Mobilising on Migration? Linkages of Migration and European Integration in Four Irish EU Referendums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In a Europe where contestation over migration and European integration has become increasingly connected, Ireland seems to be an outlier. Whereas European integration has been a politicised issue in Ireland, not least in the context of four consecutive referendums on EU treaties in the early 2000s, politicisation of immigration has traditionally been low in Ireland. But while previous studies suggest that this has also been the case during EU referendums, the debates on the Treaty of Nice seem to be an exception. Ireland's status as an outlier in Western Europe and the variation across referendums makes the Irish referendums an ideal case for exploring the relationship between politicisation of migration and European integration. This article examines and explains to what extent and how migration has been discursively linked to European integration in the four Irish EU referendums in the period 2001–2009. Based on a quantitative and qualitative analysis of political claims in Irish newspapers, I argue that pre‐existing national discourses on migration and European integration, which have been predominantly positive in Ireland, have generally hindered the mobilisation of anti‐immigration sentiments against the EU. The Nice II referendum is an exception, highlighting how not even Ireland is immune to such politicisation. My analysis shows how domestic radical right actors played an important part in mobilising such linkages, but also how the responses of other actors contributed to making migration a more salient issue. The article offers novel empirical insights into the politicisation of migration in Ireland, and also advances our general understanding of the dynamics behind the politicisation of migration in relation to European integration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".