This chapter tackles distrust in the technocratic nature of EU decision-making. A starting point for discussion is the notion that technocratic governance, founded in expert knowledge, is a legitimate, even a necessary, institution. Nevertheless, just as at national level, EU technocracy suffers under an epistemological blunder, or an assumption that expertise or science will unveil material inevitabilities, such as general welfare, that are accorded the status of truth. The fault lies not with technocracy itself, but rather with a political system that refuses to make hard choices, especially when they come without any guarantee of future success. If expert decision-making is to survive populist assault, greater efforts must be made within the EU to re-establish political wills, or clear commitments to clear political goals. Expert decision-making will find its proper place within our constitutional system only where we recommit to politicisation.
The Brexit vote is a mirror to an inability of many to accept the unravelling of an exclusionary core of national citizenship through the two new universalisms of (nationality-law-busting) human rights, and an economic science that promotes and secures the right of passage of the homo economicus. To the degree that the Brexit vote may also be taken as an, admittedly vague, first response of a global public to global cosmopolitanism, a degree of light is also shed on the always vexed issue of individualism, belonging and community, or the public perception of it, in a global age. The contribution investigates our new citizenship paradox, or the tense relationship established between citizenships of cosmopolitan opportunity and citizenships of security within the post-national order. It investigates the new two universalisms of our post-national order, which have played their part in the creation of a new-old tension between individual opportunity and individual security. The contribution concludes with a closer look at how paradigms of citizenship have historically stabilised the conflicts and contradictions of citizenship, asking whether the post-national order might ever find its own stabilising mechanism. The outlook is nevertheless highly uncertain, with regard to the subjects or objects of law. Keywords: Citizenship; Brexit ; Post-national; Rights; Cosmopolitanism; Homo economicus; Markets; Economics; Security; European Union
Michelle Everson and Christian Joerges
Michelle Everson and Ellen Vos
Michelle Everson and Christian Joerges
If conceived of as a reconstruction of the genesis and history of European legal studies, this chapter cannot but disappoint. The quality of critical legal thought within European studies may never compare with the strength and confidence we recall of the critical legal studies movement of the 1970s. The study of European law is specific in that it is not characterised by schismatic divisions between affirmative rationalisations and critical countervisions; what we instead observe over many decades is a strong and widely shared commitment to the notion that ‘more Europe’ is an unstoppable normative good. Every stage of the integration process has been marked by quests for renewal, yet these have only ever been critical of the direction and mode of travel, and not of travel itself. Our reconstruction accordingly focuses less upon instances of critique, and more upon the underlying question of why European studies exhibit such a large degree of critical continuity, matching the lack of a constitutional moment in Europe. Even the decade of crisis has not shaken the mindset of the wide majority community of European lawyers. Contrary to prevailing complacency we do not believe that we are witnessing the emergence of a new normalcy. We are by no means sure that the crisis will finally bring about a true constitutional moment; but, in a critical moment of our own, we are certain that we are now experiencing a theoretical moment, within which inherited legal beliefs must be questioned and the refoundation of Europe be envisaged.