Making the EU Citizens' Agenda Work. CEPS Policy Brief, No. 122, 9 February 2007

[From the Introduction]. It is both an honour and a pleasure to submit comments to this inquiry into the Commission’s Communication on the legislative and work programme 2007. It is vital that the work of the Commission is subject to oversight by the European Parliament and national parliaments in order to ensure proper democratic participation in the priorities and legislative programme of the Commission. In our view, the inquiries carried out by the House of Lords Committee on these issues are of fundamental importance to the operation of the EU. We would encourage other national parliaments to take the same active interest in carrying out scrutiny of activity by the Commission and other EU level actors to ensure that democratic voices from across the Union are heard. This submission addresses six areas of the Work Programme 2007 which are related to our work in the area of freedom, security and justice: 1) the ‘big agendas’, 2) strategic objectives regarding security, 3) the EU’s voice in the world, 4) managing migration flows, 5) managing the acquis and 6) connecting Europe to its citizens. We will not comment on proposals in fields beyond this sphere except to the extent that they have consequences for the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ)

Brexit and the Treatment of EU Citizens by the UK Home Office. CEPS Policy Insights No 2017-33/September 2017

While the British Government is seeking to negotiate a good deal for British citizens in the EU-27 and, on the basis of reciprocity, an acceptable deal for EU27 citizens in the UK, the Home Office is busy undermining good faith and trust in the process. Four specific actions by the Home Office reveal this lack of good faith: The Home Office has been sending out letters to EU citizens in the UK threatening them with detention and expulsion irrespective of their status. The Home Office continues to create mind-boggling administrative obstacles to prevent EU-27 nationals from applying for documents proving their immigration status in the UK. The Home Office has reinterpreted national law on citizenship to hinder EU-27 citizens from naturalising or registering as British citizens. The Home Office, with the blessing of the UK courts (so far at least), has determined that genuine relationships and marriages between EU-27 citizens and third-country nationals can nevertheless be classified as marriages or relationships of convenience and thus be treated under national law alone, which condones immediate expulsion with the possibility of an appeal only after the fact. The status of EU citizens is among the most sensitive issues in the negotiations and a priority to be resolved before the trade discussions begin. It is essential for all parties to take great care to ensure that all the actors on their side of the table are singing from the same song sheet

Rethinking Migration Distribution in the EU: Shall we start with the facts? CEPS Essay 23/22 January 2016

Sound policy-making about migration –how to distribute responsibility for asylum seekers, how to deal with the issue of secondary movement (when asylum seekers move from one state to another within the EU) and whether migrants are welcome or not – needs to be based on solid evidence. On 16 November 2015, EUROSTAT published comprehensive statistics on the issue of first-residence permits by member states. This CEPS Essay closely examines these data and reports some surprising findings, some of which vary considerably from the impression promoted by the European media

Brexit and Social Security in the EU. CEPS Commentary, 17 November 2016

ccording to the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, “Brexit means Brexit” and the UK will be leaving the EU. From the various statements issued by the Prime Minister and her new Home Secretary, “Brexit means Brexit” seems to mean that “Brexit means in any event the end of free movement of (non-British) EU citizens to the UK in particular for the purposes of extended residence, work and self-employment”. There is much discussion in the media and political circles regarding a ‘hard’ Brexit and a ‘soft’ Brexit, although exactly what the difference may be is unclear. It would seem that a ‘soft’ Brexit would include access for the UK to the EU’s internal market on terms similar to those it currently has as a member state. But this is only possible if there is a deal on free movement of EU citizens to the UK, which is acceptable to the other member states. A ‘hard’ Brexit appears at the moment to mean a UK departure for the EU without preferential access to the internal market and perhaps a fall-back position of movement of goods, services and capital as regulated by the World Trade Organisation agreements on customs and tariff

The impact of war in Ukraine on EU migration

When the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022, one of the most immediate and dramatic reactions of the European Union (EU) was to open a special protection scheme for Ukrainians and non-Ukrainians who were resident in the country on the date of the invasion to enter the EU and remain with extensive rights (All EU states are part of the scheme with the exception of Denmark which because of particularities in its constitutional position in the EU opened a parallel national scheme rather than join the EU scheme). The legal basis of the scheme is a directive adopted in 2001, on Temporary Protection which had been slated for repeal but which had not yet occurred at the date of the invasion and is now on hold. Since then, according to UNHCR, 8,046,560 Ukrainians (or persons who were resident in Ukraine at the relevant date) have been recorded across Europe. In this article we examine the status and rights of TP beneficiaries in the EU and the challenges ahead for them and the EU as the war continues

Social Benefits And Migration: A Contested Relationship and Policy Challenge in the EU

Following the financial crisis that commenced in 2008, the relationship between migration and social benefits has become increasingly contested in a number of large EU member states. The Eastern expansion of the EU in 2004 and 2007 has added a new dimension to the relationship. Concerns have spread across a number of member states about the 'costs' and 'financial burdens' of migration and intra-EU mobility and there have been calls for restrictions of existing EU rights and freedoms in the areas of EU free movement, social security coordination, asylum, and migration laws. The collection of essays contained in this book examines the main policy controversies that have emerged in the EU regarding linkages between welfare and migration. Does migration constitute a disproportionate burden to member states' domestic labour markets and welfare systems? Should non-citizens be entitled to social benefits in the state where they live? Is there objective evidence and statistical data indicating abuse of social benegits and increasing financial burdens by non-citizens, 'social welfare tourism' or the so-called 'welfare magnet' hypothesis, whereby migrants are attracted to countries that provide more generous welfare? The book analyses these controversies as they affect different categories of non-citizens in the framework of EU law and policy. This is coupled with an examination of the uses or misuses of data, information and social science knowledge in the debates on the reliance by non-citizens on social benefits. The book concludes with a set of recommendations addressed to EU policy-makers

The changing dynamics of security in an enlarged European Union. Challenge Paper No. 12, 24 October 2008

The relation between liberty and security has been highly contestable over the past 10 years in the EU integration process. With the expansion of the EU’s powers into domains falling within the scope of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, liberty and its relation to security has brought a new range of issues, struggles and debates. Acts of political violence labelled as ‘terrorism’ and human mobility at the European and international levels have justified the construction of these phenomena as threats to the security and safety of the nation state. They have legitimised the development of normative responses that go beyond traditional configurations and raise fundamental dilemmas for the security and liberty of the individual. This paper assesses the ways in which the notions and perceptions of security and insecurity in the EU have evolved as political values and legal/policy goals, and how they are being transformed. It aims at synthesising the results of the research conducted since 2004 by the Justice and Home Affairs Section of CEPS through the CHALLENGE project (Changing Landscape of European Liberty and Security). The research has been premised upon one basic, but determining question: To what extent has the evolution of the international context altered the dynamics of liberty and security in the EU