Search

In this paper, we present findings of a research project focusing on the tensions between the idea of 'Europe' and that of the 'nation' as well as on perceptions of national and popular sovereignty in times of crisis. We start from the assumption that in the context of the recent crisis, EU politics have become 'normal politics,' generating political passions, polarization, and a deeper Eurosceptic mood. Working on the emblematic case of Greece, we focus on two critical moments (referendum 2015 and Prespa Agreement 2018) so as to address the question of how the idea of 'Europe' was politicized and reconceptualized in its competitive symbiosis with perception(s) of the 'nation'. Drawing on discourse analysis and ethnographic research, we maintain that European identity, in this critical juncture, was not deconstructed but rather remodelled in constant tension with national identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 2007 and 2015, the ruling party of Poland was the pro-European, liberal-conservative and strict fiscal policy-oriented Civic Platform. In 2015, Civic Platform lost in both the presidential elections (10 May) and the parliamentary elections (25 October). The winner was the conservative-nationalistic and EU-sceptical ‘Law and Justice’ party (PiS) led by Jarosław Kaczyński. A constitutional crisis began when the newly elected parliament changed the five members of the constitutional court, and the crisis deepened as a result of many new reforms, dividing the nation. This paper argues that this division of the citizens has a Schmittian nature. The aim of the article is to analyse the recent constitutional crisis in Poland, focusing on the Schmittian debate that has appeared in the academic, intellectual and judicial discussions and seeking to understand the political and legal philosophy behind the actions of Kaczyński. The paper considers three main questions: (1) What happened between 2015 and 2017? (2) What are the Schmittian questions in the debate about the rule of law? (3) How is Kaczyński’s political philosophy formulated? The language of the debates is at times brutal. This, but not only this, reminds the reader of Schmitt’s friend-enemy division. Moreover, Kaczyński’s political power reminds us of the power of Schmitt’s sovereign. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of the current Eurozone crisis, this paper argues that the economic crisis has provoked a crisis of identity in the EU. This paper examines popular discourse on Germany and Angela Merkel in the Eurozone periphery, France and the UK according to which Europe is effectively being colonised by Germany—the so-called ‘Fourth Reich’. Using theories of fear and disgust including Burke's Sublime, Kristeva's Abject and, especially, Freud's Uncanny, it is argued that this Discourse can be understood as an essentially Gothic narrative based around the fear of the ‘return of the repressed’—in this case Nazi Germany. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European crisis is the best case study for examining both the vulnerabilities of Europe's framework for economic governance and the very process of European integration itself. This statement is true for several reasons: first, because the European crisis is the most serious crisis the European Union has faced to date; second, because of the crisis, limits on the process of economic integration in Europe have been put to a real test; and third, because the main causes of the crisis are tied into the framework for economic governance that has been developed over the last few decades and therefore are connected to the very process of European unification itself. The primary aim of this paper is to demonstrate whether and to what extent the new framework for economic governance in Europe is largely a result of interstate bargaining and consequently whether national preferences continue to play an important role in the framework's general transformation. The economic crisis showed that important issues in economic policy concerning the change in economic governance and the role of the nation-state, which were ‘swept under the carpet’ in recent decades, must be resolved to make the European venture viable. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Since the late 1990s, the main Italian ‘welfare cultures’ and the resulting innovation strategies of the welfare system refer to the question of ‘pluralization’. The current crisis is causing the expansion of the public functions carried out by different private actors. As a consequence, discussions of welfare cultures are increasingly making reference to the notion of horizontal subsidiarity that requires new forms of governance. Three subsidiarity approaches emerge: the liberal subsidiarity approach which is related to the ‘free choice’ welfare model; the incomplete subsidiarity approach related to the ‘second welfare’ strategy; and the radical subsidiarity approach related to the ‘radical plural welfare society’ perspective. The paper develops a theoretical discussion of these different welfare cultures—these latter seen through the point of view of subsidiarity—arguing that the problems arising from an economic understanding of welfare pluralization could be addressed by a cultural change which sees in the definition of a new plural welfare system and role for the public sphere the opportunity for aggregating social demand, reinforcing social ties, creating shared value and re-socializing social risks. The hypothesis is that the ‘radical subsidiarity’ approach could better capture these chances for social innovation that this phase of crisis can unlock. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]