roma people in the european union: a process of...

UNIVERSITEIT GENT

FACULTEIT POLITIEKE EN SOCIALE WETENSCHAPPEN

Wetenschappelijke verhandeling

LAUREN HEEFFER

MASTERPROEF EU-STUDIES

PROMOTOR: (PROF.) DR. HENDRIK VOS

COMMISSARIS: DR. FERDI DE VILLE

COMMISSARIS: DR. ELINE DE RIDDER

ACADEMIEJAAR 2011 – 2012

Roma people in the European Union: A

process of Europeanization?

aantal woorden: 24.243

Roma people in the European Union: A process of Europeanization? Lauren Heeffer

4


5

Table of Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 8

Foreword .................................................................................................................................... 9

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 11

2. Literature review ............................................................................................................... 13

2.1. Roma .......................................................................................................................... 13

2.1.1. Identity ............................................................................................................... 13

2.1.2. Minority group ................................................................................................... 18

2.1.3. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 20

2.2. Roma in Europe ......................................................................................................... 21

2.2.1. European initiatives: overview ........................................................................... 22

2.2.2. EU initiatives ...................................................................................................... 23

2.2.3. Minority policy: double standards ...................................................................... 27

2.2.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 28

2.3. Europeanization ......................................................................................................... 29

2.4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 31

3. Design ............................................................................................................................... 33

3.1. Research questions .................................................................................................... 33

3.2. Design ........................................................................................................................ 33

3.2.1. Framing .............................................................................................................. 33

3.2.2. Research question 1: identity framing ................................................................ 35

3.2.3. Research question 2: problem framing and Europeanization ............................. 36

3.2.4. Data .................................................................................................................... 39

3.3. Hypotheses ................................................................................................................. 43

3.4. Procedures ................................................................................................................. 44

3.5. Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 44

3.6. Limitations ................................................................................................................. 45

4. Results ............................................................................................................................... 49

4.1. Fundamental Rights Agency ..................................................................................... 49

4.1.1. Identity Frame .................................................................................................... 49

4.1.2. Problem Frame ................................................................................................... 50

4.1.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 52

4.2. Advising Committees ................................................................................................ 53

4.2.1. Identity Frame .................................................................................................... 53


6

4.2.2. Problem Frame ................................................................................................... 54

4.2.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 56

4.3. European Commission ............................................................................................... 57

4.3.1. Identity Frame .................................................................................................... 57

4.3.2. Problem Frame ................................................................................................... 58

4.3.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 61

4.4. Council ....................................................................................................................... 62

4.4.1. Identity Frame .................................................................................................... 62

4.4.2. Problem Frame ................................................................................................... 62

4.4.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 63

4.5. European Parliament .................................................................................................. 64

4.5.1. Identity Frame .................................................................................................... 64

4.5.2. Problem Frame ................................................................................................... 64

4.5.3. Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 65

5. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 67

5.1. Roma identity ............................................................................................................ 67

5.2. ‘The Roma problem’ ................................................................................................. 71

5.3. Europeanization? ....................................................................................................... 72

6. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 77

7. Recommendations for future research .............................................................................. 79

References ................................................................................................................................ 80

Documents ................................................................................................................................ 83

Appendix A: FRA Analysis ..................................................................................................... 86

Appendix B: CoR and EESC Analysis .................................................................................. 105

Appendix C: EC Analysis ...................................................................................................... 122

Appendix D: Council Analysis .............................................................................................. 142


7

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1 Identity frames ............................................................................................................ 36

Table 2 Diagnostic frames (Vermeersch, 2006) ....................................................................... 37

Table 3 Problem framing and Europeanization ........................................................................ 39

Table 4 FRA Documents .......................................................................................................... 40

Table 5 Committees documents ............................................................................................... 41

Table 6 EC documents ............................................................................................................. 42

Table 7 Council documents (questions of MEP) ..................................................................... 42

Table 8 Council documents (conclusions) ............................................................................... 42

Table 9 Frame Analysis Overview ........................................................................................... 47

Figure 1 Multilevel governance ............................................................................................... 75


8

Abstract

ENG. This study explores the process of Europeanization of Roma integration policy. Two

Research Questions are adopted: 1) How does the EU frame Roma identity? 2) Why does the

EU gets involved in Roma issues?. Accordingly, two hypothesis are postulated: 1) Roma

people are being framed as a non-territorial nation to 2) to develop a new social policy

domain strengthening the EU’s powers. By means of Frame Analysis, EU documents by the

Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), Committee of the Regions (CoR), European Economic

and Social Committee (EESC), European Commission (EC), Council and European

Parliament (EP) are subjected to a thorough inquiry. For each document, the identity frame of

Roma people, and problem frame are identified. In the problem frame a further elaboration is

made in a diagnostic, prognostic and motivational frame. This is in turn linked to

Europeanization. Results revealed that the CoR, EESC, and EP adopt the non-territorial

identity frame and the EC and Council adopt the ethnoclass frame. The FRA uses both.

Looking at the problem framing, this study concludes that the EC has set up a strong

framework of multilevel governance for Roma integration policies by framing the problems

of Roma people in a way that is best handled on a European level. Finally, this study predicts

that as long as the day-to-day situation of Roma people remains worrying, the

Europeanization of this policy will continue.

NL. Het onderwerp van dit onderzoek is het Europeaniseringsproces van Roma integratie

beleid. Er werden twee onderzoeksvragen opgesteld: 1) Hoe kadert de EU de Roma identiteit?

En 2) Waarom besteedt de EU zoveel aandacht aan de Roma?. Daaruit volgen twee

hypotheses: 1) De EU ziet Roma als een niet-territoriale entiteit om zo 2) een zo een nieuw

sociaal beleid te ontwikkelen en de macht van de EU te versterken. Aan de hand van een

‘Frame analyse’ werden EU documenten grondig onderzocht zowel van de ‘Fundamental

Rights Agency’ (FRA), Comité van de Regio’s (CoR), Europees Economisch en Sociaal

Comité (EESC), Europese Commissie (EC), Raad en Europees Parlement (EP). Vervolgens

werd dit getoetst aan het Europeanisatieproces. Uit de analyse blijkt dat de CoR, EESC en EP

een niet-territoriale identiteit kader gebruiken om Roma te omschrijven, en de EC en Raad

een ethnoklasse-kader. De FRA combineert beide. In de conclusie blijkt dat er door de EC een

solied kader van ‘multilevel governance’ is uitgebouwd door de problemen van de Roma op

die manier te omschrijven dat enkel een Europese aanpak de oplossing biedt. Tot slot,

voorspelt de auteur in dit onderzoek dat zolang de situatie van Roma niet verbetert, de

Europese Unie haar werk zal verder zetten en zo de Europeanisering van Roma beleid zal

versterken.


9

Foreword

During my internship at Amnesty International I became confronted with testimonies of

serious human rights violations of Roma people in the European Union. Also, the last couple

of years I witnessed more and more begging Roma girls on every street corner in my

hometown. These Roma women came to me regularly to change the coins they collected into

paper money. We could not understand each other, and I realised how far their culture differs

from mine. This aroused my interest, since I knew nothing about them except for some

stereotypical images.

The complexity of their situation intrigued me also. How to overcome these stereotypes and

gain their confidence to integrate them into our Western habits without the loss of some of

their specific and fascinating cultural characteristics? It is a question I would not know the

answer to, but I became curious to see how authorities handle it. This gave me the inspiration

for the subject of this study.

I wish to thank Professor Dr. Hendrik Vos for supervising this project and Dr. Ferdi De Ville

and Dr. Eline De Ridder for granting me the time to finish it. My special thanks to Inés

Fernández who proofread and edited this text.

Lauren Heeffer

Ghent, 17 December 2012


11

1. Introduction

For several years, especially since the 2004 enlargement in the European Union, the Roma

population has received a great amount of attention from different stakeholders. Scholars,

NGO’s and policy makers both at national and international level have been paying more

attention to an issue that is growing on intensity and magnitude: the discrimination and

segregation of Roma people across Europe.

The Roma population has always been stigmatized but it remains unacceptable in the 21st

century to see how policies have failed to guarantee minimum standards for the entire

European population. Testimonies reported that Roma people are still living in segregated

communities with no access to adequate health care and basic provisions such as water and

electricity. The children are uneducated, their parents unemployed. Living in such poverty and

suffering from such racism and prejudice is a harsh reminder of our past.

That is the reason why attention is therefore welcomed and necessary. The complexity of the

situation is a serious challenge when describing it. At stake are different groups, communities,

individuals who share some cultural, ethnic and social characteristics. Addressing them as one

entity has benefits for policy-makers, but targeting a group on the basis of race or ethnic

origin also holds the danger of violating European liberties and leaves the door wide open to

anti-Roma policies as well.

Discourse therefore becomes greatly important to correctly describe the situation since it can

easily be abused and avoid reinforcing the prejudice regardless of the good intentions of the

policy-makers. This is also the case for the European Union which became greatly involved in

Roma policy since the 2004 enlargement. Scholars and NGO’s have approached this with due

suspicion since the EU also has its own interests.

The subject of this study is the EU involvement since the 2004 enlargement. The focus is on

two questions: 1) Why does the EU gets involved in Roma integration policies, and 2) How

does this process work? Many research has already been done on the process before the

enlargement, others focused on the role of one institution in the design of Roma policy. Since

2010, the EU attention for Roma people increased even more, and an in-debt study on the

recent proposals by all EU institutions is lacking.

This study therefore explores all the EU documents on the Roma subject since 2004. This will

allow us to reveal the strategy, interests and implications of the European Union involvement


12

in Roma integration policy. Since discourse is – especially on this sensitive topic – charged

with meaning, it is important to inquire into the way the EU ‘frames’ Roma identity and

problems to get insight in its strategy and interests. Frame analysis is, for this purpose, a

useful tool.

The ultimate goal of this research is to explore the Europeanization process of Roma policies

in the EU. What instruments does the EU have to more effectively design and implement

policy to improve the situation of Roma people than the Member States? How does the EU

frames Roma people and their problems to convince the stakeholders that an EU approach is

the right one? By exposing the policy steps in the light of this supposed strategy, an answer

will be formulated on the why? and how? questions.

In the following chapter an overview is presented of the literature on Roma people. As will

become clear, it is difficult to find a sole and accurate definition of who Roma people are,

where they come from and what is the best way to address them. In chapter three the design of

this study is described. Frame analysis, which is the scientific method of this study, will be

expound, as well as two research questions and two hypotheses. Data information,

procedures, and the study’s limitations are also included in this chapter. Chapter 4 is an

overview of the results, presented by institution and in chapter 5 these are discussed. Finally,

chapter 6 constitutes the conclusion of this study which incorporates all insights from the

analysis and literature to arrive at some general remarks on the European Union as a whole.


13

2. Literature review

A review of the literature on Roma is presented below. Only articles by authors who

published in academic journals are discussed, and no documents on Roma people by

European institutions, as these are the data for this study. First, the difficulties with regard to

Roma identity are explained (cf. 2.1. Roma), then an overview of involvement by

international institutions is presented (cf. 2.2. Roma in Europe). Finally, the literature on

‘Europeanization’ is reviewed (cf. 2.3. Europeanization).

2.1. Roma1

2.1.1. Identity

In order to understand today’s preoccupations with Roma people in Europe, it is important to

know that those difficulties are the result of their remarkable history. When describing Roma

people, scholars and policy-makes often try to trace the origin – the ‘homeland’ – of these

people in order to understand their culture. This practice is already problematic according to

several authors (Guy, 2001; Mayall, 2004). Perceiving Roma people as nomads who have one

country of origin and have diffused for the last centuries throughout the world is the first of

many misconceptions. According to Mayall (2004) attempts to define and portray Roma are

situated on a fine line between fact and fiction and myth and reality. When looking in detail to

all the labels given to Roma people, it seems that “all the representations […] are in one way

real; Gypsies are who the writer and speaker thinks they are” (Mayall, 2004:3). Writing about

Roma people shapes their identity and has major implications on how they are being treated.

Eternal migrant

Starting from the view that Roma people in Europe have migrated from elsewhere contributes

to the image of Roma as the ‘eternal migrant’. This ‘obsession’ with its origin is, according to

Mayall, attributed to Western thinking in terms of nation, nationalism and national identity to

which central priority is given (2004:11). Debate exists about the origins or ‘homeland’ of

Roma people (presumably in India and Pakistan). A recent genomic study (Mendizabal et al,

2012) has revealed that Roma people originated from a single group that left Northwest India

some 1500 years ago. This shows that even today, scientific attention is devoted to the origins

of Roma people. However, when describing Roma and their history one must leave the

1 In this dissertation to refer to Gypsies, Roma, Romani people, Sinti, Kalderash, … the umbrella term ‘Roma

people’ will be mostly used. The term Roma was adopted by Roma activists during the first World Roma

Conference to break away from social stigmas and to produce a more positive, neutral and less romanticised

image (Vermeersch, 2006). The noun people is added as an attempt to encompass diversity and avoid

homogenisation.


14

premise that all people share one land of origin wherefrom their appearance, characteristics

and culture is originated. This does not mean that the focus on a homeland by many writers

and public opinion has contributed to the shaping of the self-identity by many Roma people.

In fact “paradoxically, the further the homeland in time and distance, the more remote the

memory, and the more imprecise and uncertain the ability to ‘prove’ precise origins and

ancestry, the more central they become to identity” (Mayall, 2004:197).

Braham and Braham (2000) prefer to use the word ‘non-identity’ to describe Roma people’s

affinity with a homeland, in particular the Roma’s refusal to integrate and identify themselves

with their countries of residence. It seems that these authors assign responsibility to the people

themselves and have chosen not to leave the paradigm of nationalism. They find proof in the

word Gadjo, meaning non-Roma, that indicates the Roma’s sense of integrity and belief in

racial purity that retains them from integrating. More nuanced is Guy (2001), who states that

it is because Roma people have been socially excluded for years that they have difficulties

with identifying themselves with nations that reject them. Gadjo is according to Guy nothing

more than the mirror view of the public opinion that Roma should be physically segregated

from ‘normal people’.

Nomad

Another characteristic attributed to Roma people to describe them is nomadism. Defining all

Roma people as nomads or assigning nomadism as a key characteristic to their culture can

have severe consequences. One can use this characteristic as an explanatory mechanism for

their often cited inability to settle or live within houses or conform to hygienic requirements.

Even when they are settled, the image of the gypsy as a ‘mental or spiritual’ nomad as part of

their identity remains endorsed (Mayall, 2004:12). Many associations with nomadism – such

as petty crime, theft, mal hygiene, etc – all stem from the discrepancy with core values that lie

at the heart of sedentary societies such as permanence of relations, abodes and employment.

Mayall (2004:268) states that these nomadic practices are often seen as an affront to sedentary

society values. The consequence of describing all Roma as (spiritual) nomads is that

nomadism is seen as an innate uncontrollable need to travel constantly resulting in social

exclusion. This reinforces the perception that Roma themselves are the cause of their

marginalization because it is part ‘of who they are’.

Every nation seeks to protect its majority custom and culture, and when it is confronted with

people whose custom deviates greatly, the behaviour by one group becomes to be ascribed as


15

unacceptable by the other leading to hostility and prejudice. “If there is any transnational

complaint against the Roma, it is that they are regarded as violating majority custom”

(Braham & Braham, 2000:100). This marginalisation is according to the Brahams not only the

result of the others’ prejudice, but also of the firmness of their own social cohesion and sense

of difference. So the perceived otherness of Roma people is a consequence of both exclusion

by other societies and their own rejection of such societies.

Race and ethnicity

Whether the Roma people can be labelled as an ethnic group is subjected to scholarly debate.

Even scholars who do agree on the ethnic element of Roma people vary in degree. Different

criteria to label a group as an ethnic group exist but according to Mayall (2004) one can

distinguish a group on physical type, and ideas of common descent, custom and culture.

Whether one element is more emphasized than the other gives different outcomes. For

example, some say it is the idea to belong to the same group that matters, not bloodline or

kinship or descent. Others define an ethnic group based on only culture, which is kept intact

through transmission to offspring. Then the focus is on distinctiveness in culture from major

society that forms the core of the ethnic group. Most frequently cited authors (Braham &

Braham, 2000; Castle-Kaněrová, 2001; Guy, 2001; Mayall, 2004; Vemeersch, 2006) reject

the primordialist theory of ethnicity, i.e. that an ethnic identity is immutable ‘given’ rather

than the outcome of a social process.

Important to mention is that ethnicity is inextricably linked with civil rights, by which

according to Mayall (2004), the debate around Roma and ethnicity becomes highly sensitive

and politicised. He states that to deny Roma people ethnicity “is to relegate them to the ranks

and status of parasitic and troublesome outsiders and outcasts” (Mayall, 2004:188). However,

assigning Roma people ethnic status can have negative outcomes as well. Braham and

Braham (2000) declare that prejudice against Roma people is essentially ethnic (or cultural)

and not racial. They argue that dislike with Roma people has more to do with their culture

than with their race. As a result, they are considered worse than other races because “one

cannot be held responsible for one’s genetic inheritance, [but] one can be held responsible for

one’s life” (Braham & Braham, 2000:100).

Guy (2001) agrees that Western views on Roma people and its culture are ethnical, seeing

them as nomads, travellers or migrants. He and Gheorghe and Acton (2001) argue however

that the Roma identity in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is not ethnical but social, seeing


16

them as subordinate, impoverished and marginal. Research by Erjavec (2001) and Tileagă

(2005) on media representation of Roma in CEE countries tends to confirm this. The social

identity is derived from the Roma people’s subordinate worker position they had in CEE

economies during Communistic regimes. Their occupations demanded hard labour and no

schooling, but they were able to improve their social situation in the case of housing and

education for their children. Yet, full integration in society meant to leave their Roma ethnic

identity and dissolve into wider society. Things got worse during the transition from

Communist regimes to liberal democracies and market economies that required no unskilled

workers leaving almost all Roma people unemployed. Therefore, many authors agree

(Barany, 2002:157; Guy, 2001:13; Pogány, 2004:87; Swimelar, 2008:510) that Roma people

were anno 2000 worse off than under Communist rule. Until today, there is still a lack of

ethnic recognition and the vast majority is still unemployed. This has resulted in a situation

where popular aggression against Roma people reaches levels of ‘pogroms’ (Guy, 2001) as

they are seen as criminals who live on state capital.

Guy (2001) confirms the link between ethnicity and political mobilisation and observes that

there has been a reciprocal relationship between Roma policy and a growing ethnic status of

Roma people. Under Communist rule (and even long before), there were signs of Roma

political mobilisation which resulted in a growing tolerance towards Roma ethnic identity in

the official views of the Communist regimes. The true ethnicization of Roma policy is

situated in post-Communist developments, yet leaving Roma people still unemployed and

unprotected against discrimination but with “the peripheral trappings of nationhood” (Guy,

2001:12)

Whatever connection between certain people, by focusing on origins or encouraging culture

as a strategy for political mobilisation, the development of an ethnic identity is reinforced.

According to Barany (2002:205), the common strands in the history of the Roma people have

inspired Roma activists to define Roma identity as a European identity specific to a continent

instead of a nation-state. Mayall agrees that this has strengthened the idea of homogeneity.

“Not only have the organisations served to unify the political demands of the Gypsies, but

they have also provided the language, rhetoric and symbols of a united people” (Mayall,

2004:207). In that way, the focus on the common ‘homeland’ is created by activists instead of

something that was always present in the people’s consciousness. Guy (2001) and Gheorghe

and Acton (2001) confirm that Romani people have mobilised on the bias of growing ethnic

status of Roma following the path of nationalism – from ethnic to national minority. The


17

nationalistic discourse served to build an identity that transcends the nations in which Roma

people are living. Following Mayall (cfr. supra) this might be explained by the fact that

Western society only understands nationalistic discourse.

Ethnogenesis

Roma activists have thus contributed to the creation of a ‘Roma’ identity in their attempt to

combat and challenge prejudice and fight for rights. This process is often referred to as

‘ethnogenesis’ by which “a social identity is transformed into a cultural, ethnic identity”

(Guy, 2001:21) to “achieve the acknowledged status of non-territorial ethno-national group”

(Barany, 2001:205). As Mayall (2004:208), Guy (2001:19), and Barany (2001:203) agree on,

the problem with Roma activism is that the political mobilisation lacks full participation from

the people on the ground. The key-players are still non-Roma people. Internal disputes also

reveal that it remains a constant struggle to unite such disparate groups of people that call

themselves Roma which, as a result, makes the creation of a ‘Roma’ identity controversial.

Mayall (2004) for example states that non-Roma people are actively involved and they still

set and provide the parameters of active mobilization, concluding that “the search for the pure

and uncontaminated ‘voice of the Gypsy’ is likely to remain as elusive as it ever has been”

(Mayall, 2004:211).

Another plausible reason for this controversy is that in any ethnic and political mobilization

elites and intellectuals play a crucial role; a group which remains scarce among Roma people.

Moreover, many educated Roma people choose not to identify themselves as Roma or refuse

to get involved in Roma mobilization (Barany, 2001:204, Vermeersch, 2003b:884). However,

the real reason might be that the intelligentsia that speak in the name of all Roma people are

culturally distant from the uneducated masses. Romani leaders tend to ignore the people they

represent and have difficulties in sharing power, leading to splinter groups and parties that do

not fear sabotaging each other (Barany, 2001; Guy, 2001, Vermeersch 2006).

Vermeersch (2003b, 2006) also states that disputes between Roma elites on

conceptualizations on identity are an explanation for the difficult mobilization. He concludes

that “ethnic heterogeneity can be understood, not as a cause of failing ethnic mobilisation, but

as a consequence of it” (2003b:881, emphasis in original). A second explanation is the

difficulties elites face when mobilising Roma people, often because voters are disillusioned

with politics and find it hard to recognise themselves with their representatives. Also, the

association of Roma identity with social marginality in activist’s rhetoric demotivated many


18

Roma people to mobilise politically (Vermeersch, 2006). It is the stigma on Roma identity

that obstructs Roma mobilisation.

2.1.2. Minority group

The focus shifted to Roma people as a national minority to which rights should be given.

Gheorghe and Acton (2001:55) define a national minority as “those peoples and groups who

are less successful in creating their own nation-states and who are incorporated into the

nation-states of other peoples”. Minority rights are then rights within a nation to preserve their

own specific cultures within the framework of the dominant majority culture and rights that

go beyond basic civil rights guaranteed to all individuals in a liberal democracy (Vermeersch,

2003a). The question then remains whether or not Roma people can be defined as a minority

group. Labelling people as a minority group has implications for their positioning in major

society, and “directly impacts on such issues as racism, discrimination, legal status and civil

rights” (Mayall, 2004:12). Yet, Guy (2001) warns for the substitution of ethnicization for

tackling the Roma people’s social issues.

Policies on multiculturalism, minority rights and equality of opportunity are

undoubtedly essential to the solution, as is effective legislation against discrimination.

Yet, by themselves they are unlikely to alter the social situation of Roma, or

fundamentally change the way other people see them, if Roma remain without the

employment, education and accommodation that many of them crave (Guy, 2001:5).

As will become clear in the next section, many attempts in Europe were made to integrate

Roma people in Central and Eastern Europe. Key players were the Council of Europe and the

Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). By the turn of the century the

European Union (EU) also became involved with Roma rights. All three organisations have

contributed to the development of Roma policy, albeit with different motivations.

For Roma people there are two major hurdles to follow the path of national minority rights:

Roma people are characterised by historical and cultural diversity (Gheorghe & Acton, 2001)

and they have no nation-state to represent their interests (Castle-Kaněrová, 2001:119).

Starting with the first major hurdle, one can agree on the fact that the Roma people are the

largest minority group in Europe (Guy, 2001:23; Gheorghe & Acton, 2001: , Castle-

Kaněrová, 2001:119). Instead of following the national path towards recognition, they

appealed to international organisations to unite their demands for equal rights since all Roma

people in former Communist regimes suffered from similar oppression, discrimination and


19

racism. Like Mayall (cfr. Supra), Gheorghe and Acton (2001) also mention that in order to

seek legitimacy for their struggle, Roma people followed the path of national minority rights.

Different Roma groups got together and bundled their voices in order to be heard to tackle

common problems resulting from widespread prejudice, ethnic hostility, racism and violence.

Yet, being a culture presented as a huge diaspora covering every continent in the world with

citizenships of a multitude of states, their internationality constrains them in voicing their

demands for civil, human and equal rights since “nation-states create their structure of rights

mainly for their own ‘citizens’ that is, members of their own ‘nation’”. (Gheorghe & Acton,

2001:57). The problem is that Roma activists are being united on a European level for

minority rights without there being a European nation-state defending their rights, nor a

European minority policy. By uniting their voices in Europe they are backing the wrong

horse, since the European Union (EU) is a union of Member States, and their demand for

minority rights can only be heard on a national level.

Mayall (2001) who mainly focuses on Roma identity also questions the value of a larger

transnational category that has the danger of becoming “flabby and worthless” (242), which

can then easily be abused. Governments give labels to groups of people to which they can

attach political discourse. Therefore it becomes easier for governments to use labels which

deny that Roma people are ethnic (in the West) or national (in CEE) minorities with rights,

giving them more power to define and control them (Gheorghe & Acton, 2001:67). Van Baar

(2011) for example focuses on the way Western European Member States represent Roma

people as a ‘problem’ to legitimise illegal interventions. Vermeersch (2003b:890) also

reveals the hesitations many Roma activists have with minority status, because they fear that

minority rights are serving state authorities instead of Roma people, especially in relation to

European institutions.

Gheorghe and Acton (2001) seem to have uncovered a paradox in their views on Roma

activism; Roma people across Europe have gathered their forces to resist common problems

such as discrimination which reinforced their Roma identity, therefore following the path of

nationalism – from ethnic group to ethnic minority. Yet while Roma try to gain rights as a

minority group, governments emphasize their transnationalism to deny them a minority status

and grant them rights.

A second hurdle to which Castle-Kaněrová (2001) refers is the lack of a Roma nation-state

defending the rights of Roma people. The questions she asks is what will happen with those


20

groups of people who are neither migrants nor refugees when they start to move inside the

Schengen Area after the accession of CEE states to the European Union. Like Guy (2001) and

Gheorghe and Acton (2001), Castle-Kaněrová acknowledges that in Western Europe Roma

people are seen as nomads whereas in Eastern Europe they are labelled as a ‘social problem’.

This gives the impression that Roma people migrate only for economic reasons since their

home countries officially deny that they suffer from widespread discrimination. Because of

the absence of a State defending their people’s rights this de facto legitimises Western

European countries to intervene intrusively to deal with the group as a one entity presenting

them as unwanted (Castle-Kaněrová, 2001:121). It is the absence of a national place that

makes it more yielding to use exclusionary discourse (Tileagă, 2005). As a result, Roma

people are becoming “the poorest, most disadvantages and despised of all East Europeans”

(Barany, 1994:246 cited in Guy, 2001:14), “eternal strangers in anybody’s land” (Tileagă,

2005:605), with no one taking any direct responsibility over them (Castle-Kaněrová,

2001:122). The case of the expulsion of Roma groups in 2010’s France demonstrates how EU

governments can legitimise their actions using exclusionary discourses since there is no one

taking responsibility (see Van Der Meulen 2011).

2.1.3. Conclusion

Roma policy on a national level clearly faces some difficulties. Therefore, Roma activists and

European institutions started to emphasize the transnational component of Roma people to

defend Roma people’s rights on a European level. However, recent research reveals that even

on a European level, there are signs of an ambiguous transformation of the representation of

the Roma in Europe, Roma people “are now seen as a ‘European problem’ rather than a

‘European minority’” (Van Baar, 2011:204).

On the other hand, authors, such as Guy (2001) have focused on the social challenges that

Roma people face. He points out that although it is absolutely necessary to guarantee ethnic

recognition, this remains a ‘paper tiger’ because Roma people still suffer from social

deprivation. Yet, the one cannot be without the other. Under Communist rule, Roma people

were socially included, albeit with the intention to assimilate Roma culture to majority

culture. Now, it has become clear that even Roma identity is not straightforward. Difficulties

with Roma mobilisation has revealed that Roma identity is still under construction and is

closely related with the goal of the Roma mobilisation to improve their social conditions.

So what to write about Roma identity? National minority policies show possibilities for Roma

people to have specific rights. However, many Roma activists have internationalised their


21

struggle against discrimination and one can argue two ways: whether this caused

reinforcement of a transnational identity or whether the transnational identity was always

present and therefore the transnational activism is only a mere result. The fact is that this has

left many people not unaffected and several Roma organisations have risen across Europe and

the world. This has led to the perception that Roma people are the ‘true Europeans’, i.e. that

their affinities go beyond nation-states, on a more continental or European level.

In the next section it will become clear that the transnationalism of Roma identity and

activism has attracted the attention of European Institutions, starting with the Council of

Europe and the OSCE, followed by the more powerful EU.

2.2. Roma in Europe

The major reason why Roma people became a subject attracted to the debate in European

organizations were the effects of the transition of former Communist regimes in the 1990s

(Kovats, 2001:93). The end of the Cold War provided the opportunity to combine issues of

the (social) situation of Roma people in CEE countries with the increased mobility of Roma

people towards Western Europe within the framework of European integration. It also

provided European organizations such as the Council of Europe a legitimation of existence

(Kovats, 2001:93) by framing Roma people as ‘more European’ (Vermeersch, 2003a:415)

because of the lack of a Roma nation-state. By interpreting Roma people as a minority that

needed more support than any ethnic or national minority, European institutions put

themselves on the map. After the collapse of Communist regimes in CEE countries, the

European Union clearly began to play a key and central role in Roma issues (Guy, 2009).

Guglielmo and Waters (2005) notice that since the 1990s, European organizations have

shifted the way they shape its policies regarding Roma people. Before, these policies were

more focused on migration and its presumed destabilizing effects, but shifted to emphasis on

discrimination and positive minority rights. These two authors also agree that the policy shift

from migrant to minority can be regarded as a positive on-going process, even when their

social and material conditions remain deplorable. This clearly contrasts with the warnings

expressed by Guy (2001, cfr. supra) on ethnicization. However, inquiry on European Roma

policy revealed a strong security-oriented approach during the accession period (Guglielmo &

Waters, 2005:765), especially with reference to the European Union (Hughes & Sasse, 2003,

cfr. supra).


22

2.2.1. European initiatives: overview

Vermeersch (2003a) inquired into the extent to which European institutions have put CEE

countries under pressure to introduce a minority rights regime. A discrepancy in tools

immediately becomes clear; whereas the Council of Europe and the OSCE can only count on

voluntary adaptation, the EU has a more powerful weapon: prospect of access to the internal

market whereby conditions enter the negotiations.

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe codified a number of important texts on minority rights in a 1992

European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages and a 1995 Framework Convention

for the Protection of National Minorities. It was, however extremely difficult to find

agreement among Member States, which resulted in a “weak instrument with only a thin

version of a minority code” (Vemeersch, 2003a:6). The Western Member States were never

really filled with enthusiasm for minority policy in international relations, and pressure

remained absent from the Council of Europe to enforce one. The Convention therefore was a

compromise; by signing it, States could at least show their commitment without having to

adopt minority right policies because of the broad margin of interpretation of the text

(Vermeersch, 2003a). Moreover, the Convention only possesses status of recommendation

and several Member States ignored the document (Guy, 2009:29).

Many attempts were however made to raise awareness to the specificity of the Roma issue. In

1993 a report was accepted which led to the declaration that Roma people were ‘a true

European minority’ (Verspaget 1995 cited by Kovats, 2001:96; Vermeersch, 2006:192)

emphasizing the cultural difference between Roma people and other ethnic groups because of

the lacking of a Nation-State. The Council of Europe presented itself as coordinator in Roma

issues, setting up dialogue between various domestic organisations and other international

organisations.

OSCE

The original attempt of the OSCE was also to set up a legally binding text on minority

protection (Vermeersch, 2003a) starting with the Charter of Paris in 19902. This was in fact

the first major effort to raise international awareness of the Roma issue by an international

governmental organization (IGO) (Vermeersch, 2006). Contrasted to the Council of Europe,

2 In November, 1990, the institutionalization of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE)

began. On 1 January 1995, the former conference became officially a full-fledged Organization. In this

dissertation, references to the OSCE also include the institutional process from 1990 to 1995.


23

the OSCE failed to introduce binding texts. The proposal was soon abandoned for a more

political tool: the High Commissioner on National Minorities, an institute set up in 1993 as an

instrument of “conflict prevention”, to provide “early warnings and as appropriate early

actions at the earliest possible stage in regard to tensions involving national minority issues

which have not yet developed beyond an early warning stage, but, in the judgment of the High

Commissioner, have the potential to develop into a conflict within the OSCE area” (CSCE,

1992).

In 1994 the OSCE set up a Contact Point for Roma and Sinti Issues in Warsaw. Vermeersch

(2006:188) argues that no other minority group has ever received the same attention as the

Roma people. He concludes that this shows the tendency of the OSCE to assign special

attention and treatment to the Roma issues and frame it not in a context of ethnic conflict

prevention, but in one of human rights. Similar to the Council of Europe, the focus was on the

conviction that albeit diversity, the Roma people in different countries were confronted with

the same type of problems. This strategy was similar to those of Roma activists (cfr. 2.1.2.)

and the OSCE was therefore seen as a helpful tool to voice demands. However, Vermeersch

(2006:191) points out that some Roma activists were agitated by the OSCE’s Roma strategy

because they feared that this would lead to an exemption from governmental responsibility

and that the universality of Roma problems hints to the allegation that Roma themselves

provoke such discrimination.

The Roma people were initially framed as European by the Council of Europe and the OSCE

to meet their raison d’être; to foster a European identity (Council of Europe) and to create a

safer Europe (OSCE). The further handling of the Roma issue in these organizations had its

own dynamic. Especially the Council of Europe focuses on the absence of a Roma country to

emphasize their true European identity. This follows the logic that because the national level

is missing, then the European level should fill the vacuum.

2.2.2. EU initiatives

Initially, the European Union relied on the reports by the Council of Europe for framing a

European minority policy in the context of the 2004 enlargement (COCEN Group, 1999 cited

by Guglielmo & Waters 2005:764; Vermeersch, 2003a:5). The EU borrowed the norms

adopted by the OSCE and the Council of Europe because it was considered to be the best

practice of ‘international standards’ (Hughes & Sasse, 2003:6). Faced with the enlargement

by former Communists countries, the EU became more occupied with a deepening of a

political union based on common values. Ram (2010:206) asks the question, if the Council of


24

Europe and the OSCE were already taking the lead on the Roma issue, why did the EU need

to get involved as well?

The Member States were concerned that the enlargement would bring ethno-national conflicts

and migration flows into the Union. Suddenly the EU was confronted with nationalist

mobilization and with the dissolution of multi-ethnic Communist States. This became

translated into a shift from focus on the more liberal individual rights to ‘group rights’

(Hughes & Sasse, 2003). The reason can be attributed to the fact that the enlargement was

articulated in terms of ‘common values’ (Schimmelfenning, 2001). Supporters of the

enlargement to CEE countries could entrap the opponents rhetorically by emphasizing the

collective identity of the European states. Schimmelfenning (2001:63) calls this process

‘rhetorical action’ whereby norm-based arguments are used in pursuit of one’s self-interests.

Therefore it became difficult to stay track on the security and migration framing of Roma

people without political embarrassment (Guy, 2009), especially with the ample amount of

media coverage of severe discrimination practices both in West and East.

The EU had no minority policy of its own; however, the prospects of enlargement by CEE

countries increased the need for one. So prior to the enlargement, the EU found itself in a

position to set up standards for minority policy which could then easily be compelled to

accession States. However, as will become clear, the criteria for respect for minorities

remained vague (Vermeersch, 2006) with a very thin legal basis (Hughes & Sasse, 2003). The

EU mainly borrowed norms and values from the OSCE and the Council of Europe, who (cfr.

supra) had been framing the Roma issue in terms of ‘European identity’ and human rights.

This resulted in a accession talks whereby two minority groups became the centre of

attention: the Russophone minority and the Roma people. Hughes and Sasse (2003) conclude

that the EU was mainly concerned with security issues. The EU wanted to prevent massive

migration to the West after accession and focused therefore on stabilisation of minorities and

integration “to such an extent that it is plausible to argue that they indicate a preference of

assimilation” (Hughes & Sasse, 2003:16). This bold statement is similar to Swimelar’s who

states that “the West’s ‘concern’ for the Roma was more about protecting their rights at home

so they wouldn’t seek them elsewhere” (2008:507).

Vermeersch (2006) tells a different story. He notices that “the risk that an ethnic conflict

involving Roma would develop into a war between two or more states was deemed minimal”

(Vermeersch, 2006:196). The explanation why special attention was paid to Roma people can


25

be found in the emphasis on human rights in EU reports. The imported norms from the OSCE

and Council of Europe which focused on a European identity, and of the Roma activists

approach advocating a transnational identity, made the EU more reluctant to follow a human

right approach with regard to Roma people. It was also an answer to the media coverage on

the discrimination they suffer in some European countries, which justified the special

attention on Roma people.

Having said that, the EU found itself in a rather ambivalent position in the preparatory process

of accession of CEE countries. First, it was caught in a rhetorical trap which gave those in

favour of accession a heads start by emphasizing European values and identity. Secondly,

with regard to Roma, as some Member states feared massive migration, it started to focus on

minority policy imported from the OSCE and Council of Europe. With rather ‘unpleasant’

media stories about mal Roma treatment reaching the public opinion, the EU paid more

attention to Roma in the accession talks. Vermeersch (2006:197) concludes that “the situation

of the Roma minority was to play a particular role in deciding whether a candidate member

would be ready to join the EU”.

In the next section, the conditions on respect of minorities in accession talks will be discussed.

How important the situation of Roma people were in accession talks leaves room for debate.

As will become clear; discourse is a powerful instrument in EU politics, and sometimes there

is a difference between what the EU says and what the EU means.

Conditionalities in 2004 enlargement

A conditionality can be defined as “an instrument to exert political leverage on candidates to

ensure the requisite outcomes in policy or legislation” (Hughes & Sasse, 2003:1). The EU

accession negotiations are thus characterized by a power asymmetry. Since the beginning of

the 1990s, the CEE countries already realised that “domestic policy decisions on minorities

could have a profound impact on their bid for EU membership” (Vermeersch, 2006:186).

A crucial document in the accession process is the adoption of the ‘Copenhagen criteria’. On

the European Council meeting in Copenhagen in 1993, it was decided that future Member

States should, among other things, comply with respect for minorities. During accession

negotiations, benchmarks are set up and progress is monitored by the EU and reported in

regular progress reports. However, as stated before, there is no international standard for

minority policy and this appears to remain controversial. Vermeersch (2003a) indicates that

there are different views on this respect. On the one hand, some authors question the


26

justification of a minority policy since this overlaps with State neutrality. On the other hand,

authors query whether Western minority policies can be transported to CEE countries who

have completely different backgrounds on minority issues.

The most frequently made comment in reference to the Copenhagen criteria on respect for

minorities is how to set up criteria for something which is hard to define? This has already

become clear in the ‘weak’ and ‘vague’ documents by the OSCE and Council of Europe. The

EU relied on these documents to enforce a minority policy on future Member States. In the

‘Agenda 2000’ reference was made to the Framework Convention (1997), which encouraged

future Member States to adopt the Framework in order to show their commitment. The main

problem that remains is that ‘respect for minority’ hardly fits in the short-term, benchmarking

strategy of EU enlargement (Guy, 2009; Hughes & Sasse, 2003). The progress reports are

often characterized by ad hoc-ism (Hughes & Sasse, 2003:16) and monitoring is often left to

NGO’s, Council of Europe and the OSCE. Therefore it becomes reasonable to assume that in

accession negotiations respect for minorities was never really a binding condition for EU

membership (Guy, 2009; Hughes & Sasse, 2003; Vermeersch, 2006).

The EU encouraged CEE governments to set up programmes for Roma inclusion through the

PHARE funding. This practice is controversial according to some authors (Guglielmo &

Waters, 2005; Guy, 2009; Hughes & Sasse, 2003; Vermeersch, 2006) as this often led to ad

hoc funding with limited impact and almost no consultation with Roma communities. The

largest part of the PHARE funding was allocated to infrastructure, whereas unemployment

was identified as one of the major cause for Roma marginalisation. The progress reports on

Roma inclusion were often euphemised, and even when they were critical about limited

progress, it was insufficient to bring about a fundamental change (Guy, 2009:33).

Vermeersch (2003a) also points out to the motives of the CEE countries. They set up

programmes for Roma inclusion, yet not from a moral concern but from a short-term interest.

From the latter we can conclude that the criteria’s ‘respect for minorities’ was not a priority in

accession negotiations. According to some authors (Guglielmo & Waters, 2005; Swimelar,

2008), the EU’s increased attention to minority issues stems from security concerns since it

wanted future Member States to get their minorities satisfied to prevent them from migrating

westward. They were encouraged to set up a minority policy of their own via the PHARE

funding and especially with the focus on Roma inclusion. This practice kept everyone

satisfied; the EU could pride itself by focusing on Roma inclusion, and the future Member


27

States could present positive progress reports. Yet, there is still no European minority policy

and many Western Member States have not adopted the Framework. This leaves many to

agree that the EU approaches double standards.

2.2.3. Minority policy: double standards

The majority of the authors discussed agrees on the double standards approach regarding

minority policy (Braham & Braham, 2004; Castle-Kaněrová, 2001; Guglielmo & Waters,

2005; Guy, 2009; Hughes & Sasse, 2003; Van Baar, 2008; Vermeersch, 2006, 2011). The

European Union had the opportunity to develop a minority rights policy that then could be

exported to future Member States. However, little reference to minority policy can be found

in European law and Treaty texts. Instead the EU set up accession criteria which included

‘respect for minorities’ without much further elaboration. It encouraged future Member States

to adopt the Framework convention and to develop a minority policy of their own which

could then be evaluated by the EU progress reports. The double standard lies in the fact that

the existing Member States were not encouraged to adopt the framework convention nor to set

up a minority policy.

The combined effect of vague and contested international standards, the diverse

approaches of Member States, and the weak influence of the Commission and the

Court in this policy area, strengthen the perception on the part of the candidates that

the Copenhagen criteria were a grand double standard (Hughes & Sasse, 2003:13).

Whereas Hughes and Sasse (2003) have inquired into the legal texts of the Copenhagen

criteria and the Framework Convention, Castle-Kaněrová (2001) looks at the migration issues

with reference to Roma people. She emphasizes the fact that the Member States are reluctant

to stress that Roma people are economic migrants and refuse to acknowledge that they suffer

from severe discrimination, therefore claiming that their seeking for asylum is unjustified. As

a consequence, the focus of the EU on human rights in accession talks becomes “a game”

which is played by “all sides” and wonders if it “is the case that higher standards of human

rights are expected of the accession countries – but only on paper ?” (Castle-Kaněrová,

2001:122).

Guglielmo and Waters (2005) also recognise that the double standards (‘cognitive

dissonance’) in EU minority policy may undermine the legitimacy of EU policies towards

minorities and Roma in particular. They question whether rhetoric and policy is sufficient to


28

improve the condition of Roma people when intention remains dubious as no European

minority policy is rising.

The double standards that are clearly at stake in reference to minority policy and especially on

Roma issues thus show that the EU has convinced future Member States to step up their

efforts. A hidden agenda becomes clear as it appears that the EU stresses that it is important to

have a legal-based minority policy for future Member States although not for existing ones. In

contrast to EU rhetoric, this hints at a strategy stemming from security concerns instead of

humanitarian ones. It is in disguise since EU politics is phrased in common values (Ram,

2010; Schimmelfenning, 2001)

2.2.4. Conclusion

We can conclude that Roma people in Europe are clearly high priority on the European

Institutions’ agenda. The EU has more opportunities to effectively change the situation of

Roma people in CEE countries than the Council of Europe or the OSCE. What the discussed

authors share is a critical stance towards EU involvement. Firstly, the reasons for the high

priority of Roma rights in the Institutions’ policy are not always straightforward. What is

being said may not always stem with the motives behind it. The dichotomy between discourse

and the politics behind it, is of interest in this study.

From this, one could deduce that the world is split between practice and intention,

between ideas and reality, between what is visible and what is less visible” (Castle-

Kaněrová, 2001:126).

Secondly, some authors who have inquired into the domestic impact of Roma policy welcome

the increased attention and focus on human and minority rights but repeatedly stress that the

situation of the Roma people is still deplorable. Guy (2009) calls it a ‘critical juncture’ and

states that it is a timely moment to reconsider the strategy pursued by the EU.

The EU’s interest in Roma issues has been the subject of little study (Ram, 2010). This is

striking, since the EU’s attention to Roma issues has lately been increased. This study will

explore the reason why the EU became more involved with Roma issues. Ram distinguishes

two reasons; fear of migration waves by Member States in the accession period, and the

emergence of human rights on the EU’s agenda which was considered as a window of

opportunity for NGO’s and IGO’s to frame the Roma issue in terms of human rights as well.

In this research a third reason will be added to this, i.e. the process of Europeanization.


29

2.3. Europeanization

In this section the literature on Europeanization will be reviewed in order to find an answer on

the question why the EU is involved in Roma rights. Therefore a thorough study on the

concept ‘Europeanization’ is necessary. Europeanization is top-down perspective on

European integration and includes the process of ‘why, how, when, and to what degree’

Europe matters on domestic settings (López-Santana, 2006). In this dissertation, domestic

settings will not be inquired into. Yet, the literature on Europeanization can give insight in the

strategy and motives of the European Union.

Risse, Cowles, and Caporaso define Europeanization as

the emergence and development at the European level of distinct structures of

governance, that is, of political, legal, and social institutions associated with political

problem solving that formalize interactions among the actors, and of policy networks

specializing in the creation of authoritative European rules (Cowles et al, 2001:3,

emphasis in original).

However, as has become clear in the previous sections, the EU has been involved in minority

issues and Roma people in particular, yet no hard law (i.e. legally binding instruments) has

been put into practice. Therefore this definition is inadequate to explain the process of EU

involvement. Radaelli (2003:31) defines Europeanization as

Processes of (a) construction, (b) diffusion, and (c) institutionalization of formal and

informal rules, procedures, policy paradigms, styles, ‘ways of doing things’, and

shared beliefs and norms which are first defined and consolidated in the making of EU

public policy and politics and then incorporated in the logic of domestic discourse,

identities, political structures, and public policies.

This definition allows us to include the incremental steps which characterizes EU policy

making. As Radaelli also points out, this definition includes modes of governance which are

not targeted towards law making. He includes in his conceptualization of Europeanization

cognitive and normative dimensions. The EU can influence values, norms, and discourses

prevalent in Member States. Those cognitive and normative frames may trigger

“transformative effects on all the elements of politics and policy” (Radaelli, 2003:36).

Following this logic, one can conclude that EU discourse matters.


30

Radaelli makes a distinction between vertical and horizontal Europeanization. Of interest here

is the horizontal dimension, which is “a process of change triggered by […] the diffusion of

ideas and discourses about the notion of good policy and best practice” (Radaelli, 2003:41). In

contrast to vertical Europeanization, this process does not involve directives or decisions of

the Court of Justice, but possible solutions. Radaelli uses the verb ‘insemination’ to

demonstrate how EU suggestions and expectations can alter the perception of problems. This

vague EU policy can have an impact on domestic policy, especially by means of the Open

Method of Coordination (OMC), which is defined by Radaelli as “a means of spreading best

practice and achieving convergence towards EU goals” (2003:43).

Debate exists with reference to the effectiveness of the OMC. Daniel Wincott (2003) is

sceptical and points out that the OMC is a second-best option to get involved in those areas in

which the EU has not been able to legislate. “It could be used to give the impression that

‘something’ is being done about problems that are either intractable, or which national leaders

wish to duck” (Wincott, 2003:297). The OMC is a means to getting round the principle of

subsidiarity and to introduce a policy in “the vanguard of discourses and practices” (De La

Porte & Pochet, 2002:31). Since the method is highly voluntary, Wincott (2003) calls the

OMC ‘symbolic’ or a form of ‘sloganeering’. However, he acknowledges that the OMC can

result in cognitive and/or normative convergence and introducing new policy ideas.

Borrás and Greve are more optimistic. They state that the weakness of the OMC – vague and

flexible goals – are its strength and will therefore ‘be resilient over time’ (Borrás & Greve,

2004:333). As well as Borrás and Greve, the Trubeks (2005) agree that the OMC can be a step

forward in further power transfer in sensitive policy domains. López-Santana (2006) argues

for a similar logic. She says that the EU has a major ‘framing’ power which can be significant

in policy-making across States. It is not that the EU is directing what to do; however it is more

‘leading in a certain direction’. Four steps are involved in this process: (a) problem

formulation, (b) pointing out that a certain policy is good or bad, (c) restricting policy options,

(d) providing potential courses of actions.

The OMC and ‘soft Europeanization’ are thus an alternative strategy for the EU to get

involved in ‘sensitive’ policy domains which, according to Trubek and Trubek (2005:347),

are domains in which the experts do not have all the answers. Debate exists about its

effectiveness, yet it has proven a handy tool in employment strategy to get Member States

acting in the same direction. As has become clear, the main power instrument in this strategy


31

is discourse and framing. Therefore, a closer inquiry in this framing mechanism is necessary

in research on Europeanization of Roma issues. This is often not included in inquiry on

Europeanization process, as most scholars mainly look at the domestic impacts. As Lopéz-

Santana concludes, the influence of soft law in domestic policies is most grounded in the

‘framing effect’ (2006:494). In this study, therefore, the first step, i.e. framing of a certain

problem, will be the main focus.

2.4. Conclusion

Reviewing the literature, it has become clear that the European Union has become more

involved in Roma policy since the 2004 enlargement. However, the situation of Roma people

in the European Union is very complex and to find a consensus between the different

institutions and stakeholders regarding this matter is a major challenge. “There is no ready-

made set of solutions that could be legislated” (Trubek & Trubek, 2005:348).

This results in an interesting dynamic in European Union policy making. Clearly, several

dichotomies are at stake: new Member States vs. old Member States, Roma social identity vs.

Roma cultural and ethnic identity, assimilation vs. integration, national minority vs. European

minority, identity vs. security, individual rights vs. group rights, etc. Of interest is to see how

the European Union deals with such disparate characteristics, but also what the result will be

of this European involvement. Since there is no self-evident solution available and the policy

domain is a very sensitive subject on European level, discourse on Roma policy becomes very

loaded and calculated, which is worth subjecting to inquiry to arrive at a deeper insight in

Europeanization processes of Roma people and its consequences.


32

IDENTITY SECURITY

?

WEST EAST

ETHNIC stereotypes stereotypes SOCIAL

ROMA MOBILISATION

->> widespread discrimination widespread discrimination <<-

EUROPEAN ROMA IDENTITY

COUNCIL OF EUROPE OSCE

Framework convention High Commissioner

EUROPEAN UNION

1

9

9

0

M

I

G

R

A

N

T

2

0

0

4

M

I

N

O

R

I

T

Y

1

IDENTITY

Schimmelfenning

Vermeersch

2

SECURITY

Swimelar

3

EUROPEAN

IZATION

This study


33

3. Design

In the previous section, the literature is discussed that will provide the framework for the

research questions. In this section the study’s design is presented. Based on this, the

hypotheses will be established. We will close this section with some limitations of this study.

3.1. Research questions

To meet our goal, i.e. to inquiry into whether or not the EU is Europeanising problems related

to the Roma people, the following research questions are formulated:

1. How does the EU frame Roma people?

2. Why does the EU gets involved in Roma issues?

The first research question regards the identity of Roma people. As stated in the previous

section, how Roma people are being framed has major implications on how they are being

treated. Also the way they are being framed in policy documents hints at a strategy. This

brings us to the second research question. We assume that Roma people are being framed as

‘true Europeans’ for a reason. We will inquiry into the reason behind it. This will be more

speculative than the answer on the first research question, however a thorough study on the

policy documents can shed light on the strategy behind it.

3.2. Design

To correspond to the first research question, the representation of the Roma identity in EU

policy documents will be explored by means of Frame Analysis. For the second research

question the same documents will be used to conduct research on the strategy behind it also

by means of Frame Analysis. This will be linked to the process of Europeanization, which we

assume is a process in which the EU is presenting itself as a coordinator which dictates

Member States what to do by means of hard law and soft law.

3.2.1. Framing

The use of Frame Analysis in research to Roma people is adopted from Peter Vermeersch. In

his work, he repeatedly refers to the Frame Analysis as first adopted by Erving Goffman

(1975). Frame Analysis is a research method used in social science to analyse how people

understand certain situations whereby frames are used as ‘schemata of interpretation’

(Goffman, 1975). We agree that Frame Analysis is an adequate tool for research on identity

representation of ethnic minorities. This not only lets us analyse the way Roma people are

being represented, but also how this fits in a broader sense, hence the frame.


34

A similar method is adopted by Katrin Simhandl (2009), who uses the phrase ‘category’

instead of frame. A category is more narrow than a frame, and therefore frames will be used

in this research. However, quite similar to Vermeersch, in her research, the focus is on

discourse since “language of politics is not a neutral medium that conveys ideas

independently formed; it is an institutionalised structure of meanings that channels political

thought and action in certain directions” (Connolly, 1974:1 cited by Simhandl, 2009:73) and

she agrees that this is in particular relevant to politics on Roma issues. By adopting this

theoretical approach, i.e. that political discourse is not generated in a vacuum but always in a

context that reflects power and motives, this research focuses on the way Roma people are

being represented in EU policy documents.

Vermeersch (2006:150) uses Frame Analysis to interpret the Roma movement’s actions. In

order for Roma leaders to mobilise and to shape the public’s understanding they have to

define interests and point to opportunities. In this research, we have reason to believe that

actions by the EU’s institutions can also be analysed by Frame Analysis. As Vermeersch

argues

When activists want to form a movement they have to deal with matters connected to

interpretation and signification. […] Before a movement can be successful activists

must point to opportunities, define interests, and name constituencies in order to shape

the public’s understanding, and to persuade people to join or support their movement

(Vermeersch, 2006:150).

If the European Commission wants to initiate legislation on Roma issues, we presume that it

will follow a similar process as movements. Dudley and Richardson have shown in their study

how frames can be used to analyse European Union’s policy since frames “can reshape the

way policy actors consider existing policy problems, and subsequently ‘bias’ the options

search which follows” (1999:226). Within the European Union interests are also defined to

persuade different actors such as DG’s, other EU-bodies, and Member States.

So the idea that the institutions of the European Union adopt a certain frame in their policy

documents of Roma issues for specific reasons is the main premise of this research. In the

context of Roma people in the EU, the European Institutions pay “selective attention’ to parts

of the problem and “name” them according to the goal, context and binding conditions of the

policy issue (Schön & Rein, 1994). Our goal is to uncover this process. In order to find an

answer on the first research question, i.e. how Roma people are being framed by the


35

institutions of the EU, the different identity frames as adopted by Vermeersch (2003; 2006)

will be used. For the second research question, i.e. why the European Union gets involved in

Roma issues, problem frames will be used for the analysis of the policy documents and will

then be applied to the process of Europeanization.

3.2.2. Research question 1: identity framing

Identity framing means defining the group that needs to be mobilised (Vermeersch,

2006:150). In this research, identity framing refers to defining the subject of policy by policy

makers. Vermeersch (2003; 2006) distinguishes three different types of Roma identity frames.

The different frames have major implications on how they are being treated accordingly

(Vermeersch, 2011). For example, Vermeersch (2006) refers to the ‘double jeopardy’

situation, i.e. the more Roma identity is being emphasized by policy makers, the more Roma

people appear to be held responsible for the ‘Roma problem’.

A non-territorial nation

From the literature review, it has become clear that Roma activists in Europe have gathered

their forces to respond to the widespread discrimination many Roma people face. They have

adopted the name “Roma” and have emphasized common origins and culture. The non-

territorial frame is characterized by the idea that the different groups have become fragmented

in time and therefore, a special legal position in Europe is advocated because of its

postnational citizenship (Vermeersch, 2003:888). European Institutions, such as the Council

of Europe and the OSCE were eager to adopt this frame since it legitimized their reason of

existence, i.e. protecting human rights and security. According to Vermeersch (2003:889),

individual states were also supporters of the frame since “it shifted the focus of attention away

from responsibility of domestic governments”.

A national minority

Within the national minority frame, the focus of attention is on the difference between Roma

people and the ethnic majority, without appealing to a European identity. By adopting the

national minority discourse, Roma activists hoped to gather more support from other national

minorities who also advocated minority rights. The emphasis is on nationality and rights, and

as Vermeersch (2003) notices, Roma activists have never felt much affiliation with self-

government or territorial autonomy, thereby not quite fitting the national minority profile.

Future Member States were reluctant to adopt the national minority frame, not from a moral

point of view, but from short-term benefits since the accession talks were characterized by

minority rights ‘conditionalities’.


36

An ethnoclass

An ethnoclass is an “ethnic group which resembles a class” whose members are

“disproportionately concentrated in occupations at or near the bottom of the economic and

social hierarchy” (Gurr & Harff, 1994:23 cited by Vermeersch, 2003:890). The ethnoclass

frame emphasizes the social condition in which many Roma people live: they are

unemployed, uneducated, and live in bad housing conditions. This frame also absent itself

from the emphasis on Roma identity as found in the other frames, since it can lead to

manipulation by governments by equating Roma identity with social conditions. This is what

the Brahams (2000; infra) mean with being held responsible for one’s life; if all Roma people

face the same social challenges, then it must be related with their identity. The result is that

this often leads to assimilation process, therefore popular by non-Roma outsiders

(Vermeersch, 2006).

In Table 1 Identity frames, an overview is presented of – based on the literature – ideal types of

the different identity frames and the presumed adoptions by different actors. In the first

research question, an attempt will be made to locate the institutions of the European Union in

this table. Which frame do they adopt?

Identity frame Adopted by

Non-territorial nation European identity Roma Activists, Council of

Europe, OSCE, Member

States

National Minority National Roma identity Roma activists, future

Member States (before 2004)

Ethnoclass Social conditions Roma activists, NGO’s, pro

assimilation Member States

Table 1 Identity frames

3.2.3. Research question 2: problem framing and Europeanization

To answer the second research question, the Europeanization process will be inquired into by

means of Frame Analysis. Lopéz-Santana (2006) already linked Frame Analysis to the

Europeanization process, and a similar method will be adopted. For the Frame Analysis we

will use the concepts of Schön and Rein (1994) who developed a method to trace the steps in

policy making, especially in controversial domains.

According to Schön and Rein (1994) a distinction between policy disagreement and policy

controversy can be made. Disagreement can be resolved by rational arguments and scientific

facts. Controversy is less straightforward, and is often found in social issues where facts and


37

numbers often cannot settle the matter. As Trubek and Trubek (2005:348) stated, the

problems Roma people face is a complex situation in which “no ready-made set of solutions”

can be legislated. This makes the use of Frame Analysis in Roma policy the correct method.

Benford and Snow (2000) and Vermeersch (2006) divide the core framing in three component

parts: ‘diagnostic framing’, ‘prognostic framing’ and ‘motivational framing’ to explain

movement mobilisation. In line with Lopéz-Santana (2006), we will use this to explain policy

process.

Diagnostic framing

Diagnostic framing is a value-based identification, definition and construction of certain

problems (Benford & Snow, 2000). By presenting the origin, cause and definition of the

problem, often a ‘victim’ is linked to someone or something that is responsible and should

take responsibility.

According to Vermeersch (2006), Central European Member States mainly utilized four basic

recurring problem definitions (see Table 2 Diagnostic frames (Vermeersch, 2006)

Problem Cause

Social behaviour Roma themselves

Patterns of discrimination by the ethnic

majority of the state

Material circumstances (poverty,

unemployment, housing, etc.) and state

responsibility for ensuring better conditions

Failure of economic and social integration

due to the unwillingness of the Roma or the

lack of adequate policies in the past

Roma themselves

Current lack of state protection Ethnic majority or authorities

Table 2 Diagnostic frames (Vermeersch, 2006)

In this study, these four different frames of problem framing will be used to analyse the EU

official documents and if possible the cause or the one held responsible in the documents will

be revealed.

Prognostic framing

In the prognostic frame, the solutions and strategies of the problem are articulated. According

to Benford and Snow (2000) the prognostic frame is determined by the diagnostic frame, i.e.

the framing of the problem and cause limits the possible solutions and strategies advocated in

the prognostic frame. This is what Vermeersch means with different frames on Roma identity

having different implications on how they will be treated (2011; infra).


38

Motivational framing

The motivational frame involves activational discourse for policy actors, thereby using four

types of language: severity, urgency, efficacy, and propriety. According to the Oxford

dictionary:

- Severity means an intensification of something bad or undesirable which demands a

great ability, skill or resilience

- Urgency means requiring immediate action or attention

- Efficacy means the ability to produce a desired or intended result

- Propriety means ownership, behaving as if one owned something or someone

In the search for the motivational frame, these definitions will help us to find clues to expose

the activational discourse.

Europeanization

The policy process framework as described above will then be linked to Europeanization.

Lopéz-Santana (2006) argues that the ‘framing effect’ of soft law is significant in policy-

formulation. In her article she looks at employment policy and shows how the supranational

level restrains several dimensions of employment and labour market policies in the Member

States. For this study, a similar approach will be adopted for the social inclusion policy, more

specifically the Roma people. According to Lopéz-Santana, the EU restraining process

involves:

1. Defining (and reinforcing) what problems domestic policy-makers should attack to

increase Member State competitiveness

2. Pointing out and/or reinforcing the idea that a policy line is good or bad and necessary

3. Restricting and limiting the policy options and courses of actions that domestic policy-

makers should develop

4. Providing potential courses of action that allow policy-makers to ‘draw lessons’ and to

‘learn’ about ways to solve or diminish the problem in question

This can be linked with the three framing processes as described by Benford and Snow and

therefore the Benford and Snow’s trichotomy will be used but we will adopt from Lopéz-

Santana that this framing process is also a part of a broader Europeanization process. In Table

3, it becomes clear that we link the three steps in the problem frame to the three steps in

Europeanization. We will be looking for the following clues:


39

Benford and Snow Lopéz-Santana Europeanization

Diagnostic frame Defining (and reinforcing)

what problems domestic

policy-makers should attack

to increase member state

competitiveness

Construction of the problem

in a way that the EU can take

up its role as coordinator

Prognostic frame Pointing out and/or

reinforcing the idea that a

policy line is good or bad and

necessary

Restricting and limiting the

policy options and courses of

actions that domestic policy-

makers should develop

Presenting itself (EU) as a

coordinator and how it can

do more than individual

Member States to circumvent

the subsidiarity principle

Motivational frame Providing potential courses

of action that allow policy-

makers to ‘draw lessons’ and

to ‘learn’ about ways to solve

or diminish the problem in

question

Handling things by means of

best practices and achieving

convergence towards EU

goals

Table 3 Problem framing and Europeanization

The aim is to reveal the problem frame in the EU documents which we assume is a process of

Europeanization in soft law.

3.2.4. Data

The Institutions of the European Union have a substantive amount of documents available for

the general public. These documents are the ones used to provide the data for this study. In

order to find them, the search term ‘Roma’ is used. Almost no official document refers to

‘gypsy’ or ‘traveller’.

Fundamental Rights Agency

The Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) was established in 2007 by a legal act of the

European Union in 2005 and is based in Vienna, Austria. Their main objective is “helping to

make fundamental rights a reality for everyone in the EU” (FRA 2012). The FRA is worth

mentioning in this study since it is “an entity that collects and analyses data for the purpose of

contributing towards the formulation of policy in the field of fundamental rights” (Scheinin,

2005:82). By collecting data and cooperating with Member States, NGO’s and Council of

Europe, the FRA provides the ‘basis for opinions’ for the institutions and Member States

(Alston & De Schutter, 2005:183). Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the FRA acts as a

norm provider for the European Commission.


40

Since 2007, on a regular basis, the Agency publishes documents with their findings. They

vary from broad topics such as racism, discrimination to minorities. In this study, only

documents on Roma people will be used. This allows us to efficiently explore those

documents relevant for this study. Since 19963 seven documents were published on the Roma

subject (see Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden.

Nr. Year Document Title

1 2003 Breaking the Barriers – Romani Women and Access to Public Health Care.

2 2006 Roma and Travellers in Public Education.

3 2008 Incident Report on Violent Attacks against Roma in Italy

4 2009a Housing Conditions of Roma and Travellers in the European Union.

Comparative

5 2009b The Situation of Roma EU Citizens Moving to and Settling in other EU

Member States.

6 2012 The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States - Survey results at a glance.

Table 4 FRA Documents

Advising committees

The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and the Committee of the Regions

(CoR) are two bodies established to bring in new expertise to European decision-making and

were given similar sets of consultative powers (Peterson & Shackleton, 2006). As

Christiansen argues “what emerges is a largely symbolic body [i.e. CoR] that suffers from

entrenched internal divisions and functional overreach in the absence of any real influence on

the Union's policymaking process” (1996:93), it is reasonable to assume that the role of the

committees is rather limited. However, they provide the European Institutions with

substantive reports about Roma people in Europe, and although some argue that those are

sometimes not even read (Vos, 2011:150), we believe that the framing of Roma people in the

Committees’ texts are of interest in this research to give a complete view of Roma policy in

the European Union.

The Committee of the Regions published two opinions on Roma issues in the Official Journal

of the European Union, and the EESC published four (see Table 5 Committees documents).

Nr. Year Committee Document Title

3 The Fundamental Rights Agency is the successor of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and

Xenophobia (EUMC). Some of the documents published by EUMC are provided by the FRA.


41

1 2011 CoR Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the social and

economic integration of the Roma in Europe

2 2012 CoR Opinion of the Committee of the Regions. An EU framework

for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020

3 2009 EESC Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

the ‘Integration of Minorities – Roma’

4 2011a EESC Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on

‘The situation of the Roma in the European Union’

5 2011b EESC Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

‘Intercultural dialogue and the Roma: the key role of women

and education’

6 2011c EESC Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

‘Societal empowerment and integration of Roma citizens in

Europe’

Table 5 Committees documents

European Commission

The European Commission acts as a unitary political decision-making body at crucial points

in the legislative process. Yet, research has revealed how different Directorates-Generals

(DG’s) compete throughout the policy formulation process. Therefore, even within the

European Commission – the agenda-setting body – “policy frames are at the centre of these

political conflicts [i.e. over the right to define issues and claim legislative responsibility for

them] because frames empower certain actors over other actors” (Daviter, 2007:658). This

also results in taking up issues “even when no initial expression of demand for new policy is

evident” (Daviter, 2007:658).

In the case of Roma issues, we have reason to assume that the European Commission acts as

in any other policy domain, i.e. manipulating the formation of interest in the EU by changing

the perception of policy issues and by providing for new institutional venues to process its

initiatives (Wendon 1998 cited by Daviter 2007). The Commission has published two reports

since 2004 and several documents (see Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden.).

Nr Year DG Title

1 2004 Employment and

Social Affairs

The situation of Roma in an enlarged European Union

2 2010a Employment and

Social Affairs and

Equal

Opportunities

Improving the tools for the social inclusion and non-

discrimination of Roma in the EU. Report.

3 2010b COMMISSION The social and economic integration of the Roma in

Europe

4 2011a COMMISSION An EU framework for National Roma Integration


42

Strategies up to 2020. Report.

5 2011b Justice Working together for Roma inclusion. The EU

framework explained

6 2012a Justice What works for Roma inclusion in the EU. Policies and

model approaches

7 2012b Justice National Roma integration strategies. A first step in the

implementation of the EU framework

Table 6 EC documents

Council of Ministers

According to Daviter (2007:659) is preference formation among Member States often volatile

and framing studies of Council of Ministers revealed that the policy formulation by the

European Commission has more effect on the subsequent political alignment of actors than

commonly assumed. Yet, the heart of the decision-making process lies in the Council of

Ministers, usually behind closed doors to protect the process of reaching a decision by

negotiations and compromise (Curtin, 2007). Since 2000, documents are made public and

emphasis is put on transparency. In this study, Council conclusions will be examined as well

as Council responses on questions of Members of the European Parliament.

Response on questions by members of the European Parliament

1 30/05/2005 Combating discrimination – recognition of the Roma

2 18/11/2005 Situation of the Roma in Eastern Europe, particularly Slovakia

3 17/07/2006 Inclusion of the Roma in EU institutions

4 15/01/2007 Minority protection for Roma in Romania and Bulgaria

5 07/07/2008 Database on Roma in Italy and human rights, right to privacy and

data protection

6 14/10/2008 European and national responsibility for the Roma minority

7 10/05/2010 Roma summit organised by the Spanish presidency

Table 7 Council documents (questions of MEP)

Council conclusions

1 26/05/2009 Council conclusions on the inclusion of the Roma

2 17/05/2010 Council conclusions on advancing Roma inclusion

3 14/10/2010 Information of the presidency – AOB on advancing Roma inclusion

4 05/05/2011 Opinion of the Social Protection Committee on an EU framework for

national Roma integration strategies up to 2020

5 26/05/2011 Presidency report on Roma inclusion

6 02/09/2011 Council conclusions on an EU framework for national Roma

integration strategies up to 2020

Table 8 Council documents (conclusions)


43

European Parliament

The effects of policy framing in the European Parliament (EP) are according to Daviter

(2007) less well documented and straightforward. The members of the European Parliament

(MEP) are less inclined to adopt the frame of the Commission and contest to it. Daviter

(2007) sees the constant struggle to expand its powers as a possible explanation for this

tendency. Vermeersch (2011) has inquired into the framing of Roma in EP debates and has

concluded that different frames exist, which have the tendency to influence each other. He

shows how the same arguments are used to serve different purposes. Even in the debates of

the European Parliament, policy frames are of great importance, therefore more research is

necessary.

However, the debates from the previous legislature of the European Parliament are not

available to public and previous research has been done on EP debates on Roma issues

(Vermeersch, 2011). Therefore, the analysis by Vermeersch is included in this study.

3.3. Hypotheses

Based on the literature review and personal beliefs and experiences, the following hypotheses

can be formulated.

In order to answer our first research question, i.e. how does the EU frame Roma people?, the

hypothesis can be deducted from Vermeersch’s research:

1. Roma people are being framed as a non-territorial nation

By considering Roma people as a non-territorial nation in policy documents, the EU can take

up its role as a coordinator. If Roma people have less affinities with Nation States, the EU can

act on behalf of the ‘true Europeans’ and design policy to be adopted by Member States. This

enlarges the power of the EU in social policy.

For the second research question, i.e. Why does the EU Europeanise Roma issues?, we have

distinguished two different motives from the literature review. A third is being presented as a

hypothesis in this research:

2. The EU frames problems related to Roma people as European in order to respond to

the fear of massive migration by existing Member States in 2004, to present itself as a

true European community and to develop a new policy domain in which the EU can

have a leading role.


44

As described in the previous chapter, the EU became confronted with the Roma issue when

CEE countries applied for membership. Many research was conducted on the conditionalities

of respect for minorities in those accession talks, particularly in the case for Roma people.

Moreover, Schimmelfenning (2001) has made a major contribution in the field of norms and

values in the enlargement process, which inspired several authors to apply it on the

importance of Roma issues. After the accession of 2004 and 2007, we believe that the

increased attention towards Roma people within the EU is the result of a Europeanization

process, i.e. that national governments should do what the EU suggests.

3.4. Procedures

Data is gathered by means of a thorough search on the official websites of the Fundamental

Rights Agency, European Commission, Council of Ministers and on the EUR-lex pages of the

European Union4 from September 2011 to December 2012. In the search functions, all

documents containing the word ‘Roma’ in their title are consulted from 2004 onwards. For the

FRA, one document of 2003 is included by purpose of completeness. Documents by the FRA,

European Commission and Council of Ministers are found on its respective websites by

means of the search functions. The documents of the Committee of the Regions and the

European Economic and Social Committee are found on the EUR-lex website.

For the Council of Ministers’ documents, a selection is made based on subject. Several

documents (preliminary draft Councils, draft Councils, opinions of different Council

configurations) are left out and only the final (draft) Council conclusion is used.

The Parliamentary questions to the Council with reference to Roma are also included in this

study (see Appendix D). However, only little relevant information is gathered from this

analysis, but provides us with some insight which are kept in mind in the discussion of the

results.

3.5. Analysis

The reports are analysed based on the identity –and problem frame as presented in table 9 per

institution and in chronological order. First the documents are scanned on discourse revealing

the identity frame. Words such as ‘Roma’, ‘minority’, ‘transnational’, ‘social class’, ‘ethnic

class’, ‘ethnicity’, etc. are marked. Then a more thorough study of the documents is

performed looking for more evidence of the identity frame. In the appendices, an overview is

4 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm


45

presented of the frame analysis whereby each chosen frame is motivated and is accompanied

with additional text extracts.

After identifying the identity frame, the problem frame is studied. Firstly, the diagnostic

frame is identified. This requires a second thorough reading of the text, looking not only at the

problems that are presented in the documents, but also at the solutions since the diagnostic,

prognostic and motivational frame are not three separate entities but form a truly unified

problem frame. Sometimes by looking at the recommendations and proposals, the diagnostic

frame becomes clear.

Secondly, the diagnostic frame and thirdly the motivational frame are identified according to

the same procedure as the diagnostic frame. Special attention is paid on discourse to analyse

the motivational frame, since it is in little words that severity, urgency, efficacy and propierty

can be distinguished. The analysis of the prognostic and motivational frame is also

accompanied by text extracts.

After the detailed analysis, a synopsis is made of the different adopted frames per institution.

Attention is paid to chronology, change of discourse and problem framing and references to

documents by other Institutions. The synthesis of the detailed analysis is presented in chapter

4 (Results).

3.6. Limitations

The problem descriptions in official documents are according to Vermeersch “general,

implicit and vague” (2006:168) and therefore it is not always possible to assign them to the

ideal types of the different frames. Within the institutions, different opinions exist and in the

final published version, consensus is reached. This often results in rather little revealing

formulations or contradictory statements. Vermeersch also acknowledges this, but states that

in spite of different – at times conflicting – frames, “one or two main elements were regarded

as the real problem” (2006:168) and focusses on those. A similar attempt will be made in this

research.

Furthermore, different opinions can vary in time. The data in this study is gathered from

documents since 2004. Simhandl (2009) has inquired into how EU discourse has evolved over

time, and states that in general “the discourse is characterized more by discontinuity than

continuity” (Simhandl, 2009:14). We have taken into account her distinction of three different

time periods ( 1970s – 1990s, 1990s – 2004, 2004 – ) with reference to Roma discourse;


46

however, time periods are also ideal types and there might a process in the discourse since

2004 which is not a part of this study. In order to try to meet this shortcoming, special

attention will be paid to the data of the reports, without explicitly adopting a longitudinal

approach.

A final limitation is what Vermeersch (2006) calls ‘policy assessment’. Different problem

frames and different solutions will be described in this study, yet no moral or evaluative

statement is made by the author. As in Vermeersch’s study, this study deals with the discourse

of policy, not with an evaluation of the policy.

Identity Frame Problem Frame

Non-territorial nation

- European identity

- postnational citizenship

- adopted by

* European institutions:

raison d’être

* Member states: attention

away from responsibilities

Benford and Snow Lopèz-Santana Europeanization

Diagnostic

- value-based

- definition

- construction

Vermeersch

Problem Cause

Social behaviour Roma themselves

Patterns of

discrimination by

the ethnic majority

of the state

Material

circumstances

and state

responsibility for

ensuring better

conditions

Failure of economic

and social

integration

Roma themselves

Current lack of

state protection

Ethnic majority

or authorities

Defining (and reinforcing) what

problems domestic policy-makers

should attack to increase member

state competitiveness

Construction of the problem in a

way that the EU can take up its

role as coordinator

Prognostic

- solutions

- strategies

- determined by diagnostic frame

Pointing out and/or reinforcing the

idea that a policy line is good or bad

and necessary

Restricting and limiting the policy

options and courses of actions that

domestic policy-makers should

develop

Presenting itself (EU) as a

coordinator and how it can do

more than individual member

states to circumvent the

subsidiarity principle

Motivational

- severity

- urgency

- efficacy

- propierty

Providing potential courses of action

that allow policy-makers to ‘draw

lessons’ and to ‘learn’ about ways to

solve or diminish the problem in

question

Handling things by means of

best practices and achieving

convergence towards EU goals

National minority

- Roma identity vs. majority

identity

- nationality

- minority rights

- adopted by

* future member states in

accession period from

short-term benefits

Ethnoclass

- social conditions of Roma

- little reference to Roma

culture and identity

- integration and

assimilation

- adopted by

* NGO’s

* member states

Table 9 Frame Analysis Overview

4. Results

The overriding purpose of this research is to achieve a detailed and transparent overview of

the Europeanization process in EU policy with regard to Roma people. Two different frames

in the policy documents are inquired into in order to achieve our goal:

Firstly, in order to answer the first research question

1. How does the EU Frame Roma people?

the identity frames of all EU documents are identified and analysed.

Secondly, in order to answer the second research question

2. Why does the EU gets involved in Roma issues?

the problem frames of all EU documents are identified and analysed.

A detailed overview of the identity and problem frames is presented in Table 7. The different

Institutions of the European Union are analysed separately. The analysis in detail is presented

in the Appendices, and an overview of the findings is presented below.

4.1. Fundamental Rights Agency

A detailed overview of the frame analysis is presented in Appendix A.

4.1.1. Identity Frame

The Fundamental Rights Agency mostly frames the problems that Roma people are

confronted with within the ethnoclass frame. The FRA focuses on fundamental rights, which

include the right on employment, adequate housing, access to health care and education.

In four of the six documents analysed, the FRA adopts the ethnoclass frame. Although the

FRA refers to a shared culture and history of Roma people, most importantly they are

confronted with similar issues of discrimination and exclusion (see for example, FRA

2003:5). They arrived as migrants in Europe and for decades the state excluded them or tried

to assimilate them to eradicate their nomadic lifestyles (FRA, 2006:45).

In the other two documents, the non-territorial nation frame is adopted. Not coincidentally,

the subject of these reports is Roma people on the move. Every EU citizen has the right to

move and settle freely in the European Union. What the FRA emphasizes, is that when it

comes to Roma people, this right is not guaranteed. Roma people may move more frequently


50

than any other citizen, since they are motivated to move because of poverty and

discrimination. However, these push factors remain the same in the countries of their

destination. What is more, EU Roma people are sometimes worse off than asylum seekers

from outside the EU, which makes the FRA conclude that there is something wrong with EU

citizenship (FRA, 2009b:22).

Member States – if they do – only take measures to integrate Roma people that are already

citizens; however, when they move they show no sign to support their citizens to settle in

another Member State. This often results in Roma people moving around across the Schengen

area without any state taking responsibility (FRA, 2009b).

4.1.2. Problem Frame

Diagnostic

The FRA adopts in every report the second diagnostic frame by Vermeersch. Only in the

incident report on violent attacks against Roma in Italy (FRA, 2008), the fourth diagnostic

frame is adopted, since the problem frame is very specific and the Italian government is

entirely to blame.

In general, Roma people have been “historically and systematically disadvantaged” (FRA,

2003:24), which resulted in social exclusion from mainly housing, education, employment

and access to health care. This in turn has resulted in more discrimination, racism and

xenophobia by the majority population. One problem cannot be seen from another, and all

these factors create a vicious circle of poverty (FRA, 2006).

The FRA sees two other main consequences for the social exclusion of Roma people from

main society, besides a pattern of discrimination. Firstly, the reason why Roma people have

failed in the past to improve their own social condition is that they are ignorant of their rights

and the need for a proper education and health care. It is not ethnicity that prevents them from

integrating into society, but the pattern of exclusion that have made them ignorant (FRA

2003; 2006). For example, the FRA mentions that Roma women having a lot of children at an

early age is not part of their ethnic culture, but the result of their social conditions which made

them unaware of the risks of early pregnancy (FRA, 2003). Another example from the

education report is that Roma parents are not to blame for not stimulating their children to go

to school, but their ignorance of what benefits a proper education can have on access to the

labour market which keeps their children out of school. This is caused by their own


51

experience of exclusion from employment. They are not aware of the benefits, because they

believe they will be excluded anyway (FRA, 2006).

Secondly, another consequence of the social exclusion of Roma people is that they tend to

move more frequently. Social exclusion is the main push factor for Roma families, as a

consequence their future becomes even more unsecure. The FRA states that Roma people ‘are

the most vulnerable citizens of the EU’ (FRA, 2009b:12). Although an EU legal framework

protects Roma citizens from discrimination in the EU, Member States “seem to have fallen

short of making the rights contained fully and practically accessible” (FRA, 2009b:13).

Prognostic

The proposals by the FRA evolve more in the direction of a European approach as time

progresses. In the first reports, the FRA holds the Member States responsible to raise

awareness and provide resources to tackle discrimination and social exclusion by the local

authorities. It is on a local and regional level that combatting firm stereotypes and deep rooted

xenophobia by the majority population can achieve the best results. It is up to the State

authorities to address these issues in their policy.

However, especially since 2009 it has become clear that despite the Member States expressing

their commitment to combat these problems, results have not been achieved. The FRA

explicitly mentions the failure of some Member States to act sufficiently to guarantee Roma

people’s rights, and therefore proposes more EU action, since although – in this case –

“housing falls primarily within the competence of the EU Member States, the issue of

discrimination falls within the EU competence” (FRA, 2009a:34). By framing the social

exclusion of Roma people in domains such as education, housing, health care and

employment in a discrimination frame, the FRA justifies more EU action and welcomes it. In

the same document, the FRA invites the Commission to set up a Framework Strategy, which

will eventually be put in practice in 2011 (see EC, 2011a).

Also in 2009, in the report on Roma people moving to and settling in other EU Member

States, the FRA proposes an even more ambitious and further-reaching role for the European

Commission. The FRA states therein “at the heart of this report is the question of what EU

citizenship means – and should mean – to Roma EU citizens” (FRA, 2009b:10). It takes

Roma people as a ‘litmus test’, i.e. policy that improves the social conditions of moving

Roma people, will benefit every EU citizen as well. In fact, the FRA acknowledges that many

barriers to inclusion remain, but it is the EU that can guarantee their rights, since “in this


52

context EU citizenship offers a serious prospect for a process of inclusion” (FRA, 2009b:7,


The report concludes with the remarkable words:

The European Union and its Member States need therefore to adopt targeted policies

that are based on integrated rights- and equality-based standards promoting social

cohesion and helping to further deliver on the promise of ‘CivisEuropaeus sum’ (FRA,

2009b:76, emphasis in original).

Motivational

The FRA uses in its report a motivational discourse focusing on the urgency of the situation.

By emphasizing on a regular basis the problem of data collection, it puts itself in a ‘strong

position’ to enhance awareness of the Member States to address the Roma issues. Especially

in the latter reports, the FRA welcomes legal initiatives by the EU and policy proposals by the

European Commission, but points out that the situation of many Roma people in Europe

remains worrying. Therefore, the FRA – especially in the more recent reports – strongly

recommends the Member States to make full use of the EU instruments, and to lay down strict

timetables, benchmarks, indicators and provide for impact assessment mechanisms (FRA,

2009b) coordinated at European level.

The FRA considers the EU as a good architect providing the legal framework that forbids

discrimination. But by pointing out the failure of several Member States to put this in practice

or to make sure that ‘on the ground’ discrimination is also eradicated, and by emphasizing the

need for correct data collection, the FRA presents itself as an indispensable actor to end Roma

people discrimination in the European Union and continue to monitor fundamental rights.

4.1.3. Conclusions

The Fundamental Rights Agency

- Adopts the ethnoclass frame: Roma people suffer from social exclusion caused by and

reinforces patterns of discrimination creating a vicious circle

- Adopts the non-territorial nation frame with reference of Roma people moving to and

settling in other Member States, thereby emphasizing that no State takes up its

responsibility to protect its citizens, except for the EU


53

- Holds the Member States responsible for not providing sufficient tools to include

Roma people in mainstream society and to end the long pattern of discrimination by

the majority population

- Points out that Roma people should not be held responsible for not integrating, but

they are simply ignorant

- Points out that Roma tend to move more because of social exclusion and

discrimination making them more vulnerable

- Emphasizes the need for Member States to ensure Roma people’s rights within an EU-

framework

- Presents itself as an indispensable actor by pointing out the need of further monitoring

and data gathering to ensure fundamental rights are not violated

4.2. Advising Committees

A detailed overview of the frame analysis is presented in Appendix B.


The Committee of the Regions only recently addressed Roma people explicitly in its opinions.

The Committee frames Roma people in a non-territorial nation frame. When describing

Roma, the Committee points out the necessity to be well aware of the shared history of social

marginalisation and exclusion, next to their shared cultural characteristics, but refuses to

simplify and assimilate groups within a single socio-cultural identity (CoR, 2011). In contrast

to other EU bodies, the CoR emphasises the need for the Roma community to preserve its

identity and that policy-makers should not merely be preoccupied with their social and

economic disadvantages, but also with their minority rights. Furthermore, the CoR agrees that

Roma integration is perceived “as a transnational issue that should be tackled in a coordinated

manner” (CoR, 2012: C54/16).

Even more than the CoR, does the European Economic and Social Committee emphasize the

cultural identity of Roma people in Europe. The EESC stresses the need to adopt an

intercultural approach, instead of multicultural one. As the European integration project is

described as ‘unity in diversity’, Roma people – spread across Europe – are “an impressive

example of European cultural diversity, an aspect which is further enriched by the fact that

Roma themselves embody diverse cultural identities” (EESC, 2011b: C248/61). Therefore the

EESC advocates for an intercultural approach with regard to the inclusion of Roma people

instead of a multicultural approach because the latter is not compatible with “a community

held together by a shared ‘core culture’” (EESC, 2011b: C248/61). This means that in policy-


54

making, the Roma culture and identity should be preserved since “knowledge of one’s own

history is of utmost importance for both the minority and the majority” (EESC, 2009:

C27/89). For example, the EESC strongly encourages respect for the Roma language because

“a common language fashions a common identity” and that “the promotion of their language

is of fundamental importance, therefore, for the social recognition and cultural identity of the

Roma” (EESC, 2009: C27/89). In all opinions given by the EESC, Roma people are presented

as a non-territorial nation. The EESC explicitly excludes the national minority identity frame

by stating “that Roma should not be given special rights but that it is necessary to fully respect

their European citizenship” (EESC, 2011c: C248/18).


Diagnostic

The Committee of the Regions adopts the second diagnostic frame by Vermeersch since it

also holds a pattern of discrimination by the majority population and the lack of adequate

policy to end it, responsible for the exclusion. In their opinion, the CoR states that “social and

economic integration takes place primarily at local level” (CoR, 2012: C54/14). The problem

is that local authorities lack sufficient support from the national level – they are left on their

own (CoR, 2011) – and furthermore, EU funding does not always reach them because Roma

communities are rarely represented on a local level. According to the CoR, a top-down

approach does not work, and Roma participation and mobilisation remains low. Yet, change is

needed on a local level, since “in order to tackle the social exclusion of the Roma and to

improve their situation, it is not enough merely to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of

race, colour, ethnic or social origin or membership of a minority” (CoR, 2012: C54/14).

According to the EESC, it is the pattern of discrimination and prejudice by the majority

population that excludes Roma people from society, thereby also adopting the second

diagnostic problem frame. The problem lies in a misunderstanding of each culture, which

leads to a vicious circle of exclusion. The marginalised situation of Roma people gives an

impetus for the majority population to keep their xenophobia intact. For example, the EESC

notes that their nomadic lifestyle – which is a typical stereotypical image of Roma people – is

not a cause of their social exclusion but a consequence. Ignorance of each culture and cultural

difference prevents results in deep rooted racism (EESC, 2009).

Integration is not a one-way street, but a process that goes in two directions and

demands efforts from both the minorities and majorities. Fearful of having to give up


55

their principles, traditions and identity in the course of integration, many Roma

harbour great reservations when it comes to integration measures. Likewise the

inherent discrimination over generations makes it difficult for non-Roma to put their

prejudice to one side and welcome the Roma culture (EESC, 2009: C27/92, emphasis

added).

Prognostic

The CoR stresses the need to inform Roma populations of its rights and to encourage a

bottom-up participation of Roma NGO’s and civil society organisations. In order to encourage

Roma people to mobilise themselves and to take away the prejudice by the majority

population, the CoR recommends local authorities to work with mediators and awareness

raising campaigns. Therefore the state authorities should provide enough resources for local

authorities to set up those initiatives. This includes proper anti-discrimination legislation by

transposing EU directives and more cooperation with the local level, creating a true multilevel

governance that “brings regional and local and regional authorities into decision-making

processes” without viewing them “purely as implementing bodies” but equipping them “with

the tools and financial resources to tackle the challenges of Roma integration” (CoR, 2012:

C54/15).

The CoR advocates for a stronger cooperation between regions to exchange good practices

and suggests formalising the coordination mechanism instead of the ‘on voluntarily basis’ EU

platform for Roma inclusion. Regions and cities in Europe should pool their best practices to

help to implement the EU Framework for Roma integration.

The EESC explicitly states that “instead of developing strategies for the Roma and carrying

out analysis on them, specific measures must be developed together with the Roma and the

organisations representing them” (EESC, 2011b: C248/60). Therefore, the EESC proposes a

two-track approach. Firstly, the Member States should immediately transpose the EU anti-

discrimination Directive into national law. Secondly, on the long-term, Roma people must

become active players, take control of their own lives “and cast of the mantle of victim hood”

(EESC, 2009: C27/89). Active Roma participation will lead to a better understanding of Roma

culture, and will take away their own reservations.

Also, the EESC argues that the EU is responsible to set up an integrated, coordinated, Europe-

wide strategy and “a determined, systematic action programme that covers all policy areas

and is implemented at national level, thus equipping the individuals and communities


56

concerned with the powers and authority they need to shape their own destinies” (EESC,

2011c: C248/16). One of the proposals is a ‘Desegregation Directive’ (EESC, 2009:27/93).

Motivational

The CoR is boldly recommends more participation of local authorities in the policy making

process as well advocates for stronger cooperation with different regions and cities in Europe.

The CoR goes further my recommending minimum standards for “promoting the social,

economic and cultural integration of the Roma minority” (CoR, 2012:C54/15).

According to the CoR, more involvement at the European level and more cooperation among

the regions is not a violation of the subsidiarity principle because of the transnational

character of the European Roma community, because “the shared aspects of social exclusion

that this community faces in various parts of Europe are of such that the measures proposed

can best be implemented at EU level” (CoR, 2012: C54/15, emphasis added).

The EESC emphasizes the need for Roma people to empower themselves and become more

active players. The EU, as a very important actor, can help this bottom-up approach as

proposed by the EESC, due to the fact that the EU provides the legal framework and the

financial instruments. The EESC believes that the EU “is now at a historic turning point: it

may finally produce a policy to benefit the EU’s most excluded and disadvantaged ethnic

group” (EESC, 2011c: C248/21). The EESC adds their “wishes to be a committed partner in

this process” (EESC, 2011c: C248/16). In a report of 2011, published by the European

Commission, the Commission recommends Member States to entrust the management and

implementation of some parts of their programmes to intermediary bodies, such as the

network of the European Economic and Social Committee (EC, 2011a:10).

4.2.3. Conclusions

The Committee of the Regions

- Adopts the non-territorial nation frame to describe the situation of Roma people in the

European Union

- Focuses on shared characteristics of culture and social exclusion in Europe and

emphasizes that their identity should be preserved

- Argues that a top-down approach does not work, and calls for Roma participation in

the policy making process


57

- Points out that local authorities should have more input in decision-making and the

national authorities should provide them with more tools to let them actively

participate in the policy making process

- Local authorities and regions in Europe should pool their best practices in a formalised

platform

- Minimum standards and more involvement on the European level is no violation of the

subsidiarity principle taking into consideration the severity of the shared aspects of

social exclusion in Europe

The European Economic and Social Committee

- Adopts the non-territorial identity frame by focusing on a diverse Roma culture, which

represents the ideal European value of ‘unity in diversity’

- Emphasizes that Member States should immediately transpose EU anti-discrimination

Directives into national law

- Highlights the need for Roma people to empower themselves to promote their culture

- Advocates for an inclusive European strategy that includes all stakeholders

- Presents itself as a committed partner

4.3. European Commission

A detailed overview of the frame analysis is presented in Appendix C.


In all its Communications, the European Commission adopts the ethnoclass identity frame to

describe Roma people. In the first Communication since the enlargement of 2004, the focus is

more on cultural and distinct identity of Roma people than in later documents.

In the face of a history of discrimination and persecution, and despite centuries in

Europe without any visible autochthonous institutions, Roma have maintained a

distinct identity (EC, 2004:9).

Since 2010, the Commission emphasizes that in designing, implementing and evaluating

policy Roma people are ‘rather explicitly targeted than exclusively’, meaning that in policy

Roma people should explicitly be addressed, but this should not mean that other groups of

people, non-Roma, also suffering from the same social conditions, are excluded. Also, since

then, the Commission has abated its references to Roma distinct cultural identity. For


58

example, in the key document on an EU Framework for National Roma Strategies up to 2020,

only one reference is made to culture, in a footnote.

The term “Roma” is used – similarly to other political documents of the European

Parliament and the European Council – as an umbrella term which includes groups of

people who have more or less similar cultural characteristics (EC, 2011a:2).

By ‘explicitly targeting, but not exclusively’, the Commission tries to avoid to feed the

perception that it is their ethnicity that causes their social exclusion as this might lead to

‘generalisations’ and ‘compound stereotypes’. In 2012, the Commission notes that “in fact,

many of the problems related to Roma in situations of poverty are shared, to some extent,

with many non-Roma” (EC, 2012a:7).

The Commission points out in every Communication that Roma mobilisation is needed to

overcome stereotyping and social exclusion, but never advocates specific minority rights for

Roma people. Instead it calls for ‘acceptation, respect and support’ of understanding Roma

culture.


Diagnostic

The European Commission agrees in all its Communications that it is the pattern of

discrimination and the lack of sufficient State support to ensure better conditions for the

Roma people that causes their social exclusion. Also, the Commission points out that Roma

integration is a two-way process as the mind-sets of both the majority and minority population

needs to change. In order to achieve that change, Roma empowerment and inclusion in the

decision-making process is needed.

The problem that the Commission addressed in 2004 is that although the EU has provided an

anti-discrimination Directive, Member States have failed to efficiently transpose it into

national law or to implement it in all fields of relevance. Roma people are discriminated and

excluded in different fields such as housing, health care, employment and education, which is

interrelated creating a vicious circle of poverty. In the beginning, the Member States limited

themselves to sketchy anti-discrimination law, which resulted in a fragile operating

environment surrounding policy making. As a result, no real improvement of the social

conditions of Roma people could be noted.


59

In its later Communications, the Commission noticed progress in the political will by some

Member States, but their initiatives and policies remained ad-hoc and fragmented (EC,

2010b). The lack of strong and proportionate measures prevented actual improvement of the

day-to-day situation of the Roma people. Furthermore, the Commission observed that the

Member States made insufficient use of the European Structural Funds, mainly because Roma

people were so little involved in implementation of the programmes.

Recently, the Commission also highlights the problem of Roma people outside the EU,

especially in future EU Member States, such as in the Western Balkan and Turkey. The

Commission realises that Roma integration is a long-term process, and advocates setting up

Roma integration programmes in those countries with the help from the Instruments for Pre-

Accession Assistance. Explicitly, the Commission mentions ‘lessons learned from past

accession’, and also expects “an enhanced political commitment to Roma inclusion, the

allocation of appropriate resources under the national budgets, better coordination with all

relevant donors and a systematic evaluation and reinforced monitoring” (EC, 2011a:11) from

its authorities.

Prognostic

Since 2004, the European Commission’s reports have made interesting developments in its

prognostic frame. The key document of the European Commission is ‘An EU Framework for

National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020’ (EC, 2011a) in which the Commission

presents a clear framework with specific goals for the Member States to adopt or further

develop a comprehensive approach to Roma integration, in proportion to the size of the Roma

population living in their territories. Before that, the European Commission referred to its

anti-discrimination instruments such as the Race Directive, the Open Method of Coordination,

the European Employment Strategy, structural funds and other programmes.

Despite the complete European anti-discrimination legal framework, the situation of Roma

people remained the same, as shown in the diagnostic frame. Member States were encouraged

to ratify the Framework Convention and to transpose the Directives into national law;

however, the Commission realised that this was insufficient. Whereas in 2004 the

Commission stated that the EU should “explore ways to expand its powers in human rights”

(EC, 2004:13), seven years later it presented its EU Framework for National Roma Integration

Strategies up to 2020, a specific strategy aimed as “a means to complement and reinforce the

EU’s equality legislation and policies by addressing at national, regional and local level, but


60

also through dialogue with and participation of the Roma, the specific needs of Roma

regarding equal access to employment, education, housing and healthcare” (EC, 2011:3).

It focuses on Roma empowerment and participation in the decision-making and

implementation process of Roma inclusion strategies according to the partnership principle.

As shown in the diagnostic frame, the Commission sees Roma integration as a two-ways

process. The Commission wants to overcome the reticence at a local level to make use of the

EU Structural Funds by increasing Roma representation. Moreover, according to the

Commission, Roma involvement increases the chances of success.

The Commission also advocates for a more integrated approach instead of single-strand

solutions, since the problems that Roma people face are mutually reinforcing. The Framework

incorporates all diagnostic insights, and ensures that both national, regional and local

integration policies focus on Roma in “a clear and specific way” (EC, 2011:4). On top of the

Framework, the Commission provides technical assistance for local authorities to improve

their management, monitoring and evaluating capacities which will improve their access to

the structural funds.

In 2012, the European Commission presented a policy and model approaches which, which is

meant as a guide to help and support national and local decision makers. The

recommendations are nevertheless extremely detailed and specific, which is unseen in

Commission’s reports. The idea is that Roma people suffer from similar social conditions, but

that different Roma groups are confronted with different social environmental problems. The

tools needed to improve their social conditions in an urban setting are different from the ones

required for in rural environments. Roma people living in integrated neighbourhoods is not

the same as those living in segregated neighbourhoods or (semi-)mobile Roma communities

(EC, 2012b). In the next report, the European Commission reiterates its proposals and states

that “much more needs to be done” at national level (EC, 2012c:18).

Motivational

The European Commission uses a lot of motivational discourse to stress the need for urgent

measures and more efforts, the severity of the situation, and the need for an integrated

approach. The EU initiated a legal framework for anti-discrimination laws, provided funding,

enhanced cooperation in Roma platforms, launched a Framework, but is still restricted by the

subsidiarity principle. By means of motivational discourse, the EC persuades the Member

States of the necessity of a European approach and motivates them to set up ambitious


61

integration strategies incorporated in a European one. The key document in which the

Commission communicates on this Framework, opens with an account on Roma people still

being excluded and states: “This is not acceptable in the European Union (EU) at the

beginning of the 21st century” (EC, 2011a:2).

Although Member States confirm their cooperation, the Commission points out that the real

and systemic change on the ground fails to ensue. Therefore, in every report by the

Commission phrases such as “Now is the time to change good intentions into more concrete

actions” (2011a:14), and that it is necessary that “there is progress towards the achievement of

the EU Roma integration goals” (2011a:13) can be found. Especially the last reports are a

repetition of what has been done and especially what more needs to be done by the Member

States (EC, 2012a; 2012b).

National Roma strategies and policies have to be framed in the values and principles

of the EU, and model approaches to Roma inclusion can and must be systematically

connected with EU legal, policy and financial instruments (EC, 2012a:48, emphasis

added).

However, much more needs to be done at national level. Socio-economic inclusion

remains first and foremost the responsibility of the Member States and they will need

stronger efforts to live up to their responsibilities, by adopting more concrete

measures¸ explicit targets for measurable deliverables, clearly earmarked funding at

national level and a sound national monitoring and evaluation system (EC, 2012b:18,

emphasis added).

The European Commission has claimed propierty to improve the social conditions of the

Roma people within and outside the European Union, but has come to a point in which its

limitations become clear.

4.3.3. Conclusions

The European Commission

- Adopts the ethnoclass identity frame while describing Roma people

- Tries to avoid to feed the perception that cultural identity is the cause of their social

exclusion

- Advocates for Roma empowerment and mobilisation


62

- Notes that Member States fail to make sufficient use of EU instruments to combat

discrimination

- Calls the Member States to set up clear benchmarking, specific goals and effective

monitoring mechanisms to improve the actual day-to-day situation of Roma people

- Is confronted with the subsidiarity principle by repeating the need for Member States

to step up their efforts

4.4. Council

A detailed overview of the frame analysis is presented in Appendix D.


The Council follows the identity frame applied by the European Commission. It explicitly

mentions that it uses the term ‘Roma’ in line with the definition contained in the

Commission’s communications, which is the ethnoclass identity frame. The Council almost

always avoids mentioning cultural identity, and focuses in its conclusions on the social

integration and inclusion which is defined as “measures for improving the situation of Roma

living in the Member States’ territories” (Council, 2011:C258/6).


Diagnostic

The Council acknowledges the need to improve the social conditions of Roma people. They

suffer from a long pattern of discrimination, especially in education, health care, employment

and housing resulting in extreme poverty. It agrees with the Commission that their social

situations makes them vulnerable, for example in human trafficking. In the presidency report

(Council, 2011b), the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), Employment, Social Policy, Health

and Consumer Affairs (EPSCO) and the Education, Youth, Culture and Sports (EYCS)

Council configurations present their conclusions on the issue of Roma inclusion based on

their domain. For example, according to the JHA, Roma people lack sufficient knowledge of

their rights and of available legal tools. Their diagnostic frame is very similar to the one of the

European Commission.

Prognostic

The Council welcomes the initiatives of the European Commission and advocates also an

integrated approach and close cooperation between the Member States and European

Commission. More than the Commission, the Council emphasizes that it is the Member

States’ responsibility to implement the guidelines of the Commission into their national action

plans according to their circumstances


63

The Member States have the primary competence for designing and implementing

policies aimed at advancing the social and economic inclusion of Roma, and action

taken at the EU level should take into consideration the different national

circumstances and respect the principle of subsidiarity (Council, 2011c:C258/7).

In line with the Commission, the Council also emphasizes the need for Roma people to

empower themselves by representing them in governmental boards, work with an ombudsman

and mediators to combat stereotypes and racism. The JHA acknowledges that the existing EU

legislation prohibiting discrimination “was not always implemented on the ground” (Council,

2011b:3).

With more emphasis than the European Commission, the Council highlights that the Council

of Europe, the OSCE, the UN and its agencies and the World Bank deliver good work and

that cooperation with those institutions is welcome since they “acquired substantial expertise”

with dealing with the Roma issue (Council, 2010a:3).

Motivational

The Council stress that there is an urgent need in making progress to improve the socio-

economic situation and combat discrimination (Council, 2011a:3) and is well aware of the

severity of the problems. It welcomes all initiatives by the European Commission and

acknowledges that the EU level has an important role to play in supporting the Member States

in their efforts, but notes that

It is important to avoid setting up new reporting obligations or monitoring processes.

In this context, the SPC [Social Protection Committee] underlines that it is ready to

address the situation of Roma and other vulnerable groups in its ongoing work within

the social OMC (Council, 2011a:6).

4.4.3. Conclusions

The Council of the European Union

- Adopts the ethnoclass identity frame in line with the European Commission

- Agrees with the European Commission that discrimination caused the exclusion of

Roma people in education, health, employment and housing

- Concurs with the European Commission that Member States should implement the EU

guidelines in their national action programmes

- Acknowledges that the EU has an important role to play


64

- Emphasizes that it is the Member States’ responsibility to design and implement Roma

strategies

- Refuses to agree with new reporting obligations or monitoring processes

- Emphasizes the good work by other non-EU institutions

- Is cautious of the subsidiarity principle

4.5. European Parliament

The frame analysis of discussions within the European Parliament are adopted from

Vermeersch (2011). Vermeersch (2011) inquired into the political debates held between 2008

and 2010 on the adoption of a new parliamentary resolution on Roma issues.


Strikingly, according to Vermeersch, the Members of Parliament agreed on adopting the same

identity frame, the non-territorial nation frame, since in the debates “the ‘European’ identity

of the Roma population was only little or not at all questioned” (Vermeersch, 2011:425).

Roma people are seen a transnational ethnical minority, and not as an umbrella of different

national minority populations.


Less consensus was reached on the problem framing. Vermeersch (2011) states that two

competing policy frames could be noticed. In the first frame is emphasized that all Roma

people suffer from the same type of discrimination practices and social exclusion and

therefore their protection should be guaranteed on a European level. In this frame, proposals

are made to set up new European initiatives to protect the rights of Roma people in Europe.

By extension, this frame easily fits in a larger frame that advocates for policy measures to

create a European identity for all EU citizens. As Adrian Severin, (suspended) Romanian

member of the Party of European Socialist, points out

The European Union enlargement was the last act of Roma liberation. Roma are today

European citizens. Perhaps they are in absolute terms the truest European citizens

because they are only Europeans. Their cultural, social and economic integration is a

European challenge. Therefore we must communitarise the Roma policy. A strategy

which only makes recommendations to the states, leaving them the ultimate choice and

the ultimate responsibilities, simply does not work (European Parliament, 2008 cited

by Vermeersch, 2011:426).


65

The second frame, according to Vermeersch, starts from the same ‘European reflex’, but

assigns another meaning to it. Roma inclusion is also a European matter, because they have

not only no Nation-State defending their rights, but also because they do not belong to a true

European nation. This means that the Member States are not even held responsible for not

guaranteeing Roma’s rights. This easily results in the reasoning that Roma people themselves

should be held responsible for becoming marginalised. It is their ethnicity that prevented them

for integrating, therefore their exclusion should be seen as their own responsibility

(Vermeersch, 2011:425). This is what the European Commission tried to avoid by advocating

policies ‘specifically targeting Roma people, but not exclusively’ (cfr. Supra).

Vermeersch warns for the perversion of the identity frame in order to arrive at the opposite

conclusion.

4.5.3. Conclusions

The European Parliament

- Adopted the non-territorial identity frame and never questioned the European

character of Roma identity

- Adopted several resolutions in 2005, 2006 and 2008 in which the Commission was

asked to give priority to Roma inclusion policy

- Some members use the non-territorial identity frame to predicate a European

responsibility to guarantee Roma people’s rights

- Some members use the non-territorial identity frame to hold Roma people themselves

responsible for their marginalised situations


67

5. Discussion

The aim of this study is to gain insight in the Europeanization process of Roma policy in the

European Union. Accordingly, two research questions are formulated (cfr. 3.1.) and two

hypotheses (cfr. 3.3.). Our first hypothesis is that the European Union frames Roma people as

non-territorial nation when describing them. The second hypothesis adopted is that the

European Union appropriates setting up policy with regard to Roma people to develop a new

(social) policy domain in which the EU can have a leading role. By means of frame analysis

of official EU documents, data is gathered (cfr. 4.), and will be discussed below.

5.1. Roma identity

The Institutions of the European Union differ in their framing of Roma identity. The

Committee of the Regions, European Economic and Social Committee and the European

Parliament adopt the non-territorial identity frame. The European Commission and Council

use the ethnoclass frame. The Fundamental Rights Agency uses both frames in different

documents.

The hypothesis that the institutions of the European Union frame the Roma as a non-territorial

nation is thus partly confirmed. The advising bodies and parliament refer to Roma people who

share origin, culture and social conditions. The CoR points out that too much focus is on

Roma people’s history of marginalisation and states that their shared cultural identity must

also be given attention. The EESC focuses more on the need of an ‘intercultural’ approach

with recognition of Roma cultural identity and the European Parliament takes the European

identity of the Roma population as given.

As described in the literature (section 2), this has major implications on how they are being

treated (Mayall, 2004). By presenting them as ‘transnational issue’ that is best tackled in a

coordinated manner, the risk exists that the prejudice that Roma people are themselves to be

hold responsible for their conditions will become more supported. This has already become

clear in the European Parliament, in which some members refer to its transnational character

to tackle more European support since it is their identity that prevents them from integrating

(Vermeersch, 2011). Holding on to that identity should therefore not be supported. For

example, Philip Claeys (NA MEP), asked the Council what the cost was of the organised

Roma summits (see appendix D.8) and indirectly posed the question whether it is useful to

spend so much money on Roma issues.


68

This is what Vermeersch (2006) calls the risk of ‘double jeopardy’; the more Roma identity is

being emphasized by policy makers, the more Roma people appear to be held responsible for

the ‘Roma problem’. The CoR is aware of this, and states that it refuses to simplify groups

within a single soci-cultural identity. The European Commission and the Council are more

careful in this matter. They avoid this double jeopardy by not referring to their cultural or

ethnic identity at all (Council) or by proposing measures that need to target Roma people in

policy ‘explicitly, but not exclusively’ (Commission). Therefore this study concludes that the

Commission and Council adopt the ethnoclass frame. The Commission, however, uses well-

considered words to avoid the double jeopardy, whereas in fact the Commission aims at the

same outcome as the Committees and Parliament, i.e. a true European community based on

core European values and identity in which Roma people can be presented as an example of

that European identity. For two reasons this has become clear in the analysis.

Firstly, the Commission advocates for a strong Roma mobilisation. It calls for Roma people to

empower themselves and become active players in the decision-making process. According to

the Commission, this will help to overcome the prejudice by the majority population, and will

enhance the chances of success of integration policies. What the Commission also achieves,

although not mentioning this explicitly, is overcoming the double jeopardy. The Commission

is well aware of the identity problem of Roma people. Assimilation is not acceptable in the

21st century, whereas giving preferential treatment to one minority will provoke hostility

reactions by both other minorities and majorities. By supporting Roma participation and

empowerment across the European continent, the Commission indirectly helps them to lose

the stigma of being unwilling to integrate, acting like victims and profiteers of the welfare

state and contributes to the process of ethnogenesis, i.e. transforming social identity into

cultural, ethnic identity. The EU provides a platform and protect their rights, thereby

overcoming the two major hurdles that prevented them in the past to become a national

minority (see section 2.1.2). If Roma in Europe claim their own place, and reinforce their

ethnic identity as a European population, the Roma themselves deliver their non-territorial

nation identity frame.

Secondly, and related to the first reason, the Commission never mentions special minority

rights, but refers to the fundamental rights and European ‘freedoms’, in particular the freedom

of movement (whereas the advising committees mostly refer to the freedom to express their

cultural identity). The Fundamental Rights Agency, which – as described in section 3 – acts as

the norm provider for the European Commission, mostly adopts the ethnoclass frame to refer


69

to those fundamental rights, but also uses the non-territorial nation frame to describe the

situation of Roma people on the move. The FRA points out that ‘nomadic’ Roma people are

left out in the national action plans for Roma inclusion and emphasizes that they are not

moving because it is part of their ethnic identity, but because they are discriminated and

socially excluded in their countries of origin. The FRA proposes that the European Union

should act as a protector of this people by means of a European legislative framework since

the ultimate goal is to arrive at Civis Europeaeus Sum, meaning ‘I am a European citizen’

(FRA, 2009b:76). The FRA considers Roma people as a ‘litmus test’; if the EU succeeds in

guaranteeing their freedom of movement and equality, then the idea of true European

citizenship will finally be established.

By emphasizing the freedom of movement in the European Union, the Commission indirectly

and perhaps unwillingly frames the Roma identity within a larger frame; that of European

citizenship. By leaving out specific minority rights, and by emphasizing the need to guarantee

the European ‘freedom rights’, the Commission makes clear that also Roma people are

entitled to the Civis Europaeus Sum: even if Member States fail to guarantee the human rights

of their citizens, they are always protected by European fundamental rights.

This brings us to the more theoretical debate of European citizenship. In order for the

European integration project to become legitimate, it had to create “a common identity

amongst the people of Europe, and, crucially, by the people towards the European

institutions” (O’Neill & Sandler, 2008:207). According to Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, three

types of citizenship are needed for people to become loyal to ‘constitutional norms that are

separate from national identity’: market citizenship, political citizenship and social citizenship

(Douglas-Scott, 2002:486-514 cited by O’Neill & Sandler, 2008:211). Of importance to

Roma people is social citizenship. The freedom of movement Directive guarantees all rights

for workers, yet the majority of Roma people is often unemployed. As the authors note,

“social citizenship links the citizen with the Union on a human level, and provides a safety net

of social support” (O’Neill & Sandler, 2008:213). If the Commission succeeds in providing

that safety net for ‘the most vulnerable minority group in Europe’ without provoking hostile

reactions from other groups, then the European Union succeeds in providing social citizenship

for its members.

In its Communications on Roma issues, the Commission explicitly refers to the freedom of

movement Directive to hint that the Roma people are entitled to Civis Europaeus Sum.


70

Although in the Directive itself not mentioned, Franco Frattini, European Commissioner for

Justice, Freedom and Security in the first Barroso Commission (2004-2008) states in a ‘Guide

on how to get the best out of Directive 2004/38/EC’ (the free movement Directive) that every

Union citizen enjoy rights and advantages thanks to EU membership and that the freedom of

movement enables them all “to declare civis Europaeus sum” (Frattini, 2004:2). Having said

that, without having to refer to the Europeaness of Roma identity, but by emphasizing Roma

participation and EU freedom rights, the European Commission not only avoids the double

jeopardy risk, but also unnoticeably inseminates European values and social coherence in its

Communications on Roma integration to arrive at an ‘ever closer Union’.

The Council on the other hand, only focuses on the social conditions, therefore the ethnoclass

identity frame only fits in a national identity frame. This becomes very clear in a question

posed by EP member Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven (EG/EFA). She asks how many staff

members of Roma origin have been hired to serve the work of the Council (see Appendix

D,3) on which the Council replies not to have “information on the origin of staff, other than

their nationality” (Council, 2006:3). The Council acknowledges that Roma people face severe

disadvantages and welcomes the initiatives by the European Commission to unify the forces

to tackle discrimination and social exclusion. In fact, the Council itself has adopted various

Directives in which these problems are addressed. But whereas the Committees, European

Parliament and in a lesser way the European Commission prioritise a European approach

based on a transnational identity frame, the Council maintains reservations and favour actions

from the Member States with a coordinating role by the European Commission.

The Council firmly holds on to the Member States’ responsibility to guarantee the rights of

their citizens and it is the Member States that have the ‘primary competence’ to design and

implement Roma integration policies. The focus is on integrating marginalized communities,

without referring to their cultural identity (except for integration purposes, such as Romani

language in education) or advocating special minority rights. Moreover, the Council sees

Roma people not exclusively as a ‘European’ minority, but emphasizes that also the Council

of Europe, OSCE, UN and World Bank deliver good work and that cooperation with other

international institutions is welcomed. Roma people live not exclusively in Europe, hence, the

Council also refers to EU legislation of freedom of movement and non-discrimination, but

emphasizes more than the European Commission that this is a legal framework that needs to

be transposed into national law. Wherever they may come from, Roma people firstly hold a

national identity before a European one.


71

5.2. ‘The Roma problem’

Framing the problem of Roma people in Europe, all EU institutions part from the same

diagnostic frame: Roma people are socially excluded from society as a result of a pattern of

discrimination by the majority population, a certain unwillingness or incapability of Roma

people themselves and a lack of adequate policies in the past. This results in discrimination,

exclusion and segregation in housing, health care, education and employment. The racism,

xenophobia and exclusion are ‘push factors’ for Roma to move to other regions and countries.

The consensus on the diagnostic frame soon dissolves when looking at the proposals by the

different EU bodies. Therein becomes clear that the EU actors assign different causes to the

diagnostic frame in line with their own competences and agenda. For example, both the

Committee of the Regions and the Council agree that there is an implementation deficit on the

local level of anti-discrimination law and policy. Whereas the Council proposes more efforts

from the Member States to oversee this deficit, the CoR advocates that the national authorities

should provide the local authorities with more tools and financial resources to improve Roma

integration from the ground up. This of course should be seen in the light of their own

competences and interests. The Council only has the input from State authorities and therefore

favours a top-down approach, whereas by framing the solution in terms of more regional

cooperation to exchange good practices of bottom-up approaches, the CoR contributes to its

interests, i.e. more regional coherence.

It also works the other way around; the Institutions may frame the diagnosis (slightly)

differently, to in fact arrive at the same solution. For example, the EESC frames the cause for

discrimination in an intercultural frame; majority and minority people lack knowledge of each

other’s culture which results in prejudice and discrimination from the majority population and

abstinence from the minority population. Therefore, Roma culture must come to the fore

which can only be achieved by Roma people themselves, therefore the EESC strongly

advocates Roma emancipation. The European Commission on the other hand, frames

discrimination as a two-way process; Roma people are being discriminated in different

domains creating a vicious circle of poverty which only more confirms the stereotypes that

the majority population holds resulting in more discrimination. It is not misunderstanding of

each other’s culture that leads to more discrimination, but it is the exclusion from society that

takes away all reasons for the majority population to end the discrimination. Therefore the

European Commission proposes strong Roma emancipation to stop the social exclusion hand

in hand with discrimination.


72

What is striking in the problem framing by all Institutions, is that they not only adopt the

same diagnostic frame, but also remain vague on the goal of its proposals. No

Communication, Conclusion or Opinion refers to special minority status, but there is only a

striving to social inclusion of Roma people. The Committees, European Commission and

even the Council explicitly mention that is not the intention to assimilate Roma people in

mainstream society at cost of their specific identity. But what happens after Roma people are

being included? The strategy by the Commission to financially and instrumentally support

Roma empowerment can have serious consequences for which the European Commission has

not yet the answer. What if they apply to the European Union for special minority status? The

European Union had the chance to develop a minority policy during the 2004 enlargement,

but failed to expand its focus from individual rights to group rights.

Or does the Commission believe that once the social conditions of Roma people are

improved, their Roma identity will automatically weaken? As pointed out by Barany (2001)

and Vermeersch (2003b), educated Roma people often choose not to identify themselves as

Roma. But the same author also concludes that ethnic heterogeneity is not a cause of failing

ethnic mobilisation, but a consequence of it (see 2.1.1., Vermeersch, 2003b:881). So if the

European Commission succeeds in establishing a European Roma movement that can

improve the social conditions in which many Roma live in, the consequence might be that

‘the voice of the Gypsy’ – as Mayall (2004:211) calls it – will finally be found. Taking this

idea further, a pure non-territorial European nation will rise and will perhaps become the ‘true

Europeans’ as the Council of Europe already called Roma people.

Reviewing the literature, we distinguished three motivations for the European Union to

become involved with Roma policy. Firstly, there was the fear of massive migration from the

new Member States to the old ones (security concern); secondly, there was a human rights

concern. The European integration project is framed in a fundamental rights frame; segregated

communities is not compatible with this frame (EU identity concern). And thirdly, which is

also the hypothesis of this study, the involvement of the European Union in Roma integration

policy provides a window of opportunity to Europeanize social policy (crf. infra). What the

outcome is of Roma integration and Roma empowerment, remains to be seen.

5.3. Europeanization?

The Europeanization process is a top down perspective on European integration.

Europeanization of Roma policy would mean that the EU dictates the Member States what to


73

do with their Roma minorities. The key document in this study is the Communication of the

European Commission on ‘An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to

2020” (EC, 2011a). The framework aims setting up clear timetables, benchmarks, indicators

with a coordinating role by the European Commission to share best practices according to the

Open Method of Coordination.

Clearly, this strategy is an example of horizontal Europeanization. The Commission has

altered the perception of the Member States on Roma issues. Member States have expressed

their commitment to end the social exclusion in their countries. The Trio Council Presidency

of 2010, Spain-Belgium-Hungary, even made it a key priority. Nevertheless, no legally

binding law has been put in practice since then. This means that the vertical Europeanization

remains absent due to the sensitive subsidiarity principle. Otherwise, it becomes clear that as

long as the day-to-day situation of Roma people lacks improvement, further Europeanization

becomes more likely.

Another important issue in this study is discourse. Discourse is a powerful weapon to create

the perception that the situation of Roma people can best be handled on a European level. In

this sense, the subsidiarity principle, to which the Council holds on firmly, will no longer

apply to Roma integration policy. The principle means that “the EU should act outside its

specific areas of responsibility only if it could do so more effectively than the member states”

(Dinan, 2004:291) and the European Commission incrementally frames the Roma integration

challenges in such a way that only by a European approach these challenges can be met.

Looking at the first documents that are included in this study, the European Commission

framed the situation of Roma in an enlarged European Union as a way to ‘better understand’

the situation and explore what the EU can do (EC, 2004). Since the enlargement of 2004, the

Commission focused on the severity of the problem, and as a consequence, the Member States

have made it a priority on their agendas. Yet, the Commission made it clear that the situation

is so complex and every Member State is confronted with the same challenges, therefore the

report concludes “there is a need to exercise all available legal sanctions” (EC, 2004:41).

Since no ready-made solution is available, the Commission initially emphasized the need for

exchange of good practice.

From 2004 onwards, the Commission started advocating an integrated approach. The

exclusion in education goes hand in hand with exclusion in employment, housing and health

care, hence the need for a broader strategy. The Commission lied the foundation by framing


74

Roma exclusion as a ‘European problem’ (Van Baar, 2011:204) and that the EU has a ‘special

responsibility’ towards the Roma (EC, 2010b:2). It is not only a humanitarian problem, but

has also economic consequences. This provided the opportunity to frame Roma inclusion in

the Europe 2020 Strategy.

In 2011, the European Commission revealed the EU Framework for National Roma

Integration Strategies up to 2020, a key document in which the Commission presents a

multilevel governance strategy for the ‘European problem’. By an integrated approach and

specific guidelines, the Commission makes sure that ‘effective policies are in place’ (EC,

2011a:4). Together, Member States can now address the same problems by means of the same

strategy to meet the EU integration goals to come up with ‘tangible results’ (EC, 2011a:13).

In the opinion of the CoR on this Communication is stated that the proposed strategy

complies with the subsidiarity principle, since the “transnational character of the European

Roma community” and “the shared aspects of social exclusion that this community faces in

various parts of Europe, are such that the measures proposed can be best implemented at EU

level”. The CoR also adds that it falls within the scope of the Open Method of Coordination

and is based on existing legislative frameworks (CoR, 2011:C54/15).

Nevertheless, up to then no ‘tangible results’ could be observed. The Commission therefore

proposed more measures to solve the problem. The Commission notices that although all

Member States have Roma people living or passing through their countries, the living

conditions that determine the social condition differ. So, without leaving the premise that an

EU integrated approach is necessary, it adopts ‘policy models’ with more specific guidelines

which ‘help’ the Member States ‘to develop their own policies’ (EC, 2011b:18).

In sum, by initially framing the social exclusion of Roma in all Member States as a ‘European

problem’, the Commission proposed an EU integrated approach. The idea behind it is that

Member States can exchange good practices. However, the situation for many Roma

communities remained the same. Stressing this, the Commission advocated a more detailed

approach by distinguishing 5 categories based on living environment. In those 5 categories,

more specific measures could be proposed, and exchange of good practice could be divided

accordingly. By this, the Commission omits the critique that no one-size-fits-all solution

exists for Roma integration, but instead proves that the EU can play a more specific role

(besides financing projects and providing a legislative framework), even in such complex and

region-specific problems.


75

Unfortunately, in its final Communication, the Commission again observes no real change on

the ground. It remains unclear what else can be done to actually make Roma exclusion and

segregation come to an end. In the final chapter of the report (‘The way forward, EC, 2012b),

the Commission repeats its recommendations and urges the Member States to step up their

efforts, but proposes no new initiatives as the Member States fail to comply with the existing

ones. It seems that Commission is met by a high subsidiarity wall. Either way, the

Commission has set up a multilevel governance for Roma integration policy (see Figure 1).

EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies

Member State Member State Member State Member State Member State Roma org. Roma org. Roma org. Roma org. Roma org.

Figure 1 Multilevel governance

Looking at the Council conclusions on the EC’s communications, the Council mostly entirely

adopts the norms and values the Commission uses to describe Roma people and their

problems. The Roma clearly position a place on the Council’s agenda. Especially, the Trio

Council Presidency Spain-Belgium-Hungary made it a key priority to improve the social

integration of Roma people. In those action statements and Council Conclusions, it becomes

clear that the Council copies the problem frame by the European Commission but claims the

solution.


77

6. Conclusion

This study has shown that Roma identity is not given, but created by all the stakeholders in

the process. The European Union has increased its attention for Roma citizens in the Union

and has consequently contributed to the creation of a European Roma identity. Roma people

are not inherently connected by a shared ethnic identity, but have shared cultural

characteristics and most importantly they all face the same social conditions in all Member

States.

The EU framed this in an ethnoclass identity frame, and made it a priority to end social

exclusion and segregation. It is not because they are a ‘European people’ that the EU should

take responsibility, but because they all suffer from discrimination by the majority population

which makes them vulnerable. Through the creation of an EU Framework for National Roma

Integration policies, the European Commission has gained a great deal.

First of all, the EU can show to its citizens and third countries that the European values and

human rights are safeguarded. Although the situation remains worrying, no one can say that

the EU ignores the problem.

Secondly, in 2004 the European Union welcomed new Eastern Member States which brought

to the light an East vs. West confrontation regarding Roma people issues. The Eastern

members saw Roma people as a social problem, the West as an ethnic issue. By adopting the

ethnoclass frame, the EU merged those two frames into one. The Commission has made it

clear that Roma people suffer from discrimination, which results in social exclusion, and as a

consequence, this can be considered an important ‘push factor’ for Roma’s to migrate to the

West. By tackling all those problems in one strategy, the chain reaction and vicious circle can

be ended.

Thirdly, during the accession period, the EU was being accused of adopting double standards;

the new members were asked to design minority policies, whereas this was not demanded for

the older Member States. The demand for a minority policy dissolved because the EU never

intended to shift its focus from individual rights to group rights. Instead, it framed the Roma

people as individuals who share the same culture and problems, but by framing this into more

fundamental rights and by designing policy ‘explicitly targeting, but not excluding others’, the

reproach for adopting double standards dissolved as well.


78

And finally, the European Commission set up a new policy framework which, although it

remains horizontal Europeanization and ‘soft law’, strengthens the role of the European

Union. Proposals already have been made to adopt a new Segregation Directive, to formalise

the Platform for Roma inclusion, and to set up minimum standards for Roma inclusion.

Incrementally, the Commission carefully frames and reframes the identity problem of Roma

people to propose new measures. It started from a strategy to prove that they all face similar

situations to end with 5 different specific categories with respectively policy models and

guidelines. The European Commission started a process which becomes very difficult to stop.

The Europeanization of Roma policy, however, also contains risks. According to Vermeersch

(2011), an EU Roma policy can easily be perverted by Eurosceptics. Less educated and

marginalized communities across the European Union tend to be more reluctant of the

European integration project. Generally speaking, poor Roma communities have less affinities

with the European Union yet outsiders associate Roma people with it as a result of increased

attention. “The already existing political resentments against Roma can find in that way a

second wind in the form of anti-Europe feelings of hatred” (Vermeersch, 2011:430, my

translation). Today, Euroscepticism is rampant and it would be lamentable if the severe

problems Roma people face on a daily basis are used to serve other purposes. This only

increases the already deep rooted prejudices against them.

Ambiguous as it is, as long as the problem of Roma exclusion and segregation remains, the

EU will have an impetus to continue its work and to strengthen its competence and

jurisdiction in social policy. It is in time of crisis that Member States are more willing to opt

for a European approach. What the meaning may be of an ‘ever closer Union’, at least in

policy the Member States seem to have converged.


79

7. Recommendations for future research

This study only focused on EU documents to see how the EU frames Roma identity and the

problems they are confronted with to propose European measures. In the literature, reference

is made to López-Santana (2006), who defined Europeanization as a top-down perspective on

European integration and includes the process of ‘why, how, when, and to what degree’

Europe matters on domestic settings. To fully understand the process of Europeanization, the

Member States, local authorities, NGO’s and Roma themselves should also be included.

Especially the voice of the Roma themselves should be heard in the Europeanization process.

In the literature section, it is stated that Roma never really asked for minority rights since they

have not much affiliation with self-government. Nevertheless, this is stimulated by the

European Commission. How do Roma movements respond to that? More research is

welcomed on the (supposedly) change in Roma identity by Roma movements as a result of

more EU involvement.

It has become clear that the process of Europeanization of Roma integration strategies gained

momentum and it is important to continue the research on this process and to understand

where this is going. NGO’s, such as Amnesty International, monitor this process as well, but

for different reasons. Studying the action of the EU in Roma policy from an academic

perspective will contribute to gaining insight in the current EU dynamics in social policy:

starting with the parliamentary debates in the European Parliament since 2010. As this

process still continues and even accelerates, future research on Roma people in the EU will

remain relevant.


80

References

Alston, P. & O. De Schutter (eds.) Monitoring Fundamental Rights in the EU. The

Contributions of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Portland: Hart Publishing.

Barany, Z. (2002) The East European Gypsies. Regime Change, Marginality, and

Ethnopolitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Benford, R. & D. Snow (2000) ‘Framing Processes and Social Movements: an Overview and

Assessment.’ In: Annual Review of Sociology. 26:611-639.

Borrás, S. & B. Greve (2004) ‘Concluding Remarks: New Method or just Cheap Talk?’ In:

Journal of Public Policy. 11(2):329-336.

Braham, M. & M. Braham (2000) ‘Romani Migrations and EU Enlargement.’ In: Cambridge

Review of International Affairs. 13 (2):97-116.

Castle-Kaněrová, M. (2001) ‘Roma Refugees: the EU Dimension.’ In: Guy, W. (Ed) (2001)

Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe. Hertfordshire:

University of Hertfordshire Press. 117-133.

Christiansen, T. (1996) ‘Second Thoughts on Europe’s Third Level: The European Union’s

Committee of the Regions.’ In: Publius. 26 (1):93-116.

Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) (1992) ‘The Challenges of

Change’. CSCE Helsinki Document. (http://www.osce.org/mc/39530?download=true,

4 April 2012).

Cowles, M.G., J. Caporaso & T. Risse (2001) Transforming Europe: Europeanization and

Domestic Change. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Curtin, D. (2007) ‘Transparency, Audiences and the Evolving Role of the EU Council of

Ministers.’ In: Fossum, J. & P. Schlesinger (eds.) The European Union and the Public

Sphere: a Communication Space in the Making? London: Routledge:246-258.

Daviter, F. (2007) ‘Policy Framing in the European Union.’ In: Journal of Public Policy. 14

(4):654-666.

De La Porte, C. & P. Pochet (2002) Building Social Europe through the Open Method of

Coordination. Brussels: Peter Lang.

Dinan, D. (2004) Europe Recast: A History of European Union. London: Palgrave

Macmillan.

Dudley, G. & J. Richardson (1999) ‘Competing Advocacy Coalitions and the Process of

‘Frame Reflection’: a Longitude Analysis of EU Steel Policy.’ In: Journal of Public

Policy. 6 (2):225-248.

Erjavic, K. (2001) ‘Media Representation of the Discrimination Against the Roma in Eastern

Europe: the case of Slovenia’ in: Discourse and Society. 12 (6):699-727.

Featherstone, K. & C.M. Radaelli (2003) The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.


81

Frattini, F. (2004) ‘Civis Europaeus Sum’. In: European Commission (2004) Right of Union

Citizens and their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely within the Union.

Guide on How to Get the Best out of Directive 2004/38/EC. O.J. L158. 77.

Fundamental Rights Agency (2012) FRA Mission and Strategic Objectives 2007-2012.

(http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/FRA-mission-strategic-objectives_en.pdf,

26 May 2012).

Gheorghe, N. & T. Acton (2001) ‘Citizens of the World and Nowhere: Minority, Ethnic and

Human Rights for Roma during the Last Hurrah of the Nation-State.’ In: Guy, W. (Ed)

(2001) Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe.

Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press. 54-70.

Goffman, E. (1975) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.

Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Guglielmo, R. & T. Waters (2005) ‘Migrating Towards Minority Status: Shifting European

Policy Towards Roma.’ In: Journal of Common Market Studies. 43 (4):763-786.

Guy, W. (2001) Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe.

Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press.

Guy, W. (2009) ‘EU Initiatives on Roma: Limitations and Ways Forward.’ In: Sigona, N. &

N. Trehan (eds.) (2009) Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic

Mobilization, and the Neoliberal Order. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 23-50.

Hughes, J. & G. Sasse (2003) ‘Monitoring the Monitors: EU Enlargement Conditonality and

Minority Protection in the CEECs.’ In: Jemie Special Focus. 1.

Hughes, J., G. Sasse & C. Gordon (2004) Europeanization and Regionalization in the EU’s

Enlargement to Central and Eastern Europe: the Myth of Conditionality. New York:

Palgrave.

López-Santana, M. (2006) ‘The Domestic Implications of European Soft Law: Framing and

Transmitting Change in Employment Policy.’ In: Journal of Public Policy. 13 (4):481-

499.

Mayall, D. (2004) Gypsy Identities 1500-2000. From Egipcyans and Moon-men to the Ethnic

Romany. London and New York: Routledge.

Mendizabal, I. et al (2012) ‘Reconstructing the Population History of European Romani from

Genome-wide Data.’ In: Current Biology. 22 (24):1-8. (Not in print yet, but online

available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.10.039, 13 December 2012).

O’Neill, F. & S. Sandler (2008) ‘The EU Citizenship Acquis and the Court of Justice:

Citizenship, Vigilante or Merely Vigilant Treaty Guardian? In: Richmond Journal of

Global Law and Business. 7 (3):205-246.

Peterson, J. & M. Shackleton (2006) The Institutions of the European Union. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Pogány, I. (2004) ‘Refashioning Rights in Central and Eastern Europe: Some Implications for

the Region’s Roma.’ In: European Public Law. 10 (1):85-106.


82

Radaelli, C. (2003) ‘The Europeanization of Public Policy.’ In: Featherstone, K. & C.M.

Radaelli (2003) The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 27-

56.

Ram, M. (2010) ‘Interests, Norms and Advocacy: Explaining the Emergence of the Roma

onto the EU’s Agenda.’ In: Ethnopolitics: Formerly Global Review of Ethnopolitics. 9

(2):197-217.

Scheinin, M. (2005) ‘Relationship between Agency and the Network of Independent Experts.’

In: Alston, P. & O. De Schutter (eds.) Monitoring Fundamental Rights in the EU. The

Contributions of the Fundamental Rights Agency. Portland: Hart Publishing.

Schimmelfenning, F. (2001) ‘The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and

the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union.’ In: International Organization. 55

(1):47-80.

Schön, D. & M. Rein (1994) Frame Reflection: Towards the Resolution of Intractable Policy

Controversies. New York: Basic Books.

Sigona, N. & N. Trehan (eds.) (2009) Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty,

Ethnic Mobilization, and the Neoliberal Order. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Simhandl, K. (2009) ‘Beyond Boundaries? Comparing the Construction of the Political

Categories ‘Gypsies’ and ‘Roma’ Before and After EU Enlargement.’ In: Sigona, N.

& N. Trehan (eds.) (2009) Romani Politics in Contemporary Europe: Poverty, Ethnic

Mobilization, and the Neoliberal Order. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 72-93.

Sobotka, E. ( 2003) ‘Romani Migrations in the 1990s: Perspectives on Dynamic,

Interpretation, and Policy.’ In: Romani Studies. 13 (2):79-121.

Snow, D., E. Burke Rochford, S.K. Worden & R.D. Benford (1986) ‘Frame Alignment

Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.’ In: American

Sociological Review. 51:464-481.

Swimelar, S. (2008) ‘The Making of Minority Rights Norms in the Context of EU

Enlargement: The Czech Republic and the Roma.’ In: The International Journal of

Human Rights. 12 (4):505-527.

Tileaga, C. (2005) ‘Accounting for Extreme Prejudice and Legitimating Blame in Talk about

the Romanies.’ In: Discourse and Society. 16 (5):603-624.

Trubek, D.M. & L.G. Trubek (2005) ‘Hard and Soft Law in the Construction of Social

Europe: the Role of the Open Method of Coordination.’ In: European Journal of Law.

11 (3):343-364.

Van Baar, H. (2011) ‘Europe’s Romaphobia: Problematization, Securitization,

Nomadization.’ In: Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 29 (2):203-212.

Van Baar, H. (2008) ‘The Way out of Amnesia? Europeanisation and the Recognition of the

Roma’s Past and Present.’ In: Third Text. 22 (3):373-385.

Van Der Meulen, B. (2011) De Uitzetting van Roma uit Frankijk. Een Europees Perspectief.

Gent: Universiteit Gent. Unpublished


83

Vermeersch, P. (2003a) ‘EU Enlargement and Minority Rights Policies in Central Europe:

Explaining Policy Shifts in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.’ In: Jemie

Special Focus. 1.

Vermeersch, P. (2003b) ‘Ethnic Minority Identity and Movement Politics: The Case of the

Roma in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.’ In: Ethnic and Racial Studies. 26 (5):879-

901.

Vermeersch, P. (2006) The Romani Movement: Minority Politics and Ethnic Mobilization in

Contemporary Central Europe. New York: Berghahn Books.

Vermeersch, P. (2011) ‘Europeanisering en de Roma: op zoek naar maatschappelijke inclusie

in een nieuwe politieke en institutionele context.’ In: Tijdschrift voor Sociologie . 32

(3-4):413-436.

Vos, H. (2011) Besluitvorming in the Europese Unie. Een Survival Kit. Leuven: Acco.

Wincott, D. (2003) ‘The Idea of the European Social Model: Limits and Paradoxes of

Europeanization.’ In: Featherstone, K. & C.M. Radaelli (2003) The Politics of

Europeanization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 279-302.

Documents

Committee of the Regions (2011) Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The social and

economic integration of the Roma in Europe’, 2011 O.J. C 42/23.

Committee of the Regions (2012) Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘An EU

framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020’, 2012 O.J. C 54/13.

Council of the European Union (2005a) Draft reply to written question E-0679/05 put by

Marie-Line Reynaud on 02.03.2005. 9474/05 PE-QE 403.

Council of the European Union (2005b) Draft reply to written question E-2267/05 put by

Eija-Riitta Korhola on 19.07.05. 14671/05 PE-QE 757.

Council of the European Union (2006) Preliminary draft reply to written question E-2898/06

put by Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven (Verts/ALE) 11713/06 PE-QE 600.

Council of the European Union (2007) Preliminary draft reply to written question E-5557/06

put by Richard Seeber (PPE-DE) 5351/07 PE-QE 39.

Council of the European Union (2008a) Preliminary draft reply to written question E-3654 put

by Viktória Mohásci (ALDE) and Marco Cappato (ALDE) 11472/08 PE-QE 501.

Council of the European Union (2008b) Draft reply to written question P-4143/08 put by

Catherine Boursier (PSE) 14175/08 PE-QE 703.

Council of the European Union (2010) Preliminary draft reply to written question P-2751/10

put by Philip Claeys (NI) 9414/10 PE-QE 474.

Council of the European Union (2009) Inclusion of the Roma = draft Council conclusions.

10121/09 SOC 358 JAI 318 AG 40 EDUC 96 SAN 141.


84

Council of the European Union (2010a) Advancing Roma inclusion = draft Council

conclusions. 8999/10 SOC 290 JAI 358 EDUC 79 SAN 85.

Council of the European Union (2010b) Advancing Roma inclusion = Information from the

Presidency (Any Other Business item) 14663/10 SOC 629 JAI 820 EDUC 165 SAN

200.

Council of the European Union (2011a) Contributions from the Social Protection Committee

to the EPSCO Council of 19 Mau 2011 – An EU Framework for National Roma

Integration Strategies up to 2020 = Opinion of the Social Protection Committee.

9618/11 SOC 376.

Council of the European Union (2011) Presidency report on Roma Inclusion. 10665/11 SOC

441 POLGEN 93 JAI 360 EDUC 106 FREMP 62 COHOM 148 FSTR 22 DC 22

REGIO 45 CO EUR-PREP 20.

Council of the European Union (2011c) Council conclusions on an EU Framework for

National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020. 2011 OJ. /C 258/04.

European Commission (2004) The situation of Roma in an Enlarged European Union.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

European Commission (2010a) Improving the Tools for the Social Inclusion and Non-

discrimination of Roma in the EU. Report. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the

European Union.

European Commission (2010) The Social and Economic Integration of the Roma in Europe.

COM(2010)133final.

European Commission (2011a) Working Together for Roma Inclusion. The EU Framework

Explained. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

European Commission (2011b) An EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies

Up to 2020. COM(2011)173final.

European Commission (2012a) What Works for Roma Inclusion in the EU. Policies and

Model Approaches. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union.

European Commission (2012b) National Roma Integration Strategies: A First Step in the

Implementation of the EU Framework. COM(2012)226final.

European Economic and Social Committee (2009) Opinion of the European Economic and

Social Committee on the ‘Integration of minorities – Roma’, 2009 O.J. C 27/88.

European Economic and Social Committee (2011a) Resolution of the European Economic

and Social Committee on ‘The situation of the Roma in the European Union’, 2011

O.J. C 48/1

European Economic and Social Committee (2011b) Opinion of the European Economic and

Social Committee on ‘Intercultural dialogue and the Roma: the key role of women and

education’ (additional opinion), 2011 O.J. C 248/60.

European Economic and Social Committee (2011c) Opinion of the European Economic and

Social Committee on ‘Societal empowerment and integration of Roma citizens in


85

Europe’ (exploratory opinion at the request of the Hungarian presidency), 2011 O.J.

C248/16.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2008) Incident Report. Violent Attacks

against Roma in the Ponticelli District of Naples, Italy. Vienna: FRA

(http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Incid-Report-Italy-08_en.pdf, consulted

on 6 June 2012).

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009a) Housing Conditions of Roma and

Travellers in the European Union. Comparative Report. Luxembourg: Office for

Official Publications of the European Communities.

(http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Roma_Housing_Comparative-

final_en.pdf, consulted on 6 June 2012).

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009b) The Situation of Roma EU Citizens

Moving to and Settling in Other EU Member States. Vienna: FRA

(http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/Roma_Movement_Comparative-

final_en.pdf, consulted on 6 June 2012).

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2009c) Data in Focus Report. The Roma.

Vienna: FRA (http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/EU-

MIDIS_ROMA_EN.pdf, consulted on 6 June 2012).

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2012) The Situation of Roma in 11 EU

Member States. Survey Results at a Glance. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the

European Union. (http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/FRA-2012-Roma-at-a-

glance_EN.pdf, consulted on 6 June 2012).

European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (2003) Breaking the Barriers –

Romani Women and Access to Public Health Care. Luxembourg: Office for Official

Publications of the European Communities.

(http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/ROMA-HC-EN.pdf, consulted on 6 June

2012)

European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (2006) Roma and Travellers in

Public Education. An Overview of the Situation in the EU Member States. Vienna:

EUMC (http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/attachments/roma_report.pdf, consulted on 6

June 2012).


86

Appendix A: FRA Analysis

Nr. Year Document Title

1 2003 Breaking the Barriers – Romani Women and Access to Public Health Care.

2 2006 Roma and Travellers in Public Education.

3 2008 Incident Report on Violent Attacks against Roma in Italy

4 2009a Housing Conditions of Roma and Travellers in the European Union.

Comparative

5 2009b The Situation of Roma EU Citizens Moving to and Settling in other EU

Member States.

6 2012 The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States - Survey results at a glance.

1. Breaking the barriers – Romani women and access to public health care

1.1. Background information

The report was a joint undertaking by the Office of the OSCE High Commissioner on

National Minorities, the Council of Europe’s Migration and Roma/Gypsies Division and the

European Union’s European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). The

EUMC is later transformed into the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA).

It was published in July 2003 and is included into this study since it was the first document

published by the FRA (former EUMC) on Roma issues. It is the only printed document dated

before 2004 included in this study, for reasons of completeness on the FRA documents.

1.2. Identity Frame Analysis

In the report, the term “Roma” is adopted and refers by their own account to “those who share

similar aspects of culture, history, and most importantly, confront similar issues of

discrimination and social exclusion” (FRA 2003:5). By this definition, it seems that this

report uses the ethnoclass frame.

The text includes different frames, but the ethnoclass frame is clearly the main identity frame.

The focus in this report is on the social conditions Roma people (and in particular women)

live in, and how this excludes them from society. The emphasis is on the difficult access to

health care of Roma communities across Europe and how their bad living conditions increase

the need for health care. Direct links are made between Roma people’s lifestyle and their

health. This can range from their poor living conditions as to their restrained attitude to

preventive care because of discrimination, logistic difficulties and ‘various socio-cultural and

psychological factors’ (FRA 2003:48). However, the report never mentions social conditions

being related to their ethnicity or identity. In fact, the reason they are inclined not to access

preventive and health care lies in their attitude which is the result of social conditions and


87

ignorance rather than ethnicity. For example, Roma women having a lot of children is not

part of their ethnic culture, it is the result of their social conditions which makes them

ignorant.

The age of marriage and childbearing may be increasing in some Romanic

communities with awareness of the importance of education and economic

independence to successful parenting. In order to support this trend, there is a need for

widespread and systematic efforts to educate young Romani women, their sexual

partners and parents on the risks of early pregnancy (FRA 2003:51).

Any little reference to their culture is framed in another more general frame, for example

communication:

Purity traditions and other customs may deter women from asking questions about

reproductive health matters, or from seeking any care at all during or after pregnancy.

Some women claim that doctors do not provide this information. Research should be

done to determine the cause of this lack of communication (FRA 2003:50, emphasis

added).

Yet, the main focus is on social conditions Roma people generally live in.

Indeed, the principle of equality sometimes requires States to take positive action in

order to ensure equal opportunities to groups who have been historically and

systematically disadvantaged and where the resulting conditions impede their

enjoyment of human rights (FRA 2003:24, emphasis added).

No explicit reference is made to their transnationality, but the similarity of social conditions

of Roma people in Europe are highlighted. For example, by comparing the difficulties Roma

people have with access to health care in Great Britain with those in Romania, the report gives

the impression that all states face the same challenge which can be tackled in a uniform way.

From this we can conclude that the Roma people are presented as an ethnoclass in this report

since transnationality is not made explicit and the focus is on fundamental and universal

rights, not on minority rights.

1.3. Problem Frame Analysis

Diagnostic frame

In the current report, the second problem and cause frame is adopted. The subject of this

report is the inadequate health care access for Roma women. This problem is according to the

report caused by poor housing and sanitary conditions, lack of education, unemployment, and

legal status. Although no cause is mentioned for these social conditions – except for

‘historical and systematic being disadvantaged’ (cfr. Infra), in the problem framing it becomes

clear that the responsibility lies both with the state as within the Roma communities.


88

Schools are a key source of information on hygiene, nutrition, disease prevention and

how to access the health system. Research and advocacy has been carried out on

access to education on a non-discriminatory basis for Roma youth generally. But

greater attention is required in addressing the particular difficulties a Romani girl may

confront, e.g. withdrawal from school by her parents to protect her virginity, prepare

for marriage, or assume household duties. These girls may not acquire adequate

literacy and critical thinking skills to care for themselves and their families, as well as

to modify cultural practices that adversely impact on their health and well-being. In

effect, they may suffer both ethnic and gender discrimination (FRA 2003:8).

Access to health care is presented as a fundamental right (FRA 2003:19-33) and as

inseparable from access to other public services. The problem, i.e. Roma women having

insufficient access to health care, is framed in a larger problem, i.e. Roma people being

excluded from public service. Therefore, because it is absolutely necessary to have access to

health care, Roma women in particular should be included in the wider society. This is the

responsibility of the state, as Roma women suffer from gender discrimination within their

communities. It is the task of the government to educate Roma women and teach them to

address their living conditions and to address discrimination practices.

Prognostic frame

In the adopted diagnostic frame, the responsibility is put with the state. It is the state that

should raise awareness, provide resources, and play an active role in coordinating local

authorities. The report uses a European legal frame to point out towards state responsibilities.

For example, violence against Roma women is also the responsibility of the state:

In the context of assistance for Romani women, these can be interpreted to require

public information and education programmes to change attitudes in Romani

communities concerning the roles and status of men and women (FRA 2003:61).

In part IV of the report, components ‘that are a precondition to successful programmes (FRA

2003:90) are discussed. The report has evaluated different strategies and promotes those

which are considered successful thereby also discussing those considered ineffective.

Although the report states that “the presence or absence of examples from a particular

national plan is not intended to indicate endorsement or criticism of the overall strategy”

(FRA 2003:90), it clearly points out that a policy line is good or bad and necessary.

Motivational frame

In its recommendations, many specific policy options are presented as necessary for the

improvement of access to health care by Roma people. Also, in section IV. D, the potential of

intergovernmental initiatives is discussed. The three institutions that co-authored this

document each explain in a different paragraph its potentials. For example


89

Its role as a central database places the EUMC [i.e. former FRA] in a strong position

to enhance awareness of the ways in which racism affects access to health care and of

initiatives that have succeeded in combating this phenomenon (FRA 2003:108,

emphasis added).

The European Union is clearly presenting itself, by means of reference to funds and

information, as a powerful actor that can take up a coordinating role. The FRA also stresses

the importance of data collection.

1.4. Conclusion

The report is written in an ethnoclass frame since the main focus is on the social conditions

Roma people live in. Comparisons are made between different states in Europe, and the

problem is framed in such a way that the state is responsible for monitoring, responding and

sanctioning the discrimination practices that occur across Europe.

It is not culture or tradition that keeps Roma women away from health care, but their social

living conditions and their exclusion from wider society. The focus is then on the state who

should educate those women in health care and prevention. Responsibilities lies with health

care workers, who should resist discrimination and stereotypes, and on the state that should

educate Roma women to make them aware of the possibilities in health care and in women

rights to address their rigid subordinate gender position and empower themselves. This makes

us to conclude that the Roma people and women in particular in this report are described as

passive ignorant subjects who suffer from their living circumstances.

2. Roma and travellers in public education


The report was published in May 2006 by the EUMC, two years after the accession of the

CEE countries in 2004. In 2005, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the

situation of Roma in the European Union, which “sent a strong signal to all of us” (FRA

2006:5) resulting in this publication of this document.

The EUMC seems to refer to the Resolution to seize the opportunity to push a uniform

European approach in Roma issues.


To describe Roma people, this reports adopts the term ‘Roma and Travellers’ and states that

they are the ‘single largest minority ethnic community’. At first sight, this phrase incorporates

elements of the three different identity frames:


90

- Non-territorial nation: ‘single’ and ‘community’ refer to homogeneous group, thereby

emphasizing that it regards a group of people, not a nation

- National minority: ‘minority’

- Ethnoclass: ‘ethnic’

The report mentions the difficulties of labelling Roma people, such as data problem,

overgeneralisations and stereotypes. The writers are well aware of the heterogeneity of Roma

people and the dangers about generalizations, which makes the identity frame analysis more

challenging.

In the ‘brief history’ of Roma people, the focus is on how they arrived as migrants in Europe

and how the state excluded them or tried to assimilate them in order to eradicate their

nomadic lifestyles. The following section deals with the data on Roma people in education of

every single Member State. The entire report focuses on the situation of Roma in the different

Member States, thereby emphasizing the yawning gap between Roma people and the rest of

the population.

Enrolment and attendance rates of Roma and Traveller pupils are poor especially in

comparison with those of the general population.

… indicate lower academic achievement compared to that of the majority population

in all EU Member States (FRA 2006:45, emphasis added).

The report also refers frequently to cultural and ethnic identity and recommends to take into

account “language issues and different socio-cultural norms and behavioural models” (FRA

2006:60). Schools are recommended to ‘value the Roma and Travellers’ cultural heritage’ to

reach out more to them and their families and teachers are recommended to ‘respect their

pupils cultural differences’ (FRA 2006:62).

The underlying causes for the worrying situation of Roma and education is attributed to social

conditions and discrimination. At the same time, in its recommendations, the FRA often

mentions cultural identity that should be recognised and respected.

However, cultural identity as an essential component of personality and necessary for

the development of social relationships should be recognised and respected by the

school (FRA 2006:63).

Education is an important factor in integration programmes, and respect for one’s language

and culture has showed to improve the integration process. This is what the FRA also

suggests, i.e. addressing children in their own language with respect for their culture will


91

enhance the chances that they stay in school, leading to a better integration. Therefore, we

conclude that the Roma people in this text are framed as an ethnoclass.


Diagnostic frame

As in the previous text, the second diagnostic frame by Vermeersch is adopted. The

educational situation of Roma remains severe because of direct and systemic discrimination

and exclusion which is on its turn caused by ‘a variety of interrelated factors’. These factors

are social which creates a vicious circle of poverty. It seems that the local authorities are at

stake here.

These inequalities arise from the operation of a variety of discriminatory mechanisms

of exclusion and segregation as a result of a wide array of interrelated factors and

despite efforts by national governments and the Community to improve the situation

(FRA 2006:21, emphasis added).

The problems with Roma and education are presented according to theme. Roma parents are

not held responsible, but the ‘underlying causes’ (mostly discrimination) are:

- Enrollment, atrtendance, attainment: ‘fear of racists attacks’, ‘result of long-lasting

exclusion’, or because of lack of official documents and refusal of schools

- Segregation: stimulated by non-Roma parents (‘white flight’), or because Roma

parents were themselves educated that way and they are not being informed, the result

of ‘non-implementation of national anti-segregation policies by local authorities and

schools’

This also becomes clear in section 3 (‘Factors influencing the education of Roma and

Travellers’) whereby parents are not to blame, since they are “aware of the benefits of formal

education, but its actual capacity to improve their future life chances depends also upon

prevailing prejudice and discrimination in the labour market” (FRA 2006:62). Cultural

differences are presented as a possible cause for difficult enrolment, but it is the authorities’

(local in particular) responsibility to make sure that Roma parents see an education as a way

to improve their chances on the labour market.

Prognostic frame

The report refers to earlier findings by other bodies, such as the Council of Europe, but

stresses the added value of an EU approach.


92

The present report, however, goes further and provides added value by bringing

together available evidence from all Member States of the European Union in order to

present an overview of the current situation and propose concrete measures (FRA

2006:6).

As mentioned earlier, the report refers to the Resolution adopted by the European Parliament

to demonstrate that the EU can best act as a coordinator. It explicitly mentions the subsidiarity

principle, i.e. that the content and organisation of education is a responsibility of the Member

States, but also mentions that the role of the European Commission is “creating a system of

cooperation” (FRA 2006:14). By framing the problem of Roma and education in a larger

category of ‘equality’, thereby appealing to ‘fundamental rights’ and ‘key values’ of the

European Union (FRA 2006:68) this document subtly ignores the subsidiarity principle and

puts forward a European solution.

By framing the problem that Roma people are often uneducated because they have difficulties

with understanding the value of an education since they are either way excluded from the

labour market, and by referring to the Lisbon Strategy, the problem of Roma and education is

framed in the Lisbon Strategy. This strengthens the EU coordinating and monitoring role, and

uses the standing of the Lisbon Strategy to act as an expert in Roma issues.

Motivational frame

The European Parliament, the Commission and the Council have repeatedly

highlighted in recent years the need for urgent measures combating racial

discrimination against Roma and Travellers and improving their conditions of life at

national and local level (FRA 2006:95, emphasis added).

The Member States are lauded for their taken steps in this domain, however, they are being

criticized for the “slow and difficult process” (FRA 2006:94). The shortcomings of the

Member States are followed by an overview of legal and policy responses in the EU. The

Council proposed, for example, “the encouragement of national initiatives concerning the

exchange of experience” (FRA 2006:97).

2.4. Conclusion

The national minority identity frame applies to this text. Roma people are presented as a

minority who have equal right to education with respect to their cultural identity. In contrast

with the previous text (FRA 2003), the writers of the report zoom in more on cultural

differences and aim integration without assimilation (e.g. the right to be taught in their own

language).


93

The diagnostic description shows how unequal access to education has a baleful influence on

society as a whole. By referring to European key values, and the Lisbon Strategy, the report

gives the message that Member States should improve the situation of Roma people in

education urgently since this might be harmful for Europe. The report presents specific

recommendations and gives examples of good and bad practices. The focus is clearly on how

to reach convergence within the EU.

3. Incident report on violent attacks against Roma in Italy


The report is written as a result of violent anti-Roma incidents in 2008 in Italy. The topic is

very specific, and is the only one in this kind about Roma people. The text consists of a

factual overview. Of importance to this analysis is the conclusion.


The subject of the report is travelling Roma families in Italy, but in the final conclusion it is

mentioned that the same problems exists in other Member States as well. By criticising the

Italian and other governments for not acting forcefully against these discrimination and

violent practices, the document gives the impression that it is the EU’s responsibility to react

against this behaviour of her members. The EU acts a protector of Roma people in Europe,

since national governments fail to make sufficient efforts.

The events in Ponticelli show that protecting fundamental rights in the European

Union requires that governments comply with the duty to respect, protect and promote

fundamental rights not only by providing the necessary legal safeguards, but also by

ensuring that these are applied effectively in practice by public authorities at national,

regional and local level (FRA 2008:29).

Despite the fact that the document is short and little is written on Roma people in general, we

conclude that the first Identity frame applies. Roma people are presented as a homogeneous

community, who move through Europe facing the same social challenges and discrimination.

By condemning the reactions of the Italian government, and by extension all Member States,

and by referring to the Racial Equality Directive of the European Commission, the document

emphasizes that the problem is a European problem that can best be tackled in a uniform way.


Diagnostic frame

The problem of Roma families in Italy – which is described in detail – is generalized in the

conclusion.


94

The events which have occurred in Italy serve as a reflection of the wider problems

faced by Roma communities all over Europe (FRA 2008:28).

The fourth problem frame applies here, it is the lack of state protection that makes strong

violent attacks by the local population possible.

Prognostic frame

Some recommendations are made – e.g. that all unauthorised camps immediately should be

replaced – however, the prognostic frame is rather vague. It says that the Racial Equality

Directive is the right direction, but

clearly the situation of many Roma and Traveller groups throughout the European

Union requires more than that; achieving equal treatment requires strong political

commitment and urgent action on the ground in the context of a holistic approach

developing long term strategies, policies and measures for all areas of social life (FRA

2008:29).

The report clearly advocates a stronger political commitment, also from the European

Commission in these matters. The EU should guard the key values of the Union and protect

Roma citizens.

Motivational frame

The FRA clearly calls for urgency and strong political commitment (see extract supra, FRA

2008:29) of the European Union and presents itself as indispensable since policy-makers

should be kept informed on the basis of objective data.

The FRA recognises that a longer period of information gathering is necessary in order

to monitor further developments in this area in Italy and across the European Union.

The Agency will continue to collect data and information in relation to the

circumstance of Roma, Sinti and Traveller communities across the EU, and will

publish them in future reports (FRA 2008:29).

By repeatedly stressing the need for data collection the FRA secures its allotted task in the

future.

3.4. Conclusion

Although the document is rather concise and very specific, from the conclusion the non-

territorial nation identity frame is analysed. Also, the problem framing reveals that since

national governments have insufficiently reacted on these violent attacks, the EU should step

up its efforts to protect Roma citizens across Europe.


95

4. Housing conditions of Roma and Travellers in the European Union

4.1. Identify Frame Analysis

In the text, the term ‘Roma’ is adopted which refers to

Umbrella terms, inclusing of the variety of groups such as Roma, Sinti, Gypsies,

Jenisch, Travellers, etc. and their subdivisions without prejudice to the manner in

which any of these groups present themselves (FRA 2009b:11).

The focus in this report is on housing as a fundamental right and how Roma people across

Europe suffer from the same discrimination practices regarding housing. Little reference is

made to cultural identity (except on page 83), therefore, the ethnoclass frame is used in this

document.

Special focus is put on the Member States only setting up policies from which their Roma

citizens can benefit, and they ignore travelling Roma families, Roma families from other EU

states or from outside the EU. This can be seen as an additional motivation to chose the

ethnoclass frame, since the Member States are only preoccupied with the integration and

assimilation of their own Roma citizens.

It should be noted that national policies relevant to the housing of Roma and

Travellers often apply only to those who are citizens of the particular Member State, to

the exclusion of those coming from other Member States or third country nationals

(FRA 2009a:93).


Diagnostic frame

The bad housing situation of Roma people is framed in the fundamental right frame, thereby

referring to international law. The EU adopted a directive, which Member States should

transpose in their legislation and acts as a general framework that should make racism (in this

case of Roma people in housing) punishable.

Although housing issues fall mainly within the scope of responsibility of Member

States, the EU provided an important legal tool with the adoption of the Racial

Equality Directive 2000/43/EC, with which to combat discrimination on the basis of

racial or ethnic origin in access to, among others, goods and services, including

housing (FRA 2009a:11).

By framing the housing conditions of Roma people in a discrimination and racism frame,

again the second problem frame applies to this text. It is patterns of discrimination by the

ethnic majority (e.g. the anecdote of the Slovak towns’ petition by local non-Roma residents,

FRA 2009a:17) that results in bad housing conditions of Roma people. It is the state that is


96

held responsible, as they should provide a legal framework that protects Roma people from

segregation, forced eviction, and other housing problems.

The text also reports cases where the state acts insufficiently to guarantee Roma people’s

rights. The reaction of European monitoring bodies (in this case the Council of Europe’s

European Committee of Social Rights) is lauded for its monitoring function.

The committee noted that although the conditions regarding the regularisation of the

illegal dwellings appeared neutral, they had an indirectly discriminatory effect on

Roma because they did not take into account the long-standing failure of the state to

address the housing needs of the Roma in an integrated and coherent way (FRA

2009a:33).

So in order to fully guarantee Roma people’s rights across Europe, European institutions

should monitor the state’s efforts to combat discrimination.

Prognostic frame

By framing housing conditions of Roma people in a fundamental right frame, and by

presenting cases where the state has failed to provide Roma people with possibilities to

address those rights, the EU has a saying in this matter.

Housing falls primarily within the competence of the EU Member States. The issue of

discrimination falls within the EU competence (FRA 2009a:34).

The report recommends that all Member States should have legal remedies to sanction

housing violations and set up a body for the promotion of equal treatment. In order to improve

the housing conditions, the Member States should adopt policy measures to address living

conditions within the legal framework of the EU’s directive.

By referring to the similarity of the problems Roma people face in housing across Europe, and

by presenting best practices in grey boxes in the text, this document advocates a more uniform

European approach. On page 96, in a first section ‘Problems of law at the national level’ are

discussed, saying that

few, if any, Member States can legitimately assert that their domestic legislation

provides the full ambit of protection against housing rights violations, forced evictions

and discrimination foreseen under international and European legal instruments (FRA

2009a:96).

The next section deals with policy effectiveness and resources, referring to European Union’s

institutions’ initiatives, adding


97

At the same time, many Member States have already or are currently implementing

Roma and Traveller specific housing programmes. Certain of these States are also

members of the Decade of Roma Inclusion, through which they confirm their

commitment to addressing then numerous problems facing the Roma, including in the

area of housing (FRA 2009a:96).

By this, the EU reminds the Member States of their commitment to address the problems

Roma people face, and that their commitments are translated into practice.

Motivational frame

Explicit reference can be found to the Open Method of Coordination:

Simultaneously, since 2000, with the launch of the Social Inclusion Process, the Open

Method of Coordination for social inclusion provided a framework for mutual learning

and exchange on policy development and reforms concerning poverty and social

inclusion (FRA 2009a:11).

Emphasis is put on the lack of sufficient data, and several times is noted that more data is

absolutely necessary.

Several FRA reports have repeatedly highlighted the need for the Member States to

engage in the collection of ethnically disaggregated data as essential tool for

development of evidence-based policies in order to tackle racial discrimination (FRA

2009a:49).

Developed in a data vacuum, most policies and programmes are mere policy

announcements and do not lay down strict timetables, set benchmarks, indicators or

provide for impact assessment mechanisms (FRA 2009a:97, emphasis added).

The report addresses the EU to “strengthen its position on the provision for positive measures

for groups generally recognised as excluded or disadvantaged”, and to set up a Framework

Strategy to “reinforce and improve coordination at national level”, whereby the Council’s

Conclusions are considered “a strong foundation” and the documents by the EC “provide

concrete guidance and important insights” (FRA 2009:98).

Member States are encouraged to “make full use of EU instruments […] whenever they

develop or implement policies aiming at Roma inclusion” (FRA 2009a:99).

4.3. Conclusion

The housing situation of Roma people is very alike across Europe. This report considers

Roma people as a European minority that face the same difficulties in all Member States. By

framing the problem in a legal framework, it emphasizes the importance of the EU Racial

Equality Directive.


98

The positive finding this report holds in the spotlights, i.e. that the vast majority of Member

States have recognised the need for the adoption of Roma-specific initiatives, is indirectly

attributed to EU’s efforts.

In its recommendations, the Member States should cooperate closer and the EU should

strengthen its position. By frequently referring to the data collection problem, the FRA

justifies its actions to continue its efforts to monitor the situation of Roma people in Europe.

5. The situation of Roma EU citizens moving to and settling in other EU

Member States


The report is based on research on the right of free movement and residence of EU citizens of

Roma origin and is a joint action by FRA, Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights of

the Council of Europe and the OSCE.


The term Roma is used in this document, stating that “the research concerns only EU citizens

of Roma origin. Throughout the text they are also referred to as Roma” (FRA 2009b:5).

Roma people are referred to ‘Roma EU citizens’ throughout the document to distinguish

between Roma nationals, Roma citizens of other EU countries and Roma third-country

nationals. This also emphasizes, however, that Roma people do not have a nation-state

protecting their interest, but are equally European citizens as any other nationality. Therefore,

the first identity-frame is without doubt applicable.

The case of Roma EU citizens settling in other EU Member States raises questions in

terms of wider debates on anti-discrimination and integration and the meaning of EU

citizenship and associated rights as a broad concept (FRA 2009b:9).

Focus of the report is on Roma people “who identify themselves as ethnically Roma, and who

are nationals of an EU Member State” (FRA 2009b:11). This would mean that their

nationality of their country of origin is of importance; however, what is added in this text is

that

there may often be an overlap between the experiences of Roma without EU

citizenship – whether these are migrant workers, refugees, asylum seekers or

undocumented workers – and Roma EU citizens (FRA 2009b:11).

This indicates that the nationality of Roma people migrating in the EU is of less importance

than other EU citizens. By systematically referring to the ‘civis europeus sum’ phrase, Roma


99

people are presented as more European than any other citizens of the EU, especially since the

report marks the difference of movement pattern before and after the enlargements of 2004

and 2007 (FRA 2009b:25). Member States – if they do – only take measures to integrate

Roma people that are already citizens, but no one is taking responsibility for moving Roma

people. Roma people tend to move more than other groups, leaving the impression that this

report sees Roma people as ‘true Europeans’.


Diagnostic frame

The problem of Roma people moving around in the EU and thereby confronting patterns of

chronic discrimination and social exclusion is framed in the EU citizenship frame. Their lack

of political, social and economic rights, bad housing conditions, unemployment, victimisation,

insufficient access to healthcare, education and social security is all seen in the light of Free

Movement of People. This is rather explicitly expressed.

At the heart of this report is the question of what EU citizenship means – and should

mean – to Roma EU citizens (FRA 2009b:10).

Roma people are described as “the most vulnerable citizens of the EU” (FRA 2009b:12) and

the report notes that when EU policy is effective in improving the conditions of Roma people

moving in the EU, than it must be good to all other citizens as well. This is referred to as a

litmus test:

The consequences for some of the most vulnerable citizens in the EU are an important

indicator of the practical daily challenges faced by citizens exercising their right to

free movement and residence ‘on the ground’ (FRA 2009b:12).

The Free Movement Directive is the legal framework that should protect Roma citizens from

discrimination in the EU. This report criticizes the shortcomings of all Member States

transposing the Directive in national law,

They seem to have fallen short of making the rights contained fully and practically

accessible (FRA 2009b:13).

and therefore they become responsible for the de facto withdrawal of certain rights and

entitlements (FRA 2009b:32).

Roma people are motivated to move because of poverty and racism, but often face the same

conditions in their destination as in their country of origin. What is more, is that Roma people


100

are sometimes worse off than asylum seekers, which makes the FRA to conclude that there is

something wrong with EU citizenship (FRA 2009b:22).

Prognostic frame

The problem is that the Free Movement Directive is rather poorly transposed into national

law. For example, Member States can set up standards for ‘sufficient resources’ as a

precondition for settlement of unemployed citizens, but the report mentions that this is too

high and not interpreted in the light of the objective which is free movement. It recommends

less restrictions, especially in the labour market, to guarantee free movement of people in the

EU (FRA 2009b:44).

The report also emphasizes that there is no specific policy framework on Roma integration of

Roma EU citizens, and legislation in one country can have an impact on other countries as

travelling Roma people take these experiences with them (FRA 2009b:34-45). Therefore, the

problem of rights violations of Roma people in Member States is framed in such a way that

more EU law is needed.

Member States are held responsible for the marginalisation of Roma people travelling in the

EU. The Free Movement Directive is presented as a very efficient tool, but it is insufficient

transposition that results in the problems. Other examples of EU being the virtuous and

Member States the sinners can be found.

The research found no evidence of any efforts to support Roma – or indeed non-Roma

– EU citizens to move from employment in their informal economy to the formal

economy, although such good practice for general and Roma-specific interventions

exists. Self-employment can be a key mechanism to support this transition, but again,

the research found no evidence of any relevant measures despite the EU’s commitment

to flexicurity which aims at mainstreaming flexibility, mobility and reskilling across

the EU labour market (FRA 2009b:51).

The research found little evidence at national level of measures supporting EU

citizens, including Roma, in their efforts to settle in another Member State (FRA

2009b:63).

This (positive) policy vacuum should therefore be filled with EU legislation by means of a

Framework Strategy on Roma Inclusion and allocation of certain EU Structural Funds.

Motivational frame

There are examples of models of good practice, especially Spain is set as an example that

makes good use of the EU Structural Funds (FRA 2009b:67). But, the report concludes that

good practices are mostly found in Member States in the context of targeting Roma people


101

that are its citizens. Inexplicitly, the report states that no Member States takes responsibility

for moving Roma people, leaving only the EU to act.

The case of Roma people in the European Union is a window of opportunity to increase the

meaning of EU citizenship:

This is not a simple progression and many barriers to inclusion and equality remain –

including widespread anti-Roma racism and discrimination – , but in this context EU

citizenship offers a serious prospect for a process of inclusion (FRA 2009b:7,


The European Union and its Member States need therefore to adopt targeted policies

that are based on integrated rights- and equality-based standards promoting social

cohesion and helping to further deliver on the promise of ‘Civis Europaeus sum’

(FRA 2009b:76, emphasis in original).

5.4. Conclusion

This report frames all problems that Roma people face – discrimination and social exclusion –

in a larger frame of moving Roma people across Europe. By distinguishing pull and push

factors and by repeatedly referring to chronic discrimination in their countries of origin, the

report not only addresses those Roma people moving, but all Roma people within the EU.

The non-territorial nation identity frame fits this text very well. The report presents the EU as

a good architect providing free movement of people, but it is the Member States that failed to

transpose a good EU directive into national law. Also, it expresses its concerns that no

Member State is really occupied with Roma integration policy, only with expulsion policy.

This policy vacuum should therefore be filled by the EU. An overall integration framework is

recommended, and the Member States are asked to fully cooperate and participate in EU

initiatives.

This leaves us to conclude that this report is the best example of how the EU can frame a

problem – Member States having difficulties with Roma integration – into a larger frame of

EU citizenship and core EU values. It present itself as the guardian of Roma’s rights by

presenting Roma people as a non-territorial nation.

6. The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States


The report is written for the European Commission and in the preface statements are made by

three commissioners: Viviane Reding (Vice-President of the European Commissio; Justice,


102

Fundamental Rights and Citizenship), Johannes Han (Commssioner for Regional Policy), and

Laszló Andor (Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion).

In the preface, the Roma situation is framed into a problem frame of social cohesion,

competitiveness and costs on society. They state that the taken measures are still not in place,

and since the situation of Roma people is alarming, the European Commission has adopted a

EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020.

The discourse in the preface is very motivational and emphasizes the role of the European

Commission.

We now need to see concrete deliverables, quantified targets and clear, ambitious

deadlines for action (FRA 2012:3).

The rest of the text will be analysed as part of the Fundamental Rights Agency’s analysis. It is

a report on a survey collected in 11 Member States thereby interviewing 22,203 Roma and

non-Roma citizens.


Since the report addresses the situation of Roma people in 11 Member States compared to

non-Roma living in close proximity, the national minority identity frame seems to apply here.

In all figures and tables, the distinction is made between Roma and non-Roma in every

country. No figure is presented in which the country is not mentioned. So there is no trace of a

European identity.

However, the report explicitly mentions using Roma as “an umbrella term within a policy

context dealing primarily with issues of social exclusion and discrimination, and not with

specific issues of cultural identity” (FRA 2012:29). So the ethnoclass frame fits this report

better, since the focus is on the social conditions of Roma people, not on minority rights but

more general fundamental rights. The lack of reference to European identity excludes the non-

territorial nation frame as well.


Diagnostic frame

This report is a little different from the others, as it is merely a representation of data and no

policy recommendations are made. Yet, in the foreword and speech by Morten Kjaerum

(Director of the FRA), the problem of different types of discrimination of Roma compared to


103

non-Roma in the EU is framed in a European approach in the Europe 2020 Growth Strategy

Framework.

The results are shocking in many respects. Although governments and societies have

been aware of Roma exclusion and deprivation, the magnitude and the similarity of

exclusion patterns across EU Member States is striking and leaves no excuse for

delaying swift, effective action to improve the situation (FRA 2012:5).

Therefore, the second problem frame again applies here. The focus is on the bad social

conditions compared to non-Roma, as a result of “centuries-long history of exclusion,

prejudice, discrimination and persecution by state authorities” (FRA 2012:29).

Prognostic frame

By focusing on the similarities of exclusion patterns across EU Member States, Mr. Kjaerum

advocates for a European strategy, whereby the EU is setting up targets and benchmarks and

policy recommendations that Member States should comply with.

The real challenge lies ahead: to ensure that the implementation of Roma integration

policies produces tangible and measurable results ‘on the ground’ reaching the targets

set for Europe 2020 (FRA 2012:9).

The report notes that to ensure Roma integration, a legal framework is necessary. Since the

Member States have failed in their integration policies, a European legal approach is the best

chance to change to real situation of Roma people.

Based on the EU Framework, the national Roma integration strategies are expected to

elaborate specific actions at regional and local levels to improve the situation of Roma.

These actions should be taken within a broader conceptual and programmatic

framework that integrates the respect, protection and fulfilment of fundamental rights

and development opportunities. These two complementary aspects constitute the

essence of a rights-based approach to development which is the sustainable way of

fulfilling rights ‘on the ground’ (FRA 2012:9).

This evidence confirms the need identified in the European Commission

Communication on an EU Framework for national Roma integration strategies for

“determined action, in active dialogue with the Roma, both at national and EU level”

(FRA 2012:28, emphasis in original).

Motivational frame

This reports repeatedly refers to the necessity of data collection to improve the situation of

Roma. By this, it presents itself as an indispensable actor in this process.

In other words, the data do not claim to be representative of all Roma throughout the

EU Member States surveyed; the surveys, however, do provide data that correspond to

the priorities of the EU and its Member States concerning the Roma. These priorities


104

are expressed in the policy targets of the EU Framework for national Roma integration

strategies as aiming to “put an end to the exclusion of Roma” (FRA 2012:29).

6.4. Conclusion

This report differs from the other since the focus is on data presentation and little reference is

made to Roma culture and background. The distinction between Roma and non-Roma citizens

in all countries is at the centre of this report, however, emphasis is on social and fundamental

rights and not on minority rights. Therefore, we conclude that the ethnoclass identity frame

applies here.

In the problem framing, the European strategy comes to the fore. By focusing on the

similarity of problems Roma people face in all Member States, a European Framework is

presented as the sole solution of this problem. It is framed into rights-based approach, leaving

to conclude that discrimination should be banned from the EU as incompatible with European

values.


105

Appendix B: CoR and EESC Analysis

Nr. Year Committee Document Title

1 2011 CoR Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the social and

economic integration of the Roma in Europe

2 2012 CoR Opinion of the Committee of the Regions. An EU framework

for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020

3 2009 EESC Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

the ‘Integration of Minorities – Roma’

4 2011a EESC Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on

‘The situation of the Roma in the European Union’

5 2011b EESC Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

‘Intercultural dialogue and the Roma: the key role of women

and education’

6 2011c EESC Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

‘Societal empowerment and integration of Roma citizens in

Europe’

1. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the social and economic

integration of the Roma in Europe


This opinion of the Committee of the Regions is an opinion on a communication from the

Commission on the social and economic integration of the Roma in Europe (see appendix C,

document 3).

The rapporteur is Mr. Alvaro Ancisi (IT/EPP) and member of the municipal of Ravenna. He

refers to his expertise as member of the municipal, to become the rapporteur on Roma issues.

In an interview on the CoR-website he states:

The Roma community continue to be frequent victims of discrimination and social

exclusion in European as well as other countries, which is a breach of the fundamental

values of the European Union and human rights. I therefore believe it is essential to

launch Community policies for balanced social and political inclusion of the Roma

community, based particularly on the exchange of good practice used in the regions

and cities of European countries

(http://cor.europa.eu/en/news/highlights/Pages/82c314dc-1ef3-48b6-83de-

a879632fc44f.aspx, consulted on 5 December 2012).


In the opinion, the Committee states that it

Is aware that the term ‘Roma’ used in the present opinion is an umbrella term which

includes other population groups (the Sinti, Gypsies, Travellers, Kalé, Camminanti,

Ashkali, etc.) with similar cultural characteristics and a history of social

marginalisation and exclusion within European society; but rules out any attempt to

http://cor.europa.eu/en/news/highlights/Pages/82c314dc-1ef3-48b6-83de-a879632fc44f.aspx

http://cor.europa.eu/en/news/highlights/Pages/82c314dc-1ef3-48b6-83de-a879632fc44f.aspx


106

simplify and assimilate groups within a single socio-cultural identity; (CoR, 2011:

C42/24).

This de facto rules out the ethnoclass frame, as it explicitly mentions to refuse to assimilate

the Roma group within a single socio-cultural identity. This opinion emphasizes more the

effort needed from the local level and active participation of the Roma communities

themselves, and that the role of the European level should be coordination. On that account,

the national minority frame fits better; however, there is no mentioning of extra rights specific

to Roma, and in fact, the Committee states that it

agrees with the European Commission that the prime objective is an inclusive society

not a new form of ethnic segregation; it is therefore essential that public policies keep

the Roma population as their specific, though not exclusive, target and measures must

be included within broader policies and national programmes for tackling social

exclusion and poverty within the EU; the approach must be mainstreamed and cross-

cutting, and must take account of the complexity and interdependence of the factors

that lead to social exclusion and poverty; (CoR, 2011: C42/26, emphasis added).

The Committee, however, focuses more on the need for a bottom-up approach for a social and

political inclusion of Roma people in the European Community, and is very suspicious of the

Member States.

Considers that regional and local authorities have a fundamental and strategic role to

play in harnessing the resources of the Roma community as informed players in the

inclusion process, in informing the Roma population of its rights and in encouraging

the bottom-up participation of Roma NGOs and civil society organisation; (CoR,

2011: C42/26, emphasis added).

This leads us to conclude that in fact the non-terriorial nation frame is adopted in this opinion,

as the aim of this opinion (and by extension of the Committee in general) is closer

cooperation between regions and a unifying movement of Roma communities.


Diagnostic frame

In this opinion, the Committee adopts the second diagnostic frame in which it refers to the

patterns of discrimination by the ethnic majority of the state, and the state authority in

particular, is the cause for the social exclusion Roma people suffer from.

The opinion is especially rigid on the role of the national authorities in causing and extending

the situation of many Roma people.

Considers, however that a) local authorities should not be left on their own when

addressing social inclusion policies for the Roma community, whether autochthonous


107

or emerging as the result of intra-European mobility; b) there is a need for territorially

integrated regional policies and cooperation arrangements with the countries of

origin of Roma migrants; and c) local policies can only be conducted in the context of

properly operational European mobility and European and national anti-discrimination

policies; (CoR, 2011: C42/25, emphasis added).

The Committee emphasizes that it is the local level that can achieve the best results, but that

they often lack sufficient funding or support from the national level. Moreover, there is

sufficient funding on a European level, but the Member States fail to utilise them “in a

sufficient, sustained manner at national and/or regional and local level, and that one obstacle

to their use is the low level of involvement of Roma communities in planning” (CoR,

2011:42/23).

Prognostic frame

By emphasizing the importance of the local level, the Committee states that local authorities

should be equipped with more instruments.

[The Committee] believes that on the one hand these is an urgent need for Member

States to adopt legislation to render European anti-discrimination and pro-rights

legislation effective and applicable, while on the other hand, long-term processes must

be launched on the basis of local and regional authority policies in the area of anti-

discrimination, civil society involvement, active Roma participation, gender dimension

awareness and an intercultural approach; (CoR, 2011: C42/25, emphasis added).

Moreover, it is on a local level that discrimination and racism can truly be tackled, by

focusing on improving the social conditions, as social exclusion often results in crime, which

on its turn results in “fostering a public perception of insecurity and risks to public order,

causes social alarm and may lead to reactions that take the form of discrimination and lack of

respect” (CoR, 2011: C42/27). Roma involvement and mediation and public awareness

raising are the success factors to combat widespread discrimination.

The reason why widespread discrimination still exists – though not explicitly stated – is the

lack of compliance by the Member States. In the opinion, the Committee emphasises the

availability of efficient European instruments (the Directive, the Framework, etc.) and point

out to the Member States that the European Directives should immediately be transposed into

national legislation. Furthermore, the Committee also advocates for a stronger cooperation

between the regions and more active Roma involvement.

The Committee of the Regions considers that the EU Platform for Roma Inclusion

would be more effective and would yield greater results if the coordination mechanism

were formalised, involving the Commssion and all Member States and ensuring closer

cooperation with local authorities and NGOs; (CoR, 2011: C42/27, emphasis added).


108

Motivational frame

The Committee agrees on the coordinating role of the Commission in Roma policies,

especially on a local level.

The Committee of the Regions considers that the Commission’s coordinating role is

essential for local and regional authorities when it comes to choosing ways to

encourage the exchange of good practice, spreading information about effective

schemes, the modelling and dissemination of approaches, and the monitoring of

policies, encouraging not only exchanging between Member States but also the

establishment of networks of local and regional authorities and civil society players

(Cor, 2011: C42/26, emphasis added).

The ultimate goal is to end racism, xenophobia, discrimination and social exclusion with

regard to Roma people, and according to the Committee, the best way to achieve that goal is

by “policy coherence and harmonisation, consolidate best practice and disseminate the results

achieve, promote greater awareness among local administrations and strengthen local

authorities’ planning capacities” (CoR, 2011: C42/23).

1.4. Conclusion

The Committee of the Regions generally speaking follows the same identity frame and

problem framing as the European Commission as they agree with almost the entire

communication.

However, in its opinion, the Committee emphasizes the need for closer cooperation between

local authorities in the EU platform for Roma Inclusion, thereby circumventing the national

level. The Committee is very rigid on national authorities of the Member States. This should

of course be framed within the interests of the Committee of the Regions.

2. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions. An EU framework for national

Roma integration strategies up to 2020


This opinion of the Committee of the Regions is an opinion on a communication from the

Commission an EU framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020 (see

appendix C, document 4).

Once more, the rapporteur is Mr. Alvaro Ancisi.


As similar to the previous opinion, the Committee of the Regions emphasizes that Roma

people cannot simply be assimilated within a single socio-cultural identity based on the


109

“characteristics and history of marginalisation and exclusion from European society” (CoR,

2012: C54/15).

In contrast to the previous opinion, the Committee refers in this opinion to minority rights.

[Takes note of the Report on the consultation of the Subsidiarity Monitoring Network,

and appreciates its contributions:] it states that the Roma community must preserve its

identity (CoR, 2012: C54/16, emphasis added).

Recommends that the Member States prepare strategies to address the issue of

integrating the Roma population not only from the standpoint of a socially and

economically disadvantage group, but also from that of national minority with rights

under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (CoR,


and focusses more on cultural identity

The Committee of the Regions recommends that the Member States and regional and

local authorities promote initiatives to highlight Roma culture and identity, as such

initiatives are crucial to tackling stereotypes, xenophobia and racism, and to promoting

social and economic integration without erring on the side of cultural assimilation;

(CoR, 2012: C54/15, emphasis added).

This clearly excludes the ethnoclass frame, and hints towards a national minority frame.

However, the Committee emphasizes and recommends closer cooperation between Roma

communities across the European continent, and state


and appreciates its contributions:] more specifically, the respondent’s contributions

indicate that Roma integration is perceived as transnational issue that should be

tackled in a coordinated manner, and that their integration could affect several

Member States at the same time (CoR, 2012: C54/16, emphasis added).

Therefore, it is more reasonable to assume – as in the previous opinion – that the non-

territorial identity frame is adopted.


Diagnostic frame

The opinion is very straightforward on the diagnostic frame. It states that it is patterns of

discrimination and a lack of state protection that causes Roma people to be socially excluded

from society.

[The Committee of the Regions] stresses the need to fully involve regional and local

authorities in national Roma integration policies, given that social and economic

integration takes place primarily at local level; this also implies that national


110

governments need to make the necessary funds available to local and regional

authorities to carry out Roma integration policies; (CoR, 2012: C54/14).

The opinion also state that discrimination is the root cause of social exclusion, and that this a

key priority to tackle. The problem is that EU legislation is available, but that it is not enough

to foster a systemic change in the mindsets of the majority population.

In order to tackle the social exclusion of the Roma and to improve their situation, it is

not enough merely to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or

social origin or membership of a minority (CoR, 2012: C54/14).

It also emphasizes the need for clear targets, and monitoring systems “that can measure the

progress made in integrating the Roma population” (CoR, 2012: C54/15) to provide the

Member States with tools for more structured cooperation.

Prognostic frame

The Committee thus frames the problem of Roma exclusion as caused by patterns of

discrimination, which can only be tackled on a local level. Furthermore, it says, cooperation

and exchange of good practices is needed to ensure more results. This de facto puts the role of

the Member States out of the picture. The Committee recommends that policy-making should

happen on a local level, and the exchange of good practices on a European level. Member

States should allocate more funds and incorporate the work done by local authorities in their

National action plans.

There is an on-going need for stronger multilevel governance that brings the regional

and local authorities into decision-making processes and does not view them purely as

implementing bodies, but equips them with the tools and financial resources to tackle

the challenges of Roma integration: (CoR, 2012: C54/15).

The Committee is more bold in its recommendations than the European Commission, as it

explicitly agrees with minimum standards for “promoting the social, economic and cultural

integration of the Roma minority”. It advocates a stronger stance and more power – with

reference to the subsidiarity principle – towards Member States.


and appreciates its contributions:] it also emphasises that national and regional policies

have proven to be somewhat ineffective in tackling exclusion and poverty, while

purely national initiatives lack coherence, and the framework created by them is thus

perceived to be fragmented; (CoR, 2012: C54/15).

Therefore, the Committee recommends

That regional and local authorities should pool their best practices in the field of Roma

integration, since they are aware that networks such as Eurocities, and international


111

bodies and other government and non-governmental stakeholders in the four priority

sectors identified, can help to implement the EU framework for Roma integration by

adopting a local point of view and involving cities from all the countries of Europe;

(CoR, 2012: C54/17).

Motivational frame

Special attention is paid to the subsidiarity principle, which the Committee states the

European Union complies with.

The Commission’s communication complies with the principle of subsidiarity, since

the transnational character of the European Roma community, and the shared aspects

of social exclusion that this community faces in various parts of Europe, are such that

the measures proposed can best be implemented at EU level;

The measures adopted do not introduce new legal instruments, as first, they fall within

the scope of the open method of coordination, and second, many of them are based on

existing legislative frameworks, in line with the principle of proportionality; (CoR,


By focusing on the transnational character of the Roma problems, the Committee motivates a

European approach and by stating that discrimination can best be tackled on a local level, it

also advocates a stronger cooperation between the local level and the European level, thereby

excluding the Member States national authorities.

2.4. Conclusion

This opinion by the Committee of the Regions on the communication of the Commission is

very explicitly in favour of a more European approach and active involvement of Roma

communities at a local level. By emphasizing this, we concluded that the non-territorial

identity frame is adopted.

Noteworthy, is that the Committee explicitly agrees with the idea of introducing mandatory

minimum standards with regard to social inclusion of Roma people. At the same time, in the

opinion a larger coordinating and monitoring role by the European Commission is advocated,

leaving less policy freedom of the Member States.

3. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the

‘Integration of Minorities – Roma’


The European Commission consulted the European Economic and Social Committee on the

integration of minorities – Roma, on 27 October 2006. This opinion is an answer on the

question of “how to promote concerted efforts in order to maximise the impact and


112

effectiveness of all relevant instruments in order to fight discrimination and promote the

integration of minorities, notably Roma” (EESC, 2009: C27/88).

The rapporteur was Ms. Anne-Marie Sigmund (Austria), who was president of the EESC from

2004 to 2006. The co-rapporteur was Ms. Madi Sharma (UK), member of the EESC since

2002.


The European Economic and Social Committee clearly adopts the non-territorial nation

frame. More than other EU institutions, it focuses on the shared identity and culture. In the

opinion, the common European history of the Roma is focus of attention.

Knowledge of one’s own history is of the utmost importance for both the minority and

the majority (EESC, 2009: C27/89).

So – as opposed to the European Commission – the EESC believes that it is not only patterns

of discrimination that calls for a European approach, but also their common history and

culture. For example, their language:

Recognising the importance of Romani [an Indo-European language spoken in

numerous forms in Europe’s various Roma communities], as well as standardising and

teaching it, is of the utmost importance both within and outside the minority (EESC,

2009: C27/89).

A Common language fashions a common identity. The promotion of their language is

of fundamental importance, therefore, for the social recognition and cultural identity of

the Roma (EESC, 2009: C27/89).

So clearly, there is a focus on minority rights, but explicitly on a European scale.

That the Roma have made their contribution to the diversity of European culture down

the centuries is amply demonstrated in areas such as music and the visual arts (EESC,

2009: C27/90).


Diagnostic frame

The Committee clearly adopts the second diagnostic frame. It reiterates a numerous times that

the social exclusion and patterns of discrimination generate a vicious circle that is hard to

break.

In short, the history of the Roma in Europe is one of persecution and persistent

discrimination down the centuries, which understandably has frequently led to many

of their number being traumatized (EESC, 2009: C27/89).


113

It is the state who failed to provide the Roma population with sufficient support to ensure

better social conditions. This resulted in a reinforcement of the xenophobic image that the

majority people has of Roma people, leading to more discrimination. For example, in housing,

the Committee states that

Housing is marked by poor living conditions and continued segregation. […] Many of

these issues result from societal discrimination and anti-gypsism. It is worth

mentioning that their nomadic lifestyle is the consequence rather than the cause of

their exclusion. Although the overwhelming majority of Roma are now settled, the

choice of a nomadic existence is still often cited in attempting to explain their

exclusion (EESC, 2009: C27/91).

This often results in a vicious circle that is hard to break.

Societal discrimination and Anti gypsism in the form of stereotyping and prejudice

facing minority communities, especially Roma, is deep rooted and stem from

generations of ignorance and cultural difference. The prejudice is that these

communities are of less value to society is widespread, which only leads to further

isolation, poverty, violence and finally exclusion (EESC, 2009: C27/92).

Prognostic frame

The patterns of discrimination can only be tackled by active Roma participation and

involvement in local policy making, since it is the prejudice by the ethnic majority that

prevents them from actually improving their social conditions.

This is why every effort must be made to help the Roma cast off the mantle of victim

hood and transform themselves from – more or less mistrusted – passive objects to

active players who are ready and able to take an active and responsible role in society,

in particular in the Roma related policies (EESC, 2009: C27/89).

The Committee recommends a two-track approach to foster a change in their socio-economic

position. On the one hand, Member States should immediately transpose the European

antidiscrimination legislation into national legislation. This “need immediate emergency

action” (EESC, 2009: C27/88) according to the Committee. Nevertheless, the Committee

recognizes that it is difficult to change the mindsets of the majority population and this

requires a long-term approach. The Committee concludes

The solutions are therefore not only at EU level, but essential at Member State, and

regional and local level requiring greater cooperation and partnerships (EESC, 2009:

C27/88).


114

Similar to the European Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee also

focus on the obligations of the Roma people themselves. Nevertheless, it seems that the Roma

community should not be blamed for not integrating, since their culture is misunderstood with

a result that they are discriminated. Therefore, the Committee argues for a better

understanding and representation of Roma culture in socio-economic settings.

Integration is not a one-way street, but a process that goes in two directions and

demands efforts from both the minorities and majorities. Fearful of having to give up

their principles, traditions and identity in the course of integration, many Roma

harbour great reservations when it comes to integration measures. Likewise the

inherent discrimination over generations makes it difficult for non-Roma to put their

prejudice to one side and welcome the Roma culture (EESC, 2009: C27/92, emphasis

added).

Motivational frame

The Committee recommends on the one hand a bottom-up approach, in which Roma people

participate politically through which they can have a saying in the policy making that benefits

them.

More can be done by investing in the communities where commitments, ownership

and responsibility are made part of the contract (EESC, 2009: C27/92).

On the other hand, the Committee welcomes the European anti-discrimination legislation, and

it is of utmost importance that the Member States transpose this into national law. That gives

an extra legal power for Roma people, who should at the same time start to actively

participate.

The Commission should explore how Community legislation can be expanded in order

to address the situation of the Roma, such as through adoption of a Desegregation

Directive (EESC, 2009:27/93).

The Member States should set up national action plans on the basis of the European

guidelines.

Those action plans must have commitments, activities, evaluations, feedback and

dissemination mechanism, supported by adequate funding, including via the Structural

Funds. The Committee is convinced that the OMC [Open Method of Coordination] is

an ideally suited and effective approach to many legal, social and historically

emotionally charged issues related to minorities, especially Roma concerns (EESC,

2009: C27/93-94).

3.4. Conclusion

The opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee resembles the opinion of the

Committee of the Regions. It also adopts the non-territorial nation frame, see discrimination


115

and lack of adequate policy in the past as the cause for the social conditions of Roma people.

However, whereas the CoR emphasizes the need for closer cooperation among the different

regions, the EESC focuses more on the need to promote Roma culture. This results in more

dramatized paragraphs than in the other official documents by the European institutions.

Culture as the Committee understands it, is a process that impacts on all areas of life, a

proclamation of shared values, a shared way of life, and an essential means of

communication as part of any effort towards better integration in all areas, as it

combines rationality with feelings and thus offers a holistic approach to solving

problems that need to be addressed. This social dimension of culture helps to make

intercultural dialogue an instrument of peace and stability both internally and

externally. In terms of minorities, but particularly the Roma, this means that the

intercultural dialogue is the best means to gradually do away with the stereotypes of

mistrust, prejudice and lack of understanding that have grown up over centuries and

to find together in an atmosphere of mutual respect a form of integration acceptable to

both sides, underpinned by a strong legislative framework (EESC, 2009: C27/94,

emphasis added).

4. Resolution of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The

situation of the Roma in the European Union’


This resolution was adopted at the plenary session held on 15-16 September 2010 on the

situation of the Roma in the European Union.


In line with the previous opinions, the Committee adopts the non-territorial nation identity

frame in this resolution. Though less explicitly, the focus is on the European character of

Roma problems.

The EESC has always strived to defend the fundamental rights of all people living in

the European Union and to oppose all forms of discrimination directed at national

minorities, as well as racism and xenophobia (EESC, 2011a: C48/1, emphasis added).

This becomes clear when it advocates for a EU approach.

The Committee actively advocates the economic and social integration of the Roma

population, like that of other minorities and migrants, and proposes to the EU

institutions to the establishment of a comprehensive strategy which is credible to the

Member States in order to bring about a genuine integration based on the common

rights and obligations of all EU citizens (EESC, 2011a: C48/1).

The resolution is very concise and therefore we assume that it adopts the same identity frame

as in the other documents of the EESC.


116


Diagnostic frame

The EESC “strongly condemns discriminatory actions against Roma or any ethnic minority

groups” and “has always strived to defend the fundamental rights of all people living in the

European Union and to oppose to all forms of discrimination directed at national minorities,

as well as racism and xenophobia” (EESC, 2011a: C48/1).

Based on those condemnations and keeping in mind the diagnostic frame of the previous

opinion, the EESC adopts the second diagnostic frame. It is the patterns of discrimination by

the ethnic majority and lack of adequate policies that causes social exclusion of Roma

communities.

Prognostic frame

Problems associated with the integration of the Roma “are primarily a matter for the Member

States concerned”, nevertheless, the EESC “stresses the responsibility of the EU under the

new treaty and the need to find a response at EU level, both to take into account the specific

circumstances of the Roma populations and to ensure equal treatment throughout EU

territory” (EESC, 2011a: C48/1). The EESC points out to the obligation of the EU to ensure

protection of the fundamental rights of its citizens.

Motivational frame

As in line with the previous opinion, the EESC advocates a European approach combined

with active involvement of Roma communities through the “establishment of a

comprehensive strategy which is credible to the Member States”.

4.4. Conclusion

This one-page resolution reiterates the opinion of the EESC. The Committee lies

responsibility with the Member States, their authorities and ethnic majority to cause the social

exclusion of Roma people. Although there is a legal basis which forbids such practices, Roma

people are still being excluded and discriminated. Therefore, the resolution calls for a

European approach which ensures an active participation of the Roma people themselves.

5. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on

‘Intercultural dialogue and the Roma: the key role of women and

education’


This opinion is an additional opinion the intercultural dialogue and the Roma: the key role of

women and education as a result of the Commission’s final sentence of the Commission’s


117

Communication on an EU Framework for national Roma integration strategies up to 2020:

‘Now is the time to change good intentions into more concrete actions’.

The rapporteur is Ms. Anne-Marie Sigmund.


The Committee adopts once more in this additional opinion the non-territorial nation frame.

Explicitly is referred to the existence of a European identity next to a national identity. Since

Roma people have less affiliation with nation states, the European aspect is more present in

the case of Roma identity.

One of the slogans commonly used to describe the European integration project is

‘unity in diversity’. In this context the Roma are an impressive example of European

cultural diversity, an aspect which is further enriched by the fact that Roma themselves

embody diverse cultural identities (EESC, 2011b: C248/61).

The Committees refutes arguments against multiculturalism [as opposed to

interculturalism]; although some of the points made are valid, they are open to

misunderstanding given that they do not apply to a European community held together

by a shared ‘core culture’ (EESC, 2011b: C248/61).

This is the best example of the non-territorial nation identity frame.


Diagnostic frame

The diagnostic frame is similar to the previous opinions and resolutions; Roma people suffer

from discrimination practices and lack sufficient state protection, which results in bad social

conditions, which on its turn reinforces racism, discrimination and xenophobia by the

majority population.

Furthermore, despite the efforts by the European Union and besides the efforts by the Member

States to transpose the European legislation into antidiscrimination law, the situation remains

the same for most Roma people. According to the Committee, “this has partly to do with the

fact that although numerous initiatives, conferences and meetings have taken place and

continue to take place at Community level, many of them are unsatisfactory with respect to

implementation of the measures which they propose, despite being valid in terms of content;

among other things, this is due to a lack of involvement at local level of the Roma concerned

and their representative organisations” (EESC, 2011b:C248/61).

The reason why there is so little active involvement of Roma – albeit the common

understanding that this leads to most successful results – is that Roma people are uneducated.


118

Therefore, the Committee believes that educational integration is seen “as being the most

important” (EESC, 2011b: C248/60).

Prognostic frame

First of all, the Committee emphasizes that Roma involvement in inclusion policy making is a

necessity.

It emphasizes that from now on, instead of developing strategies for the Roma and

carrying out analysis on them, specific measures must be developed together with the

Roma and the organisations representing them (EESC, 2011b: C248/60).

It goes on focusing on the role of education and, related to that, Roma women. Educated

Roma children will be provided with a set of common basic values that “enable different

ethnic groups to live successfully alongside one another”, whereas women motivating their

Roma children to attend school will “help to overcome stereotypes”, as “too often, Roma

women are characterised as having a submissive role” (EESC, 2011b: C248/62). This will

ultimately lead to people taking “control of their own lives and to function as responsible

citizens who are aware of their rights and duties and are able to exercise them.”

“The goal is to secure social inclusion of the disadvantaged groups of the Roma community,

without the loss of their Roma cultural identity” according to the Committee (EESC, 2011b:

C248/62). The focus is on providing tools to create an intercultural attitude and which will

provide Roma people with means to empower themselves.

Motivational frame

By explaining the need for an intercultural approach, especially in education, the Committee

presents itself as an ideal institutional body that can coordinate those approaches.

Acting within its competences, the Committee would like to help remedy this

mismatch between good strategic proposals and inadequate tactical implementing

measures. It will therefore endeavour to capitalise on its role as a bridge to European

citizens and use its networks and the organisations represented by its member in local

events to help ensure that these is greater willingness to accept available services and

meet commitments (EESC, 2011b: C248/61).

5.4. Conclusion

The Committee once more shows that it adopts the non-territorial nation identity frame, by

explicitly emphasizing that Roma people living in Europe all face the same integration

challenges, and that integration of Roma people – and by extension all people in Europe – can

only be achieved by an intercultural approach based on a set of ‘core European values’.


119

The Committee presents itself as the ideal candidate to take up the role as coordinator that

will ensure that cultural integration takes place in Europe, thereby focusing on the role of

education and women with regard to Roma inclusion policies.

6. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Societal

empowerment and integration of Roma citizens in Europe’


This opinion is an exploratory opinion on the societal empowerment and integration of Roma

citizens in Europe, on behalf of the Hungarian Presidency.


In this opinion also the non-territorial identity frame is adopted. The Committee focuses on

the similarities of the problems that Roma people face in all European Member States,

emphasizes their right to express their cultural identity, and raises the matter of Roma people

without official documents. This excludes them mainly from being entitled to European law.

[The Committee] draws the Council’s attention to the need to find a way of giving

back proof of nationality to those Roma who do not dispose of any more for some

reason, so that they have a guarantee of entitlement to European citizenship without

discrimination, and to keep this injustice at the top of the agenda for as long as it

remains unresolved (EESC, 2011c: C248/17).

[The Committee] firmly believes that Roma should not be given special rights but that

it is necessary to fully respect their European citizenship, while also guaranteeing

them all fundamental EI rights as well as all citizen’s rights, to ensure that those rights

are respected and to penalise any failure to do so, particularly where people

responsible for law enforcement act in an unfair and discriminatory way (EESC,

2011c: C248/18).

It is absolutely vital for those [Roma community] claiming to share the same identity

to be able, on their own initiative and together with their chosen peers and as a

community, to choose their own path and preserve the language, culture, customs, etc.

constituting the basis of their identities (EESC, 2011c: C248/19).


Diagnostic frame

The Committee points out that the in spite of various efforts made by the European Union and

the Member States, the efforts “have not helped in any decisive way to remedy the

discrimination experienced by many Roma, nor to improve their quality of life of the

opportunities open to them”. The Committee even adds: “in some respects, their situation has

deteriorated even further” (EESC, 2011c: C248/16).


120

Prognostic frame

By emphasizing that the ‘difficult situation’ has not improved, the Committee proposes an

“integrated, coordinated and coherent Europe-wide strategy and a determined, systematic

action programme that covers all policy areas and is implemented at national level, thus

equipping the individuals and communities concerned with the powers and authority they

need to shape their own destinies (empowerment)” (EESC, 2011c: C248/16).

Roma involvement and emancipation is a top priority for the Committee, thereby stating that

“individuals must have the strength, tools and authority to shape their own destinies” (EESC,

2011c: C249/18). The Committee suggests “that support be given to linguistic, cultural,

educational and community programmes for developing the Roma community, where they are

truly able to reach their fellow Roma” (EESC, 2011c: C248/20).

Motivational frame

The Committee stresses the need that Roma empower themselves with support from an

institution that helps Roma people in Europe to find each other and provide with tools for

technical advice, training and a forum in which they can expound their situation.

By framing this problem, and reinforcing the need for such an organisation, the Committee

presents itself as the best partner for Roma inclusion.

The validity, credibility and effectiveness of policies are essentially linked to close

involvement and ownership by their primary beneficiaries. […] The EESC believes

that, thanks to the combined efforts of the EU institutions, governments, Member

States and local authorities and communities, the EU may now be at a historic turning

point: it may finally produce a policy to benefit the EU’s most excluded and

disadvantaged ethnic group, based on a common approach that is likely to end not in

costly failure but in intelligent, humane results. The Committee wishes to give its full

support to this process and its implementation (EESC, 2011c: C248/21).

Attaches great importance to their consistent implementation [Framework for National

Roma integration strategies up to 2020] at both national and EU level; wishes to be a

committed partner in this process (EESC, 2011c: C248/16).

6.4. Conclusion

The European Economic and Social Committee explicitly advocates a bottom-up approach for

improving the living situation of Roma people. The Committee emphasizes the shared cultural

identity of Roma people in Europe, and moreover refers to a shared European identity. By

framing Roma people as a non-territorial nation and by framing their problem in a pattern of

discrimination by the majority population, the Committee proposes extra instruments for

Roma people to empower themselves.


121

As a result of such framing, the Committee shoves forward an opportunity for more

coordination at European level in which the Committee itself can play an active role.

Similar to the opinion formulation of the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic

and Social Committee this should be seen as in line with the interests of the Committee itself.


122

Appendix C: EC Analysis

Nr Year DG Title

1 2004 Employment and

Social Affairs

The situation of Roma in an enlarged European Union

2 2010a Employment and

Social Affairs and

Equal

Opportunities

Improving the tools for the social inclusion and non-

discrimination of Roma in the EU. Report.

3 2010b COMMISSION The social and economic integration of the Roma in

Europe

4 2011a COMMISSION An EU framework for National Roma Integration

Strategies up to 2020. Report.

5 2011b Justice Working together for Roma inclusion. The EU

framework explained

6 2012a Justice What works for Roma inclusion in the EU. Policies and

model approaches

7 2012b Justice National Roma integration strategies. A first step in the

implementation of the EU framework

1. The situation of Roma in an enlarged European Union


This report was commissioned by the Directorate General for Employment and Social Affairs

of the European Commission. It is dated 2004 and should therefore be seen in the context of

enlargement. Little EU hard law exists in social affairs, and every move by the European

Commission in that domain is followed by fierce resistance from the Member States. The

report writes

Its purpose has been to better understand the situation of Roma, Gypsy and Traveller

communities in the EU-25 and in what way existing and future EU and other policies

might improve that situation (EC, 2004:1).

The report investigates the situation of Roma in existing Member States and future ones. The

focus lies on sectoral fields relevant to social inclusion. This is the first EC report on Roma

people since the enlargement.


Although the focus of the report is social inclusion, it writes that the research was

commissioned in the context of enlargement, “when Roma, Gypsy and Traveller communities

became the largest ethnic minority within the EU” (EC, 2004:1).

When describing Roma people, the writers of the report emphasize that the term ‘Roma’ is

used as an umbrella of groups and individuals. Yet, they focus on the origins, language,


123

number of Roma people in Europe and conclude that “Roma are the European Union’s largest

minority ethnic community” (EC, 2004:6). The writers continue by focusing on the reality of

human right violations and social exclusion of Roma people within the EU, but at all times

Roma people are presented as one minority group:

The Romani language is spoken by millions of Europeans, making it one of the

principal minority languages of Europe (EC, 2004:6, emphasis added).

Among the Copenhagen Political Criteria is the requirement of ‘stability of institutions

guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for, and protection

of, minorities’ (EC, 2004:6, emphasis added).

For example, the focus is on social inclusion and integration into society, but the report still

acknowledge its distinct identity.

In the face of a history of discrimination and persecution, and despite centuries in

Europe without any visible autochthonous institutions, Roma have maintained a

distinct identity (EC, 2004:9).

That the frame adopted in this text is the ethnoclass frame becomes clear in the problem

framing of insufficient education, employment, housing, healthcare, etc.


Diagnostic frame

This report frames the origins of the problems that Roma people face today in a lack of state

protection. The problems discussed include discrimination and insufficient inclusion in

education, employment, housing, healthcare, social security, incomes, and debt and a lack of

personal documents and statelessness. The report lies responsibility with the state by showing

how the EU has proposed anti-discrimination directives and the Member States have failed to

comply with it.

Although some EU Member States had already implemented legislation banning racial

discrimination prior to the adoption of the Race Directive, many did not, and even

those countries with traditions of combating racial discrimination through law,

frequently had not secured a ban on racial discrimination in all fields of relevance to

EU social inclusion policy (EC, 2004:11).

The report acknowledges that some states have failed to meet the Copenhagen criteria, but

that it takes ‘a long period of time in order to make a real impact’ (EC, 2004:15).

Phare programmes clearly demonstrated that existing policies and practices in Central

and Eastern Europe were failing Roma.


124

As harsh as the writers are on the failure of the states, the European Union is kept out of

harm’s way.

As an outcome of EU and other external pressure, issues facing Roma have moved to a

position of higher priority. At the same time it has also become much more political

and partisan, and the operational environment surrounding policy making for Roma

integration remains fragile (EC, 2004:16).

Prognostic frame

The report clearly presents an EU approach as the best way to combat racism and social

exclusion with regard to Roma people. The focus is on anti-discrimination directives,

European Social Model, human rights and the European Employment Strategy, its structural

funds, programmes and accession criteria.

It is nevertheless evident that the EU anti-discrimination directives, and in particular

the Race Directive, constitute a quantum leap in protections available to individuals

from the extreme harm of racial discrimination, and that these protections may be of

profound relevance for Roma (EC, 2004:12, emphasis added).

In the case of human rights, the EU has little executive powers. Nevertheless, the report

proposes that “the EU should explore expanding the powers of one or more bodies in order to

ensure effective compliance with common human rights standards” since “the EU lacks an

effective human rights enforcement body, and the vacuum so created leaves many individuals

dangerously exposed to abuse” (EC, 2004:13).

In other domains in which the European Commission has no legislative powers, the report

cautiously proposes an EU approach. For example with regard to education.

The above examples provide more than sufficient evidence of Roma exclusion from

mainstream education, and action is required from both national governments and,

where appropriate, the EU (EC, 2004:21, emphasis added).

At the EU level, and notwithstanding EU subsidiarity principles, a number of EU

programmes clearly have a direct role to play in creating the conditions for integrated

education (EC, 2004:22, emphasis added).

This is followed by a list of key objectives.

Motivational frame

For every problem described in the report, the writers propose an EU strategy consisting of

guidelines combined with specific timetables, establishing benchmarks and indicators, setting

specific targets and adopting measures. Each Member State should set up national action

plans which describe how the guidelines are put into practice with a monitoring function of

the European Union. The report refers to the Lisbon Council who approved a new open


125

method of coordination in the implementation of EU social inclusion and related goals (EC,

2004:13).

The report also states that the EU has ‘not yet devoted sufficient attention’ and ‘not provided

specific guidance’ with regard to social inclusion of Roma people. Also, the report

recommends more financial power of EU programmes (for example the Public Health

Community Action Programme, EC, 2004:29). The overall recommendation for the EU is to

set up more and more specific guidelines, more monitoring, and a strict monitoring on the

compliance of Member States with the directives.

It is unclear what measures can be employed to overcome local unwillingness to seek

development funding, although it is clear that in certain contexts, such as where racial

prejudice and segregation is at issue, these is a need to exercise all available legal

sanctions (EC, 2004:41).

In sum, the report recommends growing powers for European institutions to address the

problems many Roma people face, Member States should ratify the Framework Convention

and transpose EU anti-discrimination law into domestic law and civil society and Roma

leaders should ‘consolidate the differing views of Roma groups into a single, majority voice’

(EC, 2004:52).

1.4. Conclusion

The report frames Roma people as a national minority that should be awarded with more

rights, since they often lack state protection resulting in social exclusion and discrimination

practices. The Member States are accused of neglecting the social conditions of Roma people

and the report has little confidence in national initiatives, since even best practices are mostly

short-term.

The prognoses of the problem lies in EU directives and a coordinating role of the European

Union. It also advocates a unifying movement of Roma people to address their problems in a

clear manner. The writers motivate their plea for a more European approach by focusing on

the severity of the problems in all Member States.

2. Improving the tools for the social inclusion and non-discrimination of

Roma in the EU. Report.


This report is somewhat different from the previous since the focus is on successful projects

in different Member States. It tries to distinguish success factors from practice concerning

Roma inclusion. The study consists of a comprehensive review of Roma policies, financial


126

support structures and projects carried out in 18 Member States conducted by a team of

researchers led by the European Roma Rights Centre.

The foreword is written by Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission,

Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship, who commissioned this report.

I am convinced that this report will contribute to the dissemination of good practice

among all stakeholders, including decision-makers working for the social inclusion of

Roma (EC, 2010a:3).

The focus is thus on good practice, yet in the report it becomes clear that there is no simple or

guaranteed way of deducing good practices from local projects. It focuses on broad policy

guidelines, financial support en monitoring; three categories in which the EU can play an

important role.


Focus of the report is on the social conditions and discrimination and racism. Special attention

is paid to the work by NGO’s and grassroots organisations. Roma is referred to

Groups of people who share more or less similar cultural characteristics and a history

of persistent marginalisation in European societies (EC, 2010a:8).

Also, in reviewing the good practices, emphasis is put on ‘explicit rather than exclusive

targeting’, meaning that in inclusion policy Roma people should be explicitly mentioned,

whilst not excluding other socially excluded groups of people. Therefore, this leads us to

conclude that the ethnoclass frame is adopted, with elements from the national minority frame

as the importance of active Roma participation is emphasized.


Diagnostic frame

The problem frame is – as the title suggest – that of patterns of discrimination by the ethnic

majority of the state. It is the state’s responsibility to ensure better conditions for the excluded

Roma communities.

In contrast to the earlier reports, this study focuses on the efforts made by the Member States,

but emphasizes that more needs to be done.

A recurrent concern across many countries of research is that Roma inclusion

measures overwhelmingly rely on separate projects rather than consistent

implementation of long-term strategic plans. As a result a number of good practices

were discontinued when projects ended and the expected impact on Roma inclusion

was not achieved (EC, 2010a:19).


127

The problem lies in the various ad-hoc projects that fail to achieve long-term results. This

report gives many examples of such good practices, but stresses that an integrated approach is

necessary. Special focus is on the work on a local level carried out by NGO’s and Roma

organisations. The writers of the report underline that ownership is of utmost importance. In

order to achieve results, long-term funding is required and should be provided on an EU-level,

national level and local level.

Prognostic frame

The authors realise that racism by the ethnic majority and local governments is hard to combat

by EU legislation. The report presents the Race Directive as an excellent framework, but adds

that it is grassroots efforts that will lead to successful anti-discrimination projects.

The Racial Equality Directive laid the foundation for tackling the disadvantaged

position of Roma in some countries targeted, rights-based policies and positive action

programmes have been formulated (EC, 2010a:50).

Also it acknowledges that in the past EU funds were misused by local governments. To

overcome this problem, the report recommends that Roma organisations themselves have a

saying in the allocation of the funds.

Government measures to promote Roma inclusion must be complemented by

grassroots Roma action, and specific sources of funding should be made available for

Romani organisations to use as they see fit. Particularly important in this regard is the

empowerment of Romani organisations to access funding and implement success

measures while meeting technical and financial requirements (EC, 2010a:49).

Although the importance of the efforts at the local and EU level is emphasized, the national

level is also considered necessary. For example in funding, it recommends efforts by all

levels.

National or regional funding, coupled with an element of local financing, is an

acknowledgement of all levels of responsibility for Roma inclusion and can foster

mainstreaming of provision (EC, 2010a:50).

Motivational frame

This document is an overview of successful practices, but gives little recommendations of

what to do with it. Successful projects are those which are characterised by:

- active involvement of stakeholders

- that are able to achieve clear goals, well-identifiable targets, are well-defined and

easily measured


128

- are liable to be transferable to other locations

- are closely related to current national policies and are coherent with their aims

- and that are in accordance with broader policies, especially the policy frameworks at

European level

2.4. Conclusion

This is a very nuanced report, focusing on what works and how difficult it is to know why

some programme work. It lists positive projects with an equally amount of attention to the

EU, national, local and civil society level. However, when we take a look at the two official

documents (communications) by the European Commission, it becomes clear that this report

is used as a tool to shove forward the need for a EU approach.

For example, the report states that mediators play a crucial role to change the discrimination

mindsets of local authorities. Hence, in the following documents and reports (see for example

‘Working together for Roma inclusion. The EU Framework explained, EC, 2011b:14), an

official recommendation by the Commission is that those mediators are at work, and the EU

provides funding for it.

3. The social and economic integration of the Roma in Europe


This document is one of the two official communications from the Commission to the

Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions regarding Roma people. It discusses the achieved progress, the

challenges ahead and proposed action from the Commission to make policy measures and

processes more effective with reference to the social and economic integration of Roma

people in Europe.


The focus in this document is on the social conditions of Roma people, employment in

particular. Little background information is presented on the identity of Roma people;

however, looking at the problem framing and recommendation the identity frame will be

identified.

First of all, the aim of the report is to highlight those measures to overcome Roma exclusion

in a wider framework of European equality, inclusion and growth policies. This means that

Roma people (as in the previous report) will be targeted, but not exclusively. The focus is on

inclusion, not in a Member State, but in the European Union.


129

The EU and its Member States have a special responsibility towards the Roma, who

live in all Member States, candidate countries and potential candidates (EC, 2010b:2,

emphasis added).

The underlying idea in this report is that the freedoms within the European Union are all

related to labour. Unemployed Roma people are a serious handicap for the EU.

Roma exclusion entails not only significant human suffering but also significant direct

costs for public budgets as well as indirect costs through loss of productivity (EC,

2010b:2).

European legislation on equality falls short with regard to Roma people when they are living

in segregated, excluded regions and when they are unemployed. The report emphasizes the

need for official documents for Roma people as well as the need for Roma people to unify and

empower themselves on an international level. One the one hand the report emphasizes the

need for Roma involvement, on the other hand the report emphasizes the benefits of a forum

in which best practices can be exchanged.

Civil society organisations, notably Roma organisations, need to be involved in this

process at all stages and at all levels (EC, 2010b:9).

Enable the Roma themselves to influence policy processes, including through

cofinancing the operations of a European level network active in representing the

Roma (EC, 2010b:9).

Greater cooperation between national, European and international players can increase

the effectiveness of the range of available instruments in achieving the inclusion of

Roma communities. The European Platform for Roma inclusion and the Common

Basic Principles provide a solid foundation for strengthening this cooperation (EC,

2010b:11, emphasis added).

Especially with the focus on Roma involvement, and involvement of NGO’s, we conclude

that the ethnoclass identity frame is adopted. Clearly, the focus is on the social conditions of

the Roma people, little reference is made to their distinct culture and identiy, and the

Commission tries to find an approach in which social conditions can be improved in all

Member States, thereby putting more faith in grassroots workers than on national and local

authorities.


Diagnostic frame

Clearly the second diagnostic frame is adopted. Roma people have suffered from patterns of

discrimination by the ethnic majority of the state, and there has been an unwillingness of

Roma and a lack of adequate policies in the past.


130

The social and economic integration of Roma is a 2-way process which requires a

change of mindsets of the majority as well of member of the Roma communities and

their leaders (EC, 2010b:5).

The cause of the problem is an insufficient effort on a national level to monitor local

authorities in their efforts to address discrimination and social exclusion of Roma people.

The challenge ahead include a translation of this commitment and cooperation into

positive changes at the local level. This needs to be complemented by improved

ownership and a strengthened capacity on the part of local administrations, civil

society and the Roma themselves to initiate and implement projects, programmes and

policies (EC, 2010b:5, emphasis added).

Prognostic frame

For effective Roma inclusion, the report discusses financial instruments and an integrated

approach alongside mainstreaming. With regard to financial instruments, the problem is not

that there is a lack of available funds – the EU structural funds are sufficient – but that some

Member States experience difficulties in accessing those funds for programmes targeting

Roma inclusion. One of those difficulties is “reticence at the local level and a lack of political

awareness and capacity among local administrations, as well as among Roma communities”

(EC, 2010b:6). The proposed solution to overcome this obstacle is technical assistance under

the EU structural funds, NGO support and Roma empowerment. In sum, to achieve results,

the EU funds should go directly to the Roma communities.

The Commission also encourages Member States to involve the Roma community in

planning the use of the Funds through the practical implementation of the partnership

principle, so as to involve Roma at every stage of the process from programme design

to evaluation, as well as to support capacity building within Roma civil society and

within local administrations (EC, 2010b:7).

With regard to the proposal of an integrated approach alongside mainstreaming, the reason for

this that there is still a tendency to focus on ‘single-strand solutions’, whereas the problems

Roma people face are mutually reinforcing. Therefore the Commission proposes an integrated

approach, as well as the mainstreaming of Roma issues into ‘all relevant European and

national policies’.

Motivational frame

By focusing on the need for an integrated approach and the mainstreaming into European and

national policies, the Commission put specific focus on Roma in the context of the Lisbon

Strategy. To develop successful Roma-inclusion programmes, an exchange of experience

among national administrations is to be encouraged.


131

The structured cooperation of Member States in the existing Open Methods of

Coordination is of utmost importance in the central areas of education, employment

and social inclusion to mainstream Roma issues into national policies. As the

facilitator of the exchange of experience and good practices, the Commission can

influence this process (EC, 2010b:7, emphasis added).

In the communication, the Commission is cautious but straightforward in propierty framing.

The application of these model approaches would not be mandatory but Member

States would be encouraged to take one or more of them into account when structuring

their Roma inclusion policies (EC, 2010b:10, emphasis added).

Policies which maintain or promote the segregation of Roma communities of the

provision of segregated housing, education or other services for Roma should be

ended. This does not however preclude the provision of targeted or positive action

measures as permitted in the relevant EU legislation (EC, 2010b:11, emphasis added).

3.4. Conclusion

This document pays little attention to the origins and problems Roma people face, but

discusses the successes in the past, and challenges in the future.

In framing that, the report uses the non-territorial nation frame. In the past, it has become

clear that national authorities have done little about the discrimination at the local level and

the EU structural funds were used in ad-hoc programmes lacking long-term results and

systemic change. Therefore, the Commission proposes an active Roma involvement,

empowerment and ownership and provides an international forum to exchange good practices,

thereby in a way subverting the national level.

This is motivated in a frame that more needs to be done to address social exclusion of Roma

people in the Member States, since it is the largest ethnic minority in the European Union,

with Roma people living in every Member State. The Commission presents itself in this report

as the most adequate institution to coordinate these efforts.

4. An EU framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020.

Report.


This is the second document published by the European Commission. In its communication,

the Commission present an EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies as “a

means to complement and reinforce the EU’s equality legislation and policies by addressing,

at national, regional, and local level, but also through dialogue with and participation of the

Roma, the specific needs of Roma regarding equal access to employment, education, housing

and healthcare” (EC, 2011a:3). With the Framework, the Commission tries to encourage


132

Member States to step up their efforts in improving the social and economic conditions of

Roma people.

This document is of great importance. It incorporates insights from the Fundamental Rights

Agencies, and the previous studies commissioned by the European Commission.


Similar to the first document presented by the European Commission, no straightforward

identify frame is adopted. However, as in the first document, by looking at the problem and

prognostic framing, the ethnoclass identity frame will become clear.

Again, the focus is on social exclusion, discrimination and racism Roma people face in their

daily lives. As in the other EC documents, attention is paid to the fact that Roma people living

in every Member State are confronted with the same social conditions and only once is their

cultural identity referred to.

The term “Roma” is used – similarly to other political documents of the European

Parliament and the European Council – as an umbrella which includes groups of

people who have more or less similar cultural characteristics (EC, 2011a:2).


Diagnostic frame

The diagnostic frame in this second document is similar to that of the first; the second

diagnostic frame is adopted in this text. The Roma communities are suffering from patterns of

discrimination by the ethnic majority of the state, leading to a vicious circle of poverty and

social exclusion. As in the first document, the long-term problems of social exclusion and the

solutions are seen as a two-way process which requires efforts from both majority

communities as Roma communities.

The main problem this document formulates is that although some Member States have

achieved some progress, the day-to-day situation of most Roma people remains worrying,

especially regarding education, employment, healthcare and housing. The initiatives by the

Member States remain ad-hoc, and it is difficult to measure concrete results.

According to the Commission’s Roma Task Force findings, strong and proportionate

measures are still not yet in place to tackle the social and economic problems of a

large part of the EU’s Roma population (EC, 2011a:3).


133

Another problem this document focuses on, is that the EU provides sufficient structural funds,

but that the Member States do not yet make sufficient use of the available funds to address the

needs of the Roma.

A third problem discussed is Roma outside the EU. Whereas Roma EU citizens are protected

by anti-discrimination EU law, others living in Turkey and in the Western Balkans cannot

enjoy the same level of protection. Due to the wars in the Balkan region, many Roma people

had to move as displaced persons to other EU countries where they face similar or even more

serious problems.

Prognostic frame

By framing the problem in a way that concrete results remain hard to obtain and measure, the

Commission presents a Framework in which the Member States can work together and use

the targets and guidelines to achieve results.

To achieve significant progress towards Roma integration, it is now crucial to step up

a gear and to ensure that national, regional and local integration policies focus on

Roma in a clear and specific way, and address the needs of Roma with explicit

measures to prevent and compensate for disadvantages they face. […] The principle of

equal treatment does not prevent Member States from maintaining or adopting specific

measures to prevent or compensate for disadvantages linked to racial or ethnic origin.

[…] To ensure that effective policies are in place in the Member States, the

Commission proposed that national Roma integration strategies are designed or,

where they already exist, are adapter to meet EU Roma integration goals, with

targeted actions and sufficient funding (national, EU and other) to deliver them (EC,

2011a:4, emphasis in original).

While not formulating it explicitly, the Commission puts little faith in the ability of Member

States to achieve systemic change in the social condition of their Roma citizens. By focusing

on the difficulty to measure results, the EC presents itself as the best institution to gather

information by means of best practices, and to come up with a Framework, including the

common basis principles.

Also, the Commission formulates that the EU has sufficient structural funds available for

Roma Inclusion strategies; “however, most Member States currently do not make yet

sufficient use of available EU funds to address the needs of the Roma” (EC, 2011a:9). By

providing financial support, the Commission states wanting to help the Member States to

meet the targets and to “align them with their national Roma integration strategies” and offer

technical assistance to “improve their management, monitoring and evaluation capacities also


134

with regard to Roma-targeted projects”. By providing the financial support, the EU has more

leverage on the programmes.

To surmount capacity issues, such as lack of know-how and administrative capacity of

managing authorities and the difficulties of combining funds to support integrated

projects, the Commission invites Member States to consider entrusting the

management and implementation of some parts of their programmes to intermediary

bodies such as international organisations, regional development bodies, churches and

religious organisations or communities as well as non-governmental organisations

with proven experience in Roma integration and knowledge of actors on the ground. In

this respect, the network of the European Economic and Social Committee could be a

useful tool (EC, 2011a:10, emphasis added).

With regard to the third problem, Roma people outside the EU, the Commission tries to

prevent making the same mistakes in the enlargement countries as it did in the enlargement of

2004 and 2007. Also, the EU tries to prevent Roma people immigrating from outside the EU

when they remain unskilled, unemployed and in bad health.

Lessons learned from past accession suggest that promoting Roma integration requires

an enhanced political commitment to Roma inclusion, the allocation of appropriate

resources under the national budgets, better coordination with all relevant donors and a

systematic evaluation and reinforced monitoring (EC, 2011a:11, emphasis added).

Since it has become clear that Roma integration is difficult and can only be accomplished on a

long-term basis, it is for the EU of great importance to start the Roma integration process in

countries such as Turkey already.

Motivational frame

The Commission concludes that to measure progress, a robust monitoring system is to be put

in place.

This is why it is necessary to put in place a robust monitoring mechanism with clear

benchmarks which will ensure that tangible results are measured, that money directed

to Roma integration has reached its final beneficiaries, that there is progress towards

the achievement of the EU Roma integration goals and that national Roma integration

strategies have been implemented (EC, 2011a:13, emphasis in original).

It is the European Institutions, such as the Fundamental Rights Agency in cooperation with

Eurostat, that will provide the monitoring and collect data, showing little confidence in the

Member States.

The Framework spells out EU level goals for Roma integration to be achieved at

national, regional and local level. Those ambitious goals will only be reached if there

is a clear commitment from Member States and national, regional and local authorities


135

coupled with involvement of Roma civil society organisations. […] Now is the time to

change good intentions into more concrete actions (EC, 2011a:14, emphasis added).

4.4. Conclusion

The Commission presents a thorough, far-reaching Framework to improve the social

conditions of Roma people within EU countries and outside the European Union. Although

little reference is made to the identity of Roma people, by having little faith in the Member

States to improve the situation of their own citizens, and by emphasizing that all Member

States should step up their efforts ‘in proportion to the size of the Roma population living in

their territories’, the Commission adopts a non-territorial nation frame. The focus is on

fundamental rights, the right on housing, employment, access to health care and education and

those rights are presented as a European value and core principle of the Union.

The problem is framed around the absence of concrete results and bad measuring. Although

the EU level is several levels away from the work that needs to be done to actually improve

social integration and combat racism, the Commission has managed to set up clear principles

and guidelines and by its financial leverage and Open Method of Coordination, is able to put

pressure on national authorities. The Commission recommends monitoring by NGO’s, Roma

communities themselves, and the Fundamental Rights Agency and Eurostat, thereby having

more control on the local and national authorities.

5. Working together for Roma inclusion. The EU Framework explained


This publication is a guide on the key elements of the EU Framework for national Roma

integration strategies adopted on 5 April 2011 by the European Commission. It highlights

existing good practices and tools that can provide support and help orientate policymaking. It

is designed to be used by national and local decision makers, and is therefore of less

importance in this research.

The report explains the framework, and in the introduction it highlights its importance:

The adoption of the EU Framework for national Roma integration strategies on 5 April

2011 marks an unprecedented commitment by EU Member States to promoting the

inclusion of their Roma communities. This ambitious yet realistic proposal from the

European Commission has been welcomed by all Member States who have called for

its rapid implementation. This reaction sends a strong political signal that Member

States are dedicated to changing the situation of the Roma people (EC, 2011b:2,

emphasis added).

This report reinforces the previous and adds


136

The European Commission is also developing model approaches, which aim to draw

lessons from effective existing Roma inclusion policies and practices in order to help

national and local policymakers develop their own policies. Model approaches will be

tailored to four main types of Roma communities and each will be made up of a

selection of policy initiatives that can inspire national and local decision makers. The

results of this work will be published during 2012 (EC, 2011b:18).

paving the way for new initiatives that go even further (see next report).

6. What works for Roma inclusion in the EU. Policies and model approaches


This report is commissioned by the Commission’s DG Justice and intends to give an overview

of policy options to support policy makers in implementing National Roma Integration

Strategies. It describes very concrete policy options and model approaches for five types of

contexts defining the living circumstances of Roma. In the Communication by the

Commission (2010b), 4 categories were presented. This report adds a fifth.

By presenting different policy options for different types of situations, this report gives a

detailed overview of the problems and possible solutions for Member States to improve the

social conditions of Roma people. It is meant as an ‘appropriate guidance’ for policy makers

at a local level. The policy recommendations are more detailed than in any report and departs

from the general guidelines in the previous Commission’s documents.


This report clearly adopts the ethnoclass identity frame. The focus is on policy options to

improve the social conditions of many Roma people living in all Member States. Although

occasionally reference is made to the cultural specifics of Roma people, the report emphasizes

that it is their deplorable social conditions that is the focus of attention, thereby not excluding

other communities who face the same problems.

Many Roma do not find themselves in situations of disadvantage and exclusion, and

we must prevent any type of identification between Roma and integration problems,

which would inevitably lead to uncalled for generalisations and even compound

stereotypes. In fact, many of the problems related to Roma in situations of poverty are

shared, to some extent, with many ‘non-Roma’, although some characteristics and

circumstances, including prejudice and negative stereotyping fuelling widespread

discrimination, are specific to Roma and many require and explicit (but not exclusive)

approach (EC, 2012a:7).

The problems of Roma people are framed in a fundamental rights and EU values frame, not

on minority rights. In fact, the aim is integration in the Member States. Nevertheless, there is


137

some attention to their cultural identity, which should be respected in policy without granting

extra rights.

There is a growing common understanding that improving the situation of the Roma in

Europe means developing policies that identify and tackle all aspects of their

deprivation through an integrated approach, together with the protection of

fundamental rights, the fight against exclusion and the promotion of Roma culture and

respect for Roma identity (EC, 2012a:16).

Policies that neglect this dimension [cultural development] send the message to society

that dealing with Roma issues signifies dealing exclusively with poverty and

marginalisation, and implicitly tells the Roma that their integration in society is a

matter of forgetting who they are if they want to achieve social advancement (EC,

2012a:17, emphasis added).

In this report more attention is paid to their cultural identity, however, there is no reference to

minority rights, and respect for Roma culture is emphasized merely to serve better integration

results (since the aim is also to include non-Roma communities who suffer similar social

conditions). For example, the report discusses Roma travellers and Roma people with (semi-)

mobile lifestyles.

While for most of the Roma in Europe the nomadic lifestyle belongs to the past and

their expectation is to live together with the rest of the citizenry, for others, the mobile

lifestyle remains at the heart of their culture and identity. In fact many Roma settled

centuries ago, but sedentarisation en masse took place in the mid-twentieth century.

Both ways of understanding and experiencing Roma culture require acceptation,

respect and support (EC, 2012a:15, emphasis added).

That the focus is on respect for culture in order to improve integration (and even

assimilation) also becomes clear in the policy recommendations in education.

Increasing cultural sensitivity can render the school more attractive for children and

families: introduction of the Romany language at school (EC, 2012a:26, 33).


Diagnostic frame

The problems Roma face are social problems, and the writers of the report make it very clear

that the cause of these problems has nothing to do with their lifestyle of culture, but with

patterns of discrimination by the ethnic majority, lack of adequate policies in the past, and in a

lesser way with an unwillingness of ignorance of the Roma themselves.

Generally speaking the Roma are one of the most marginalised social groups in the

EU, facing deep social problems related to low levels of education, high

unemployment, inadequate housing, poor health and wide-ranging discrimination, all


138

of which are interrelated and create a vicious circle of social exclusion (EC, 2012a:7-

8, emphasis added).

The focus of this report is also on the specific characteristics in which Roma people live. It is

the social environment that determines the social condition of the Roma.

Some of the factors that produce such diverse situations of exclusion and/or facilitate

processes of social inclusion are related to the physical environment in which Roma

live; to the economic resources available in their direct vicinity; to the macroeconomic

situation of the countries and regions, to the institutional framework and legal and

regulatory mechanism; to the quality and availability of public services; and to the

existence or lack of an organised civil society. The permanence over time of Roma in a

particular place, the culture of Roma subgroups, the proximity or distance, not only

physical but also relational and linguistic, to the majority population, the existence or

non-existence of other ethnic minorities in their direct surroundings are other

determining factors (EC, 2012a:4, emphasis added).

So on the one hand, the report admits that every situation is different, but on the other hand it

presents 5 different categories of context that define the living circumstances of Roma.

Factual experience demonstrates that the Roma communities in the 27 countries of the

EU as well as in the candidate and potential candidate countries do not constitute one

homogenous group, but are rather living in different cicrumstances and contexts and

follow different lifestyle patterns that condition their opportunities for inclusion. […]

while each context is unique; four major types of context defining the living

circumstances of Roma can be identified today in Europe (EC, 2012a:4, emphasis

added).

Prognostic frame

For every category, different policy options are given which are very detailed and in

accordance with the EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020. The

report goes a step further than the EU Framework by stating that the general guidelines and

Common principles are easy to misinterpret and that even ‘good practices’ are subject to

confusion (EC, 2012a:5).

Therefore, the report presents detailed policy options and recommendation at a far-reaching

local level.

Motivational frame

In chapter 4 the policy recommendations are connected with EU instruments and policies.

National Roma strategies and policies have to be framed in the values and principles

of the EU, and model approaches to Roma inclusion can and must be systematically

connected with EU legal, policy and financial instruments (EC, 2012a:48, emphasis

added).


139

The report refers to established legal instruments to demonstrate that it is obligated by means

of EU law that national integration policies are incorporated and mainstreamed on a European

level. Reference is made to the EU Treaty and Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Racial

Equality Directive and other Directives, the Europe 2020 Strategy, and the Open Method of

Coordination in Social Protection and Social Inclusion (EC, 2012a:46-54).

6.4. Conclusion

Whereas the previous reports are held back by the difficulties to implement projects that

work, this report has transformed this obstacle by setting up 5 categories with different policy

options and models. Therefore we conclude, that this report is the most detailed report in

social policy with regard to Roma inclusion than any other.

7. National Roma integration strategies. A first step in the implementation of

the EU framework


This document is an official communication from the European Commission to the European

Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of

the Regions in which an assessment is made of the present efforts of the Member States

within the context of the National Roma Integration Strategies.

No new initiatives are launched, although the Commission states that the Member States

should step up their efforts and allocate more funding to tackle the social situation of Roma

people.


Again, this report uses the ethnoclass identity frame. Roma people suffer from discrimination

and are socially excluded leading to bad housing, education, health and unemployment

creating a vicious circle which is hard to break.

Roma – Europe’s largest minority of about 10 o 12 million people – are very often the

victims of racism, discrimination and social exclusion and live in deep poverty lacking

access to healthcare and decent housing (EC, 2012b:5).

The report aims social inclusion of Roma people, and although the writers refer to European

values, they also focus on the situation of Roma people in third countries.

Moreover, the persistent challenges regarding the full integration of Roma who are EU

citizens into their societies has a direct impact on wider EU relations with third

countries, for instance with regard to the visa requirements applied by some of these to

the nationals of certain Member States (EC, 2012b:5).


140

This leads us to conclude that the social conditions of Roma are at the centre of attention, and

although emphasis is put on the fact that Roma people live in all Member States, and that the

way they are treated cannot be identified with European values, the main concern remains the

possible negative moral and economic effects.

This [bad social conditions for Roma people] causes a loss of potential which renders

the endeavour to secure growth even more difficult. Better integration of Roma is

therefore both a moral and an economic imperative (EC, 2012b:5).


Diagnostic frame

As in the previous documents of the European Commission, this report also uses the second

diagnostic frame. The causes for the social conditions of many Roma people is a pattern of

discrimination by the ethnic majority and a lack of adequate policies in the past. This report

also point out to the responsibilities of the Roma people themselves.

Better integration of Roma is therefore both a moral and economic imperative, which

moreover will require a change of mindsets of the majority of the people as well as of

members of the Roma communities (EC, 2012b:5).

The problem this reports highlight is that more needs to be done. The European Commission

has provide the Member States with the tools – such as the Framework and funds – to set up

national strategies to improve the situation of Roma people.

The adoption of National Roma Integration Strategies will contribute in making a real

difference in the lives of the Roma population (EC, 2012b:5).

Discrimination on the basis of racial or ethnic origin in education, employment, health

and housing as well as other areas is already prohibited by EU law, but legislation

alone is not enough: Member States need to develop and implement an integrated and

sustainable approach that combines efforts across different areas, including education,

employment, health and housing (EC, 2012b:5).

For example, with regard to mobilisation of regional and local authorities and civil society:

Member States need to make more efforts to meaningfully involve both the regional

and local authorities and civil society at all stages of the national strategies (EC,

2012b:13, emphasis added).

Prognostic frame

This report is an assessment of the previous initiatives launched by the European

Commission. The problem described in this report, is that the Member States need to do more.

No new initiatives are presented.


141

For example in housing, the Commission states that the situation remains worrying although

the Member States acknowledge the urgency of the problem. In the Framework is explained

that in order to actually improve the situation of housing of Roma people, an integrated

approach is necessary. This means that at the same time, also plans for better employment,

healthcare and education must be incorporated in the strategy of better housing conditions.

Although all Member States agree with the need to improve the housing conditions of

many Roma, few propose concrete measures as part of an integrated approach to

tackle the situation. […] Member States are therefore encouraged to consider

broadening the scope of housing interventions, urban planning and rural development

and making them part of such comprehensive plans (EC, 2012b:11, emphasis added).

Motivational frame

In the last chapter of the report (‘The way forward’) emphasis is put on more effort to reach

the targets, to set goals, peer review, and exchange of best practices.

However, much more needs to be done at national level. Socio-economic inclusion

remains first and foremost the responsibility of the Member States and they will need

stronger efforts to live up to their responsibilities, by adopting more concrete

measures¸ explicit targets for measurable deliverables, clearly earmarked funding at

national level and a sound national monitoring and evaluation system (EC, 2012b:18,

emphasis added).

7.4. Conclusion

This report is an assessment report and therefore no new initiatives are presented. Although

the report states that most Member States have delivered good work (in their national action

plans) and that most Member States acknowledge the urgency and need to address the social

situation of Roma people in their countries, an actual systemic change of the situation of

Roma fail to happen.

Therefore this report can be seen as a limitation of the powers by the European Commission;

they set up a Framework, provide funds, and still Member States fail to actively cooperate in

spite of their discourse.


142

Appendix D: Council Analysis

Response on questions by members of the European Parliament

1 30/05/2005a Combating discrimination – recognition of the Roma

2 18/11/2005b Situation of the Roma in Eastern Europe, particularly Slovakia

3 17/07/2006 Inclusion of the Roma in EU institutions

4 15/01/2007 Minority protection for Roma in Romania and Bulgaria

5 07/07/2008a Database on Roma in Italy and human rights, right to privacy and

data protection

6 14/10/2008b European and national responsibility for the Roma minority

7 10/05/2010 Roma summit organised by the Spanish presidency

1. Combating discrimination – recognition of the Roma

1.1. Question

This written question is posed by Marie-Line Reynaud, French member of the Party of

European Socialists.

She writes that Roma people are “despite being divided into various sub-groups, one people

numbering at least seven to nine million members who live quasi-established within the

European Union but in social and public health conditions verging on exclusion and in the

utmost insecurity” (Council, 2005a:2, emphasis added). Clearly, the non-territorial nation

identity frame is adopted.

Reynaud states that Roma people “who are currently an invisible European nation” deserve

official recognition and asks what the Council will do to end this ‘unacceptable

discrimination’ (Council, 2005a:2, emphasis added). By focusing on the pattern of

discrimination, she adopts the second diagnostic frame.

1.2. Answer

In their answer, the Council focusses on their fight against racial discrimination, xenophobia

and anti-Semitism, which ‘also affects the Roma’.

1.3. Conclusion

Although the MEP clearly refers to Roma identity and their non-territorial characteristics, the

Council does not adopt a similar identity frame in their answer. In fact, no reference is made

to how to define Roma people. The problem is racial discrimination since the Council focuses

on the Council Directive 2000/43/EC which lays down a framework for “combating

discrimination, including both direct and indirect discrimination and harassment, on the

grounds of racial or ethnic origin” (Council, 2005a:3, emphasis added).


143

2. Situation of the Roma in Eastern Europe, particularly Slovakia

2.1. Question

This written question is posed by Eija-Riita Korhola, Finnish member of the European

People’s Party – European Democrats.

By focusing on the living conditions and giving examples from different Member States,

Korhola adopts the ethnoclass identity frame in her question. Little reference is made to their

culture and identity and asks what measures the Council has to offer to improve equal rights

and living conditions “for the Roma in the EU in general, and more importantly at Member

State level” (Council, 2005b:2).

2.2. Answer

The Council adopts the ethnoclass frame in their response, by acknowledging that Roma

people suffer from bad social conditions and that this should be reflected in the Member

States’ action plans. It is the states’ responsibility to improve the situation of Roma people,

and the Council will “raise awareness of the specific concerns at a national and EU level in

the area of equality and non-discrimination” and adds that it wishes to remind the MP that “it

does not comment on the internal situation inside Member States” (Council, 2005b:5).

2.3. Conclusion

The Council states that it can only provide for equality Directives, but that it is the Member

States’ responsibility to improve the social conditions of Roma people.

3. Inclusion of the Roma in EU institutions

3.1. Question

This question is posed by Elly de Groen-Kouwenhoven, Dutch member of The Greens –

European Free Alliance.

De Groen-Kouwenhoven reiterates a European Parliament resolution on Roma in the

European Union that urges governments to integrate Roma civil servants at all administrative

and decision-making levels including EU institutions to incorporate a Roma-to-Roma

approach. Therefore she asks the Council, “how many staff members of Roma origin have

been hired to serve the work of the Council” and “does the Council apply any affirmative

action on promotion of national minorities/ethnic groups/Roma in the recruitment process”

(Council, 2006:2).


144

Although not entirely clear, this MP adopts the non-territorial identity frame, as she focuses

on European citizenship and Roma representation in institutions to defend the interests of this

community.

3.2. Answer

The Council replies to “recruit its officials on the broadest possible geographical basis” and

not to have “information on the origin of its staff, other than their nationality” (Council,

2006:3, emphasis added).

The Council has no further mentioning of Roma culture or identity and assumingly the

ethnoclass frame is adopted as for the Council only nationality matters and it is in their

interests that Roma people integrate in the Member States.

3.3. Conclusion

Whereas the MP focuses on Roma identity, the Council very shortly responses not to look at

other identities except for nationality.

4. Minority protection for Roma in Romania and Bulgaria

4.1. Question

This question is posed by Richard Seeber, Austrian member of the European People’s Party –

European Democrats.

Seeber adopts the ethnoclass frame as his main focus is on integration of Roma. He refers to

the lack of statistics of this ethnic minority, but does not advocate minority rights but

integration. As a result of discrimination by the majority population that causes Roma people

to be excluded from society.

4.2. Answer

The Council refers to a Decision which recognises the situation of Roma in Europe “and in

which attention is drawn to the prevalence of anti-gypsyism and its discriminatory effect on

opportunities in terms of employment, education and social services for the European Union’s

most disadvantaged ethnic-minority group” (Council, 2006:5).

The diagnostic frame is the pattern of discrimination that results in bad social conditions of

Roma people, but the Council emphasizes that it is the Member States’ responsibility to

improve the situation of Roma people. Therefore, the ethnoclass identity frame is adopted.


145

4.3. Conclusion

Once more, the Council lies ownership and responsibility by the Member States to promote

social inclusion of Roma people.

Any Member State of the European Union has the right to participate in a number of

programmes […], which provide support for projects addressing discrimination

against, among others, Roma and promoting their social inclusion (Council, 2006:3).

5. Database on Roma in Italy and human rights, right to privacy and data

protection

5.1. Question

This question is posed by Viktória Mohácsi, Hungarian member of the Alliance of Free

Democrats and Marco Cappato, Italian member of the Alliance of Free Democrats.

In their question, the MP’s accentuate their concern with regard to a newly created database

based on ethnicity of Roma people in Roma camps without clear guarantees of data

protection.

Their address the Council and ask if the Council is aware that this new database respects

privacy rights and data protection rules?

5.2. Answer

The Council replies not to be aware of such initiative and that “it is not for the Council to

assess whether a piece of national legislation complies with community law” (Council,

2008a:3).

5.3. Conclusion

In this written question, the MP’s bring up a very delicate situation. On the one hand, statistics

of Roma people (based on their ethnic origin) is welcomed since data on Roma population

will benefit policy specifically targeted at Roma people. On the other hand, to categorise

people on terms of their ethnic origin is an encroachment upon the protection of privacy and

data.

What worries these MP’s is that the intentions of the Italian government with the database

remains unclear. They fear that this will lead to more discrimination policy that affects an

entire minority, which is off course inconsistent with European law.

The Council seems to argue that it has no competence in the field of this piece of national

legislation.


146

6. European and national responsibility for the Roma minority

6.1. Question

This written question is posed by Catherine Boursier, French member of the Party of

European Socialists.

She emphasizes the Member States’ responsibility to combat discrimination, but mentions

that the everyday reality for many Roma people remains worrying. She points out to the

Council, that if a Member State indicate serious shortcomings, it is Europe’s responsibility to

ensure that the principle of non-discrimination is respected by all Member States who are

required to comply with it.

Boursier adopts the ethnoclass frame as the focus is on the social conditions of Roma people.

She points out to the lack of adequate policies by the national authorities and urges the

European Union to monitor more closely that anti-discrimination law is respected by the

Member States. She gives an example of the Italian government.

6.2. Answer

“The Council affirms the importance of combating discrimination against ethnic minorities,

including the Roma, throughout the European Union” (Council, 2008b:3). In the response, the

Council highlights previous communications in which the Council “conscious of the very

specific situation faced by the Roma across the Union, invites Member States and the Union

to use all means to improve their inclusion” (Council, 2008b:3), thereby adopting the

ethnoclass frame as the aim is inclusion of Roma.

The Council also recalls that it has adopted a Directive which prohibits discrimination, but

passes further responsibility to the Member States to comply with it and the Commission to

evaluate existing policies. In response to the example of the Italian government, the Council

states that the Commission has scrutinised the measures taken by the Italian government and

that they comply with community law.

6.3. Conclusion

What the MP actually addressed in her question, was what more Europe should do in order to

ensure that the everyday situation of Roma people improves. In response, the Council focuses

only on the Directive and lies responsibility by the Member States, thereby ignoring the

problems Boursier highlighted.


147

7. Roma summit organised by the Spanish presidency

7.1. Question

This written question is posed by Philip Claeys, a non-attached Belgian member of the

European Parliament.

Clayes refers to the Roma summit organised by the Spanish presidency on 8 and 9 April 2010

in Cordoba and asks the Council what the total cost of this event was. He also asks why the

Roma conference held by the Commission a month earlier could not be combined.

7.2. Answer

Although the Council briefly answers that it was not involved in the organisation of both

events, it emphasizes that it is the European Parliament that “repeatedly called for more action

at EU level with a view to advancing the social and economic inclusion of Roma” (Council,

2010:3).

7.3. Conclusion

Taking into consideration the political background of MP Philip Claeys (Member of a far

right Flemish party condemning immigration and social integration), the question addressing

the Council could be rephrased as a question whether it is necessary to address discrimination

of Roma people and spend funding on organising events. In their answer, the Council clearly

refutes to give its opinion on this matter and lies responsibility by the Commission and the

European Parliament itself.

Council conclusions

1 26/05/2009 Council conclusions on the inclusion of the Roma

2 17/05/2010a Council conclusions on advancing Roma inclusion

3 14/10/2010b Information of the presidency – AOB on advancing Roma inclusion

4 05/05/2011a Opinion of the Social Protection Committee on an EU framework for


5 26/05/2011b Presidency report on Roma inclusion

6 02/09/2011c Council conclusions on an EU framework for national Roma

integration strategies up to 2020

1. Council conclusions on the inclusion of the Roma


This document deals with the Inclusion of the Roma under Czech presidency.


148

1.2. Identity frame analysis

The Council adopts the ethnoclass identity frame in this document as it states that “policies

for Roma inclusion are most effective when they are targeted, and at the same time aimed at

the inclusion of Roma into mainstream society” (Council, 2009:2, emphasis added).

The Council also invites the Commission and Member States to take account the Common

Basic Principles, “when designing and implementing policies to promote full inclusion of the

Roma, as well as when designing and implementing policies to defend fundamental rights,

uphold gender equality, combat discrimination, poverty and social exclusion, and ensure

access to education, housing, health, employment, social services, justice, sports and culture”

(Council, 2009:4, emphasis added).

1.3. Problem frame analysis

Diagnostic

The Council adopts the second diagnostic frame in line with the European Commission. It is

the pattern of discrimination by the majority population that causes Roma people to be

excluded from society.

Prognostic

In its conclusion, the Council acknowledges that Roma participation and representation in

policy making is the best way to achieve results and welcomes all initiatives from the

European Commission, Member States and NGO’s.

Besides welcoming initiatives, the Council does not propose new solutions to further help the

integration of Roma people. It invites the Commission and the Member States to continue

their work.

Motivational

In contrast to the European Commission and the EESC and CoR, the Council provides no

potential courses of action, nor does the Council present itself as an institution that should

help to improve the social conditions of Roma people in the European Union.

In fact, the Council seemed to downsize the intitiaves of the Commission and Member States.

Invites the Commission and the Member States, in close cooperation, and in

accordance with their respective competences,..

To continue the work on the integrated European platform for Roma inclusion, where

appropriate, including consideration of the possibility of further developing its

structure (Council, 2009:4, emphasis added).


149

1.4. Conclusion

The Council mainly follows the identity framing and problem framing of the European

Commission, and welcomes the initiatives to tackle discrimination and social exclusion of

Roma people, but the Council is cautious in its framing and will rather downsize the

motivational communication by the European Commission.

2. Council conclusions on advancing Roma inclusion


This draft Council conclusion is adopted on advancing Roma inclusion under the Spanish

presidency. It mentions that all delegations have maintained scrutiny reservations on

paragraph 35:

[Invites the Commission and the Member States] to advance the full inclusion of

Roma by guaranteeing their legal rights, including means of ensuring the protection of

Roma victims of human trafficking, in accordance with existing European law

(Council, 2010a:10).

This can be interpreted as scrutiny towards national minority rights, thereby excluding the

national minority identity frame.


The Council agrees with the communications by the European Commission with regard to

Roma people, and thus also with the adoption of the ethnoclass identity frame.

[The Council acknowledges that] a significant proportion of Roma experience

situations of extreme poverty, discrimination and exclusion, which also entails low

educational levels, inadequate housing conditions, lack of access to employment, and

precarious health; and that Roma women and girls face particular difficulties,

including the risk of multiple discrimination; (Council, 2010a:3).

Emphasis is put on the social conditions, and improving those are the top priority of the

European Union.


Diagnostic

The previous citation also shows that the Council also follows the Commission in the

adoption of the second prognostic frame; being that Roma people suffer from discrimination

and a lack of adequate policies in the past.


150

Prognostic

The Council welcomes the initiatives taken by the European Commission and the Member

States and advocates a continuing effort to set up an integrated approach for Roma inclusion.

Furthermore, it invites the Commission and the Member States “in close cooperation, and in

accordance with their respective competences, to advance the social and economic integration

of Roma […] by ensuring the more effective use of existing policies and instruments”

(Council, 2010a:7).

In its conclusion, the Council is thus very supportive for present initiatives, but also points out

that the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the UN

and its agencies, and the World Bank have already been long actively involved in Roma

issues, thereby “acquiring substantial expertise” (Council, 2010a:3).

Motivational

The Council welcomes the current initiatives by all stakeholders to address the social

conditions of Roma people and highlights its own adopted legislation.

Compared to the communications of the European Commission the Council stays reserved in

its conclusions and mentions also that other European and global institutions deliver good

work to help Roma from being excluded from society.

2.4. Conclusion

The Council is very supportive, but is more retained than any other European institution to

adopt a European approach.

3. Information of the presidency – AOB on advancing Roma inclusion


This document is an additional note (any other business item) from the Belgian Presidency to

the report on advancing Roma inclusion.

In the note, the Belgian presidency stresses its dedication to continue the work on EU level to

improve the social conditions of Roma people. In this note, the text is more motivational than

other Council documents by frequently highlighting the urgency and severity of the situation.

3.2. Conclusion

The trio presidency of Spain, Belgium and Hungary clearly supported the responsibility of the

European Union and its Member States to improve the social conditions of the EU. The three


151

presidencies, and especially the second one, used a more motivational discourse compared to

the Czech presidency.

Yet, compared to the European Commission, discourse remains more reserved and in the

Council’s reports, working within the scope of their capabilities is highlighted for every

policy level.

4. Opinion of the Social Protection Committee on an EU framework for



The Social Protection Committee (SPC), created in 2000-2004, prepares the discussion in the

Council on social protection and social inclusion issues. This report is an opinion on the

Commission’s report on an EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to

2020 and lays the foundation for the Council Conclusions on the report.


The SPC frames the Roma people in the European Union as an ethnoclass, characterized by

extreme poverty, discrimination and exclusion.


Diagnostic

The problem is framed in the second diagnostic frame.

There is an urgent need to make progress in improving their socio-economic situation

and combating discrimination (Council, 2011a:3).

Prognostic

Although the SPC states that “designing and implementing policies and actions to combat the

economic and social exclusion of Roma is a responsibility of Member States”, it adds that

“the SPC stresses that actors at the EU level have an important role to play in supporting the

Member States in their efforts” (Council, 2011a:4).

Nevertheless, the European Commission should according to the SPC stick to its coordinating

and monitoring role, work within its competences and should not set up new structures.

It is important to avoid setting up new reporting obligations or monitoring processes.

In this context, the SPC underlines that it is ready to address the situation of Roma and

other vulnerable groups in its ongoing work within the social OMC (Council,

2011a:6).

Also, the SPC emphasizes the role of other organisations than the European Union.


152

Finally, the SPC notes the experience of international organisations such as the

Council of Europe and the OSCE in developing standards and sharing good practices

in promoting Roma inclusion and underlines the importance of ensuring that action at

EU level complement this work (Council, 2011a:6).

Motivational

The discourse by the SPC is more motivational than reports from the Council. It states that the

situation of Roma remains a cause ‘of serious concern’ and that there is ‘an urgent need to

make progress’.

More than the European Commission and the other institutions of the EU, the SPC also

cautiously emphasizes the need for every stakeholder in this process to act according to their

competence, and take action where appropriate.

4.4. Conclusion

The SPC welcomes the joint effort by the Member States en European Commission to address

the situation of Roma people in the European Union, but also points out that the European

Commission should stick to a coordinating role.

5. Presidency report on Roma inclusion


This report is a note from the General Affairs Council, presenting each discussion on the issue

of Roma inclusion that have taken place in the different Council configurations, namely

Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs

(EPSCO) and Education, Youth, Culture and Sports (EYCS).


The introduction to this report refers to the many Roma people who suffer from

discrimination, poverty, social exclusion and segregation, and also refers to the many Roma

outside the EU who live in a similar situation.

The goal of the Commission’s communication is social inclusion, which the Council

welcomes. This lets us to conclude that the ethnoclass identity frame is adopted.


Diagnostic

Each Council configuration adopts a different problem frame in accordance with their

working area. In that way, the JHA focusses on social exclusion and exploitation and crime.

The JHA stresses that many Roma people lack sufficient knowledge of their rights and of

legal tools available to them.


153

The EPSCO focusses more on the social and economic inclusion as “marginalized

communities should be considered within the broader context of growth and jobs policies”

(Council, 2011b:5).

Finally, the EYCS focusses primarily on education, especially to combat early school leaving

among children that is often caused by a lack of support from families and peers, a limited

access to high quality education and additional educational support to prevent inter-

generational transmission of poverty.

Prognostic

The Member States generally agree with the proposals made by the Commission in the EU

Framework for national Roma integration strategies. The JHA stresses that appropriate

education, including on human rights, and accessible legal assistance will strengthen Roma

communities. Also, governmental boards with representatives of the Roma community,

ombudsman and mediators will help to empower Roma people and help combating

stereotypes and racism. The JHA agrees with the Commission that existing EU legislation

prohibiting discrimination “was not always adequately implemented on the ground” (Council,

2011b:3).

In the EPSCO Council, the Member States expressed their commitment to provide tools for a

more socially cohesive Europe. The EPSCO agrees with the Commission that the four key

areas such as education, employment, healthcare and housing should get priority in the action

programmes, as well as the need for a closer cooperation with the regional and local levels

and the involvement of all relevant stakeholders.

The EYCS Council states that

Policies aimed at providing high-quality inclusive, non-segregated education, offering

targeted support to improve school environments, as well as teaching and learning

achievements, and removing potential obstacles to successful school careers by

increasing the flexibility of educational pathways and transitions between them, can all

facilitate integration and support pupils at risk of dropping out of school (particularly

Roma) (Council, 2011b:6).

And proposes that teacher training, enhancing confidence, and special programmes could

“improve attitudes to education and raise awareness of the importance of learning” (Council,

2011b:7).


154

Motivational

All Council configurations emphasize that it is the task of the Member States to set up clear

goals in their national action plans, and that these goals should be based on the framework of

the Europe 2020 Strategy and the social open method of co-ordination.

5.4. Conclusion

The Council configuration generally agree with the proposals by the Commission in its EU

Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020 and point out that it is the

Member States’ responsibilities to set up effective national action plans with a coordinating

role of the Commission.

6. Council conclusions on an EU framework for national Roma integration

strategies up to 2020


In this report the Council conclusions are summarized on the Commission’s document an EU

Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies up to 2020. It was published in the

Official Journal of the European Union.


The Council explicitly states that it uses the term ‘Roma’ in line with the definition contained

in the Commission’s communication. Furthermore, the Council focuses on the social

conditions of Roma and does not refer to Roma culture or identity. And with reference to

integration, the Council states that “for the purpose of the present Council conclusions,

‘integration’ and ‘inclusion’ both refer to measures for improving the situation of Roma living

in the Member States territories” (Council, 2011c: C258/6). Clearly, this means the ethnoclass

frame is adopted.


Diagnostic

The Council acknowledge that although various efforts taken at national, European and

international level, the situation of Roma still remains worrying. They face “deep poverty,

profound social exclusion, barriers in exercising in fundamental rights, and discrimination,

which often means limited access to quality education, jobs and services, low income levels,

sub-standard housing conditions, poor health and lower life expectancy”’ (Council, 2011c:

C258/7).

Stating that, the Council follows the diagnostic frame of the European Commission.


155

Prognostic

The Council emphasizes that

The Member States have the primary competence for designing and implementing

policies aimed at advancing the social and economic inclusion of Roma, and action

taken at the EU level should take into consideration the different national

circumstances and respect the principle of subsidiarity (Council, 2011c: C258/7).

By explicitly mentioning that the main responsibility lies with the Member States, the Council

warns the European Commission for not to interfere too much. The Council welcomes the

coordinating role and the EU Framework, but emphasizes that Member States are aware of the

problems and it is up to them to address them. Also, the Council points out to the many Roma

living outside the EU facing the same difficulties, thereby stressing the need to work on an

international level too. Reference is also made to the actions by the Council of Europe and the

OSCE.

Motivational

The Council is well aware of the urgency of the problem, and emphasizes that it is not only

from a human rights perspective, but also from an economic perspective that Roma conditions

must improve.

Improving the situation of Roma is not only an urgent social priority, but can also

strengthen economic growth in the long term (Council, 2011c: C258/7).

There is an urgent need to stop the inter-generational transmission of poverty and

social exclusion (Council, 2011c: C258/7, emphasis added).

6.4. Conclusion

The Council conclusions on the EU Framework are much in line with the Commission’s

Communication. The Member States acknowledge the need for long-term and effective action

plans to improve the immediate situation of Roma people.

In its conclusions, the Council is more nuanced than the Commission and will also draw

attention on the fact that it is the Member States’ responsibility to effectively set up plans and

monitoring. The Council furthermore states that the it welcomes the initiatives by the

Commission, but that it should be aware of the subsidiarity principle and not interfere too

much except for coordination within the Europe 2020 strategy and the Social Open Method of

Co-ordination.