Europeanisation, National Identities and Migration ... - europeanization

86 Andrew Geddes
and public policies (Edelman 1988). The result has tended to be the adoption of
policy frames that organise or reorganise the conceptual and organisational
boundaries of a given community (usually national) so as to include or exclude
newcomers. This national point of reference has been particularly evident in ‘older’
immigration countries in north-west Europe.
The geopolitical and conceptual widening of international migration to include
new countries and new types of migration causes some pause for thought and raises
questions about these national frames of reference and their continued relevance.
For instance, state contexts in southern, central and eastern Europe differ from
those in older immigration countries. If state penetration of society is at a lower
level then this could affect the capacity of states to affect ‘integrative’ outcomes.
So too could the development of economic and political integration that creates
rights that cross frontiers within the European Union. This then links to the ideas
about the ‘neo-medieval’ EU developed by Zielonka (2001). For Zielonka, the
term captures both the heterogeneity and boundary-changing nature/potential of
the EU. It also indicates a development that both reflects this diversity and is
normatively desirable.
The argument of this chapter is that in a multiple and heterogeneous EU where
there are some doubts about traditional understandings of integration centred
on the welfare state then we also need to account for the role that legal certainty
can play for immigrant, ethnic and national minorities. Such groups can be in a
structurally weak position and thus vulnerable if a multiple and heterogeneous
EU brings with it uncertainty and insecurity without the kinds of certainty imparted
by anti-discrimination laws. It is argued that such laws are compatible with a
vision of a multiple and diverse EU and indeed, that they are essential if all the
peoples of Europe are to be given a sounder footing on which to advance claims for
inclusion at local, national and EU level.
Legal certainties in a neo-medieval Europe
It is well known that there has been a rapid development of EU immigration
and asylum responsibilities in the 1990s (Geddes 2000a). The EU has paid less
attention to anti-discrimination laws, minority rights and action against racism and
xenophobia. This began to change in the 1990s, but often the only action taken
was a ritual declaration appended to the conclusions of various summit meetings of
the heads of government (European Parliament 1998). The result was that EU
policy developments were lopsided in the sense that they focused on the control
of those forms of international migration defined by state policies as unwanted, such
as ‘illegal’ immigration and asylum seeking. Little attention was paid to issues
relating to immigrant integration or the protection of minorities. The Treaty basis
for such action was limited and these were seen as largely national concerns. If
we employ the distinction made by Hammar (1990) then we can say that the EU
has focused on immigration policies (concerned with the regulation of international
migration in its many forms) rather than immigrant policies (addressed towards the
social and legal position of migrants and minorities).