Suchergebnisse

AbstractEU citizenship, now so central to the European Union's project, remains a highly contested concept in respect of its meaning, its scope, and its purpose. By considering the large body of legal texts and their travaux préparatoires from the 1972 Paris European Council until the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, we have explored what the original drafters had in mind in developing the concept of EU citizenship and, crucially, what they did not. The article argues that the notion of European citizenship was seen as a tool to define European identity, and thus to continue the building of the European Union as a whole. European citizenship was thus viewed through a constitutional prism from the outset. The constitutional approach to the concept of European citizenship fed into the wider constitutionalisation project under the Maastricht Treaty and, later, permeated the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. We wish to argue that this focus on the constitutional nature of EU citizenship overlooked the more practical implications of citizenship, such as how to manage immigration flows or the infrastructure changes needed in the host state to accommodate a significant number of arrivals of EU citizens (in particular in respect of housing and social welfare benefits). It took more than 20 years after the introduction of EU citizenship for the Court of Justice to become aware of the practical, as opposed to constitutional, implications of the direction of travel it had pursued. By that time, it was too late for the United Kingdom, one of the countries which had received the largest number of EU citizens; the UK voted by a narrow margin to leave the European Union.

AbstractFor many people, trade is about goods and so the most momentous aspect of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) is the provisions on goods. This article looks at the provisions on the trade in goods under the TCA and compares them with those on the Customs Union and the Single Market for goods under EU law (which still apply to Northern Ireland under the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol). It argues that the approach to the movement of goods in the TCA has much more in common with the World Trade Organization's (WTO) provisions on goods, on which the TCA draws heavily, than EU law. This shift to a 'WTO plus' approach (as opposed to an 'EU law minus') is because the UK government considered that the Brexit vote gave a green light for a total break with the EU's rules. Using four examples (the principle of non‐discrimination; the significance of a '0, 0' agreement; regulatory barriers to trade; and mutual recognition), this article shows just how close the TCA Title on Trade in Goods is to WTO law – and how far it is from EU law.

This article addresses the termination of the CJEU's jurisdiction post-Brexit and its replacement with a much more restricted dispute resolution provision, more reminiscent of that found in free trade agreements, focusing in particular on the enforcement of mobility rights. It begins by addressing the root causes for Britain's antagonism towards the Court. It argues that the Court's expansive interpretation of the Treaties, masked by a legalist approach to European integration, has allowed the Court largely to avoid scrutiny by most Member States. Nevertheless, the Court's judicial activism was ultimately rejected by the UK leading to the Court's curia non grata status post-Brexit. It then analyses the key features of the post-Brexit dispute settlement system proposed by the UK and the EU .We argue that while the Court has been criticized for its judicial activism, EU law did provide significant avenues for an individual's access to courts. This fundamental feature is missing from the dispute resolution mechanism under the proposed UK-EU free trade agreement (FTA), leaving an important gap in the system of justice in the future UK-EU relationship.We argue that under the new dispute settlement regime mobility rights will be adjudicated as trade disputes. This has serious implications for the protection of rights of individuals wishing to exercise any future mobility rights.
Court of Justice, free trade agreement, integration, free movement of person, mobility, dispute resolution

Special Issue on 'The Brexit Negotiations & The May Government' ; Immigration was a major point of debate and disagreement in the United Kingdom (UK) during the 2016 Brexit referendum. Following three years of negotiations, the European Union (EU) and the UK came to an agreement ヨ though not yet in force ヨ on the protection of citizens' rights post-Brexit. This, however, covers only those EU nationals who come to the UK (and vice versa) before the UK's withdrawal from the EU. The future mobility framework is yet to be determined. This article discusses the citizens' rights negotiated by the parties and the possible mobility regimes for the future EU-UK relationship. It suggests that whatever future policy is chosen, it will, as the UK government insists, be far removed from the free movement notion under EU law. This is particularly the case in a no-deal Brexit scenario.