Rights, Inclusion and Free Movement: Social Rights and Citizenship in the European Union

(1)

Department of Sociology

Master thesis in Sociology, 30 h.p. Spring 2016

Supervisor: Gerda Neyer

Rights, Inclusion and

Free Movement

Social rights and Citizenship in the European

Union

(2)

Abstract

The free movement of persons in the EU has been fraught with tension since the Eastern enlargements. This culminated in 2016 when the UK demanded the possibility to limit rights and benefits to intra-EU migrants, making for a fresh investigation into the state of the free movement. From a constructivist perspective of rights and citizenship this in-depth case study aims to elucidate how EU actors describe the free movement of

persons. It will further look at how they situate limitations and obstacles and analyze what this reflects in terms of underlying logics and rationales of rights and citizenship in the EU free movement regime. The interviews with EU actors reveal how distinctions of politically constructed categories of migrants which define Insiders and Outsiders are used to rationalize who has the right to social rights. Inclusion is defined in terms of market liberalism and individual responsibility, logics which thus also define the Insiders of Europe. This produces an image of the EU citizen and indirectly defines those who diverge from this image as Outsiders, including “lesser” Europeans. The underlying logics within the EU could therefore contribute to negative perceptions of those who cannot meet the requirements of the ideal European.

Keywords

EU, free movement, social rights, citizenship, mobility, migration, European integration, sociology of rights, social citizenship, categorizations, interviews

(3)

Introduction

The European Union (EU) has received much attention in the public debate the last couple of years. At the center of attention is the free movement of people, and the dominant topic concerns the alleged negative consequences that intra-EU mobility brings to the EU member states and their welfare systems. The debate has in fact been so strong that some have voiced concern regarding the future of the right to free movement of persons (Pascouau, 2013; Venables, 2015). This development is particularly interesting since both scientific and political discussions have described the free movement of people in the EU as a diverging trend in a world dominated by processes of closure of borders and boundaries (Sainsbury, 2012; Mau et al., 2012). Free movement1 has been continuously expanded and barriers removed in order to facilitate for the European citizens to exercise free mobility as a part of the agenda of realizing the full potential of the European economy and society. However, something seems to have changed and voices in the debate have argued that free movement can no longer be taken for granted (Pascouau, 2013). Pro-Europeanists had their fears realized in February 2016 when the European Council negotiated a deal based on demands made by the UK. This deal would allow member states to restrict access to certain social benefits under certain conditions (Weiss & Blockman, 2016, European Council, Notice 2016/C 69).

In the Directive 2004/38/EC it says not only that all citizens of the EU have the right to free movement for three months without being subjected to any conditions, but it also calls for investigation into “the opportunity to extend the period of time during which Union citizens

and their family members may reside in the territory of the host Member State without any conditions.” (Article 39, Directive 2004/38/EC). The agenda of the EU to strengthen cohesion

and potentially further extend free movement thus appears to be in direct opposition to the opinions expressed in public debates. The free movement regime limits the member states in their capacity to control the inflow of people (Boswell & Geddes, 2011:200) and it has been found in migration research that when external control is constrained, nation-states have a tendency to turn to internal or informal forms of control (Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014). It

1_{From here on ”free movement” will refer to the free movement of people. When it is referred to the free}

(6)

would thus be interesting to study the free movement from a perspective of limitations which are less visible and informal and investigate how the EU have dealt with this in its legislation. Studying the understanding within the EU of limitations to free movement could further contribute to revealing underlying logics and perspectives that govern the European society. This is particularly interesting since the description of free movement as “rights based” mobility has been questioned (Carmel, 2013), as has the description of the EU as a “social market economy” committed to protect and promote social inclusion (Article 2, Treaty of Lisbon, Scharpf, 2010). Researchers have argued that the EU is rather embedded in a

neoliberal logic which places market freedoms above social rights (eg. Scharpf, 2010; Hansen & Hager, 2010; Soysal, 2012).

I here attempt to bring together a sociological perspective on the EU (Favell & Guiraudon, 2009) with a Sociology of Rights (Somers & Roberts, 2008), two perspectives that have been previously lacking, and seek a further understanding of the dynamics and logics of free movement in the EU. Free movement is here studied from a perspective of rights as well as from a perspective of citizenship, which has not been looked at in-depth before (Somers & Roberts, 2008; Favell & Guiraudon, 2009; Van Overmeiren et al., 2014).

Purpose and Research Question

Empirical sociology can contribute with a study of the non-visible aspects and the underlying logics of the EU which reflect the broader social processes of the European society (Favell & Guiraudon, 2009). I believe that this is particularly relevant now in light of the enlargements, the economic crisis of 2009 and the negative public opinion about free movement and intra-EU migrants. Thus, an investigation into the state of the free movement from a perspective of rights and citizenship is perhaps more relevant than ever. Thus, the purpose of this study is to look at how limitations of the free movement of persons can be understood in relation to the EU citizenship and social rights. This is accomplished by an in-depth study of how EU actors formulate and construct the issues of free movement, rights and citizenship and how they rationalize limitations or obstacles to mobility. EU actors are here defined as individuals working within or closely with the EU institutions, both political and administrative actors as well as legal or political experts and representatives of interest groups. Limitations and obstacles are considered from a constructivist perspective (Berger & Luckmann, 1999) including indirect, informal and non-visible barriers to free movement (Kvist, 2004:304; Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014:684). The question posed in this study is thus: How do EU actors

(7)

describe free movement of persons and situate limitations and obstacles, and what does this reflect in terms of underlying logics and rationales of rights and citizenship in the EU free movement regime?

This could not only deepen the understanding of free movement logics and social rights in the EU, but it could also provide interesting knowledge of the general state of the European integration and cohesion processes. To accomplish this, I start by giving a background on mobility in the EU, present relevant EU legislation and further address the UK-situation. I then turn to previous research on the free movement in the EU and situate my thesis within this research field. Further, I present the theoretical perspectives which have been used in this study. The study provides a rather broad theoretical framework in order to conduct the

research in line with abductive reasoning. The research design of the study will be discussed in the chapter preceding the analysis and here also limitations and potential problems with the study are discussed before the results of the research is presented. The study is concluded with a final discussion about the findings from the analysis and these findings are also discussed in a broader perspective of citizenship, social rights and mobility in the EU.

Background

Migration in Europe and the EU

For centuries peoples’ mobility has been controlled in different forms across different territories (Mau et al, 2012). The form of migration control that has existed throughout the 20th and 21st century is largely based upon citizenships and nation states, where nation states have controlled mobility and citizenships have structured mobility opportunities (Mau et al., 2012). Since the 1950’s the mobility in Europe has been divided into two types; free

movement of privileged Europeans moving from one member state to another, and migrants moving from the outside into the EU-territory (Boswell & Geddes, 2011). The Treaty of Rome (now known as the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - TFEU) was introduced in 1957 and allowed free movement for workers between the member states of that time (EUR-Lex, 2016). Since then, the right to free movement of persons has been

continuously expanded, included more people as more nation states entered the European community, and also included a rising number of people within the community, from workers

(8)

to jobseekers to students and pensioners (Directive 2004/38/EC). In the 1980’s, the power over mobility was shifted further to the EU level and the role of the EU in controlling mobility within and into Europe has since then been gradually strengthened (Ryner in Bommes & Geddes, 2000; Boswell & Geddes, 2011:33-34).Free movement was

reconstructed in the 1990’s when the EU citizenship was created and the EU was established as a political community in addition to the economic agenda. Since the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 the EU states that the people have access to free mobility based upon rights prescribed in the citizenship(Boswell & Geddes, 2011).

EU legislation

In EU legislation, the treaties have primacy over secondary legislation (directives, regulations and decisions). Within secondary legislation, regulations are not only legally binding but also directly applicable, while directives constitute “soft law” which can be more freely interpreted by the individual member states and implemented with respect to their national contexts (Europa Website, 2016; European Commission, 2016).Several of the directives and

regulations also have so called “implementing regulations” and directives to enforce and/or facilitate (e.g. Directive 2014/54/EU; Regulation (EU) 987/2009).Additionally, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) produces so called “case law” in its judgements where it is further specified how secondary legislation should be interpreted (Europa Website, 2016; European Commission, 2016).

Articles 20 and 21 in the TFEU guarantees free movement for all EU citizens and prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. Directive 2004/38/EC then specifies the conditions for free movement and allows for all EU citizens to freely move and reside in another member state, without being subjected to any conditions other than having valid identification. After three months however, non-economically active persons2_{are required to have comprehensive} sickness insurance and sufficient resources to provide for themselves (and their family) because they should not become a burden to the social security system of the host member state (Directive 2004/38/EC). Non-active persons are not entitled to social assistance if they do not have a right to reside. The free movement directive further allows member states to restrict access to social assistance for persons who are job-seekers and for this purpose have a right to reside. This applies also “if such benefits are also intended to facilitate access to the

(9)

labour market of the host member state” (European Council, Section D (1.b) in Notice 2016/C

69). The free movement of workers is currently prescribed in Regulation (EU) 492/2011 and this regulation has further been complemented with an enforcement directive on how to facilitate for workers’ mobility (Directive 2014/54/EC). Further, the social security regulation (Regulation (EU) 883/2004) sets the rules for coordination of national security systems. This regulation does not state harmonization of the systems, but rather guarantees that mobile workers will not face disadvantages or “fall between stools” when moving between member states.

The UK-deal (Brexit)

In February 2016 the European Council summit addressed the demands expressed by the UK in regards to their future relationship with the EU. After a three year long internal process in the UK, the Brexit3 agenda was finally on the table and a date was set for the referendum, where the UK would vote on staying in or leaving the EU (Weiss & Blockman, 2016). Their demands involved, among other aspects, changes in the free movement of workers and the social security regulation in order to be further able to restrict access to certain benefits for EU migrants (Ibid). The Council acknowledged that generous welfare benefits “may in itself

attract workers to certain Member States” (European Council, Section D in Notice 2016/C

69). The UK-deal includes an amendment of regulation 883/2004, saying that migrant

workers whose family (children) resides abroad should only receive “indexed” family benefits which meet the standard of the country where the children resides (Weiss & Blockmans, 2016:10). Also, a safeguard mechanism is included in the regulation on free movement of workers. The safeguard mechanism which can be used if a member state has had inflows of intra-EU migrants “of an exceptional magnitude over an extended period of time” (European Council, Section D (2.b) in Notice 2016/C 69) It would be possible to restrict access to in-work benefits to EU migrant in-workers for a four year- period, if “such an exceptional

situation” had occurred (Ibid., Section D). These demands have created a lot of debate in the EU, since they are claimed to violate one of the most fundamental principles of

non-discrimination, and it has been discussed whether the deal would violate the treaties. After the UK has held the referendum on June 23 2016 (Weiss & Blockmans, 2016:13) the deal would

(10)

enter into force on the day the UK informs the Council of their intent to stay in the EU (European Council, Section E (2) in Notice 2016/C 69).

Previous research

There is much research on migration within different scientific fields, including sociology. The bulk of the existing studies and knowledge about migration and migrants in the 21th century however examines migration from outside the EU (e.g. Sainsbury, 2012; Mau et al., 2012). Research about intra EU mobility surfaced in connection with the enlargements in the 2000’s (Benton & Petrovic, 2013:20) and has primarily focused on the economic

consequences of mobility from Central and Eastern Europe to the “Old” Western member states (Ibid.). There is still however a lack of knowledge of different aspects of intra-EU mobility and particularly knowledge related to social consequences (Benton & Petrovic, 2013; Van Overmeiren et al., 2014; Andrijasevic & Sacchetto, 2016). Previous studies have

specifically looked at the national level, at the consequences for the receiving (or more rarely, the sending) member state. There is however also some research that examines the limitations of free movement for EU citizens and studies intra EU mobility in relation to social rights and social inclusion. It is within this field that this thesis is situated.

Limitations & Obstacles to EU Mobility

Carmel (2013) describes the EU as a “political construction”. In line with this perspective, some researchers have pointed towards the process of constructing migrant categories within the EU free movement regime. The central importance for individual migrants to be classified as “active persons” and thus receiving the most generous access to the member states’ labour markets and social security systems has been identified as a potential obstacle for EU citizens making use of their right to free movement (Guild et al., 2013; Van Overmeiren et al., 2014). Two key points have been made; first, the EU level legislative documents have not always provided clear definitions for categories and concepts, and although it is necessary with a certain degree of openness to account for the diversity of the member states systems it has been argued that there is a need for further clarification, particularly because of the central importance of prescribed categories for individual migrants(Guild et al., 2013; Van

(11)

Overmeiren et al., 2014; Barslund & Busse, 2014). Secondly, the lack of clarity allows for the member states to interpret and implement the legislation in an unsatisfactory manner (Carmel, 2013; Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014).

In a report produced on behalf of the commission it is emphasized that a broad

interpretation of who can be defined as an “active person” is necessary, as are generous rules for retaining this status during temporary periods of “in-activity”. Broad and generous interpretations are described as crucial to facilitate for intra EU migrants to freely exercise mobility and to access the labour market of other member states. This report further stresses that it is important to recognize that measures directed at non-active persons can have a

discouraging impact also for workers (Van Overmeiren et al., 2014:5). Further, several studies have shown that the political construction of intra EU migrants has recently been prescribed new meaning (Carmel, 2013:243; Paul, 2013; Guild et al., 2013). What had previously been perceived as “free mobility” and as an exercise of rights has started to be increasingly described as migration (Carmel, 2013:243; Paul, 2013) and associated rather with issues of security than in terms of European integration (Guild et al., 2013:140-141). This

reconstruction of intra-EU migrants has made it possible to challenge central principles of the free movement and previously incontestable principles such as equal treatment can no longer be taken for granted (Ibid., 134). Researchers have drawn parallels between the changed depiction of intra EU migrants and the enlargements, arguing that the populations of the new member states challenged the previous understanding of EU citizens as alike (Carmel, 2013; Ciupijus, 2011). It was assumed that the experiences of Central and Eastern EU migrants differed from the experiences of the EU migrants from the old member states (Carmel, 2013:243) and this complicated the understanding of boundaries of belonging and the definition of Insiders. The new EU citizens thus were considered less European, and particularly the poor and racialized Europeans were noticeably re-constructed as Outsiders (Groenendjik in Guild et al., 2013:21)

The construction of intra EU migrants is produced in a social and political process, where both national politicians and broader public debates and discussions have contributed to the changed perspective. There are a number of studies that look at the public debates about social tourism and the increasingly negative perceptions of EU citizens’ mobility, which conclude that although there is no evidence of social tourism, the effects of these fears and perceptions are very much real. The studies show how member states have reacted with protectionist measures, including limitations of national social policies, and that the debate has a legitimizing function for re-establishing national boundaries and returning to processes

(12)

of distinction of national identities (Kvist, 2004; Groenendijk in Guild et al., 2013; Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014). The tendency to turn to protectionist responses, restricting access to both national labour markets and social security (as allowed under the so called “transitional period”) for the new EU citizens (Kvist, 2004) could be an indication of a change in the discourse and practice within the EU free movement regime. Increased openness within the EU border-free agenda along with favorable policies for EU migrants could thus have led to increased internal restrictions and produced “boundaries” within (Kvist, 2004:304; Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014:684).

EU citizenship and Rights

As a fundamental principle and right, the free movement of persons is a central aspect of the political construction of the EU and crucial for its legitimacy (Carmel & Paul, 2013). The relationship between free movement, citizenship and rights is particularly interesting to study, since the EU itself describes free movement as a “rights-based mobility” (Ibid.) and the EU citizenship would then be the distributor of access to this right.

The meaning of the status of EU citizen has been analyzed and it has been found that although citizens from the new member states are not always recognized as fully European, the EU citizenship makes it easier for these citizens to exercise their right to free movement (Ciupijus, 2011:546-547). The citizenship constrains the member states from limiting the rights of EU citizens, meaning that this status has meaning for the individual migrants. The post-national EU citizenship does however not have unlimited reach, and countries like the UK have been both willing and able to limit the access to social benefits for intra-EU migrants (Ibid., 546-547). Further, the general perception of the EU citizenship could have been impacted by the negative perceptions of the recently included citizens. It has been shown that the support for the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination has weakened since the enlargements (Likic-Brboric, 2011). Further, what has been identified as a re-framing process of the EU citizenship (Guild et al., 2013:134) is assumed to have weakened the available space for a social citizenship in the EU (Ferrera, 2014:830).In fact, the different levels of social equality in the new and old member states has led some researchers to

conclude that it is unlikely that all EU citizens will be perceived as equals any time soon. Thus, the scope for developing an EU social citizenship and increased social rights for EU migrants is small (Likic-Brboric, 2011; Ciupijus, 2011). Further, the EU citizenship has been defined by researchers as embedded in a neoliberal logic where the value of an EU citizen is

(13)

based upon their ability to make themselves useful on the market. EU citizens are constructed as rational and resourceful actors (Likic-Brboric, 2011:290; Ciupijus, 2011:545). It has thus been called a “liberal market citizenship” (Likic-Brboric, 2011:291). The free movement regime is also defined as governed by a market logic (Ciupijs, 2011; Likic-Brboric, 2011; Carmel & Paul, 2013; Ferrera, 2014) rather than a rights-based logic as the EU wants to describe it (Carmel & Paul, 2013).

“Social Europe”

There is a general consensus among EU scholars about the dominance of economic aspects within the EU and the free movement regime (e.g. Dølvik & Visser, 2009; Likic-Brboric, 2011; Guild et al., 2013; Barslund & Busse, 2014:17; Ferrera, 2014:840). The rights of migrants, and particularly social rights, are prescribed with a secondary status (Carmel, 2013:249-250). Further, research has found that social rights have been weakened since the enlargements, possibly because of the increased diversity of social and economic inequality of the member states and their respective populations (Dølvik & Visser, 2009:492;

Likic-Brboric, 2011). The decrease of social rights has however also been related to the economic crisis, protectionism in national implementation (Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014: 688) and a political convergence of deregulation and privatization policies among the EU member states (Busemeyer & Tober, 2015). Either way, a change has occurred and scholars have identified that the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, who previously have been engaged in developing European social policy, have walked away from social issues or chosen to introduce “soft” law, rather than directly applicable regulations (Kvist, 2004:303). Dølvik and Visser (2009) look at what they call a “trilemma” of principles in EU free movement policy. They describe that workers’ rights have been undermined to ensure that the principle of equal treatment is being upheld and in turn, the principle of equal treatment has been undermined to secure the principle of free movement of labour and services. This places free movement at the top of the pyramid of principles, in line with an underlying economic bias, producing the type of situation which can be seen in regards to the posting of workers-directive (i.e. foreign workers accept lower wages which creates insecurity among the local workers) (Dølvik & Visser, 2009). These social insecurities have, according to the authors, had an impact on the public support for the EU and for continued European integration (Ibid., 504). In order to solve the trilemma and to re-gain legitimacy and support, they argue that

(14)

there is a need to take social and labour rights seriously and incorporate this as a central feature of free movement of workers and services (Ibid., 505-506).

At an EU level, active promotion of a flexible labour market and the encouragement of flexibility of workers could have facilitated the shift away from social issues (Woolfsson & Somers, 2016:80). Also, the primacy of EU law places free movement and equal treatment above national security systems and the consequential loss of power over their own systems felt by the national authorities could have produced a tendency for weakened social systems across the European member states (Kvist, 2004; Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014:680). The EU has not yet taken any measures to substitute or compensate for the potentially more vulnerable position of EU citizens, nationals and migrants alike(Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014:680). However, the “European Social Model” was resurrected after the economic crisis of 2009 and the EU institutions began to stress the need for a “social dimension” (Likic-Brboric,

2011:280; Woolfsson & Somers, 2016:80). The practical impact of the reclaimed agenda of social issues has however previously been challenged (Likic-Brboric, 2011) and could perhaps still be questioned.

Gap in Previous Research

Previous studies have thus contributed with knowledge about a potential neoliberal logic which potentially governs the EU, the free movement regime and is embedded in the construction of the EU citizenship. It has further also been found that economic issues are often prioritized and social issues are of secondary concern. The understanding of Central and Eastern EU citizens as not completely belonging in the European political and economic community has been discussed and related to a potential re-construction of the EU citizenship. Such a reconstruction could have an impact on how free movement of persons is understood in terms of rights.

I here attempt to contribute to the research field by interviewing EU actors who could reflect underlying logics and perceptions in the EU free movement regime. Because previous research has discussed the flawed Social Europe, I place a particular focus on social rights. This is done within a broader perspective of a Sociology of Rights (which will be further addressed in the next chapter) which can complement theoretical perspectives of citizenship (Somers & Roberts, 2008; Soysal, 2012; Carmel & Paul, 2013). Free movement has not been subjected to an in-depth investigation where the relationship between free movement of

(15)

here attempt to fill this gap in the research and contribute to the knowledge of the free movement and the EU. Carmel (2013) sees the portrayal of free movement as rights-based mobility as relevant for the legitimacy of the EU as a whole, meaning that the exposure of this portrayal as false could be a threat to the legitimacy. Also, Dølvik and Visser (2009:504) discusses the impact of the “trilemma” of fundamental principles on EU legitimacy and how weakened social rights could challenge the EU as also a “Social Union”. A study into the logics and perspectives of free movement from a perspective of rights and citizenship could thus further be related to European integration and cohesion more generally and the state of free movement could also say something about the state of the legitimacy of the EU.

Theory

To understand the relationship between free movement in the EU and rights and citizenship I believe there is a need to incorporate theoretical perspectives influenced by social

constructivist assumptions. The constructivist perspective provides an understanding of how social realities and phenomena are produced, reproduced and re-constructed in social

interaction. These constructions have real social consequences and can shape the lives of individuals, particularly in the form of institutionalized or internalized structures taken for granted as realities (Berger & Luckmann, 1999). Here, central social phenomena including the nation-state, the EU, the citizenship and rights, will be considered as socially constructed in complex processes of interaction. The concept “political” construction (Carmel, 2013) will be used and refers to constructions produced in political and legal contexts. The theoretical section begins with a further discussion of constructions, particularly of categorizations of migrants and persons. I then turn to sociological theories of rights and citizenship and theories of mobility and control of migration. The chapter ends with an organizational theoretical perspective of the EU.

Constructions & Categorization

Categorizations of migrants is often discussed in migration research and it has been found that categorizations can constrain, enable and in other ways shape the experiences of individual migrants (e.g. Boswell & Geddes, 2011; Mau et al., 2012; Sainsbury, 2012). The process of

(16)

categorization is often linked to boundary-making and cohesion, the construction of Us implies that there is also a Them – The Others (Barth, 1969). The production and

strengthening of group identity has a tendency to uphold the values and characteristics of the own group while at the same time the values of Others are downgraded (although not

necessarily consciously) (Tajfel, 1974; Brewer, 2001). Because social categories often are assigned certain characteristics and assumed to share experiences, this can be used to justify action (Carmel, 2013).The downgrading of Others thus can justify social exclusion of those who are defined not to belong (Tajfel, 1974; Brewer, 2001). A wide range of actors and institutions can be involved these processes and contribute to the sustainment, reproduction or re-construction of categories and the perception of behavioral traits of categorized Others. The EU have been quite successful in creating a number of different categories of migrants which are then given different entitlements “in line” with their category (Boswell & Geddes, 2011). Various research has found that the EU and actors within the EU are deeply involved in setting the stage for and structuring mobility, in the construction of migrant groups and the decisions of what constitutes desirable and undesirable mobility (Cerami in Carmel et al., 2011; Sainsbury, 2012; Carmel, 2013). Together with other social actors and structures the EU plays a role in the production, preservation or extinction of global inequalities based on mobility opportunities.

Sociology of Rights and Citizenship

The concept of citizenship is situated at the heart of the process of drawing boundaries between Insiders and Outsiders and it is a concept that by definition is exclusionary (Bosworth & Guild, 2008). The citizenship can be seen as a materialization of the

construction of belonging and accompanying entitlements or exclusion (Bauböck, 2006:15) as it concretizes belonging and the access of rights into a legal status. The ideals of citizenship are socially inclusive but even as an ideal the inclusion is exclusive as only members can access the benefits contained in the membership, and Outsiders without the receipt for membership are excluded (Somers & Roberts, 2008:412).

Somers and Roberts (2008) have outlined a foundation for “a Sociology of Rights” in which they review the different aspects of rights that has hindered sociologists from studying and theorizing about rights. First, the normative assumption embedded in rights has contributed to the assumption that it is best studied theoretically by philosophers. Secondly, there is a

(17)

unsuitable topic for sociologists. Finally, the concept of rights has been interlinked with individuals and seen as something separated from social relations (Somers & Roberts, 2008). Somers and Roberts object to these assumptions and argue that this is precisely why a

Sociology of rights is essential. Rights are neither natural, nor disconnected from social relationships – rather the opposite is true, as can be shown with sociological perspectives. In order for rights to be meaningful to an individual they must also be recognized and respected by other individuals (Ibid.) Human rights is not prescribed to man because it is a natural part of our being, neither is it something that human beings have, because rights are social relationships realized only in social contexts where they can be both constraining and enabling (Ibid., 413). Once it has been recognized that rights are relational and in need of recognition, it is further possible to understand the need for a social category or membership by which the entitlement to rights is realized. This is the citizenship (Somers & Roberts, 2008). Somers and Roberts describe this as the “right to have rights” and it is a prerequisite for other rights such as civil rights (Ibid., 413).

Marshall (2009) introduced the concept of social citizenship in the 1950’s within a

discussion about socioeconomic rights and the importance of social membership as a part of a citizenship. By bringing in the social dimension of citizenship and stressing the importance of equal access to education and basic social security Marshall argues that the political and civil dimensions of citizenship are of little use for people without the presence of a social

citizenship. It is through the social citizenship that the people can truly become full member of the society and social inclusion can be achieved. Social inclusion and full membership then can lay the foundation for equal access to political and civil rights (Marshall, 2009; Somers & Roberts, 2008:395-396). It is along these lines of thought that Somers and Roberts continue when they stress the importance of social and political inclusion, some basic level of social equality in inclusion, in order for any rights to truly take place and have meaning (Somers & Roberts, 2008:395-396). Because rights are not “natural” but rather socially constructed they can be seen as a reflection of the social relations and institutions of the particular society in which they are situated (Ibid., 413). Often, rights are produced within political struggles over the definition of values (Ibid., 409) and it is thus not surprising that civil and political rights have been prioritized and social rights undervalued in a capitalist society which follows the logic of the market (Marshall, 2009; Somers & Roberts, 2008:388). The neglect of

socioeconomic rights has been rationalized in terms of it being a “positive” right which requires active intervention by the state, in contrast to the “negative” civil and political rights

(18)

which primarily need to be safeguarded against intrusion in the individuals’ exercise of these rights (Somers & Roberts, 2008:387).

Partially recognized, partially excluded

The secondary status bestowed upon socioeconomic rights has thus been explained as produced by the dominance of capitalist values. Researchers have stated that large parts of todays’ world is ruled by neoliberal perspectives of de-regulation, individualism and “market fundamentalism” (e.g. Somers & Roberts, 2008; Soysal, 2012 and Sainsbury, 2012). Other scholars involved in the field of a Sociology of Rights further emphasize that the European nation-states have taken an individualistic approach to social inclusion, where the individuals themselves should make themselves available for inclusion. Social inclusion has additionally been directly linked to the participation and integration in the labour market, defining

inclusion as “employed” (Soysal, 2012). The individualist perspective affects citizens and non-citizens alike, but not having been given the status at birth, non-citizens need to directly and more concretely prove their availability for inclusion into the labour market (Ibid.). Moving away from dichotomy of citizens and non-citizens and inclusion of intermediary positions (Nash, 2009; Bommes & Geddes, 2000:5; Schierup et al., 2006:51) such as the concept of “denizens” introduced by Hammar in 1990 (Hammar, 1990) can be of assistance when there is an interest in seeing how individuals might be recognized and included to a certain extent, but not receive full membership. Additionally, it is necessary to make the theoretical distinction between formal and substantive rights (Schierup et al., 2006) in order to also understand indirect and informal mechanisms of exclusion and control. Migrants might have formal access to rights but be unable or unwilling (as this could impact their future applications for residence or citizenship) to make use of them in practice (Morris, 2002; Morrissens & Sainsbury, 2005; Sainsbury, 2012).

The concept of citizenship is strongly related to the nation-state (Soysal, 2012:2) but today there is also the EU citizenship,a post-national or supra-national citizenship covering all EU member state citizens under its umbrella of belonging. The introduction of the EU citizenship could thus have implications and new meanings for the rights of the European population and for the processes of social inclusion and exclusion (Somers & Roberts, 2008:404) and the construction of Insiders and Outsiders. The EU citizenship is also embedded in a neoliberal perspective, where citizens are responsible for self-adaptation to the labor market and social exclusion is solved by employment obtained by the individuals themselves. The ideal EU

(19)

citizen is independent, flexible and without the need for social assistance (Hansen & Hager, 2010).

Control of Mobility

The mobility of people has been controlled and monitored in various different ways at different times and across territories. Nation-states have been the key players in mobility control during the last century, but this has to a certain extent changed as nation-states in the EU are now restricted in their ability to control the in-flow of migrants (Boswell & Geddes, 2011:200). Free movement of people thus limits the nation-states power to exert direct control, which might increase the tendency of the EU member states to use more indirect and informal control mechanisms (Kvist, 2004:304; Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014:684). Nation-states have been quite imaginative when it comes to finding ways to control and exclude. The

forms of control of mobility have been numerous and they have constantly been changing in

line with new realities (Mau et al., 2012).

Control by limiting Social rights

Conditioning or restricting the access to social benefits can be a way to exercise control of mobility in an indirect manner. The Welfare State has often been described as protectionist (Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014; Groenendjik in Guild et al., 2013) and there is a close link between the nation-state and the boundaries drawn between Insiders and Outsiders. Those who in the process of constructing boundaries and belonging have been categorized as Outsiders are excluded from accessing the benefits of the welfare system (Morris, 2002; Sainsbury, 2012). Welfare states are seen as “belonging” to and existing for the benefit of its national citizens. Free movement of people however complicates the issues of belonging and entitlements, when people reside someplace where they “do not belong”. Possibly, welfare states and free mobility therefore cannot coexist (Morris, 2002). It has been found that the access to social rights for migrants has decreased (Sainsbury, 2012) and that political

convergence in the EU leading towards more liberalization has had an impact on the welfare systems of EU member states, limiting the rights for both migrants and national citizens (Scharpf, 2010).

It has been theorized in migration research that not all forms of mobility are equally targeted for control and that a selective process takes place (Morris, 2002; Sainsbury, 2012; Mau et al, 2012; Boswell & Geddes, 2011; Bommes & Geddes, 2000; Carmel et al, 2011). The

(20)

economic capability and the contributions that an Outsider can bring to the Insider-society often structures such selective mobility (Morris, 2002; van Houtum & Pjipers, 2007;

Bosworth & Guild, 2008; Weber & Bowling, 2008; Paul, 2013). In correspondence with the protectionist character of the Welfare state and the reluctance of nation-states to share social benefits, neoliberal values thus govern the process of selective mobility in Europe today (e.g. Hansen & Hager, 2010; Soysal, 2012; Sainsbury, 2012). This does not only provide an

understanding of the mechanisms of control but it also contributes with an explanation to how this is justified through the construction of the “Individual” (here: the migrant). The neoliberal perspective also contains an individualistic view which portrays individuals as responsible for their own success (or failure) (Hansen & Hager, 2010; Sainsbury, 2012). Thus, it can be justified that individual migrants are selected based on their resources, productivity and economic contribution, because they are considered to be capable and responsible for their accomplishments.

A Meta-organization without Meta-nationalism?

The EU could be understood as a “meta-organization”, with organizations rather than individuals as members and thus have different features, face different problems and made use of different solution than ordinary organizations (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2005). Meta-organizations for example tend to consist of members who have different or even conflicting interests and in order to avoid conflicts within the organization there is a tendency to solve problems with consensus within meta-organizations. Also, the decision-making

responsibilities are often limited on the meta-level, and often guidelines rather than strict rules are produced (Ibid., 442). There is often an overlap in the responsibilities and roles between the meta-level and the level of the member organizations, which can complicate the

distribution of tasks and decision-making. This can also make it difficult to establish which level is in charge of different areas (Ibid., 440) and this further produces uncertainties regarding what the meta-organization has the power to decide or enforce (Ibid., 442). Several of these features have been discussed in studies of the EU and also the researchers who coined the concept “meta-organizations” refer directly to the EU when describing their theory (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2005:442). Particularly difficulties relating to the diversity of the member states and the relationship between the EU-level and the national level have been emphasized in previous research (Carmel, 2013; Martinsen & Vollaard, 2014; Hansen & Hager, 2010; Carmel & Paul, 2013; Meyer et al., 2013). Some of the tensions within the EU

(21)

meta-organization could be related to the lack of an ideology comparable to nationalism on the EU level. The EU has not been able to evoke the strong feelings of community and solidarity that nation-states have and it is more complicated to construct a strong bond and clear boundaries for Insiders and Outsiders on an EU level (Ferrera, 2014:825).

Theory & Research – a Discussion

The theories discussed here are used as a framework in the analysis, however as will be discussed in the next chapter the research process and analysis is primarily empirical in nature. Thus, a broad theoretical framework has been included in this study. Of central importance is the perspective of social constructivism (Berger & Luckmann, 1999) and the “Sociology of Rights” (Somers & Roberts, 2008) and these two theoretical perspectives set the general frame for the analysis and the interpretation of the empirical material. The

different perspectives of how boundaries are draws, the construction of Outsiders and Insiders as well as how these constructions can also include a construction of certain characteristics which are assumed to be applicable to different categories will be used to try and understand how the EU actors might be involved in a process of “political construction”. It has been discussed here that such constructions can have very real consequences and I will in the analysis address how these constructions could impact the free movement of persons in the EU. The understanding of Citizenship provided by Somers and Roberts (2008) are also central to the understanding of rights (and the right to have rights, i.e. social inclusion) in relation to free movement in the EU.

The theoretical perspectives and the previous research presented here should not be

understood as an exhaustive review of available theories and research on the free movement. Rather, the research and theories here included are considered to be of key relevance for this particular study. Some perspectives have been subject to scholarly debate, such as the existence of “social dumping” (i.e. the consequences for nationals when migrant workers accept lower wages and conditions, see e.g. Dølvik & Visser, 2009) and the meaning and effects of neoliberal values within the EU.

(22)

Method & Data

Basic assumptions of social constructivism have guided the research design and abductive reasoning has been applied, allowing for the empirical material to guide the analysis and results. Because in-depth and detailed knowledge of the relationship between free movement, citizenship and rights is sought in order to fill the gap in the research (Van Overmeiren et al., 2014)the design follows that of a case study. In line with the abductive reasoning case studies can have the advantage of allowing for an exploratory investigation into a phenomenon by incorporating several different theoretical perspectives into the study and thus making it possible to analyze the empirical findings from different angles (Gerring, 2006:40-41). Case study research also includes a particularly close relationship to the context (Flyvbjerg, 2011) and this, together with the in-depth interaction with the empirical material makes it possible to trace social processes and mechanism and uncover how these operate to produce (for

example) structural change (Gerring, 2006:45; Flyvbjerg, 2011:306). The case study approach also allows for falsification, because detailed investigation into a phenomenon can bring out mechanisms that had not previously been considered (Flyvbjerg, 2011:309-310).

Thus, case studies can be useful when attempting to understand intentions, attitudes and rationales of actors (Gerring, 2006:45) and this can in turn be abstracted into reflections of social structures and social change since actors can be seen as personifications of the society and the context they are situated in (Favell & Guiraudon, 2009). The choice to conduct and analyze interviews with EU actors is based upon this understanding of case study research and I believe that interview studies have a particular potential for studying the type of subtle limitations, forms of indirect exclusion and the underlying logic of policy regimes which is pursued in this study. Of central importance for this study are also key legislative documents concerning the free movement and related issues. These documents constitute (part of) the context in my study and therefore they have been a central aspect of the analysis of the interviews. The documents have truly been crucial to the research process, both for defining central issues and for identifying actors as well as for constructing the interview guide and questions and in the analysis of the interviews.

Particular attention has also been paid to identify and make use of techniques to minimize the influence of my own subjective perceptions. This has been done by asking open and

(23)

general questions in the interviews and by incorporating analytical tools from Grounded Theory and I believe this opens up for a more reliable and systematic analysis.

Data Material

The EU is here considered as a political construction resulted from social and political processes involving nation-states, political elites and the populations of Europe (Favell & Guiraudon, 2009). I believe that an understanding the underlying structures of the European society can be reached by studying the attitudes and reasoning of actors (Gerring, 2006:45) who are situated within the core of the EU process. The portrayal of free movement and EU migrants provided by the EU actors working within different institutions dealing with free movement could reflect the underlying logic of the European mobility regime and reveal potential changes in the understanding of European integration processes (see Favell & Guiraudon, 2009). In-depth interviews with EU actors could thus provide new understandings and the feature of falsification in case study research makes for a promising potential to uncover previously unknown aspects of the EU and free movement. Individuals who work within the EU could be assumed to have expert-knowledge of EU policy processes which makes it possible to really probe into details of the free movement regime in order to identify underlying logics. Also, the people working within EU institutions are likely particularly “Europeanized”, they are themselves often “free movers” and represent the construction of transnational Europeans. This provides for an opportunity to understand free movement and European integration from a perspective of the “extreme” case (Gerring, 2006), i.e. the so called European elite which has been assumed to be more favorable to the integration process of Europe. To achieve the type of knowledge here pursued the interviews conducted are open and thematic, and the themes were developed from both previous knowledge and theoretical perspectives as well as from detailed readings of key EU legislative documents. Two pilot interviews were conducted with actors working with issues related to free movement within Swedish authorities or organizations and from the experience of these interviews I identified different techniques of asking questions in an open-ended way while still staying within a specific theme.

The EU actors were selected on basis of where they were situated within particular EU institutions and because they were identified as involved in different areas of the free

movement of persons. The selection process began with many hours of navigating through the different directorates, committees and subunits and quite early on I decided to focus on the

(24)

European Commission (EC) and the European parliament (EP). These two institutions represent two key parts of the EU policy making; the political and the technical, and could thus contribute with different perspectives. In addition, I reached out to representatives of the labour market and the civil society who were members of relevant advisory committees or European umbrella organizations (for example the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) – a treaty-based advisory committee, see Article 9, Treaty of Lisbon). I specifically targeted EU actors in the directorate-general for Employment and Social affairs in the EC and the committee for Employment, Social affairs and Inclusion in the EP. However, in order to include a detailed analysis of the EU citizenship and of the free movement as a fundamental right for EU citizens, I also felt it necessary to interview EU actors within the committee for Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs in the EP and within the directorate-general for Justice and Consumers in the EC. Relevant EU actors within key positions were identified and approached and I spent many weeks sending e-mails. Although I received many helpful responses, with suggestions of where I could turn next, many of the EU actors were not available to participate. It was difficult to get access to senior officers at the EC, and most of the EC officer I spoke to did not have a senior position. Also, I realized early on that it would be difficult for me to get access to MEP’s (ministers, i.e. politicians, in the EP) especially since they often did not read their e-mails themselves. I thus chose to shift the focus towards the political advisors, both advisors for particular MEP’s and advisors who were attached to a political group in the EP. An advantage of interviewing advisors rather than politicians is that they are not public persons in the same way and thus they are most likely not media-trained or as focused on their public image. They might therefore be more inclined to speak openly about their views and reasoning’s. In order to get broad representation political advisors of different political affiliations were contacted. After having conducted almost ten interviews there was nonetheless an overrepresentation of left-wing advisors. There was additionally a slight overrepresentation of EU actors (both EP advisors and EC officers) who themselves came from Western member states. In order to avoid selection bias, I thus almost exclusively pursued actors who would balance the interviewees. The final “selection” of EU actors consists of people from Western, Central, Eastern and Southern member states and from different political views (including the European People’s Party and the Progressive Alliance

of Socialists and Democrats, i.e. the two largest party groups in the EP). Missing is however a

representative from the radical (populist) right and someone from the United Left/Nordic Greens. This means that the EU skeptic view and probably the strongest views about

(25)

to keep in mind during the analysis and must be recognized when interpreting the results. The key to gain access to the EU actors was to properly identify people who were active within the particular areas in which I was interested and emphasize the specific expertise that one particular individual had and how this expertise was of central relevance for my thesis project. Getting access became easier as I went along. Once in Brussels it was much easier to get people to meet with me, because I could be flexible and show up when they happened to have some free time. Also, it was easier to get positive responses when I already had already met with some EU actors, as I could write this in my initial contact, providing my request for an interview with further legitimacy. Some of the EU actors were also accessed by snowball selection, when someone I had met recommended another contact for me to contact. Referrals like this were by far the ones who most often accepted my request for an interview.

The interview guide was developed in line with the abductive reasoning. The questions are based upon three broader themes that derive directly from the purpose and research question;

1) central issues, limitations and obstacles to free movement, 2) social rights and benefits in the EU and 3) the EU citizenship. These broader themes were also further developed into

sub-themes from which more specific questions were produced. The interview questions have been formulated in an open manner to allow for the EU actors to themselves identify what is of key relevance. Broad questions were asked, such as “What is the most central issue of free

movement of workers today?” and “Do you see any challenges for free movement in the EU?”

and this allowed the EU actors to bring up the different themes before these were specifically asked about. For example, they often discussed limitations and controls as “central issues” and different aspects related to social benefits as “challenges” for the EU. This allowed me to ask follow-up questions about the themes, but still keeping the interviewer-effect at a

minimum. If they however did not bring up for example the EU citizenship, I first attempted to ask quite general questions such as “are there other regulations of importance for free

movement of workers?”. Some thus brought up the citizenship directive as another relevant

document, and I could continue to ask more specific questions about the directive. This meant that the EU actors were to a certain extent allowed to contextualize the different issues in a way that they themselves saw it. Another interview technique that turned out to be of great value was to ask the EU actors to briefly explain the contents of different regulations and rules. This often led to them spontaneously justifying of the logic behind the legislation and while explaining the different rules and exceptions they often emphasized that which they themselves considered problematic or confusing (or even straight out absurd).

(26)

In total, 17 interviews (excluding the two pilot interviews) were conducted. 15 of these were recorded (although one was cut short due to technical problems with the recording device). The interviews range from 40 minutes to 1 hour and 40 minutes, however most of them are approximately 60 minutes long. The transcriptions of the recorded interviews are quite detailed and pauses, hesitations, laughter or other emotional reactions have been noted. This was deemed as important because several of the EU actors described issues with irony or humor and several topics incited emotional responses and thus, these non-verbal expressions have therefore also been included in the analysis.

Analyzing the material

The analysis has taken place simultaneously as data material has been collected which has allowed for relevant empirical findings from the interviews to be incorporated into the following interviews. The interviews were transcribed during the process of contacting and interviewing new EU actors. The analysis has been influenced by the central legislative documents which were read in detail before the interviews were conducted. These documents have also been used as a frame of reference for understanding the connection between

different topics discussed by the EU actors and the analysis has been dependent on the familiarity with these documents and how legislative rules are formulated.

The analysis of the transcribed interviews began with detailed readings of the material. The interviews were read several times and during this process central issues and themes were identified and used to structure the data material into general themes or topics. These initial themes are content based and provide a general overview of what was addressed by the EU actors, such as The UK deal, Public Perceptions, and the Social Dimension. The content based themes were then analyzed in-depth and re-constructed at a higher level of abstraction and with theoretical perspectives in mind. From this second cycle of coding I developed categories, still based on the content but also viewed further through an analytical lens. This produced categories such as Workers and Non-actives, Limits of Citizenship and Citizens are

not Migrants. The third step on the analysis included an in-depth investigation into the several

categories that had been constructed. The transcribed material was again read in detail several times, this time with the particular categories in mind. Here, I also made use of tools lent from Grounded Theory including “constant comparison” and searching for “negative cases”

(Willig, 2013:71-72). I thus specifically looked for deviant statements in the interviews, which diverged from what I perceived to be the generally held understandings of the EU

(27)

actors. By “constantly comparing” the initial themes more general categories were defined and these categories were then compared with each other, one by one (Willig, 2013). After these had been compared with each other, the selective coding process began (the third step described above). Throughout this process of analysis, I also performed detailed and constant comparisons of the actors’ statements and the wordings in the actual legislation.

The focus in the analysis has been on the content of the interviews, on what is emphasized and how, what concepts are used to describe activities or objectives and how different categories are referred to and described. Linguistic aspects have not been in focus, however the use of specific terms or concept can provide an understanding of how meaning is

prescribed to different issues. Thus reoccurring and specifically value laden words have been taken into account during the analysis. In the analysis, I refer to “the EU actors” on numerous occasions. This is a generalization and should not be understood as referring to all of the EU actors. Rather, it means that there was a general tendency of several of the EU actors to express a similar view.

Methodological concerns

Ethical concerns have been considered in line with the guidelines of Research Ethics of the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, 2011). All the interview participants were informed of the subject and general purpose of the study and all have been granted anonymity. The interviewees (excluding the two initial pilot interviews) signed a consent form after the interview had been conducted, where they agreed to participate in the study and granted their permission for the use of the interview, notes and recordings, in the research. There was one actor who did not want to be recorded and another one was reluctant to being quoted directly, and this was of course respected. Because the interviews do not deal with sensitive subjects and the EU actors cannot be defined as a vulnerable group, the main problem for this study has been the information provided prior to meeting the interviewees. It has been debated among empirical sociologists to what extent information about the aim and focus of the research should be provided to the participants. I considered the most central aspect to be for the EU actors not to feel deceived. The difficulty was thus to inform them about the topic of the study without letting their preconceived notion guide their answers in the actual interview, and additionally to make sure that they were not given too much information in the event that the aim of the study would be re-directed from what was originally thought, in the process of allowing the empirical material to drive the analysis

(28)

forward. When some of the EU actors asked for more information before the interview, I thus tried to emphasize that the conversation would be strongly influenced by their personal and work-related experiences.

There are some limitations of the data material that needs to be further addressed and recognized. As mentioned above, there is a selection bias in the interviews. There is a slight over-representation of left-wing political advisors, however this is not considered a major problem since the representation is 2 to 3. I have nevertheless chosen to clearly state in the analysis when a common view is held by several of the EU actors which appears to be strongly related to their respective political opinions. What is perhaps of more concern is the bias towards EU actors from Western member states and in total, only 5 of the 17

interviewees are non-Western Europeans. This bias is partially solved by the fact that the main focus in the analysis has been on the EP advisors and EC officers who are in total 11 actors, of which 4 are from non-Western countries and representing both South, Central and Eastern Europe. Of the central actors the bias is thus smaller, however it still exists and must be taken into account in the analysis and when interpreting the results.

Another limitation is the fact that it is difficult to evaluate the subjective role of the interviewer and how this has impacted the interview situation and the information provided by the interviewees. The questions were phrased and posed in such a way that the existence of limitations, obstacles and challenges to free movement in the EU was taken for granted. It is possible (however perhaps quite unlikely) that the EU actors would have addressed the issues discussed in a completely different way had the topics been approached differently. Finally, it would have been very useful to include also EU legislative documents in the analysis, since such combination has proven highly useful in previous research (Mau et al., 2012; Carmel, 2013; Paul, 2013). Unfortunately, including also the key legislative documents in the in-depth analysis is beyond the time frame of this thesis. These documents have therefore been

included and subjected to a very detailed reading, but they have not been used as empirical material and thus have not been more systematically analyzed.

I believe that one of the most important tasks for sociologists is to ask questions about social phenomenon or patterns that appear as somewhat self-evident. The research on migration provides a good example of how this can be performed. By questioning the very nature of nation states and discussing the underlying logics of citizenship and belonging, some highly interesting aspects have emerged in previous research. I now intend to take on the task of asking similar challenging questions in respect to the free movement of workers

(29)

and job-seekers within the EU territory. This will most likely have some new and very interesting knowledge to contribute to the field of study of migration.

Analysis

As ”embodiments of structure” (Favell & Guiraudon, 2009:559) the EU actors could reflect underlying logics of the structure of the EU free movement regime and consequently, the analysis of the interviews could contribute with further understanding of the relationship between free movement, rights and citizenship. First, I will address how the EU actors

describe their experiences of EU policy-making processes and analyze what their experiences indicates about the political context and environment within which the free movement regime is situated. This will be further related to how limitations and obstacles to free movement can be understood in terms of more general social processes in the European society. The analysis will then continue with a deeper look into the political construction of categories and how these are given meaning in relation to each other. Here, a particular emphasis will be on the EU actors’ portrayal of the EU citizenship as well as on how different categories of migrants are contextualized in relation to different issues. The final section of the analysis addresses social rights and mobility control and examines how limitations and obstacles are described (or not) by the EU actors. How they discuss different forms of indirect and internal control mechanisms and how they describe the role of social rights for intra-EU mobility could reflect the underlying logics and processes of social inclusion and exclusion in the EU.

Policy-making in the EU meta-organization

The EU actions were quite willing to engage in conversation about EU policy-making and the features of EU legislative documents. They particularly emphasized the complexity and difficulty of policy processes within a structure of multi-level governance. They both made lighthearted jokes as well as expressed frustration over how proposals are continuously rejected and amended in a long process of negotiation. They expressed the same emotions of frustration and humorous self-awareness when they reflected on the final product (i.e. proposals or legislations) which they considered often lacking in perfection. However,

(30)

perfection is quite a far-fetched goal to strive for in a policy-making context where neither consensus nor completion can be taken for granted;

…the commission does not know themselves what to do…they have simply now, so last year they went to the labour market parties and asked them to make a deal…because they could not decide what, well something good. Then the labour market parties can’t agree neither…so it’s kind of in a bit of a limbo. – EP advisor A

This situation of ”limbo” is frequently described in the interviews. One EC officer explains how the negotiations on the revision of the social security regulation took ten years to finalize. A successful negotiation could thus be defined as one that in fact results in a final product, except that the process of compromising could re-construct the original proposal in countless amendments and rejections leaving the final product with little remaining from the initial proposal;

If you do something, do it properly but… like there’s no need to adopt an empty package. – EP

advisor C

The above quoted EP advisor explains how their political group could initially be in favor of a particular proposal which was “realistic”, however when the final proposal was presented there was “no value added” and it no longer made sense to actively support such a proposal. Other EP advisors tell a similar story. It is thus not particularly surprising that the EU actors, and especially the EC officers, express a sense of pride and accomplishment when the free movement regime is discussed;

So this is the basic idea and this already exist since the early, early days of the European Unon, since the 57, 58, regulations three and four so some of the earliest regulations… we had, that is quite special. – EC officer B

Free movement is considered a huge success, as is the social security coordination: “first of

all, it’s a regulation… which is remarkable, it is directly applicable“ (EC officer E).

However, it is also frequently mentioned in the interviews that there has been a conflict between two of the most central documents in EU free movement legislation, namely the free movement directive (of citizens) and the social security regulation;

And here again we have a clash of principles, equal treatment under the regulation…and some exceptions under the residence directive4_{. And we had a number of court cases who have determined} about the relation between both instruments. Because believe it or not, they were adopted at the same

4_{The free movement directive (2004/38/EC) is also sometimes referred to as the “residence directive” or}