DOCSLIB.ORG

Coversheet for Thesis in Sussex Research Online

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coversheet for Thesis in Sussex Research Online A University of Sussex DPhil thesis Available online via Sussex Research Online: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/ This thesis is protected by copyright which belongs to the author. This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the Author The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the Author When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given Please visit Sussex Research Online for more information and further details Shifting Sands and Changing Minds: The Role of the European Parliament in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice Ariadna Ripoll Servent Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Contemporary European Studies University of Sussex August 2011 ii Statement I hereby declare that this thesis has not been and will not be, submitted in whole or in part to another University for the award of any other degree. Signature:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< iii Acknowledgements Writing a DPhil dissertation is never a straightforward journey. It requires the support and encouragement of all those surrounding you to arrive safely. It is therefore a pleasure to thank all the people that helped me through this journey. First and foremost, I would like to thank my two supervisors, Prof. Jörg Monar and Prof. Paul Taggart, for taking a chance on me and sharing their advice; they were the compass to this journey and the most reliable point of reference. I would also like to thank the Sussex European Institute in all its shapes and forms for the many chances to learn how to be a good academic and an even better colleague. A special thanks to Amanda Sims, who with her hard work and wise words kept my journey going. Throughout the time I spent doing research, I had the luck of receiving numerous and often invaluable comments. I would like to thank Dr. Charlotte Burns for her early advice and Dr. Kai Oppermann for his comments on later work. I am also grateful to the discussants and participants that asked questions and provided suggestions in various workshops and conferences. Parts of this DPhil dissertation have been previously published in peer-reviewed publications. In 2009, the article "Setting Priorities: Functional and Substantive Dimensions of Irregular Immigration and Data Protection under Co- decision" was published in the Journal of Contemporary European Research (5(2), pp. 225-242). In 2010, I published "Point of No Return? The European Parliament after Lisbon and Stockholm" in European Security (19(2), pp. 191-207) and ‚The European Parliament and the «Returns» Directive: The End of Radical Contestation; the Start of Consensual Constraints‛, as an SEI working paper (nº117). In 2011, I published ‚Co-decision in the European Parliament: Comparing Rationalist and Constructivist Explanations of the Returns Directive. Journal of Contemporary European Research‛ in the Journal of Contemporary European Research (7(1), pp. 3-22) and ‚Playing the Co-Decision Game? Rules’ Changes and Institutional Adaptation at the LIBE Committee‛ as an online article for the Journal of European Integration. Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers and to the various editors of the special issues (Prof. Juliet Lodge, Dr. Christian Kaunert and Dr. Sarah Léonard) for offering essential feedback and the necessary guidance to make my work advance. There has also been a more material support to this journey. In this sense, research would not have been possible without the support of the scholarship granted by the Lady Monica Cockfield Memorial Trust and the François Duchêne travel bursary offered by the iv Sussex Branch of the European Movement; my most sincere gratitude for making this journey easier and more comfortable. On the other hand, my research would not have even existed without all the people that agreed to share their knowledge and opinions with me. I am indebted to all the interviewees and I hope to have reflected their views and words in the most accurate way. A special thanks to all the friends and colleagues that have travelled with me or offered me shelter during my visits. Enormous thanks to Míriam Mir (and Karsten Herzmann), who always opened her home and offered me not only a bed but also company and all kinds of support when I most needed it. Many thanks also to all my other friends in Brussels (especially Skander Nasra, Luis Bouza, Thomas Kostera, Mauro Gagliardi, Andrea Maier and Kevin O’Connell). A big hug to my EP girls, Amy Busby and Maja Kluger Rasmussen, for sharing nerdy facts and many conference days and another to Alex MacKenzie for sharing SWIFT and volunteering to read my work. Dr. Dan Keith has also read this dissertation and for this, and the many hours we’ve spent together all over Sussex, I’m extremely grateful. Thanks chief! A general thanks to all those that shared the various offices in Arts C and Friston (Stijn van Kessel, Lefteris Zenerian, John FitzGibbon, Ruth Johnson, Emma Sanderson-Nash, Marko Stojic and Martine Huberty); to Suchi Pande and Machiko Tsubura for sharing meals, talks and walks with me; and a most special thanks to Monika Bil, Ezel Tabur and Satoko Horii, who had the trouble of not only sharing an office but also a house. Finally, this journey would not have even started without the support, help and love of all my family. My father has been the steadiest pillar during these last years. My grandparents, aunt, uncle, and cousins have always remained convinced that I could make it. I am grateful for their trust in me. My gratitude goes also to the Büttner family, who has always welcomed me and helped me through my most stressful periods. But if anyone deserves a thank you, it is my own Dr. Thomas Büttner for always being there and never doubting me. There was one person that could not share this journey. My mother left moments before I set off for this adventure. She was nevertheless always by my side and gave me the strength and confidence that made it all possible. This dissertation is dedicated to her. v UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN CONTEMPORARY EUROPEAN STUDIES SHIFTING SANDS AND CHANGING MINDS: THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE SUMMARY After the extension of the European Parliament’s (EP) decision-making powers introduced by the Treaties of Amsterdam and Lisbon, it was assumed that the EP would increase the democratic credentials of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) and, given the EP’s traditional promotion of civil liberties and human rights, that it would also tip the balance towards a more rights-based approach. Six years on, these expectations have not been fulfilled. The objective of this study is to evaluate why the EP, now a co- legislator, has been unable (or unwilling) to maintain its past policy preferences. In order to understand this gap between expectations and actions, the study looks at three case studies (the ‘Data retention’ directive, the ‘Returns’ directive and the SWIFT Agreement) and compares the impact that the introduction of more powers for the EP has had on these different episodes. In order to maximise the number of possible explanations, the study uses rational-choice and constructivist institutionalist approaches to identify the reasons behind the change in the policy preferences of the EP. In this sense, it aims to uncover the levels and direction of change as well as the main conditions and drivers that led to the abandonment of its previous policy positions. vi Table of Contents: Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Theoretical and Methodological Framework ........................................................ 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1. Meta-theoretical issues in ‘new institutionalism’ ................................................................... 11 2.1.1. ‘New institutionalism’ .................................................................................................. 11 2.1.2. Ontology and epistemology ........................................................................................ 13 2.1.3. Structure and agency .................................................................................................... 15 2.1.4. Stability and change...................................................................................................... 17 2.2. Research design ....................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.1. Operationalisation ........................................................................................................ 19 2.2.2. Research methods ......................................................................................................... 20 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 3: Setting the Context ..................................................................................................... 31 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 31 3.1. The Area
Load more

Recommended publications
  • College Decision 2018-09 of 26 June 2018 Adopting the Opinion of the College on the Eurojust Final Annual Accounts 2017
    College Decision 2018-09 of 26 June 2018 adopting the opinion of the College on the Eurojust Final Annual Accounts 2017 THE COLLEGE OF EUROJUST, Having regard to the Council Decision of 28 February 2002 (2002/187/JHA) setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime, as amended by the Council Decision of 18 June 2003 (2003/659/JHA), and by Council Decision of 16 December 2008 (2009/426/JHA) (hereinafter referred to as “the Eurojust Council Decision”), and in particular Article 36 thereof, Having regard to the Financial Regulation applicable to Eurojust and adopted by the College on 14 January 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Eurojust Financial Regulation”), and in particular Article 99 (2) thereof, Having regard to the preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors with a view to report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017, Having regard to the final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 signed off by the Accounting Officer on 11 June 2018 and drawn up by the Administrative Director on 13 June 2018 and sent to the College on 20 June 2018. Whereas: (1) The final annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 are attached as Annex I to this opinion; (2) The Preliminary observations of the European Court of Auditors with a view to a report on the annual accounts of Eurojust for the financial year 2017 are included in Annex II to this opinion; (3) PKF Littlejohn LLP Independent Auditors Report on the provisional annual accounts 2017 is attached as Annex III to this opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Archbold Review 5-6, and the News Pieces of EU Legislation in the Area of Justice and Home Item, [2016] 2 Archbold Review 9
    Issue 5 June 22, 2016 Issue 5 June 22, 2016 Archbold Review Cases in Brief Appeal—inconsistent verdicts—development of case law— the clear law set out in Devlin J’s test and apply it rather than reassertion of proper test—undesirability of elaboration of test the reformulation in Dhillon. The Stone test did not need in judgments; Court of Appeal—proper approach of Court to elaboration, but rather careful application to the circum- development of case law stances of each case. In particular (the contrary having been FANNING AND OTHERS [2016] EWCA Crim 550; suggested), different tests did not apply to multiple counts April 28, 2016 arising out of a single sexual episode, and those arising over (1) Giving judgment in four conjoined appeals, the Lord a long period of time; and it was unnecessary and inappropri- Chief Justice reviewed the authorities on the role of the jury ate to compare the circumstances of one case with another and the approach of the court to applications to appeal based as was urged on the court in R v S [2014] EWCA Crim 927. on what were said to be inconsistent verdicts by the jury. The (3) Although the approach the Court set out needed no fur- starting point was the adoption of the approach set out by ther elaboration, it was necessary to mention three matters: Devlin J in Stone [1955] Crim LR 120, quoted in Hunt [1968] 2 (a) the burden to show that verdicts could not stand was with QB 433 and formally adopted in Durante (1972) 56 Cr.App.R the applicant; (b) a jury may logically find a witness credible 708, that the burden was on the applicant to show that the on one count but not another (contra an interpretation of Griz- verdicts could not stand together, that is, that no reasonable zle [1991] Crim LR 553 and Cilgram [1994] Crim LR 861); and jury could have arrived at that conclusion, which was fact- (c) in the overwhelming generality of cases it would be appro- specific.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing the Protocol 36 Opt
    September 2012 Opting out of EU Criminal law: What is actually involved? Alicia Hinarejos, J.R. Spencer and Steve Peers CELS Working Paper, New Series, No.1 http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/publications/working_papers.php Centre for European Legal Studies • 10 West Road • Cambridge CB3 9DZ Telephone: 01223 330093 • Fax: 01223 330055 • http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Protocol 36 to the Lisbon Treaty gives the UK the right to opt out en bloc of all the police and criminal justice measures adopted under the Treaty of Maastricht ahead of the date when the Court of Justice of the EU at Luxembourg will acquire jurisdiction in relation to them. The government is under pressure to use this opt-out in order to “repatriate criminal justice”. It is rumoured that this opt-out might be offered as a less troublesome alternative to those are calling for a referendum on “pulling out of Europe”. Those who advocate the Protocol 36 opt-out appear to assume that it would completely remove the UK from the sphere of EU influence in matters of criminal justice and that the opt-out could be exercised cost-free. In this Report, both of these assumptions are challenged. It concludes that if the opt-out were exercised the UK would still be bound by a range of new police and criminal justice measures which the UK has opted into after Lisbon. And it also concludes that the measures opted out of would include some – notably the European Arrest Warrant – the loss of which could pose a risk to law and order.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Report
    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 2004 2009 Session document FINAL A6-9999/2006 15.6.2006 INTERIM REPORT on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (2006/2027(INI)) Temporary Committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners Rapporteur: Giovanni Claudio Fava RR\372179EN.doc PE 372.179v03-00 EN EN PR_INI CONTENTS Page MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION............................................ 3 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT............................................................................................ 14 MINORITY OPINION ............................................................................................................ 23 PROCEDURE .......................................................................................................................... 24 PE 372.179v03-00 2/24 RR\372179EN.doc EN MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners (2006/2027(INI)) The European Parliament, – having regard to its resolution of 15 December 2005 on presumed use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners1, – having regard to its decision of 18 January 2006 to set up a temporary committee on the alleged use of European countries by the CIA for the transportation and illegal detention of prisoners2, – having regard to Rule 175 of its Rules of
    [Show full text]
  • Deutscher Bundestag
    Deutscher Bundestag 120. Sitzung des Deutschen Bundestages am Donnerstag, 07.Juli 2011 Endgültiges Ergebnis der Namentlichen Abstimmung Nr. 1 Gesetzentwurf der Abgeordneten Ulrike Flach, Peter Hintze, Dr. Carola Reimann, Dr. Petra Sitte, Jerzy Montag und weiterer Abgeordneter in dritter Beratung über den Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur Regelung der Präimplantationsdiagnostik; Drs. 17/5451 und 17/6400 Abgegebene Stimmen insgesamt: 594 Nicht abgegebene Stimmen: 26 Ja-Stimmen: 326 Nein-Stimmen: 260 Enthaltungen: 8 Ungültige: 0 Berlin, den 07. Jul. 11 Beginn: 13:29 Ende: 13:36 Seite: 1 CDU/CSU Name Ja Nein Enthaltung Ungült. Nicht abg. Ilse Aigner X Peter Altmaier X Peter Aumer X Dorothee Bär X Thomas Bareiß X Norbert Barthle X Günter Baumann X Ernst-Reinhard Beck (Reutlingen) X Manfred Behrens (Börde) X Veronika Bellmann X Dr. Christoph Bergner X Peter Beyer X Steffen Bilger X Clemens Binninger X Peter Bleser X Dr. Maria Böhmer X Wolfgang Börnsen (Bönstrup) X Wolfgang Bosbach X Norbert Brackmann X Klaus Brähmig X Michael Brand X Dr. Reinhard Brandl X Helmut Brandt X Dr. Ralf Brauksiepe X Dr. Helge Braun X Heike Brehmer X Ralph Brinkhaus X Cajus Caesar X Gitta Connemann X Alexander Dobrindt X Thomas Dörflinger X Marie-Luise Dött X Dr. Thomas Feist X Enak Ferlemann X Ingrid Fischbach X Hartwig Fischer (Göttingen) X Dirk Fischer (Hamburg) X Axel E. Fischer (Karlsruhe-Land) X Dr. Maria Flachsbarth X Klaus-Peter Flosbach X Herbert Frankenhauser X Dr. Hans-Peter Friedrich (Hof) X Michael Frieser X Erich G. Fritz X Dr. Michael Fuchs X Hans-Joachim Fuchtel X Alexander Funk X Ingo Gädechens X Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Association of Accredited Lobbyists to the European Parliament
    ASSOCIATION OF ACCREDITED LOBBYISTS TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT OVERVIEW OF EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FORUMS AALEP Secretariat Date: October 2007 Avenue Milcamps 19 B-1030 Brussels Tel: 32 2 735 93 39 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.lobby-network.eu TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction………………………………………………………………..3 Executive Summary……………………………………………………….4-7 1. European Energy Forum (EEF)………………………………………..8-16 2. European Internet Forum (EIF)………………………………………..17-27 3. European Parliament Ceramics Forum (EPCF………………………...28-29 4. European Parliamentary Financial Services Forum (EPFSF)…………30-36 5. European Parliament Life Sciences Circle (ELSC)……………………37 6. Forum for Automobile and Society (FAS)…………………………….38-43 7. Forum for the Future of Nuclear Energy (FFNE)……………………..44 8. Forum in the European Parliament for Construction (FOCOPE)……..45-46 9. Pharmaceutical Forum…………………………………………………48-60 10.The Kangaroo Group…………………………………………………..61-70 11.Transatlantic Policy Network (TPN)…………………………………..71-79 Conclusions………………………………………………………………..80 Index of Listed Companies………………………………………………..81-90 Index of Listed MEPs……………………………………………………..91-96 Most Active MEPs participating in Business Forums…………………….97 2 INTRODUCTION Businessmen long for certainty. They long to know what the decision-makers are thinking, so they can plan ahead. They yearn to be in the loop, to have the drop on things. It is the genius of the lobbyists and the consultants to understand this need, and to satisfy it in the most imaginative way. Business forums are vehicles for forging links and maintain a dialogue with business, industrial and trade organisations. They allow the discussions of general and pre-legislative issues in a different context from lobbying contacts about specific matters. They provide an opportunity to get Members of the European Parliament and other decision-makers from the European institutions together with various business sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • 7272/08 MK/Bo 1 JUR - VI EN
    COUNCIL OF THE Brussels, 4 March 2008 EUROPEAN UNION 7272/08 ASIM 17 AVIATION 64 CATS 15 CODEC 325 COMIX 184 COPEN 45 CRIMORG 43 DATAPROTECT 11 DROIPEN 23 EJN 16 ENFOCUSTOM 38 ENFOPOL 44 EUROJUST 22 MIGR 16 PE 66 SOC 150 VISA 78 NOTE from : General Secretariat of the Council to : delegations Subject: Summary of the meeting of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) of the European Parliament, held in Brussels on 27 and 28 February 2008 The meeting was chaired by Gérard DEPREZ (ALDE, BE). 7272/08 MK/bo 1 JUR - VI EN It should be noted that the exchange of views on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council adapting a number of instruments subject to the procedure referred to in Article 251 of the Treaty to Council Decision 1999/468/EC, as amended by Decision 2006/512/EC, with regard to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny (parts two and three) was withdrawn from the agenda. I. Consideration of reports as leading committee a) Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters 16069/07 13019/05 2005/0202 (CNS) Rapporteur: Martine ROURE (PSE, FR) Consideration of the draft report. b) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Regulation (EC) No. 2252/2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States 14217/07 2007/0216 (COD) COM(2007) 619 Rapporteur: Carlos COELHO (PPE–DE, PT) 7272/08 MK/bo 2 JUR - VI EN First exchange of views and presentation by the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Protokoll Vom 7.10.2010 Einbringung Des 1
    Plenarprotokoll 17/65 Deutscher Bundestag Stenografischer Bericht 65. Sitzung Berlin, Donnerstag, den 7. Oktober 2010 Inhalt: Wahl des Abgeordneten Siegmund Ehrmann Serkan Tören (FDP) . 6806 A als ordentliches Mitglied im Kuratorium der Stiftung „Haus der Geschichte der Bundes- Volker Beck (Köln) (BÜNDNIS 90/ republik Deutschland“ . 6791 A DIE GRÜNEN) . 6806 C Wahl des Abgeordneten Dr. h. c. Wolfgang Josef Philip Winkler (BÜNDNIS 90/ Thierse als ordentliches Mitglied und des Ab- DIE GRÜNEN) . 6808 A geordneten Dietmar Nietan als stellvertreten- Stefan Müller (Erlangen) (CDU/CSU) . des Mitglied im Stiftungsrat der „Stiftung 6809 B Flucht, Vertreibung, Versöhnung“ . 6791 B Daniela Kolbe (Leipzig) (SPD) . 6810 C Erweiterung und Abwicklung der Tagesord- Sibylle Laurischk (FDP) . 6812 A nung . 6791 B Reinhard Grindel (CDU/CSU) . 6812 C Absetzung der Tagesordnungspunkte 5 a, b und d . 6792 D Tagesordnungspunkt 4: Tagesordnungspunkt 3: Antrag der Abgeordneten Dr. Barbara Höll, Unterrichtung durch die Beauftragte der Bun- Dr. Axel Troost, Richard Pitterle, weiterer desregierung für Migration, Flüchtlinge und Abgeordneter und der Fraktion DIE LINKE: Integration: Achter Bericht über die Lage Auswege aus der Krise: Steuerpolitische der Ausländerinnen und Ausländer in Gerechtigkeit und Handlungsfähigkeit des Deutschland Staates wiederherstellen (Drucksache 17/2400) . 6792 D (Drucksache 17/2944) . 6813 D Dr. Maria Böhmer, Staatsministerin Dr. Barbara Höll (DIE LINKE) . 6814 A BK . 6793 A Olav Gutting (CDU/CSU) . 6816 A Olaf Scholz (SPD) . 6795 D Nicolette Kressl (SPD) . 6818 A Hartfrid Wolff (Rems-Murr) (FDP) . 6797 B Dr. Volker Wissing (FDP) . 6820 C Harald Wolf, Senator (Berlin) . 6798 C Matthias W. Birkwald (DIE LINKE) . 6821 A Memet Kilic (BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN) .
    [Show full text]
  • The Schengen Acquis
    The Schengen acquis integrated into the European Union ð 1 May 1999 Notice This booklet, which has been prepared by the General Secretariat of the Council, does not commit either the Community institutions or the governments of the Member States. Please note that only the text that shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities L 239, 22 September 2000, is deemed authentic. For further information, please contact the Information Policy, Transparency and Public Relations Division at the following address: General Secretariat of the Council Rue de la Loi 175 B-1048 Brussels Fax 32 (0)2 285 5332 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://ue.eu.int A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet.It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2001 ISBN 92-824-1776-X European Communities, 2001 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Belgium 3 FOREWORD When the Amsterdam Treaty entered into force on 1 May 1999, cooperation measures hitherto in the Schengen framework were integrated into the European Union framework. The Schengen Protocol annexed to the Amsterdam Treaty lays down detailed arrangements for that integration process. An annex to the protocolspecifies what is meant by ‘Schengen acquis’. The decisions and declarations adopted within the Schengen institutional framework by the Executive Committee have never before been published. The GeneralSecretariat of the Councilhas decided to produce for those interested a collection of the Executive Committee decisions and declarations integrated by the Councildecision of 20 May 1999 (1999/435/EC).
    [Show full text]
  • The Police Foundation's Response
    Select Committee on the European Union (Sub-Committee E - Justice, Institutions and Consumer Protection & Sub-Committee F - Home Affairs, Health and Education) Joint inquiry into the UK’s 2014 Opt-out Decision (Protocol 36) The Police Foundation’s response About the Police Foundation The Police Foundation is the only independent charity focused entirely on developing people's knowledge and understanding of policing and challenging the police service and the government to improve policing for the benefit of the public. The Police Foundation acts as a bridge between the public, the police and the government, while being owned by none of them. Founded in 1979 by the late Lord Harris of Greenwich, the Police Foundation has been highly successful in influencing policing policy and practice, through research, policy analysis, training and consultancy. Introduction 1. Under Protocol 36 to the EU Treaties, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the UK is entitled to withdraw from approximately 130 EU policing and criminal justice measures. The Government has until 31 May 2014 to decide whether to continue to be bound by the measures, or whether to use its right to opt out. The right to opt out is exercised en bloc, i.e. all pre-Lisbon measures must be opted out of in one go. Application could then be made to opt back into specific measures. 2. The Home Secretary has announced that the government is currently minded to use its right to opt out of all the pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures and then negotiate with the European Commission and other member states to opt back into those individual measures which are judged to be in the national interest.1 At this stage it is not clear which measures the Home Office would plan to opt back in to, which it would like to opt out of completely, and the reasons for this approach.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2011 Debacle Over Danish Border Control: a Mismatch of Domestic and European Games Malthe Munkøe
    The 2011 Debacle over Danish Border Control: A Mismatch of Domestic and European Games Malthe Munkøe DEPARTMENT OF EU INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND DIPLOMACY STUDIES EU Diplomacy Paper 01 / 2012 Department of EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies EU Diplomacy Papers 1/2012 The 2011 Debacle over Danish Border Control: A Mismatch of Domestic and European Games Malthe Munkøe © Malthe Munkøe 2012 Dijver 11 | BE-8000 Bruges, Belgium | Tel. +32 (0)50 477 251 | Fax +32 (0)50 477 250 | E-mail [email protected] | www.coleurope.eu/ird Malthe Munkøe About the Author Malthe Munkøe is Consultant at Dansk Erhverv (The Danish Chamber of Commerce), a Danish business confederation. He holds an MA in EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies (Charles Darwin Promotion 2010) from the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium, and a Master’s degree in Political Science from the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. He has previously published in a number of Danish academic journals and edited book anthologies on the financial crisis and on public sector reforms. Editorial Team: Andrew Bower, Gino Brunswijck, Francesca Fenton, Grzegorz Grobicki, Sieglinde Gstöhl, Vincent Laporte, Jing Men, Raphaël Métais, Charles Thépaut, Claudia Zulaika Escauriaza Dijver 11 | BE-8000 Bruges, Belgium | Tel. +32 (0)50 477 251 | Fax +32 (0)50 477 250 | E-mail [email protected] | www.coleurope.eu/ird Views expressed in the EU Diplomacy Papers are those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect positions of either the series editors or the College of Europe. 2 EU Diplomacy Paper 1/2012 Abstract In May 2011 the Danish minority government successfully obtained the support of the Danish People’s Party to carry out a comprehensive pension reform.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit, the “Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice” and Migration
    EU Integration and Differentiation for Effectiveness and Accountability Policy Briefs No. 3 December 2020 Brexit, the “Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice” and Migration Emmanuel Comte This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 822622 Brexit, the “Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice” and Migration Emmanuel Comte Abstract This policy brief focuses on EU–UK negotiations on the movements of third-country nationals. It presents the formation of preferences of both sides and creates a map of existing external differentiation in this area, which supplies models for the future EU–UK relationship. Current nego- tiating positions show the continuation of previous trends and the po- tential for close cooperation. This policy brief details two scenarios of cooperation. Close cooperation would continue the current willingness to cooperate and minimise policy changes after the transition period. Loose cooperation could stem from the collapse of trade talks, breaking confidence between the two sides and resulting in a suboptimal scena- rio for each of them. No scenario, however, is likely to result in signifi- cantly lower effectiveness or cohesion in the EU. The UK will always be worse off in comparison to EU membership – particularly under loose cooperation. Emmanuel Comte is Senior Research Fellow at the Barcelona Centre for Internatio- nal Affairs (CIDOB). 2 | Brexit, the “Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice” and Migration Executive summary The UK has wanted for 30 years to cooperate with other EU countries and EU institutions to keep third-country immigration under control. Brexit has not changed this preference.
    [Show full text]