For best experience please turn on javascript and use a modern browser!
You are using a browser that is no longer supported by Microsoft. Please upgrade your browser. The site may not present itself correctly if you continue browsing.

ACELG V: Inclusion and Exclusion in the EU

Conference report

EU External Borders: Excluding the Others

ACELG 5th annual conference
fltr: N. El-Enany, M. Weimer, JF Durieux, V. Moreno-Lax

A first session focused on EU external borders, and their instrumentality in excluding the other. In this session Jean-François Durieux, director of the international refugee and migration law program of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in Sanremo, depicted the rather hostile outlook towards refugees of the European integration project. He offered some explanations for that hostile outlook by showing that asylum imposed itself as an after-thought instead of a primary motivation in the European integration project. Furthermore, he pointed out that the system in place is so focused on the non-refoulement-based protection that it tends to overlook the position of refugees in the European project itself. The picture became even more worrisome when Nadine El-Enany, Birkbeck School of Law, addressed the distinction between migrants and refugees and showed how this seemingly neutral legal distinction may lead to racist dehumanisation. After discussant Violeta Moreno-Lax, Queen Mary University London, pointed to the similarities in the two contributions, a fierce debate with the audience followed.

EU Policies Combating Social Exclusion in Times of Austerity

ACELG 5th annual conference
fltr: B. Vanhercke, R. Gans, J. Zeitlin, visitor

The second session addressed EU policies combating social exclusion in times of austerity. Bart Vanhercke, European Social Observatory, and Jonathan Zeitlin, University of Amsterdam/AccessEurope, presented the European Semester policy cycle and demonstrated how EU institutions have a more visible and intrusive role than before and how the European Semester is gradually becoming more ‘socialized’. They also pointed out the weak spots in the policy cycle, notably the small role of national parliaments and the need to enhance broad stakeholder participation. Roel Gans, Director of International Affairs of the Netherlands Ministry for Social Affairs and Employment explained the role of the Social Protection Committee in promoting social inclusion in the EU. He emphasized that social inclusion policy is primarily a competence of the Member States, but also indicated that the monitoring role of the Social Protection Committee and its involvement in the European Semester has led to Member States benefitting from exchange of experiences. He mentioned the example of the public health and long-term care system in Slovenia.

New National Protectionism: Restraining Free Movement

ACELG 5th annual conference
fltr: E. Spaventa, P. Minderhoud, T. Vandamme, A. Schrauwen

The closing session of the Conference concentrated on free movement within the EU and recent case law of the Court of Justice concerning access to social benefits. Eleanor Spaventa, Durham University, presented recent case law of the Court on EU citizenship as a ‘regressive phase’. She pointed at the context of the heightened political sensitivities pre-UK referendum as background against which the Court seems to make a division between poor and rich, and bad and good citizens, with only the good and rich being able to claim rights under EU law. After questioning the Court’s case law in view of the relationship between Article 20 TFEU and Directive 2004/38, she concluded with a pessimistic view on both the relevance of EU citizenship and the capacity of the Court to act as engine of further integration. Paul Minderhoud, Centre of Migration Law at Nijmegen University, gave a wider context to the Court’s recent case law by presenting recent research done at Nijmegen University which shows that the presumptions underlying Member States’ claims to combat abuse of law and welfare tourism are not supported by evidence. He argued that both the Court’s initial case law on access to social benefits and its codification in Directive 2004/38 led to imprecise parameters. These allowed the scope of social solidarity to change in a context of rising political debates, and it seems the debates of social benefits as welfare magnet have infiltrated the Court’s case law, despite the lack of evidence that this magnet is a reality.

Follow-up

As a follow-up of this conference, ACELG will publish an open access edited collection of position papers from the conference speakers and discussants.