{"id":506,"date":"2014-11-20T15:50:24","date_gmt":"2014-11-20T15:50:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/book-review-the-politics-of-european-citizenship\/"},"modified":"2015-07-08T12:58:14","modified_gmt":"2015-07-08T12:58:14","slug":"book-review-the-politics-of-european-citizenship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/book-review-the-politics-of-european-citizenship\/","title":{"rendered":"Book review: The politics of European citizenship"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span> Review <\/p>\n

\u2018Citizenship of the Union\u2019 was established by the Maastricht Treaty and made each Member State\u2019s citizens Union citizens also. As market integration and a corresponding formulation of citizenship are not inherently linked, the case of the EU is somewhat anomalous. This gives ample opportunity for theoretical interpretations of how and why Union citizenship developed, and what should happen in the future.<\/p>\n

The Politics of European Citizenship<\/em> considers the development of rights for Member State nationals, and why there is not greater inclusiveness within the EU \u2013 why 18 million third-country national (TCN) residents lack many social rights. The development of Member State nationals\u2019 rights has been analysed before, but Hansen and Hager\u2019s approach is new, and their focus is often upon TCNs, so offers another side to the \u2018free movement\u2019 discussions. The book has two sections: the first discusses the theory and history of Union citizenship, and the second considers contemporary directions of Union citizenship politics.<\/p>\n

Hansen and Hager see the EU as having reached a crisis point in terms of legitimacy, and aim to use social scientific research to help clarify the limits of the citizenship project to seek out its underlying social purpose. They offer a new framework, their \u2018critical history\u2019, which applies political economy insight to the history of EU citizenship development. Critical history recognises that the EU possesses a capitalist market structure, and inherently asymmetrical power relations. The authors use this framework to discuss power struggles between Member States, as well as between institutions and institution-Member States in the area of citizenship and migration policy. Detailing each actor\u2019s motivations allows for thorough discussion of the policy areas, which are viewed as inevitably entwined. It is useful to remember, as the authors point out, that Union citizen movers, utilising their Treaty rights of free movement, are migrants in all but name.<\/p>\n

Community social policy, in many respects, can be seen as a development due to market integration. However, Hansen and Hager say it ought not to be thought of in \u2018mechanistic terms\u2019, as \u2018a crass handmaiden to economic imperatives calling for greater cross national labor mobility\u2019 (45). They recognise the importance of labour mobility in developing social policy, but think the Commission\u2019s aspirations (at various times) to strengthen and widen Community social policy are important. It was, however, the market integration\u2013promoting policies that survived, and the significance of failed proposals is debatable. Although they demonstrate a hope to widen access to social rights, they essentially achieved little, and inclusive social policies with equal rights for TCNs at large have yet to be politically acceptable.<\/p>\n

European citizens\u2019 rights only exist when there is a cross-border element \u2013 when someone, or something, crosses a border; otherwise, national law determines rights. The authors see migration as central to understanding the politics of citizenship in the EU, although they do not emphasise the cross-border element between Member States as essential for migrants from third countries to be given \u2018European\u2019 social rights. Greater explanation as to why <\/em>TCNs should be given \u2018European\u2019 as opposed to domestic social rights would be useful: if migrant TCNs live and work within one Member State only, it is arguable that that state ought to have competence to determine rights in accordance with its own rules, rather than in line with European law. The EU does not harmonise the substance of rights within Member States for Union citizens, and while one can hope for greater access<\/em> to rights for TCNs, harmonisation of the substance of the rights is unlikely \u2013 social rights lie largely within Member States\u2019 competence.<\/p>\n

Hansen and Hager view increasing rights for Union citizens, while leaving TCN rights unchanged, as making it more difficult to encourage migration from non-Member countries, which is necessary to maintain EU productivity levels. They have an almost fatalistic, or suspicious, view of some Community developments, and see the severance of \u2018migration\u2019 and \u2018immigrant\u2019 status from \u2018free movement\u2019 and free movers\/Union citizens, as a firmly established, premeditated practice. This distinction links migrants only with problems \u2013 international crime, drug trafficking, etc. \u2013 while citizen movers are seen as helping the labour market, European unity and the economy. This, along with other contradictions, is used to illustrate the difficulties in integrating migrant TCNs. Hansen and Hager highlight the racist, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-\u2018other\u2019 sentiment demonstrated by institutions, public actions and some politicians and which, in combination with restrictive countermeasures against terrorism, is making the EU a less accepting society, backing away from providing greater rights for its residents. Some of the quotations from politicians were genuinely shocking, alongside governmental inaction in, essentially, race riots (204). This may lead to a crisis, not necessarily in the legitimacy of the EU, but rather in the furthering of universal human rights.<\/p>\n

Hansen and Hager seem genuinely disappointed by the developments in citizenship politics: \u2018formal\u2019 citizens fail to live up to the EU vision of the ideal citizen (not being entrepreneurial, self-reliant risk-takers); the Amsterdam Treaty, Tampere and Hague Programmes fall short of the hype surrounding them, and the EU has not properly addressed some important problems in its migration policy. These include external border reinforcement, asylum camps outside of the EU, deportation of illegal immigrants and associated human rights breaches.<\/p>\n

Their analysis is thought-provoking, and underscores the urgency of the human rights issues at hand, particularly for \u2018illegal\u2019 African immigrants desperately trying to reach the EU; however, Hansen and Hager offer few solutions. While the analytical elements of their critical history framework allows for discussion of these problems, it does not prescribe a way forward, beyond giving rights to TCN workers within the EU, which may just serve to increase the EU\u2019s \u2018pull factor\u2019. The framework lacks the potential to consider future developments, which is a shame, as this would undoubtedly lead to some bold ideas.<\/p>\n

As Hansen and Hager take a broad approach, encompassing different aspects of policy and law, their analysis, at times, has to be brief; as such, the book will be of more use to persons wishing to gain an overview of the contradictions in citizenship and migration politics than researchers already aware of most key developments. Nonetheless, The Politics of European Citizenship <\/em>offers thoughtful reading and is well-written and engaging.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Review
\n\u2018Citizenship of the Union\u2019 was established by the Maastricht Treaty and made each Member State\u2019s citizens Union citizens also. As market integration and a corresponding formulation of citizenship are not inherently linked, the case of the EU is somewhat anomalous. This gives ample … <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":205,"featured_media":1276,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[141],"tags":[181],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/506"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/205"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=506"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/506\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1263,"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/506\/revisions\/1263"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1276"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=506"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=506"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oc.citizensforeurope.org\/ojs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=506"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}