Irregular Migrants: Can Humane Treatment be Balanced against Efficient Removal?

The controversial Returns Directive has now been the subject of considerable jurisprudence of the CJEU, addressing many important issues of interpretation. This paper assesses whether the CJEU has been successful in its apparent attempts to balance humanitarian concerns with the EU legislator’s apparent objective of removing irregular migrants from the territory as quickly as possible

The Commonwealth and the EU: let’s do (trade with) both

The Leave campaign argues that quitting the Union would enable Britain to negotiate free trade agreements with more Commonwealth countries. Steve Peers says it certainly could – although the EU already has, or is negotiating, FTAs with most Commonwealth states – but they probably wouldn’t compensate for the loss of free trade with the EU

Reading the small print: will Cameron’s EU migration reforms pass legal muster?

The draft renegotiation deal obtained by David Cameron would amend three EU laws relating to migration: the free movement of citizens, their right to seek work in another Member State, and their right to claim social security benefits. Steve Peers explains what the proposals will mean and looks at whether they may be liable to legal challenge. He concludes that other Member States will probably accept the amendments on family members and may agree to the child benefit reforms, but the changes on in-work benefits are highly vulnerable

British Balance of Competence Reviews, Part II: Again, a huge contradiction between the evidence and Eurosceptic populism. EPIN Paper No. 40, June 2014

This paper is the second in a series for a CEPS project entitled “The British Question and the Search for a Fresh European Narrative”. It is pegged on an ambitious exercise by the British government to review all the competences of the European Union on the basis of evidence submitted by independent stakeholders. In all, 32 sectoral policy reviews are being produced over the period 2013-2015, as input into public information and debate leading up to a referendum on whether the UK should remain in, or secede from, the EU, planned for 2017. This second set of reviews covers a broad range of EU policies (for the single market for goods, external trade, transport policy, environment, climate change, research, asylum, non-EU immigration, civil judicial cooperation, tourism, culture and sport). The findings confirm what emerged from the first set of reviews, namely that there is little or no case for repatriation of EU competences at the level they are defined in the treaties. This does not exclude that at a more detailed level there can be individual actions or laws that might be done better or not at all. However, that is the task of all the institutions to work at on a regular basis, and hardly a rationale for secession. For the UK in particular the EU has shown considerable flexibility in agreeing to special arrangements, such as in the case of the policies here reviewed of asylum, non-EU immigration and civil judicial cooperation. In other areas reviewed here, such as the single market for goods, external trade, transport, environment, climate change and research, there is a good fit between the EU’s policies and UK priorities, with the EU perceived by stakeholders as an ‘amplifier’ of British interests

The Old Dog Learns New Tricks: Reinvigorating Infringement Proceedings to Enhance the Effectiveness of EU Law

The procedure for infringement of (what is now) EU law has been around since the foundation of the Communities. Yet it has not remained unchanged, most recently being amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. Over a decade later, and with current developments in the application of financial sanctions and in the enforcement of the rule of law in Member States, it becomes pressing to evaluate the significance of the amendments. Consequently, this paper assesses firstly whether the infringement process is now playing an increasing role in the effectiveness of EU law – not only in relation to the implementation of the amendments in the Treaty of Lisbon, but also in light of recent case law on strengthening interim measures in infringement proceedings. Secondly, the paper examines the impact of the infringement proceedings upon the enforcement of the rule of law within the Union. Finally, the paper considers whether changing the division of jurisdiction between the EU courts in the infringement proceedings would help or hinder their contribution to the effectiveness of EU law

Britain’s Future in Europe: The known Plan A to remain or the unknown Plan B to leave. CEPS Paperback 2nd Ed., March 2016

Following the agreement made by Prime Minister David Cameron with the EU on 18-19 February 2016, the day for the referendum for the UK to remain in or leave the EU is set for 23 June 2016. This will be the most important decision taken by the British people in half a century, and whose consequences will live on for another half century. The first edition of this book, published in March 2015, laid the foundations for any objective assessment of the workings of the EU and the UK’s place in it. It was widely acclaimed and rated as “a myth-breaking exercise of the best kind”. This second edition adds a substantial new chapter following Cameron’s agreement with the EU and announcement of the referendum. It reviews both the ‘Plan A’, namely the status quo for the UK in the EU as amended by the new agreement, and three variants of a ‘Plan B’ for secession. The key point is that the ‘leave’ camp have not done their homework or ‘due diligence’ to specify the post-secession scenario, or how the British government would face up to the challenges that this would bring. The authors therefore do the ‘leave’ camp’s homework for them, setting out three Plan Bs more concretely and in more depth than the ‘leave’ camp have been able or wanted to do, or any other source has done. The book is therefore unique and essential reading for anyone concerned with the fateful choice that lies soon ahead

Rethinking the Attractiveness of EU Labour Immigration Policies: Comparative perspectives on the EU, the US, Canada and beyond

Is Europe's immigration policy attractive? One of the priorities driving current EU debates on labour immigration policies is the perceived need to boost Europe's attractiveness vis-á-vis 'talented' and 'highly skilled' immigrants. The EU sees itself playing a role in persuading immigrants to choose Europe over other competing destinations, such as the US or Canada. This book critically examines the determinants and challenges characterising discussions focused on the attractiveness of labour migration policies in the EU as well as other international settings. It calls for re-thinking some of the most commonly held premises and assumptions underlying the narratives of ‘attractiveness’ and ‘global competition for talent’ in migration policy debates. How can an immigration policy, in fact, be made to be ‘attractive’ and what are the incentives at play (if any)? A multidisciplinary team of leading scholars and experts in migration studies address the main issues and challenges related to the role played by rights and discrimination, qualifications and skills, and matching demand and supply in needs-based migration policies. The experiences in other jurisdictions such as South America, Canada and the United States are also covered: Are these countries indeed so ‘attractive’ and ‘competitive’, and if so what makes them more attractive than the EU? On the basis of the discussions and findings presented across the various contributions, the book identifies a number of priorities for policy formulation and design in the next generation of EU labour migration policies. In particular, it highlights important initiatives that the new European Commission should focus on in the years to come