Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 遷徙自由的倫理學：以歐盟和英國脫歐為例
Ethics of Free Movement: Cases of the EU and Brexit作者 張均
Chang, Chun貢獻者 王華
Wang, Hua
張均
Chang, Chun關鍵詞 遷徙自由
政治自由主義
社群主義
民族主義
歐盟
英國脫歐
free movement
libertarianism
communitarianism
nationalism
European Union
Brexit日期 2019 上傳時間 5-Sep-2019 15:58:57 (UTC+8) 摘要 在本文中，我將闡述遷徙自由的倫理，特別是在經濟移民脈絡下的內在價值及外在價值，我認為國家有道德責任接受經濟條件不佳且掙扎求生的移民，在一個經濟發展條件極度不均的世界，出生地國家幾乎決定我們一生中能夠獲取的資源，因此遷徙自由是改變局勢和實現分配正義的方式，然而，遷徙自由並不意味其他價值，例如主權、文化或國家認同在“開放邊界”的政策下被犧牲，在移民基本需求獲得滿足沒有困難的情況下，各國應擁有主權，在合理狀況下防止移民進入，我稱這個立場為「封閉邊界」。「開放邊界」與「封閉邊界」隱含著「政治自由主義」和「社群主義」的觀點，兩者差別在於對不同價值的重視程度。開放邊界倡導者重視分配正義和自由多過於主權，因此他們認為即使一個人的生存並不會馬上受到威脅，只要移入國比移出國經濟條件有顯著富裕，那麼接受國就不能拒絕這個移民除非有其他合理正當的理由，相較之下，從社群主義的角度來看，保持社群的完整性的價值高於分配正義，因此就算移入國比移民者母國的經濟條件富裕，移入國也沒有道德上的義務接受他。我將在此文分析這兩個立場擁護的價值，「開放邊界」的立場強調平等和自由是人類生活中最基本的價值觀，因此，開放邊界是為了讓那些不擁有某些國家出生公民身份的人也能像那些人一樣享受資源。它體現了平等和行動自由。相比之下，「封閉邊界」的位置強調了社群的特質以及其所代表的價值觀。由於民族國家是一個政治共同體，它涉及對人類生活至關重要的價值觀，開放邊界很可能會破壞這些價值觀。因此，有人認為，為了保護這些價值觀，民族國家有權關閉其邊界。這兩種思路都反映了對人類至關重要的問題，但是，在做出道德判斷時，應該考慮脈絡。因此，我使用歐洲一體化（特別是歐盟的基礎）和英國脫歐作為例證，檢視兩個立場在實際案例中帶來的實際影響。歐盟代表著開放邊界的理念，該地區的人民享有遷徙自由和其帶來的價值。然而，英國脫歐揭示了想要保持國家完整性的反撲，拒絕犧牲一定程度的主權以換取潛在的繁榮，因為自決社群的價值可能超過其他價值。將實際案例添加到分析中的目的並不是說現實勝過規範性，而是理解真實情況有助於我們在具體情境中評估價值。總的來說，我認為國家是否應該接受經濟移民應該基於移民在經濟上處於不利地位的水平以及接受國的經濟和社會強度
In this thesis I will elaborate the ethics of free movement, including its instrumental values and intrinsic value in the context of economic immigrants. I argue that there is a moral justification for states to accept immigrants who live in countries with poor economic situations and struggle for survival. Since we live in an extremely unbalanced economic world where birth citizenship almost determines the resources we are able to get in our lives, free movement is a means to alter the situation and to achieve distributive justice. However, to emphasize the values of free movement does not mean other values such as sovereignty, culture or national identity which may be undermined because of the “open borders” policy should not be embraced. Under the condition that the potential immigrants have no difficulty acquiring basic needs, states should still hold the sovereign power to prevent them from entering their borders based on proper justifications. I call this position “closed borders”. The hidden perspectives of the “open borders” and “closed borders” are libertarianism and communitarianism respectively. The fundamental difference between “open borders” and “closed borders” policy lies in how much weight they give to different values. Advocates for open borders value distributive justice and freedom over sovereignty, and therefore, they argue that even one is not under immediate threat to survival, as long as the accepting country is conspicuously wealthier than the sending country, then the accepting country cannot reject the potential immigrant unless there are valid reasons for them to do so. In contrast, from a communitarian perspective of view, the value of keeping a community integrated is higher than distributive justice, and therefore, even a state is much wealthier than a potential immigrant’s original state, there is no moral requirement for a state to accept him.I will analyze the two positions and the different values stressed by them respectively. The “open borders” position emphasizes that equality and freedom are the most fundamental values in human lives. Therefore, to open borders is to allow those who do not own birth citizenship of certain states to also enjoy the resources as those who do. It exemplifies equality and freedom of movement. In contrast, the “closed borders” position emphasizes the features of a community, and the values embedded in it. Since a nation-state is a political community, it involves values that are vital to human lives, and to open borders will very likely undermine these values. Therefore, it is argued that a nation-state, in order to preserve these values, has the right to close its borders. Both lines of thoughts reflect issues of fundamental importance to human beings; however, when making moral judgements, contexts should be taken into consideration. Therefore, I use the European integration (particularly the foundation of the EU) and Brexit as illustrations to see what may happen as a result of the ideas from the two positions being implemented in reality. The EU represents the idea of open borders so that people within the region enjoy free movement and the values brought by it. However, Brexit reveals the counter force that wants to retain the integrity of the state, rejecting the sacrifice of a certain level of sovereignty in exchange for potential prosperity since the values of a self-determined community can outweigh other values. The purpose of adding the real cases to the analysis is not to say that reality triumphs over normativity but that understanding the real situation helps us evaluate values in concrete contexts.To conclude, I argue that whether states should accept economic immigrants or not should be based on both the levels of how economically disadvantaged the immigrants are and how economically and socially strong the accepting states are.參考文獻 Advani, Arun, and Bryony Reich. 2015. "Melting pot or salad bowl: The formation of heterogeneous communities." IFS Working Papers No. W15/30. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.Alter, Peter. 1994. Nationalism. 2nd Edition. Translated by Stuart Mckinnon-Evans. London: Perfection Learning Corporation.Borjas, George J. 2016. We Wanted Workers. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Carens, Joseph H. 1987. "Aliens and Citizens." Review of Politics 49 (2): 251-273.—. 2013. The Ethics of Immigration. New York: Oxford University Press.Carter, Ian. 1995. "The Independent Value of Freedom." Ethics (The University of Chicago Press) 105 (4): 819-845.Castles, Stephen. 1986. "The Guest-Worker in Western Europe - An Obituary." The International Migration Review 20 (4): 761-778.Dhingra, Swati, Gianmarco Ottaviano, Thomas Sampson, and John Van Reenen. 2016. "The consequences of Brexit for UK trade and living standards." Brexit Work.Dos-Santos, Maria José Palma Lampreia dos Santos, and Diz Henrique. 2017. "Analysing the Trump and Brexit Voters." 10th Annual Conference EuroMed Academy of Business, Global and national business theories and practice: bridging the past with the future. Rome: EuroMed Press. 537-551.Druckman, Daniel. 1994. "Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A social Psychological Perspective." Mershon International Studies Review (Wiley on behalf of The Internaional Studies Association) 38 (1): 43-68.Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, Mette, and Daniel Verdier. 2005. "European Integration as a Solution to War." European Journal of International Relations 11 (1): 99-135.Elsner, Benjamin. 2011. "Emigration and Wages: The EU Enlargement Experiment." IZA Discussion Paper 1-40.Emerson, Michael, Matthias Busse, Mattia Di Salvo, and Jacques Pelkmans. 2017. An Assessment of the Economic Impact of Brexit on the EU27. Directorate-general, IMCO Committee, Brussel: European Parliament.European Parliament. 2019. Elections 2019: highest turnout in 20 years. May 27. Accessed June 15, 2019. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20190523STO52402/elections-2019-highest-turnout-in-20-years.Fillipa, Sa. 2015. "Immigration and House Price in the UK." Economic Journal 125: 1393-1424.Fontaine, Pascal. 2014. The European Union explained: Europe in 12 lessons. Brussels: Directorate-General for Communication Publications.Hurka, Thomas. 1987. "Why Value Autonomy?" Social Theory and Practice 13: 361-82.Jackson, James. 2019. "First-time buyers crowded out of booming German housing market." DW. April 19. Accessed June 28, 2019. https://www.dw.com/en/first-time-buyers-crowded-out-of-booming-german-housing-market/a-48387287.Koikkalainen, Saara. 2011. Free Movement in Europe: Past and Present. 4 21. Accessed 4 9, 2019. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/free-movement-europe-past-and-present.Kommerskollegium. 2015. Economic Effects of the European Single Market: Review of the empirical literature. Stockholm.Kukathas, Chandran. 2012. "Why Open Borders." Ethical Perspectives 19 (4): 649-675.Macbeth, Alex. 2018. Frankfurt confident it is the big Brexit-relocation winner: Special report. November 22. Accessed June 30, 2019. https://www.thelocal.de/20181122/frankfurt-confident-it-is-the-big-brexit-relocation-winner-ahead-of-dublin-luxembourg-paris-co.McClean, Paul. 2017. After Brexit: the UK will need to renegotiate at least 759 treaties. May 30. Accessed June 14, 2019. https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e.Miller, David. 2000. Citizenship and National Identity. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Miller, David. 2005. "Immigration: The Case for Limits." In Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, edited by Andrew I Cohen and Christopher Heath Wellman, 193-206. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Miller, David. 2016. "Is There a Human Right to Immigrate?" In Migration in Political Theory, by Sarah Fine and Lea Ypi, 11-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.—. 1997. On Nationality. Gloucestershire: Clarendon Press.Miscevic, Nenad. 2018. Nationalism. Accessed May 23, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/nationalism/.Niblett, Robin. 2016. Britain, the EU and the Sovereignty Myth. research paper, Chatham House, London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.Office for National Statistics. 2019. "UK and non-UK people in the labour market: May 2019." Office for National Statistics. May 14. Accessed June 15, 2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/ukandnonukpeopleinthelabourmarket/may2019.Samuelson, Paul A., and William D Nordhaus. 2010. Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Schulz, Florence. 2019. "How strong is right-wing populism after the European elections." Euractiv. June 4. Accessed June 15, 2019. https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/how-strong-is-right-wing-populism-after-the-european-elections/.State Elections Offices. 2017. Official 2016 Presidential General Election Results. January 30.Sturge, Georgina. 2019. "Migration Statistics." www.parliament.uk. June 3. Accessed Jun 14, 2019. https://beta.parliament.uk/search?q=CBP06077.The Electoral Commission. 2019. Report: 23 June 2016 referendum on the UK`s membership of the European Union. June 13. Accessed August 24, 2019. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/report-23-june-2016-referendum-uks-membership-european-union.The European Commission. 2017. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union - Q&A. March 29. Accessed June 30, 2019. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-648_en.htm.UNHCR. 2019. Operational Portal Refugee Situations. June 3. Accessed June 15, 2019. https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria#_ga=2.18661616.818512188.1560152733-830803220.1560152733.Wadsworth, Jonathan. 2018. "Off EU Go? Brexit, the UK Labour Market and Immigration." Fiscal Studies 39 (4): 625-649.Walzer, Michael. 1983. Equality, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and. New York: Basic Books. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
哲學系
105154002資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105154002 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 王華 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Wang, Hua en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張均 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang, Chun en_US dc.creator (作者) 張均 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Chang, Chun en_US dc.date (日期) 2019 en_US dc.date.accessioned 5-Sep-2019 15:58:57 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 5-Sep-2019 15:58:57 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 5-Sep-2019 15:58:57 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0105154002 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/125597 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 哲學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 105154002 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在本文中，我將闡述遷徙自由的倫理，特別是在經濟移民脈絡下的內在價值及外在價值，我認為國家有道德責任接受經濟條件不佳且掙扎求生的移民，在一個經濟發展條件極度不均的世界，出生地國家幾乎決定我們一生中能夠獲取的資源，因此遷徙自由是改變局勢和實現分配正義的方式，然而，遷徙自由並不意味其他價值，例如主權、文化或國家認同在“開放邊界”的政策下被犧牲，在移民基本需求獲得滿足沒有困難的情況下，各國應擁有主權，在合理狀況下防止移民進入，我稱這個立場為「封閉邊界」。「開放邊界」與「封閉邊界」隱含著「政治自由主義」和「社群主義」的觀點，兩者差別在於對不同價值的重視程度。開放邊界倡導者重視分配正義和自由多過於主權，因此他們認為即使一個人的生存並不會馬上受到威脅，只要移入國比移出國經濟條件有顯著富裕，那麼接受國就不能拒絕這個移民除非有其他合理正當的理由，相較之下，從社群主義的角度來看，保持社群的完整性的價值高於分配正義，因此就算移入國比移民者母國的經濟條件富裕，移入國也沒有道德上的義務接受他。我將在此文分析這兩個立場擁護的價值，「開放邊界」的立場強調平等和自由是人類生活中最基本的價值觀，因此，開放邊界是為了讓那些不擁有某些國家出生公民身份的人也能像那些人一樣享受資源。它體現了平等和行動自由。相比之下，「封閉邊界」的位置強調了社群的特質以及其所代表的價值觀。由於民族國家是一個政治共同體，它涉及對人類生活至關重要的價值觀，開放邊界很可能會破壞這些價值觀。因此，有人認為，為了保護這些價值觀，民族國家有權關閉其邊界。這兩種思路都反映了對人類至關重要的問題，但是，在做出道德判斷時，應該考慮脈絡。因此，我使用歐洲一體化（特別是歐盟的基礎）和英國脫歐作為例證，檢視兩個立場在實際案例中帶來的實際影響。歐盟代表著開放邊界的理念，該地區的人民享有遷徙自由和其帶來的價值。然而，英國脫歐揭示了想要保持國家完整性的反撲，拒絕犧牲一定程度的主權以換取潛在的繁榮，因為自決社群的價值可能超過其他價值。將實際案例添加到分析中的目的並不是說現實勝過規範性，而是理解真實情況有助於我們在具體情境中評估價值。總的來說，我認為國家是否應該接受經濟移民應該基於移民在經濟上處於不利地位的水平以及接受國的經濟和社會強度 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In this thesis I will elaborate the ethics of free movement, including its instrumental values and intrinsic value in the context of economic immigrants. I argue that there is a moral justification for states to accept immigrants who live in countries with poor economic situations and struggle for survival. Since we live in an extremely unbalanced economic world where birth citizenship almost determines the resources we are able to get in our lives, free movement is a means to alter the situation and to achieve distributive justice. However, to emphasize the values of free movement does not mean other values such as sovereignty, culture or national identity which may be undermined because of the “open borders” policy should not be embraced. Under the condition that the potential immigrants have no difficulty acquiring basic needs, states should still hold the sovereign power to prevent them from entering their borders based on proper justifications. I call this position “closed borders”. The hidden perspectives of the “open borders” and “closed borders” are libertarianism and communitarianism respectively. The fundamental difference between “open borders” and “closed borders” policy lies in how much weight they give to different values. Advocates for open borders value distributive justice and freedom over sovereignty, and therefore, they argue that even one is not under immediate threat to survival, as long as the accepting country is conspicuously wealthier than the sending country, then the accepting country cannot reject the potential immigrant unless there are valid reasons for them to do so. In contrast, from a communitarian perspective of view, the value of keeping a community integrated is higher than distributive justice, and therefore, even a state is much wealthier than a potential immigrant’s original state, there is no moral requirement for a state to accept him.I will analyze the two positions and the different values stressed by them respectively. The “open borders” position emphasizes that equality and freedom are the most fundamental values in human lives. Therefore, to open borders is to allow those who do not own birth citizenship of certain states to also enjoy the resources as those who do. It exemplifies equality and freedom of movement. In contrast, the “closed borders” position emphasizes the features of a community, and the values embedded in it. Since a nation-state is a political community, it involves values that are vital to human lives, and to open borders will very likely undermine these values. Therefore, it is argued that a nation-state, in order to preserve these values, has the right to close its borders. Both lines of thoughts reflect issues of fundamental importance to human beings; however, when making moral judgements, contexts should be taken into consideration. Therefore, I use the European integration (particularly the foundation of the EU) and Brexit as illustrations to see what may happen as a result of the ideas from the two positions being implemented in reality. The EU represents the idea of open borders so that people within the region enjoy free movement and the values brought by it. However, Brexit reveals the counter force that wants to retain the integrity of the state, rejecting the sacrifice of a certain level of sovereignty in exchange for potential prosperity since the values of a self-determined community can outweigh other values. The purpose of adding the real cases to the analysis is not to say that reality triumphs over normativity but that understanding the real situation helps us evaluate values in concrete contexts.To conclude, I argue that whether states should accept economic immigrants or not should be based on both the levels of how economically disadvantaged the immigrants are and how economically and socially strong the accepting states are. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 1. Introduction1.1 Research background 81.2 Research questions 81.3 Research aims 122. Literature review 142.1 Open borders arguments 142.2 Closed borders arguments 192.3 Summary 253. The European Union and free movement 273.1 The background of the establishment of the EU 283.2 Free movement as one of the most important values in the EU 313.2.1 The instrumental values of free movement 323.2.2 The intrinsic value of free movement 393.3 The hidden perception 423.4 Summary 434. Brexit: why British people are against free movement? 444.1 Sovereignty 454.2 Cultures and national identity 494.3 The hidden perception 554.4 Summary 565. Free movement after Brexit 585.1 Impact on the UK after Brexit 595.2 Impact on the EU after Brexit 625.3 Summary 666. Conclusion 67References 69 zh_TW dc.format.extent 6050312 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105154002 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 遷徙自由 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政治自由主義 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社群主義 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 民族主義 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 歐盟 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 英國脫歐 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) free movement en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) libertarianism en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) communitarianism en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) nationalism en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) European Union en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Brexit en_US dc.title (題名) 遷徙自由的倫理學：以歐盟和英國脫歐為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Ethics of Free Movement: Cases of the EU and Brexit en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Advani, Arun, and Bryony Reich. 2015. "Melting pot or salad bowl: The formation of heterogeneous communities." IFS Working Papers No. W15/30. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies.Alter, Peter. 1994. Nationalism. 2nd Edition. Translated by Stuart Mckinnon-Evans. London: Perfection Learning Corporation.Borjas, George J. 2016. We Wanted Workers. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Carens, Joseph H. 1987. "Aliens and Citizens." Review of Politics 49 (2): 251-273.—. 2013. The Ethics of Immigration. New York: Oxford University Press.Carter, Ian. 1995. "The Independent Value of Freedom." Ethics (The University of Chicago Press) 105 (4): 819-845.Castles, Stephen. 1986. "The Guest-Worker in Western Europe - An Obituary." The International Migration Review 20 (4): 761-778.Dhingra, Swati, Gianmarco Ottaviano, Thomas Sampson, and John Van Reenen. 2016. "The consequences of Brexit for UK trade and living standards." Brexit Work.Dos-Santos, Maria José Palma Lampreia dos Santos, and Diz Henrique. 2017. "Analysing the Trump and Brexit Voters." 10th Annual Conference EuroMed Academy of Business, Global and national business theories and practice: bridging the past with the future. Rome: EuroMed Press. 537-551.Druckman, Daniel. 1994. "Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A social Psychological Perspective." Mershon International Studies Review (Wiley on behalf of The Internaional Studies Association) 38 (1): 43-68.Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, Mette, and Daniel Verdier. 2005. "European Integration as a Solution to War." European Journal of International Relations 11 (1): 99-135.Elsner, Benjamin. 2011. "Emigration and Wages: The EU Enlargement Experiment." IZA Discussion Paper 1-40.Emerson, Michael, Matthias Busse, Mattia Di Salvo, and Jacques Pelkmans. 2017. An Assessment of the Economic Impact of Brexit on the EU27. Directorate-general, IMCO Committee, Brussel: European Parliament.European Parliament. 2019. Elections 2019: highest turnout in 20 years. May 27. Accessed June 15, 2019. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/eu-affairs/20190523STO52402/elections-2019-highest-turnout-in-20-years.Fillipa, Sa. 2015. "Immigration and House Price in the UK." Economic Journal 125: 1393-1424.Fontaine, Pascal. 2014. The European Union explained: Europe in 12 lessons. Brussels: Directorate-General for Communication Publications.Hurka, Thomas. 1987. "Why Value Autonomy?" Social Theory and Practice 13: 361-82.Jackson, James. 2019. "First-time buyers crowded out of booming German housing market." DW. April 19. Accessed June 28, 2019. https://www.dw.com/en/first-time-buyers-crowded-out-of-booming-german-housing-market/a-48387287.Koikkalainen, Saara. 2011. Free Movement in Europe: Past and Present. 4 21. Accessed 4 9, 2019. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/free-movement-europe-past-and-present.Kommerskollegium. 2015. Economic Effects of the European Single Market: Review of the empirical literature. Stockholm.Kukathas, Chandran. 2012. "Why Open Borders." Ethical Perspectives 19 (4): 649-675.Macbeth, Alex. 2018. Frankfurt confident it is the big Brexit-relocation winner: Special report. November 22. Accessed June 30, 2019. https://www.thelocal.de/20181122/frankfurt-confident-it-is-the-big-brexit-relocation-winner-ahead-of-dublin-luxembourg-paris-co.McClean, Paul. 2017. After Brexit: the UK will need to renegotiate at least 759 treaties. May 30. Accessed June 14, 2019. https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e.Miller, David. 2000. Citizenship and National Identity. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.Miller, David. 2005. "Immigration: The Case for Limits." In Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, edited by Andrew I Cohen and Christopher Heath Wellman, 193-206. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Miller, David. 2016. "Is There a Human Right to Immigrate?" In Migration in Political Theory, by Sarah Fine and Lea Ypi, 11-31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.—. 1997. On Nationality. Gloucestershire: Clarendon Press.Miscevic, Nenad. 2018. Nationalism. Accessed May 23, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/nationalism/.Niblett, Robin. 2016. Britain, the EU and the Sovereignty Myth. research paper, Chatham House, London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.Office for National Statistics. 2019. "UK and non-UK people in the labour market: May 2019." Office for National Statistics. May 14. Accessed June 15, 2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/articles/ukandnonukpeopleinthelabourmarket/may2019.Samuelson, Paul A., and William D Nordhaus. 2010. Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.Schulz, Florence. 2019. "How strong is right-wing populism after the European elections." Euractiv. June 4. Accessed June 15, 2019. https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-elections-2019/news/how-strong-is-right-wing-populism-after-the-european-elections/.State Elections Offices. 2017. Official 2016 Presidential General Election Results. January 30.Sturge, Georgina. 2019. "Migration Statistics." www.parliament.uk. June 3. Accessed Jun 14, 2019. https://beta.parliament.uk/search?q=CBP06077.The Electoral Commission. 2019. Report: 23 June 2016 referendum on the UK`s membership of the European Union. June 13. Accessed August 24, 2019. https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/report-23-june-2016-referendum-uks-membership-european-union.The European Commission. 2017. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union - Q&A. March 29. Accessed June 30, 2019. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-648_en.htm.UNHCR. 2019. Operational Portal Refugee Situations. June 3. Accessed June 15, 2019. https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria#_ga=2.18661616.818512188.1560152733-830803220.1560152733.Wadsworth, Jonathan. 2018. "Off EU Go? Brexit, the UK Labour Market and Immigration." Fiscal Studies 39 (4): 625-649.Walzer, Michael. 1983. Equality, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and. New York: Basic Books. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU201901054 en_US
