Skip to Main Content

Freedom of Movement in the EU

Selected e-articles

Abstract: Free movement is simultaneously widely acclaimed and strongly contested in the European Union. To address this apparent contradiction, we unpack European Union freedom of movement into its different transnational rights and argue that opposition is unequal across entitlements. Using evidence from a unique survey conducted in the United Kingdom in 2017, we show that citizens mainly contest welfare access. This transnational right implies costs for the host country and taps into perceptions of belonging and deservingness. Due to its association with ideas of national community and solidarity, access to welfare is more contested even among those who, in principle, should be favourable to such entitlements: inclusive national identifiers and European integration supporters. Our findings underscore the challenge of creating a sense of European community that could underpin all transnational rights implied by the Union's principle of freedom of movement.

Abstract: Tensions surrounding internal migrants’ access to welfare and the associated politicisations about who should shoulder the ‘fiscal burden’ are not unique to the European Union (EU). Based on a Most Different Systems Design and following an institutionalist approach, this article analyses the developments associated with freedom of movement and access to poor relief/social assistance in four economically and politically diverse jurisdictions. It also considers the implications of these developments for the EU. The four cases analysed are industrialising England, contemporary China, Germany, and the United States (...).

Abstract: Freedom of Movement (FoM) has paradoxical implications for Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries: it facilitates brain drain and general population loss but also enjoys continuously high appreciation from Eastern Europeans. Against this background, the article addresses the question: how do FoM-driven expectation gaps- gaps between FoM policy design and outcomes - trigger policy responses? Borrowing from institutional change theories the article identifies new institutions that are added to FoM at the EU level. It argues that these new institutions, called 'layers', are established alongside the existing EU principle for the purpose of addressing critique that arises from gaps. To preserve the status quo of the FoM principle and its function for the single market, the layers define incremental changes to the overall policy framework of FoM. They introduce a compensation mechanism for population loss and Commission agency on demographic change and migrant return.

Abstract: The European Economic Area (EEA) provides a common market for goods, labour, services, and capital. Promoting integration between countries through the free movement of labour, or more generally persons, pre-dates the previous forms of the EEA. However, during the Southern and Eastern Expansions of the European Union, there have been transition agreements on persons, designed to restrict immigration. Opening up labour markets to the new member states with significantly lower GDP per capita than existing states, has been contentious. This is why the use of transition agreements have permitted periods which existing members can limit immigration. Not all existing member states impose restrictions, and during the Eastern Enlargements, the restrictions were imposed for varying lengths of time by different existing members up to a maximum of seven years. During the transition agreement, the economies of new members and existing members can converge, which is ultimately designed to limit the pull factor of migration. In this note, we provide a concise resource of the timeline of the expansion of full free movement of persons for countries in the EEA and Switzerland.

Abstract: While the politics of immigration in destination countries has been a prominent topic of research in comparative political science in Europe, the same does not apply to emigration and to the perspective of peripherical EU countries. This is true even though the flows of people moving from east to west and from south to north pose potentially significant challenges to ‘sending countries’ in Europe. This article sets up a research agenda aimed at contributing to redress this imbalance. It highlights the need to explore more systematically themes such as (1) the impact of emigration on the political behaviour of both those who stay and those who leave and (2) and how emigration is framed and politicized by relevant societal actors. Ultimately, it draws attention to the fact that a lot of the questions that have been asked about ‘entry’ (immigration) need to be asked about ‘exit’ too (emigration).

Abstract: The aim of this article was to use an interpretivist approach to analyse the state–citizen nexus in general and the conflict between civil and social rights imposing restrictions on people’s freedom of movement during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Nordic countries: Sweden (restrictions were voluntary and relied on nudging and individual implementation), Norway (restrictions of movement were for everyone and was enforced by authorities), and Finland (restrictions of movement were for the capital region and was enforced by authorities). Sweden focused more on upholding the civil rights vis-à-vis social rights whereas in Norway and Finland social rights have trumped civil rights in the face of the pandemic. Thus, the analysis suggests that the Nordic countries cannot be understood as monoliths in all respects. The article thereby contributes to a greater understanding of how the Nordic governments prioritise civil and social rights differently when they are forced to choose.

Abstract: A new legal order has arisen in the United Kingdom (‘UK’) following that country's withdrawal from the European Union (‘EU’). Nowhere are these changes more evident than in the complex rules that have emerged in the fields of freedom of movement and the right to work. In evaluating the new legal landscape, this Article has two overarching aims. The first is to assess the level of protection granted to the right to work and associated free movement rights within EU and UK law, including the terms of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement. The second aim is to examine the extent to which those right to work rules are reflective of the status of the right to work as a fundamental social right. It is argued that Brexit unmoors the right to work from EU free movement rules, thereby undermining the normative value of that right, while exacerbating flaws in domestic rules governing access to employment for both national and migrant workers.

Abstract: This article examines the Brexit-driven remaking of some EU families into mixed-status families. Drawing on original research conducted in 2021–2022 with British, EU/EEA and non-EU/EEA citizens living in the UK or the EU/EEA, it shows how families whose members have previously enjoyed equal rights to freedom of movement across the EU/EEA variously negotiate the consequences of Brexit on their lives. Central to our analysis is the interplay between hardening borders and the stickiness of family relations, and its effects on families’ migration and settlement projects. The article brings to the fore these emerging entanglements offering a much-needed relational analysis of the impact of Brexit on the directly affected populations, while contributing more widely to expanding the existing scholarship on mixed-status families, by attending to the peculiar ways in which families whose members previously enjoyed equal status under EU law have experienced their transformation into subjects with unequal rights.

Abstract: The relationship between the European Union's (EU) free movement regime and welfare has received ample scholarly attention. However, this has almost exclusively been from the perspective of destination countries. We know surprisingly little about the “other side” of the migration phenomenon, i.e., the welfare-related implications of large-scale emigration, which predominantly takes place from peripheral EU member states toward the core. In this paper, we break new ground using an original survey fielded in 15 EU member states in 2021. We ask how worries about immigration and emigration shape people's attitudes about social spending in their country of origin and whether they are associated with preferences for EU involvement in social policy. We show that, on average, immigration is salient across the board, but more so in core states (West and North), while emigration is a more salient issue in peripheral states (East and West). In terms of policy preferences, regression analyses indicate that worries about emigration versus immigration are linked in an inverted manner to social policy. Indeed, a preoccupation with incoming migration increases opposition to higher government social spending, while it is irrelevant for support for a stronger EU role in social matters; by contrast, a preoccupation with emigration increases support for both higher government social spending and a stronger EU role in social matters.

Abstract: Following Brexit, European Union citizens now find their rights to live and work in the UK have changed and they had to make an application under the European Union Settlement Scheme, established under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, by 30 June 2021 to enable them to continue to live in the UK lawfully. This article examines the experience and perceptions of those navigating the European Union Settlement Scheme and how they feel about life in the UK post-Brexit. It raises questions about identity and belonging. We also examine the other routes European Union nationals, and their family members, are choosing to use to secure their status in the UK. Our research highlights how the impacts of Brexit and European Union Settlement Scheme are unevenly felt and experienced by different European Union national groups. The article concludes that it is likely that we will only be able to measure the true extent of the ‘success’ of the European Union Settlement Scheme after the application gateway has closed on 30 June 2021, by learning what happens to those who fall between the gap, especially those more vulnerable.

Further sources

If you are unable to access the article you need, please contact us and we will get it for you as soon as possible.

Data Protection Notice   Cookie Policy & Inventory
Library Catalogue
Journals on all devices
Books, articles, EPRS publications & more
Newspapers on all devices