This article offers a reading of 'normative power Europe' (NPE) suggesting that the concept has been used for two distinct purposes: as a distinctive ontological characterisation of the EU, on the one hand, and as a critical approach to the study of the EU and its external projection, on the other. These positions are labelled 'NPE ontological reality' (NPE-OR) and 'NPE critical ontology' (NPE-CO), respectively, and this article sets out to show how they might work together in practice, even if they are incommensurable in theory. It is argued that NPE's ethico-political value resides in the extent that it embodies an ontologically plural reality, never entirely defined. By drawing attention to a blind-spot in the NPE position -the constitutive importance of economic liberalism ('market cosmopolitanism') to the EU's post-Westphalian character -attention is drawn to the normative basis of market cosmopolitanism and its connections to NPE-OR are described. It is argued that, from an NPE-CO perspective, we should exercise caution in celebrating NPE-OR as post-Westphalian reality to the extent that it is rooted in a market cosmopolitics.

This article reflects on the politics of European Union citizenship -and the ethical possibilities and limitations of a cosmopolitan or 'normative power' EU -via an analysis of the situation of the Roma in France, which was widely mediatized in summer 2010. It argues in a first step that during this period the French government 'securitized' the Roma, 'extra-ordinarily' casting them as collective threat and thereby justifying their deportation. The European Commission's outspoken response demanded that the French authorities refrain from discriminating against EU citizens on grounds of ethnicity; in so doing, the EU seemed to act as protector of minorities in accordance with its raison d'être as liberal peace project. However, in a second step, the article draws attention to the deportations perpetrated before these high-profile events, highlighting that conditionality within the law pertaining to EU citizenship allowed for the securitization of Roma. Thus, in a third step, it is argued that the invocation of citizenship may be a useful but limited strategy of political resistance by and with excluded groups such as Europe's Roma. Rather, it is the inherently ambiguous nature of a multi-level EU liberal or cosmopolitan government -and concomitant EU citizenship -which opens an important space for resistance. * Many thanks for comments and advice to Nick Vaughan-Williams, Chris Browning, Stuart Croft, Andreas Tsolakis and three anonymous JCMS reviewers. The usual disclaimer applies. I would like to acknowledge the ongoing support of the Leverhulme Trust for research in this area.

Immigrant investor programmes (IIPs)aimed at attracting investment in return for residency or citizenship for wealthy foreignershave proliferated in EU Member States in recent years. Such schemes constitute part of a much broader commercialization of citizenship, which has intensified during the crisis. They have been particularly controversial in the EU because they rely for their attractiveness in part on the reality of EU citizenship and the rights of mobility and residence that it entails. The European Commission, among others, has presented them as threat to national citizenship and yet the EU at once champions a 'post-national' citizenship and is arguably culpable in the very commercialization of citizenship of which investor schemes are a stark manifestation. This paper unpacks the tensions in the theory and politics of investor migration in the recent EU context, arguing that they reveal what is termed a 'quadrilemma' at the heart of a multi-level citizenship.

The progressive s dilemma suggests that a trade-off exists between, on the one hand, labour and welfare rights underpinned by solidarity and shared identity and, on the other hand, open immigration regimes. With reference to debates on free movement in the UK, it is argued: (1) that a progressive European critical political economy literature of the Left has a tendency to accept this dilemma and resolve it in favour of a the former; (2) that it does so because it erroneously conflates the free movement of people with the (increasingly neoliberal) free movement of goods, capital and services; and (3) that it could and should treat human mobility as qualitatively different and, consequently, need not accept the terms of the progressive s dilemma. The argument has important implications for a progressive politics in general and for the Left s (particularly the Labour Party s position in the UK on free movement (and, by extension, on Brexit).

EU citizenship is often regarded as the culmination of a process whereby the transnational mobility of “workers” has led to the granting of rights to “humans” qua citizens, with both legal scholars and ethnographers emphasizing its normative significance in this respect. Challenging such a narrative, this study sets out to highlight the contingent nature of a postnational EU citizenship, with reference to the lived experiences of migrant Roma. As a first step, we highlight the conditionality within EU law associated with the granting of rights to those enacting EU citizenship by residing within EU territory beyond their own member state. In a second step, we highlight the variable ways in which such conditionality is deployed in different national contexts, with reference to the frameworks in France and Spain. While the former has deployed these conditions in a manner that has excluded EU citizens, particularly migrant Roma, the latter—at least for a time—was more permissive in its granting of rights to EU citizens than EU law required. However, in a third step, we suggest that the lived experiences of migrant Roma in these two national contexts have not been as different as the legal differences suggest. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork on Romanian Roma in two municipalities near Barcelona, we demonstrate the ways in which a local politics of exclusion is legally possible, even within an ostensibly permissive juridical framework of citizenship. We highlight how the ambiguity of a multilevel citizenship not only opens up possibilities for multifaceted forms of exclusion, but also for various forms of resistance, both within and beyond a juridical citizenship framework.