Ceding Control and Taking it Back: The Origins of Free Movement in EU Law
Ceding Control and Taking it Back: The Origins of Free Movement in EU Law
复制标题
放弃控制权和收回控制权：欧盟法律中自由流动的起源
DOI：
10.1093/indlaw/dwab032
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
Barnard C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barnard C
鉴于2016年公投时强调有必要收回对英国移民政策的控制权，文章提出了一个问题，即为什么欧盟创始国不仅决定放弃对这一敏感领域的控制权，而且还允许对经济移民采取如此慷慨的做法。（不仅包括工人，而且包括他们的家庭成员，并包括平等获得福利，包括住房）（"为什么"的问题）。我们还想知道在2016年公投活动中引起共鸣的任何担忧，特别是关于福利旅游和对公共服务的压力，当时是否得到了通风（“风险”问题）。鉴于同时期的学术文献没有提供太多的见解，我们去档案馆，追溯了在签署罗马条约之前，以及在通过关于工人的关键法规，即第1612/68号法规（现在的第492/11号法规）之前，关于经济移民的辩论的演变。我们认为，关于“为什么”的问题，没有单一或简单的解释，为什么创始国同意引入自由流动，但提供了各种理由。关于"风险"问题，我们的研究表明，当时很少讨论随后发生的问题，主要是在英国，但也在其他地方。更引人注目的是关于移徙工人及其家庭适足住房的广泛辩论。这一点在风险方面表现得不那么明显，但在为所有家庭提供适足住房方面表现得不那么明显。文章最后考虑的问题，为什么有这么少的关注自由流动的激进性质。
Given the emphasis, at the time of the 2016 referendum, on the need to take back control of UK immigration policy, the article raises the question as to why the founding EU States decided not only to cede control in this sensitive field but also to allow such a generous approach to economic migration (to include not just workers but also their family members and to include equal access to benefits, including to housing) (the ‘why’ question). We also wanted to know whether any of the concerns which so resonated in the 2016 referendum campaign, especially about benefit tourism and pressure on public services, were ventilated at the time (the ‘risks’ question). Given that the contemporaneous academic literature did not offer much insight, we went to the archives and traced the evolution of the debates on economic migration in the period leading up to the signing of the Treaty of Rome, and again in the run up to the adoption of the key Regulation on workers, Regulation 1612/68 (now Regulation 492/11). We suggest that in respect of the ‘why’ question there was no single—or simple—explanation as to why the founding states agreed to the introduction of free movement but various justifications were offered. In respect of the ‘risks’ question, our research revealed little contemporaneous discussion of the concerns that subsequently took hold, primarily in the UK but also elsewhere. More striking were the extensive debates on adequate housing for migrant workers and their families. This was less couched in terms of risk but in terms of the paucity of provision of adequate housing for all families. The article concludes by considering the question as to why there was so little attention paid to the radical nature of free movement.