On the eve of 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, the UK voted to withdraw from the EU (so-called Brexit). The implications for European integration and EU policies are far from clear and require further investigation. This paper aims to answer: what does Brexit imply for European integration? What messages were sent to the EU from the UK referendum? Did EU leaders interpret these messages and implications correctly and did they respond with the right policy? After examining the competing interpretations, this paper argues that the sharp divisions between different socio-economic classes shown in voting behaviour highlight the imperative of addressing economic inequality and distributive injustice, which are rooted in the structural flaws of EU governance and have been aggravated by the mismanagement of the Euro crisis. To move European integration forward and to keep a ‘political Europe’ sustainable, a ‘social Europe’ making an ‘economic Europe’ more inclusive and fair is required.

This article analyses the positions of ASEAN countries on provisions of environmental and social sustainability included in the EU free trade agreements (FTA). In the EU’s new generation FTAs with ASEAN countries, there has been a notable and systematic EU approach of linking international labour conventions and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in its trade agreements, which reflects its ambition to play a significant role in ‘harnessing globalization’. However, during trade negotiations, contradictory positions between two sides originate from their different political, socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. When considering the developing countries’ objections to the issue from an ASEAN perspective, three main decisive points can be identified: the exclusive reliance on economic cost-related arguments, different perceptions of the trade-labour/environment nexus, and political and cultural-relativist arguments. Practical findings show that the EU faces resistance to this linkage from the ASEAN countries, which weakens its ability to promote universal social norms through trade.

The importance of Africa for Europe was highlighted in the 1950 Schuman Declaration. Although the overarching framework for relations between the European Union and Africa is embedded in the 2000 Cotonou Agreement, cooperation between the European Union and Africa became increasingly institutionalized through the European Union–Africa Summits of 2000, 2007, 2010 and 2014, during which political leaders from both sides made strong rhetorical commitments to a strategic partnership. Yet, for the wider public, the relationship between the European Union and Africa appears to be both obscure and complex. The fifth European Union–Africa Summit is scheduled to take place in Ivory Coast in November 2017. This article will provide an overview of the development of European Union–Africa relations that coincided with the emergence of the African Union, the successor of the Organisation of African Unity. The so-called ‘strategic partnership’ between the European Union and the African Union represents the most comprehensive partnership the African Union has with any non-African actor. By highlighting current challenges affecting both, such as irregular migration, this article will, however, demonstrate that cooperation between the two is limited and somewhat lacking in strategic direction.

This paper attempts to empirically test whether inter-party political differences impact public finances in Portugal differently. Focused on public debt and on government budget deficit, and using data since 1974 for several variables, this paper applies econometric modelling to show that inter-party differences have had, until now, no significant impacts on the public finances’ performance in Portugal. In this context, this paper aims at dispelling some myths regarding the ‘value’ of a policy process based on political intrigue, enmity and a discourse of confrontation around differentiated political parties’ merits in modern democracies.

In this article, I argue that policymakers employed unconscious biases and racist beliefs in the formulation and the implementation of the current EU Framework for National Roma Integration Strategies (ʻEU Roma Frameworkʼ) and its corresponding national strategies. Using Critical Race Theory, I explore how these policies have reinforced the commonly held belief in the need to civilize and otherwise change the habits of the Roma, and consequently have further reinforced the power imbalance between the Roma and the dominant majority groups (hereinafter used interchangeably with ʻnon-Romaʼ). I analyse examples of Roma versus universal policies comparatively, emphasizing biases in formulation, implementation, and discourse. I show that the objectives of the EU Roma Framework and national Roma strategies toward Roma education involve ethnic presuppositions and are far less ambitious than the avowed Europe 2020 strategy; this policy mismatch will likely lead to further educational discrepancies post-2020. Finally, I conclude that policies focused on the Roma are doomed to fail if no prior and concurrent actions are taken to change prejudiced attitudes and the behaviours of non-Roma, in particular those biases influencing policy formulation and implementation.

In recent years, several instances of social protest in Europe have transformed into new initiatives for citizens’ participation (e.g. citizens’ assemblies, deliberative forums, etc). Can such a transformation also take place in the more volatile political settings of a post-conflict democratizing state? We turn our attention to the plenums in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which were spontaneously organized citizens’ assemblies in the spring of 2014. We conclude that these plenums were a form of incident-driven democracy. In a country where the regular institutions of representative democracy continue to be widely mistrusted and civil society organizations, which normally have a mitigating role between citizens and state institutions in times of crisis, are weak, untrustworthy or absent, such incidental institutions have an important role to play. Their effect in the short term may be limited, but if new opportunities arise they may function as a useful memory for activists, a model for citizens’ participation outside elections, and therefore an instigator of further democratization.

Based on a public office definition of corruption, this article uses the case studies of doctoral plagiarism of German Minister of Defence Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, Hungarian President Pàl Schmitt, Romanian Prime Minister Victor Ponta, and Russian President Vladimir Putin in order to show that, by shattering citizens’ confidence in and respect for political class, political parties, state institutions and rule of law, academic plagiarism of high-ranking politicians intertwines with and enforces the most serious democratic failures in their respective countries: degeneration of political culture in Germany, nationalist authoritarian trends in Hungary, a culture of corruption in Romania, and outright dictatorship in Russia. As such, this specific type of plagiarism goes far beyond academia. It represents a direct, aggressive, and effective threat against democracy itself.

In this article, I argue that the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, by his political actions in Eastern Europe, the Baltic States and Central Asian countries, and his current actions in Ukraine, strives to re-establish the nineteenth-century Russian Empire, ignoring the principle of international law that protects the sovereignty of each nation-state over its territory. In order to achieve his goals Putin uses ‘soft force’ and social fermentation in Russian-speaking ‘near abroad’ nation-states of the former Soviet Union. He also uses a policy of weakening the economy of the target countries and uses the Russian chauvinism and irredentism as the basis of his policy.

The aim of this article is to contribute to thinking on pre-political foundations of secular societies. I do so through the idea of Europe. The importance of pre-political foundations relates to power and freedom, specifically how freedom truly can be freedom and not ultimately power. The paper includes two sections: Section 1 discusses Europe’s Westphalian system as the model for global international relations. Henry Kissinger’s proposal that a modern Westphalian system should be adopted by the international community, as outlined in his 2014 World Order Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History, is explored and critiqued. Section 2 looks at an alternative vision of Europe as the global template which addresses many of the open issues identified in Kissinger’s proposal. Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI sees Europe as a historical and cultural idea with, as pre-political foundation, the primacy of rationality as creative reason. Ratzinger’s vision does not displace Kissinger’s; rather it informs it. Core to this discussion are freedom, power, interests and universal values, specifically how these four components interact and can be managed to produce positive constructive outcomes; ultimately these interactions relate to the pre-political foundations that orientate societies.

By the end of this century the majority of the European population will consist of ‘mestizos’. The majority of western intellectuals and politicians are still unprepared for this imminent change that will introduce a new Europe shaped by immigrants and mestizos. This essay seeks to reflect upon the possible implications in building a new twenty-first century Europe by approaching the issue through a historical and theoretical lens. I conclude by reflecting on the coming of millions of immigrants to Europe. This new quasi-European group is creating the melting pot of the twenty-first century, which I see as a eutopic project. Eutopia involves the idea of a just place where we can all live well together, and it offers us hope and a viable way to approach the impending European Transculturation. Overall, this article considers the phenomenon of European immigration in a constructive way, because immigrants and mestizos offer us the important possibility of a Europe decolonized from ourselves and together with them.

Open-space labs and research environments are increasingly common worldwide. They are supposed to facilitate interactions among researchers, but can be disruptive to those who need to be in a quiet environment in order to concentrate. This problem is increasingly felt across the natural, medical and social sciences, has a clear interdisciplinary and cross-cultural relevance, but has been the focus of limited attention. We propose some simple suggestions for researchers struggling in an open-space lab, based on a literature review and our experience in open spaces in various labs and countries (Australia, China, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the UK and the USA) as undergrads, PhD students, postdocs, researchers and (W. van der Werf) professors. Our aim is to help researchers working in open-space offices and labs with some straightforward solutions that will make their lives and work easier.

The earth, a futility in space, is the only home for all humans and, at present, the theatre of the globalization of our society. Humanity has always been wondering about the origin of our blue planet. This is rather irrelevant for everyday life however. What really matters is that all of us can live in harmony and diversity on ‘Mother Earth’ and preserve our environment for future generations. Our planet is inhabited by an amazing variety of living creatures, among which at present are 7 billion humans. This number has risen at an alarming rate for more than a century and will reach the 10 billion mark around the year 2100. But whether the earth resources can cope with the growing demands is most uncertain. What will be our common future? This global issue has been the focus of the Reports of the so-called Club of Rome,1 the Brundtland Report,2 etc, but the responses of society are as yet inadequate. Science and technology can now unravel the many subtle interrelations between geosphere, atmosphere and biosphere and monitor the worldwide growing impact of human activities on the environment.3 Earth observation from aerospace and geo-information systems have opened new vistas in this field. It is evident that there are limits to growth and that the present ‘rape of the earth’ should be stopped and a master plan for global sustainability be made. This plan should not be imposed top-down but be rooted in our free will and thus have a polycentric structure. The political agenda for globalization should not be a flywheel for economic growth but be oriented to the tripartite: sustainability–social balance–economic requirements. Can we make this happen?