Browse by title
A Neo-Medieval View of Europe and European Planning
The EU is still torn between market and polis, leaving the situation negligently undecided as to whether it should be developed into an instrument of catching up with economic and cultural globalisation or as an accelerator of it. In this situation ‘reconsidering European citizenship’ ought to be interpreted as empowerment rather than protection. Four areas of such empowerment are sketched: (1) reclaiming constituent power; (2) de-constitutionalising the treaties; (3) enhancing direct legitimation – empowering a transnational parliament; and (4) accomplishing a transnational citizenship status.
Chapter 3 elaborates a conceptual structure for an inquiry into the question of balance between rights and duties related to EU citizenship. It starts from the observation that, for some time, the absence of EU citizens’ duties was interpreted as marking the immaturity of EU citizenship and a major difference from the citizenship of a state. The chapter continues by linking this evaluation first, to more general debates which express dissatisfaction with the current ‘culture of rights’ and, second, to the critique about a lack of conceptual clarity when citizens’ duties are invoked in the context of debates on EU citizenship. The question of what their justification can possibly be relates to ongoing debates on the EU’s very legitimacy, where the liberal focus on rights is often criticised at the expense of communitarian or republican values focusing on collectivity rather than individuality.
Chapter 9 addresses and evaluates EU citizenship under the lens of cosmopolitanism. By reconstructing cosmopolitan principles, the chapter aims: first, to discuss the question of whether or not transnationalisation is a step towards a realisation of cosmopolitanism; and, second, to propose a relationship with the development and prospect of EU citizenship as an example of the attempt to transnationalise (citizenship) rights. The cosmopolitan frame of reference is aimed at helping to assess the EU’s prospects and challenges as a transnational membership regime. Seubert argues that a cosmopolitan standpoint generates an inherent tension for the EU: even if EU citizenship moves towards a transnational form, as a federation of states it is still a bounded entity – bounded through the borders of its member states. It is proposed, therefore, that we should think of cosmopolitanism not as something static and fixed, but rather as a transformative process – cosmopolitisation.
Chapter 1 relates the debate on EU citizenship to the puzzle of a European political union, and demonstrates how EU citizenship is caught in the ‘double loop’ of contradictions and constraints: the contradiction between the political language of citizenship and the economic logic of free movement on the one hand; and the constraint that arises from the rivalling legitimatory demands of international and supranational forms of political cooperation on the other. For the future of EU citizenship, the extent to which the EU succeeds in appropriately channelling pan-European conflicts of wealth disparities and redistribution will prove to be decisive. With regard to EU citizenship, the choice is between a weak, integrated status or a strong(er), differentiated status. While the former tends to undermine substantial equality, the latter tends to undermine formal equality.
Chapter 5 examines the relation of EU citizenship to work, and describes tensions between formal and substantive equality in Europe. To what extent are workers across Europe truly citizens, as opposed to merely factors of production? And to what extent can those across Europe who are not or cannot be engaged in the labour market truly be equal citizens? Dean argues that these questions have general relevance for the terms under which EU citizens can have rights to equality of social status, equality of treatment and parity of participation in the public sphere. How might EU citizens, whether ‘at home’ within their own country or migrants within Europe, be assured of meaningful equality of social recognition and respect?
Francis Cheneval and Mónica Ferrín
Chapter 8 addresses the question of whether or not EU citizenship can integrate multi-layered identities. EU citizenship has introduced much complexity with regard to who is an insider and who is an outsider. While the EU has tried to provide equal treatment to nationals who live in another member state, strict limitations have been enforced on third-country citizens who move to an EU country. This different treatment has resulted in different categories of citizens – a situation that is often difficult to manage. Cheneval and Ferr'n propose a comparison between several case studies and the European Union. It is argued that the varieties of multilevel citizenship can shed some light on possible developments for European citizenship which can help overcome some of the obstacles Europeans face nowadays when trying to exercise their rights.
Marcel Hoogenboom and Maarten Prak
Chapter 2 analyses the historical origins of local and national citizenship constructions, discussing their implications for EU citizenship. Relations between national and local as well as political and economic dimensions vary significantly between countries. This means that policies to develop an EU citizenship which uses an idealised national citizenship as its frame of reference will inevitably be at odds with the variety of citizenship traditions existing in many countries. At the same time, the pluriformity of Europe’s citizenship traditions also provides an opportunity. Instead of starting from scratch, therefore, by trying to develop a completely new centralised form of citizenship the EU would be better advised to acknowledge the national traditions of its Member States and aspire to a multilevel form of citizenship.