The Left and the European Constitution: from Laeken to Lisbon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book examines how left-wing parties are being affected by European integration. It does so by concentrating on the left-wing responses to the Treaty of Lisbon and the European Constitutional Treaty. Both treaties were rocked by No votes in referendums, and left-wing parties played crucial roles in these. In France, the Socialists and the Greens both had to deal with sharp internal disputes on the issues, while in the Netherlands the Labour Party and the Socialist Party were on opposite sides. The book examines this from a broad left perspective, looking at parties from all three left-wing families - social democrats, left-socialists and left-greens. It contains case-studies of eleven EU member states, and also examines the left in the European Parliament. It provides a unique cross-national, cross-party evaluation of contemporary events. The book shows a steady move amongst all left-wing parties to a more pro-European position. This is most pronounced with the social democrats, but it is also evident among left-greens and left socialists. However, that more pro-European sentiment is offset by considerable disagreement about the current direction of the EU. The increasingly neo-liberal slant of the EU - epitomized by the Laval judgement, the Lisbon Agenda, and the Bolkestein Directive, all of which are discussed in the book - caused extensive disagreement among left-wing parties. Third, the book also shows that politics for left-wing parties remains strongly national in its orientation. It is the national political arena and electorate that dominates their outlook.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".