The unpatriotism of the economic constitution? Rights to free movement and their impact on national and European identity

Abstract: Instead of the political reading of the EU Constitution adopted by advocates of constitutional patriotism, this article examines the European economic constitution. The four single market freedoms can be used by the Court of Justice to strike down Member State laws which represent deeply held aspects of national cultural identity. The article examines whether the court does in fact act in this way and proceeds to argue that the issue of identity protection does not stop with the court. In those policy areas where the court is more interventionist, and its case-law is perceived as an identity threat, one is likely to find binding Treaty-based derogations. Where, in contrast, the effect of the court's case-law poses less of a threat, one is more likely to see non-binding declarations. The article examines a number of policy areas in which specific cultural derogations and declarations are to be found, including abortion, property acquisition, football and alcohol control.

No Move without Free Movement: The EU-Swiss controversy over quotas for free movement of persons. CEPS Policy Brief No. 331, 23 April 2015

The focus of this Policy Brief is the Swiss referendum of 2014 against ‘mass immigration’ in Switzerland. It identifies the challenges that a quota on EU citizens’ free movement rights to Switzerland would pose to EU-Swiss relations, considering: i) the value of freedom of movement in the EU and its indivisibility from the internal market and other economic freedoms; ii) the specificity of the EU legal system following the Lisbon Treaty that established democratic and judicial accountability mechanisms; iii) the lack of supranational judicial oversight of the EU-Switzerland agreements framework; and iv) the existence of the so-called guillotine mechanism, according to which the termination of the Free Movement Agreement would entail the automatic termination of the other agreements with the EU. The authors set out a number of options and consider their implications for EU-Swiss relations.

Which “place and non-place” do women occupy in social economy organisations?

Scientific literature has strengthened the perpetuation of inequality factors in the labour market based on gender, despite the on-going endeavour of various political bodies and legal norms against the vertical and horizontal segregation of women. National and European statistical data shows the relevance and timeless features of theories of market segmentation associated with the labour market dating back to the 70’s of the 20th century. Hence, the European Community considers as a priority in the Europe 2020 strategy, the definition of “policies to promote gender equality […] to increase labour force participation thus adding to growth and social cohesion”. If we consider that on the one hand, social economy is fairly recognised to be equated with market actors and the State for its economic and social role in tackling the current crisis, and on the other hand, that the ideals of the sector, systematised in the “Framework Law of Social Economy” (Law no. 30/2013 8th of May), particularly in article 5 proposing “the respect for the values […] of equality and non-discrimination […], justice and equity […]”, we aim to reflect on indicators that uncover a vertical and horizontal segregation in the labour market. Departing from a mixed methodological approach (extensive and intensive), subject to the topic of "Social Entrepreneurship in Portugal" in social economy organisations, we detect very high rates of employment feminisation, with a ratio of 1 man (23%) for every 3 women (77%). Women are mainly earmarked for technical and operational activities, arising from the privileged intervention areas, namely education, training, health, elderly, families, poverty, ultimately being underrepresented in statutory boards and, as such, far removed from deliberations and strategic resolutions. This is particularly visible in the existing hierarchy of functions and management practices of the responsibility of male members. Thus, it seems easily verified that the sector is travelling away from the ideals of justice and social equity, which can crystallise the "non-place" of women in the definition of a strategic direction of social economy and in the most invisible/private “place” of the organisational setting.

European Union and Commonwealth free movement:a historical-comparative perspective

Between 1948 and 1962, approximately 600 million Commonwealth citizens had the right to enter the UK. This number decreased throughout the 1960s and 1970s, as a series of Acts of Parliament altered the rights and definitions of Commonwealth citizens. To date, the European Union has extended the right to over 500 million citizens and residents of member-states to enter the UK. This new trend has been met with perceptions of threat to national cultural and economic resources. Reactions to Commonwealth immigration were similarly negative. This paper examines parallels between EU immigration today and Commonwealth immigration of the past. It argues that the fears expressed, both in the literature of the 1960s and 1970s and in contemporary society, reflect a fear of persons who are seen as ‘other’ but who must, by law, be defined as fellow-citizens and afforded the attendant rights. We argue that theorists of free and freer movement must acknowledge these local concerns in order to strengthen their theory and enable a more liberal treatment of immigration policy in the UK and beyond.

In search of the aim of the free movement of persons provisions: has the Court of Justice missed the point?

The Court of Justice has, over the years, often been vilified for exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction by interpreting the provisions of Community legislation in a way not seem originally envisaged by its drafters. A recent example of this approach was a cluster of cases in the context of the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment (Ritter-Coulais and its progeny), where the Court included within the scope of those provisions situations which, arguably, did not present a sufficient link with their (economic) aim. In particular, in that case law the Court accepted that the mere exercise of free movement for the purpose of taking up residence in the territory of another Member State whilst continuing to exercise an economic activity in the State of origin, suffices for bringing a Member State national within the scope of Articles 39 and 43 EC. It is argued that the most plausible explanation for this approach is that the Court now wishes to re-read the economic fundamental freedoms in such a way as to include within their scope all economically active Union citizens, irrespective of whether their situation presents a sufficient link with the exercise of an economic activity in a cross-border context. It is suggested that this approach is problematic for a number of reasons. It is, therefore, concluded that the Court should revert to its orthodox approach, according to which only situations that involve Union citizens who have moved between Member States for the purpose of taking up an economic activity should be included within the scope of the market freedoms.