The EU is still torn between market and polis, leaving the situation negligently undecided as to whether it should be developed into an instrument of catching up with economic and cultural globalisation or as an accelerator of it. In this situation ‘reconsidering European citizenship’ ought to be interpreted as empowerment rather than protection. Four areas of such empowerment are sketched: (1) reclaiming constituent power; (2) de-constitutionalising the treaties; (3) enhancing direct legitimation – empowering a transnational parliament; and (4) accomplishing a transnational citizenship status.
Chapter 3 elaborates a conceptual structure for an inquiry into the question of balance between rights and duties related to EU citizenship. It starts from the observation that, for some time, the absence of EU citizens’ duties was interpreted as marking the immaturity of EU citizenship and a major difference from the citizenship of a state. The chapter continues by linking this evaluation first, to more general debates which express dissatisfaction with the current ‘culture of rights’ and, second, to the critique about a lack of conceptual clarity when citizens’ duties are invoked in the context of debates on EU citizenship. The question of what their justification can possibly be relates to ongoing debates on the EU’s very legitimacy, where the liberal focus on rights is often criticised at the expense of communitarian or republican values focusing on collectivity rather than individuality.
Chapter 9 addresses and evaluates EU citizenship under the lens of cosmopolitanism. By reconstructing cosmopolitan principles, the chapter aims: first, to discuss the question of whether or not transnationalisation is a step towards a realisation of cosmopolitanism; and, second, to propose a relationship with the development and prospect of EU citizenship as an example of the attempt to transnationalise (citizenship) rights. The cosmopolitan frame of reference is aimed at helping to assess the EU’s prospects and challenges as a transnational membership regime. Seubert argues that a cosmopolitan standpoint generates an inherent tension for the EU: even if EU citizenship moves towards a transnational form, as a federation of states it is still a bounded entity – bounded through the borders of its member states. It is proposed, therefore, that we should think of cosmopolitanism not as something static and fixed, but rather as a transformative process – cosmopolitisation.
Chapter 1 relates the debate on EU citizenship to the puzzle of a European political union, and demonstrates how EU citizenship is caught in the ‘double loop’ of contradictions and constraints: the contradiction between the political language of citizenship and the economic logic of free movement on the one hand; and the constraint that arises from the rivalling legitimatory demands of international and supranational forms of political cooperation on the other. For the future of EU citizenship, the extent to which the EU succeeds in appropriately channelling pan-European conflicts of wealth disparities and redistribution will prove to be decisive. With regard to EU citizenship, the choice is between a weak, integrated status or a strong(er), differentiated status. While the former tends to undermine substantial equality, the latter tends to undermine formal equality.
Chapter 5 examines the relation of EU citizenship to work, and describes tensions between formal and substantive equality in Europe. To what extent are workers across Europe truly citizens, as opposed to merely factors of production? And to what extent can those across Europe who are not or cannot be engaged in the labour market truly be equal citizens? Dean argues that these questions have general relevance for the terms under which EU citizens can have rights to equality of social status, equality of treatment and parity of participation in the public sphere. How might EU citizens, whether ‘at home’ within their own country or migrants within Europe, be assured of meaningful equality of social recognition and respect?
Francis Cheneval and Mónica Ferrín
Chapter 8 addresses the question of whether or not EU citizenship can integrate multi-layered identities. EU citizenship has introduced much complexity with regard to who is an insider and who is an outsider. While the EU has tried to provide equal treatment to nationals who live in another member state, strict limitations have been enforced on third-country citizens who move to an EU country. This different treatment has resulted in different categories of citizens – a situation that is often difficult to manage. Cheneval and Ferr'n propose a comparison between several case studies and the European Union. It is argued that the varieties of multilevel citizenship can shed some light on possible developments for European citizenship which can help overcome some of the obstacles Europeans face nowadays when trying to exercise their rights.
Marcel Hoogenboom and Maarten Prak
Chapter 2 analyses the historical origins of local and national citizenship constructions, discussing their implications for EU citizenship. Relations between national and local as well as political and economic dimensions vary significantly between countries. This means that policies to develop an EU citizenship which uses an idealised national citizenship as its frame of reference will inevitably be at odds with the variety of citizenship traditions existing in many countries. At the same time, the pluriformity of Europe’s citizenship traditions also provides an opportunity. Instead of starting from scratch, therefore, by trying to develop a completely new centralised form of citizenship the EU would be better advised to acknowledge the national traditions of its Member States and aspire to a multilevel form of citizenship.
Sandra Seubert and Oliver Eberl
Philippe Van Parijs
Chapter 11 relates to the dispute about ‘more or less Europe’ and sets out to ‘justify Europe’. We need a European Union, a common market, a European public authority, a European democracy for reasons of social justice, Van Parijs argues; and we must be prepared to pressure, to protest and to march in the streets for that as we did in our respective nation states. He shows why the European Union suffers at the moment from criticism of a democracy deficit, and gives recommendations of how to transform the EU into a real demos-cracy. The problem for Europeans trying to mobilize across borders is that they do not share a common language. But the spread of English as a lingua franca supports the hope that they will be able to talk to each other, and that the EU is not bound to drift into ever-greater injustice.
Frans van Waarden
Chapter 4 addresses the common historical origins and the conflicting social logics of the ‘market’ and the ‘polis’. It relates these issues to the context of European cooperation and integration, critically reconstructing the founding history of the EU: the hope that integration of national markets into one single European market would produce shared material interests and, in turn, prevent any major future inter-state conflicts as the first half of the 20th century had seen. Some 60 years later European integration through the further internationalisation of markets has increased the choice for consumers, workers and investors. However, in the polis the influence of choice has been reduced. Liberalisation and privatisation policies have diminished the authority of political actors. It is concluded that a liberalisation policy carried to the extreme leaves no more room for a political domain, which would be a real ‘tragedy of the commons’.