scholarly journals European but not European enough: An explanation for Brexit

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah Carl ◽  
James Dennison ◽  
Geoffrey Evans

To date, most accounts of the UK’s vote to leave the EU have focussed on explaining variation across individuals and constituencies within the UK. In this article, we attempt to answer a different question, namely ‘Why was it the UK that voted to leave, rather than any other member state?’. We show that the UK has long been one of the most Eurosceptic countries in the EU, which we argue can be partly explained by Britons’ comparatively weak sense of European identity. We also show that existing explanations of the UK’s vote to leave cannot account for Britons’ long-standing Euroscepticism: the UK scores lower than many other member states on measures of inequality/austerity, the ‘losers of globalisation’ and authoritarian values, and some of these measures are not even correlated with Euroscepticism across member states. In addition, we show that the positive association between national identity and Euroscepticism is stronger in the UK than in most other EU countries. Overall, we conclude that Britons’ weak sense of European identity was a key contributor to the Brexit vote.

Author(s):  
Petr David ◽  
Danuše Nerudová

There still exist the differences in provision of VAT, in interpretation of VAT provisions and application of the rules in practice between the EU member states. Application of VAT during the supply of goods with installation to other EU member state, both during the existence of establishment in the state of customer and also without it, is considered to be one from the problematic field. Other discrepancies are created by inclusion of the sub suppliers, who can come from other EU member state or from the same state as customer, to this transaction. Questions of VAT application during the supply of goods with installation to other EU member state were processed by using standard methods of scientific work in the frame of five selected EU countries – Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Czech Republic.


Author(s):  
Mccormick Roger ◽  
Stears Chris

This chapter considers the legal risks raised by Brexit. These include change of law risk for financial markets and especially for institutions that wish to do cross-border business in the EU. For example, while the UK remains in the EU, financial institutions carrying on certain ‘regulated activities’ are afforded so-called ‘passporting’ rights pursuant to which, broadly, they can take advantage of the fact that they are established and appropriately authorised in one member state to do business in other member states, without the need for separate permissions or authorisations in those other states. If the UK leaves the EU, such passporting rights may be terminated unless the Brexit negotiation results in them being preserved in some way.


Author(s):  
Lorin-Johannes Wagner

The question of who ought to be regarded as Union citizen is a central but not an easily answered question. Drawing on an analysis of the ECJ’s case-law and the underlying constitutional set up of Union citizenship, this article argues that the notion of nationality in EU law is based on a jurisdictional conception that builds on the idea of a genuine link and a territorial link with the EU. Relying on this understanding the article assesses the peculiar cases of Germany, the UK and Denmark, establishing not only if and how Member States can reconfigure the meaning of their nationality under EU law but also highlighting that the notion of nationality as a peremptory marker for Union citizenship is defined within the constitutional realm of EU law. The understanding that Member States are free to define their nationality within EU law, hence, is a misplaced overstatement of sovereignty. Against this backdrop the last part of the article turns to the case of Latvian non-citizens, arguing that Latvian non-citizens, who are generally not regarded as Union citizens, have been Union citizens all along.


2021 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-127
Author(s):  
Julia Wojnowska-Radzińska

The paper analyses the PNR Directive as pre-emptive data surveillance practice. The 2016/681 Directive regulates the use of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data in the EU for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of terrorist offences and serious crime. It obliges airlines to hand national authorities passengers’ data for all flights from third countries to the EU and vice versa, but Member States can also extend it to ‘intra-EU’ ones (i.e. from an EU country to one or more other EU countries), provided that they notify the EU Commission. Thus, PNR Directive affects all passengers who arrive in the territory of one Member State originating from a third country, or who depart from a Member State’s territory to a non-EU country, including any transfer or transit flights. Using PNR data, the individual is profiled and encoded in terms of degrees of risk.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-44
Author(s):  
Margarite Helena Zoeteweij-Turhan

The Seasonal Workers Directive, harmonising Member States’ laws regarding the entry, residence and certain labour rights of seasonal workers, entered into force in 2014 and should be implemented by Member States (except for the UK, Ireland and Denmark) by 30 September 2016. According to Article 23 of the Directive, in principle, third-country nationals coming to a Member State as seasonal workers are entitled to equal treatment with nationals of the host Member State. However, what does ‘equal treatment’ mean when there are almost no nationals doing seasonal work for comparison? Also, the Directive allows Member States to diverge from the principle with regard to family and unemployment benefits and education and vocational training. Furthermore, the Directive does not provide for family reunification, even though seasonal workers are allowed to work for periods of up to nine months per year in the host Member State. Considering the limitations to the principle of equal treatment, and the broad measure of discretion given to the Member States in the implementation of the Directive, can the Directive really improve the precarious position of seasonal workers? What is to be expected of the effectiveness of the Directive? Could the Directive also be attractive for application by countries (inside the EU or outside) that are not bound by the Directive? This article will try to answer these questions by critically analysing the Directive, setting it in historical perspective and comparing it other EU legal instruments on labour migration, focusing particularly on the content of a select number of rights. The article furthermore discusses the issue of gender equality in the (effects of the) EU regulation of labour migration. It finally also addresses the question of the attractiveness of the Directive for adoption by States that are not bound by it, in particular Switzerland, where the seasonal worker has remained a hot topic after officially having ‘disappeared’ from the radar in 2002.


Author(s):  
Deirdre Curtin
Keyword(s):  
The Uk ◽  

UK involvement in the EU Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ) has been patchy. It never joined the Schengen border-free zone, and when in 2014 it exercised a block exit from all AFSJ measures, it selectively rejoined a substantial number. Even if partially outside, the UK has been a leader inside. Advanced intelligence capabilities meant it provided important support to the functioning of agencies such as Europol and UK laws inspired EU laws, for example, on data retention. The need to preserve some pragmatic forms of cooperation between the UK and the EU is obvious and shared by the UK security establishment. There is a partial institutional precedent . When Denmark rejected participation in Europol in a popular referendum, the Danish government obtained a deal from the EU institutions which allows it to remain associated to Europol as a ‘third country’ (and a Member State). The bespoke Brexit reality may prove even more complex.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (15) ◽  
pp. 4173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramona Pîrvu ◽  
Cristian Drăgan ◽  
Gheorghe Axinte ◽  
Sorin Dinulescu ◽  
Mihaela Lupăncescu ◽  
...  

The impact of implementation of cohesion policy on the sustainable development of EU countries is of great interest and presents a number of actual challenges. This research aims to evaluate the impact and the effects of the cohesion policy among the Member States using hierarchical clustering analysis in order to identify how the selected variables affect the sustainable development adopted models. The variables used in the analysis were selected on the basis of official data provided by the European Commission, SDG Index and Dashboards Reports and the EU Cohesion Monitor. The results of the research have led to the grouping of the 28 Member States in a number of six clusters, identifying performers but also those countries that have a high potential for sustainable development or which require increased attention to be sustained in recovering existing gaps. The results of the study can be a starting point for policy makers and other stakeholders involved in their efforts to support sustainable development through effective and effective policies.


2018 ◽  
Vol 81 (6-8) ◽  
pp. 602-622
Author(s):  
Dennis Lichtenstein ◽  
Christiane Eilders

The Euro crisis has revealed severe conflicts between EU member states and challenged a shared European identity. This article investigates how the crisis was reflected in identity constructions in media discourses in EU key countries. European identity construction is conceptualized as framing of the EU in favour or against belonging to the EU and togetherness with other members. Conducting a systematic content analysis of two weekly newspapers and magazines in Germany, France and the UK, we compare identity constructions between 2011 and 2014. Findings show that while support of belonging to the EU is low in general, the countries differ remarkably in terms of their sense of togetherness. This particularly applies to strong or weak political integration, market regulation or market freedom and financial stability or impulses for economic growth. The positions reflect long-term political conflicts between the countries but are also flexible enough to adapt to the particular event context.


2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 83-98
Author(s):  
Janina Witkowska

The aim of this paper is to discuss new trends that have occurred in the policies of the EU and China towards foreign direct investment (FDI), to examine some implications of the EU‑China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) – which is currently being negotiated – for their bilateral relations, and to assess the role which China’s “One Belt One Road’ (OBOR) initiative might play in its relations with the new EU Member States. The EU established freedom of capital movement with third countries; however, the introduction of the common investment policy has encountered some obstacles. These are related to investor protection and ISDS issues. In turn, China is carrying out an independent state policy towards foreign investment with limited liberalization of FDI flows. The negotiated EU‑China CAI is expected to create conditions conducive to bilateral foreign investment flows, and it might bring positive effects for their economies in the future. However, the progress made thus far in the negotiations is still limited. The relations between China and the new EU Member states (CEE countries) are characterized by common interests in the field of FDI flows. The new EU countries are interested in attracting Chinese FDI and seem not to show the fears that have arisen in the old EU countries.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 175
Author(s):  
Tanel Feldman ◽  
Marco Mazzeschi

Rights of residence derived from a durable relationship with an EU citizen, are left to a relatively wide discretion of the Member States. Pursuant to Article 2.2 (b) Directive 2004/38/EC (“Directive”), “the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State” qualifies as family member. Provided that they have a durable relationship (duly attested) with an EU citizen, pursuant to Article 3.2(b), unregistered partners are as well beneficiaries of the Directive. The durable relationship was expressly excluded from the scope of Article 2(2)(b): “Unlike the amended proposal, it does not cover de facto durable relationships” (EU Commission, Document 52003SC1293). Article 3 (2)(a) covers “other family members” (no restrictions as to the degree of relatedness) if material support is provided by the EU citizen or by his partner or where serious health grounds strictly require the personal care of the family member by the Union citizen. Pursuant to Article 3.2, “other family members” and unregistered partners can attest a durable relationship, must be facilitated entry and residence, in accordance to the host Member State’s national legislation. In the light of Preamble 6 Directive, the situation of the persons who are not included in the definition of family members, must be considered “in order to maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense”. The questions discussed in this paper are the following: (i) are Member States genuinely considering the concept of durable relationship in view of maintaining the unity of the family in a broader sense? and (ii) how to overcome legal uncertainty and which criteria, both at EU and at international level, can be taken into account in order to assess whether a durable relationship is genuine and should be granted the rights set forth by the Directive?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document