik (15 September 2010) pao a aoa c c peepa: Toa e ocpo apeee http://www.dnevnik.bg/bulgaria/2010/09/15/960971_purvanov_za_dialoga_si_s_premiera_tova_e_konstruktivno/.

[61] Le Figaro (23 August 2010) Roms: sparation de l'Eglise et de l'Etat http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/08/23/97001-20100823FILWWW00279-roms-separation-de-l-eglise-et-de-l-etat.php?cmtpage=4.

[62] Le Figaro (23 August 2010) Roms: sparation de l'Eglise et de l'Etat http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/08/23/97001-20100823FILWWW00279-roms-separation-de-l-eglise-et-de-l-etat.php?cmtpage=4.

[63] Flore Galaud (15 September 2010) Le Figaro Sarkozy enjoint Reding d'accueillir des Roms http://recherche.lefigaro.fr/recherche/access/lefigaro_fr.php?archive=BszTm8dCk78atGCYonbyztSSJv8nwz54rbFE4gstAGY2YlUEMuLmoHAn%2BoV%2BERp6u2IGtjAq08M%3D.

[64] Jean-Jacques Mevel (16 September 2010) Le Figaro Paris veut europaniser le dossier des Roms http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2010/09/16/01003-20100916ARTFIG00723-paris-veut-europeaniser-le-dossier-des-roms.php.

[65] Le Figaro (16 September 2010) Merkel voudrait aussi vacuer des camps http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/09/16/97001-20100916FILWWW00650-merkel-voudrait-aussi-evacuer-des-camps.php.

[66] Le Figaro (16 September 2010) Roms: Prague soutient la France http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2010/09/16/97001-20100916FILWWW00677-roms-prague-soutient-la-france.php.

[67] Adevrul (21 August 2010) Ministru suedez: Frana trebuie sancionat financiar pentru expulzarea rromilor http://www.adevarul.ro/international/europa/Ministru_suedez-_Franta_trebuie_sanctionata_financiar_pentru_expulzarea_romilor_0_320968061.html.

[68] European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004.

References

1. Aradau, C., J. Huysmans, and V. Squire. 2010. Acts of European Citizenship: A Political Sociology of Mobility. Journal of Common Market Studies 48: 945965. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02081.x. [CrossRef] 2. Bazin, L., R. Gibb, C. Neveu, and M. Selim. 2006. The Broken Myth: Popular Unrest and the Republican Model of Integration in France. Anthropology Today 22 (2): 1617. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2006.00424.x. [CrossRef] 3. Bell, J. D. 1999. The Revival Process: The Turkish and Pomak Minorities in Bulgarian Politics. In Ethnicity and Nationalism in East Central Europe and the Balkans, edited by T. D. Sfikas and C. Williams, 237268. Aldershot: Ashgate.

4. Brubaker, R. 1992. Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

5. Brubaker, R. 1996. Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] 6. Budryte, D., and V. Pilinkaite-Sotirovic. 2009. European Norms, Local Interpretations: Minority Rights Issues and Related Discourses in Lithuania After EU Expansion. In Diversity in the European Union, edited by E. Prugl and M. Thiel, 221236. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

7. Carrera, S. 2011. The EU's Dialogue on Migration, Mobility and Security with the Southern Mediterranean Filling the Gaps in the Global Approach to Migration. Brussels: CEPS (Centre for European Policy Studies).

8. CEC. 2010. The Social and Economic Integration of the Roma in Europe. 37 COM (2010)133 final, Communication from the European Commision, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, April 7, 2010.

9. Crespy, A. 2010. When Bolkestein is Trapped by the French Anti-liberal Discourse: A Discursive-institutionalist Account of Preference Formation in the Realm of European Union Multi-level Politics. Journal of European Public Policy 17 (8): 12531270. doi:10.1080/13501763.2010.513584. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ] 10. Dawson, M., and E. Muir. 2011. Individual, Institutional and Collective Vigilance in Protecting Fundamental Rights in the EU: Lessons from the Roma. Common Market Law Review 48 (3): 751775. [Web of Science ] 11. Dressler, W., H. Sicakkan, A. Fuga, V. Mitroi, and L. Terrazzoni. 2012. The French Republican Model, the European Diversity Perspective and the European Public Sphere. Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales 51 (3): 418447. doi:10.1177/0539018412445252. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ] 12. Duchne, F. 1972. Europe's Role in World Peace. In Europe Tomorrow. Sixteen Europeans Look Ahead, edited by R. Mayne, 3247. London: Collins.

13. Eiermann, M. 2012 Instead of Debating the Future of Europe, Liberals are Content with Retreating Back to the Nation-state. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/06/28/liberals-nation-state-parochialism/

14. Fekete, L. 2009. A Suitable Enemy. Racism, Migration and Islamophobia in Europe. Londond: Pluto Press.

15. Flockhart, T. 2010. Europeanisation or EU-isation? The Transfer of European Norms Across Time and Space. Journal of Common Market Studies 48 (4): 787810. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02074.x. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ] 16. Geddes, A. 2000. Immigration and European Integration. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

17. Grigoriadis, I. 2008. On the Europeanisation of Minority Rights Protection: Comparing the Cases of Greece and Turkey. Mediterranean Politics 13 (1): 2341. doi:10.1080/13629390701862574. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ] 18. Hyde-Price, A. 2006. Normative Power Europe: A Realist Critique. Journal of European Public Policy 13 (2): 217234. doi:10.1080/13501760500451634. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ] 19. Iordachi, C. 2010. Country Report: Romania. EUDO Citizenship Observatory. Florence: European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies.

20. Kymlicka, W. 2008. The Evolving Basis of European Norms of Minority Rights: Rights to Culture, Participation and Autonomy. In Protection of Minorities in the Wider Europe, edited by M. Weller, D. Blacklock, and K. Nobbs, 1141. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

21. Ladrech, R. 2010. Europeanisation and National Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

22. Lerch, M., and G. Schwellnus. 2006. Normative by Nature? The Role of Coherence in Justifying the EU's External Human Rights Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (2): 304321. doi:10.1080/13501760500452665. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ] 23. Maas, W. 2005. The Genesis of European Rights. Journal of Common Market Studies 43 (5): 10091025. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2005.00606.x. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ] 24. Manners, I. 2002. Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 235258. doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00353. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ], [CSA] 25. Manners, I. 2006. Normative Power Europe Reconsidered: Beyond the Crossroads. Journal of European Public Policy 13 (2): 182199. doi:10.1080/13501760500451600. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ] 26. Mazower, M. 2012. Governing the World: The History of an Idea. London: Allen Lane.

27. Milward, A. 1992. The European Rescue of the Nation-State. London: Routledge.

28. Nacu, A. 2012. From Silent Marginality to Spotlight Scapegoating? A Brief Case Study of France's Policy towards the Roma. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38 (8): 13231328. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2012.689192. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ] 29. Olsen, J. 2002. The Many Faces of Europeanisation. Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (5): 921952. doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00403. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ], [CSA] 30. Pace, M. 2007. The Construction of EU Normative Power. Journal of Common Market Studies 45 (5): 10411064. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00759.x. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ] 31. Parker, O. 2012. Roma and the Politics of EU Citizenship in France: Everyday Security and Resistance. Journal of Common Market Studies 50 (3): 475491. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2011.02238.x. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ] 32. Radaelli, C., B. Dente, and S. Dossi. 2012. Recasting Institutionalism: Institutional Analysis and Public Policy. European Political Science 11 (4): 537550. doi:10.1057/eps.2012.1. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ] 33. Ram, M. 2007. Anti-Discrimination Policy and the Roma: Assessing the Impact of EU Enlargement. Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy 7: 491514.

34. Ram, M. 2010. Interests, Norms and Advocacy: Explaining the Emergence of the Roma onto the EU's Agenda. Ethnopolitics 9 (2): 197217. doi:10.1080/17449050903117222. [Taylor & Francis Online] 35. Rechel, B. 2008. The Long Way Back to Europe: Minority Protection in Bulgaria. Stuttgart: Ibidem.

36. Rogers, J. 2012. European nightmare: the rise of citizens. Ideas on Europe. http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2012/07/06/european-nightmare-the-rise-of-citizens/

37. Scheipers, S., and D. Sicurelli. 2007. Normative Power Europe: A Credible Utopia? Journal of Common Market Studies 45 (2): 435457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00717.x. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ] 38. Schmidt, V. 2008. Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11(1): 303326. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ] 39. Schmidt, V. 2009. The EU and its Member States: From Bottom Up to Top Down. In Reflections on European Integration. 50 Years of the Treaty of Rome, edited by D. Phinnemore and A. Warleigh-Lack, 194211. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

40. Severance, K. 2010. France's Expulsion of Roma Migrants: A Test Case for Europe. MPI - Migration Information Source. http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=803

41. Shaw, J. 1997. The Many Pasts and Futures of Citizenship in the European Union. European Law Review 22 (6): 554572.

42. Tismneanu, V. 1992. Reinventing Politics. Eastern Europe from Stalin to Havel. New York: The Free Press.

43. Vermeersch, P. 2012. Reframing the Roma: EU Initiatives and the Politics of Reinterpretation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38 (8): 11951212. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2012.689175. [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ] 44. Walzer, M. 1983. Spheres of Justice. A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. New York: Basic Books.

45. Wiener, A., and G. Schwellnus. 2004. Contested Norms in the Process of EU Enlargement: Non-Discrimination and Minority Rights. The Constitutionalism Web-Papers p0009, University of Bath, Department of European Studies and Modern Languages.