Debating European Citizenship

Front matter

Ae” ne ThE a coe? > IMISCOE Research Series

Rainer Baubock Editor

Debating European Citizenship

Preface

Are the nationals of EU member states also citizens of the European Union? This is what Art. 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union says they are. But what precisely does it mean to be a citizen of a union which some observers still describe as an international organization that just coordinates the interests of its member states across a wider range of policies than most others do?

The present volume addresses this question in an unusual way. There is already a large number of excellent books on the topic that collect standalone chapters from authors presenting different answers.! Readers interested in historical, legal and political science perspectives on EU citizenship should consult these volumes. Yet in such publications, scholars rarely speak and behave as citizens are supposed to do — they present their views without engaging with each other in a dialogue on questions that citizens are concerned about. The present book is different; it is a collection of debates, each of which asks a question that is at the core of the present EU citizenship dilemmas.

In a political debate, speakers are expected to listen to each other and to address each other. The three debates in this book are the results of online debates that have been actually structured like a conversation. The first contribution in each debate is a kick-off that defends a specific answer to the lead question. The subsequent contributions were not all commissioned at the same time but over several months and each author was asked to respond not only to the question and the kick-off text, but to take into account or criticise also the views of the previous responses without repeating points already made by others. Contributions are short, written in a non-technical

' See e.g. Bellamy, R. and Warleigh, A. (eds.) (2001), Citizenship and governance in the European Union. London, New York: Continuum; Bellamy, R., Castiglione, D. and Santoro, E. (eds.) (2004), Lineages of European Citizenship: Rights, Belonging and Participation in Eleven Nation-States. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; Isin, E. F. and Saward, M. (eds.) (2013), Enacting European Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Kochenov, D. (ed.) (2017), EU Citizenship and Federalism: The Role of Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Thym, D. (ed.) (2017), Questioning EU citizenship: judges and the limits of free movement and solidarity in the EU. Oxford; Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing.

viii Preface language and addressed to a broader audience than the respective discipline ofthe author. We have also deliberately invited non-academic authors whose practical knowledge or civic engagement provides important insights. This format should be very useful for teaching purposes at undergraduate as well as graduate level. I sincerely hope that the book will also be read by practitioners and those often insultingly called ‘ordinary citizens’ who are interested in the future of Europe.

In the past, organising such a conversation across a wide range of countries and academic disciplines would have been extraordinarily difficult. Today, this can be done on the Internet. All three debates in this book have been originally published online in the Forum section of the EUDO CITIZENSHIP observatory, which has recently expanded into GLOBALCIT, the Global Citizenship Observatory. The book also meets another important requirement for debates among citizens: they must be public and freely accessible to all. This was of course true for the original online publication ofthe three debates. Yet it is still exceptional for academic books to be freely accessible under a ‘golden open access’ licence. I am therefore very grateful to the IMISCOE editorial committee and to Springer for accepting to publish the book in their open access series.

There is one way in which the debates in this book differ from the ideal of political deliberation among citizens in the public sphere. These debates do not aim to reach conclusions in the sense of a political decision taken by majority vote or a consensus achieved through the force of the better argument. They leave the initial question open. One reason is that it is really hard to make academic scholars change their views. The other and more important reason is that it is not for them to decide these questions. The aim of these debates is thus to inform readers about a wide range of views presented by authors who respectfully disagree with each other even after having made strong efforts to engage with each other. What the reader gets from this is, hopefully, different and also less time consuming than what she can learn from ploughing through thick academic volumes.

The three debates collected in this volume concern all three dimensions of citizenship that T. H. Marshall identified in his seminal essay of 1949: the civil, political and social aspects of EU citizenship. The first debate was held in 2012, before the 2014 European Parliament elections and should be picked up again before the forthcoming ones in May 2019. It raises the question of why mobile EU citizens can vote in local and EP elections in their host EU member state, but not in national elections. For some authors this is a serious democratic deficit, for others it illustrates that the EU is not a federation but a union of states.

Preface IX

The second debate addresses the civil right of free movement, which is at the core of EU citizenship. The context for this debate was the Brexit referendum, in which EU free movement became the most controversial policy issue and before which the UK government had negotiated concessions that included new powers to restrict temporarily access of EU citizens to certain welfare benefits. The question posed to the authors is whether free movement should still be defended and expanded because it enhances freedom from state interference, or whether this dimension has been overstretched through decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union at the expense of the political will of majorities in the member states and of national welfare regimes.

The third and most recent debate continues in many ways the second one. It starts from the question of why EU citizenship does not include any citizen duties, although the Treaties speak in a general way about the rights and duties of the citizens of the Union. This puzzle leads very quickly to a general controversy about the ‘weight’ of EU citizenship and its main beneficiaries. Several authors regard EU citizenship as a progressive force precisely because it protects individual liberties beyond the nation-state without imposing legal duties or thicker identities on them, while others advocate a stronger social component that would also address cleavages resulting from rising social inequality and the populist backlash among the less mobile Europeans. This debate in particular discusses also practical policy proposals for EU duties and social rights.

Although the debates were held at different periods over the last six years, none of them has become irrelevant or outdated. There are, however, important aspects of EU citizenship that are not covered in them. These concern in particular the impact of EU citizenship on the citizenship of member states from which it is derived and the — as yet unknown — solutions to the loss of EU citizenship rights enjoyed by UK citizens in Europe and of EU citizen rights in the UK after Brexit. The three debates are therefore complemented by an introductory essay on these topics specifically written for this volume by Jo Shaw, a prominent EU lawyer and co-director of the GLOBALCIT observatory.

This book has a companion volume on the “Transformations of National Citizenship’ that will be published in the same series later this year and that collects four more GLOBALCIT forum debates on current challenges for citizenship in democratic states.

Florence Rainer Baub6éck February 2018

Contents

EU citizenship: Still a Fundamental Status? sussimicnariereaonu

Jo Shaw

Part I: Should EU Citizens Living in Other Member States Vote There in National Elections?

Part II: Freedom of Movement Under Attack: Is it Worth Defending as the Core of EU Citizenship?

Freedom of Movement Needs to Be Defended as the Core öf EU Cinzens iP shite case ecdicieteadl Meade ee 93 Floris De Witte

Daniel Thym

Richard Bellamy

Free Movement as a Means of Subject-Formation: Päivi Johanna Neuvonen

Free Movement Emancipates, but What Freedom Is This? 0.0.0.0. 117 Vesco Paskalev

Contents Xili

Free Movement and EU Citizenship from the Perspective öf Intra-European IOI oc cus ssisc ses 2s evans iy sondsanesonseeeasdnsaeesads aiani Al Saara Koikkalainen

Rainer Baubéck

Sarah Fine

The Court and the Legislators: Who Should Define the Scope öf Tree Movement inthe EU? ocicciksnsatener tarde EENS 133 Martijn van den Brink

Reading Too Much and Too Little into the Matter? Latent Julija Sardelić

What to Say to Those Who Stay? Free Movement is a Human Rion Oy LAN Vera Poliarinis RENTE TERS 145 Kieran Oberman

Union Citizenship Jor UK CHIZER® suoriin darna An NEN 149 Glyn Morgan

Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler

‘Migrants’, ‘Mobile Citizens’ and the Borders of Exclusion tr Ee ON aea A NRE 163 Martin Ruhs

Floris De Witte

Part III: Should EU Citizenship Be Duty-Free?

EU Citizenship Needs a Stronger Social Dimension RUPE SO DIOR E NE A E E E E esa ae ea 181 Maurizio Ferrera

Building Social Europe Requires Challenging the Judicialisation Oy AR i a SAAT R A ena 205 Susanne K. Schmidt

EU Citizenship Should Speak Both to the Mobile and the Non-Mobile European cosccsccsiasinesscansessidaniessiastets isedsiiaaneisatneions 211 Frank Vandenbroucke xiv Contents

Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen

‘Feed them First, Then Ask Virtue of Them’: Broadening

Andrea Sangiovanni EU Citizenship, Duties and Soctal RIGHIS..2s..c.csesiniisovcenncccdntesacisienne 231

Martin Seeleib-Kaiser

Why Compensating the ‘Stayers’ for the Costs of Mobility de the Wrong Fay to CIO scien ccaccacenarneetaniniaa iene eMOR mae 235 Julia Hermann

Balancing the Rights of European Citizenship with Duties

Towards National Citizens: An Inter-National Perspective «0.0.00... 239 Richard Bellamy Grab the Horns of the Dilemma and Ride the Bull ...cccccccccccceeeteees 245

Rainer Baub6ck

Why Adding Duties to European Citizenship Is Likely Theresa Kuhn

Enhancing the Visibility of Social Europe: A Practical

Ilaria Madama

Towards a ‘Holding Environment’ for Europe's (Diverse) Social CARR RETES a3 heicis cian nei acs ase a 267 Anton Hemerijck

Imagine: European Union Social Citizenship and FPost-Marshatiian Rights and Dudes cceccnanmicnnsiennieninsiniaanas 279 Dora Kostakopoulou

Why the Crisis of European Citizenship is a Crisis öf Ee Demoro osai niiair aa aiaia ESEA rhii 287 Sandra Seubert

Philippe Van Parijs

Social Citizenship, Democratic Values and European Integration: HA PORN ME? iisi dois nada aad ald eae eal i a 299 Maurizio Ferrera

About the editor

Rainer Baubock is currently a part time professor at the Robert Schuman Centre of the European University Institute. He held the chair in social and political theory at the Department of Political and Social Sciences of the EUI from 2007 to 2018 and was Dean of Graduate Studies from 2012 to 2016. Rainer Baubéck is also a corresponding member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and chair of its Commission on Migration and Integration Research.

His research interests are in normative political theory and comparative research on democratic citizenship, migration, European integration, nationalism and minority rights. Together with Jo Shaw (University of Edinburgh) and Maarten Vink (University of Maastricht), he coordinates GLOBALCIT, an online observatory on citizenship and voting rights.

His most recent book publications are: Democratic Inclusion. Rainer Bauböck in Dialogue, Manchester University Press: Manchester, 2017; The Oxford Handbook of Citizenship (Ayelet Shachar, Rainer Baubéck, Irene Bloemraad, Maarten Vink, eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017; Transnational Citizenship and Migration (Rainer Baubéck, ed., London: Routledge, 2017).

XV

Contributors

Roxana Barbulescu University Academic Fellow in New Migrations in UK and Europe, School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds Richard Bellamy Professor of Political Science and Director of the Max Weber Programme, European University Institute

Alain Brun Former officer of the European Commission

Philippe Cayla Européens sans frontiéres, Paris, France

Sue Collard Senior Lecturer in French Politics and Contemporary European Studies, University of Sussex Department of Politics, Sussex European Institute, Sussex Centre for Migration Research

Floris de Witte Associate Professor, Department of Law, London School of Economics and Political Science

Andrew Duff President of the Spinelli Group and Visiting Fellow at the European Policy Centre

Maurizio Ferrera Professor of Political Science, Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan

Sarah Fine Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, King’s College London

Kees Groenendijk Emeritus Professor of Sociology of Law, founder and Research Fellow of the Centre for Migration Law, Radboud University Anton Hemerijck Professor of Political Science and Sociology, Director of Graduate Studies, Department of Political and Social Sciences, European University Institute

Julia Hermann Post-doctoral research fellow, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Utrecht University

Christian Joppke Professor of General Sociology, Institute of Sociology, University of Bern

Dimitry Kochenov Chair in EU Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen

Saara Koikkalainen University researcher, University of Lapland

Dora Kostakopoulou Professor of European Union Law, European Integration and Public Policy, School of Law, University of Warwick Theresa Kuhn Associate Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam

Ilaria Madama Associate Professor of Political Science, Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Milan

Glyn Morgan Associate Professor of Political Science, Maxwell School, Syracuse University and Collegio Alberto xvii xviii Contributors

Päivi Johanna Neuvonen Academy of Finland Postdoctoral Researcher, Faculty of Law, University of Helsinki

Kieran Oberman Lecturer in Politics, School of Social and Political Science, Edinburgh University

David Owen Professor of Social and Political Philosophy, Division of Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton

Vesco Paskalev Lecturer, School of Law and Politics, University of Hull Ángel Rodríguez Full Professor of Constitutional Law, Facultad de Derecho, University of Málaga

Martin Ruhs Chair in Migration Studies and Deputy Director of the Migration Policy Centre, European University Institute

Andrea Sangiovanni Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, King’s College London

Julija Sardelić Marie Skłodowska Curie Postdoctoral Fellow, Leuven International and European Studies, University of Leuven

Susanne K. Schmidt Professor of Political Science, Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Bremen

Martin Seeleib-Kaiser Professor of Comparative Public Policy, Institute of Political Science, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen

Catriona Seth Marshal Foch Professor of French Literature, All Souls College, University of Oxford

Sandra Seubert Professor of Political Theory, Department of Political Science, Goethe University Frankfurt

Jo Shaw Salvesen Chair of European Institutions, School of Law, University of Edinburgh

Dorte Sindbjerg Martinsen Professor of Political Science, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen

Hannes Swoboda Former member of the European Parliament (Austria) and President of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament

Daniel Thym Jean-Monnet-Chair of European, International and Public Law and managing Director ofthe Research Centre Immigration and Asylum Law, University of Konstanz

Martijn van den Brink Postdoctoral researcher, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity

Philippe Van Parijs Hoover Chair of Economic and Social Ethics, Centre for Ethics, Social and Political Philosophy, University of Louvain

Frank Vandenbroucke University Professor, University of Amsterdam Tony Venables Founder of the European Citizen Action Service

Martin Wilhelm Director of Citizens For Europe

Reuven (Ruvi) Ziegler Associate Professor in International Refugee Law, School of Law, University of Reading

Jo Shaw

Introduction

Modern history is littered with the corpses of failed federations and busted unions. These processes of breakup have had significant and often damaging citizenship consequences on many occasions and in many places. Examples can be found in the dissolution of Yugoslavia and of the Soviet Union, as well as in the dismantling of the various European empires and the creation of numerous new (and generally arbitrarily defined) states, often as part of the decolonisation process.' Breakup may, of course, eventually be the fate of the European Union. Or it may be the opposite — the transmutation of the EU into something more like a federal state, through an intensified constitutionalisation process.

This essay explores some of the pressures that are being placed on the concept of citizenship of the Union at the present time, highlighting how these stem both from exogenous pressures (assuming Brexit can be thought to be such) and endogenous forces such as Eurosceptic voting publics and a resistance to showing solidarity across the member states in an era of austerity.

EU citizenship is paradoxical in nature: formally constitutionalised in the Union’s treaty framework, yet dependent upon national citizenship to provide the gateway to membership. Its fate remains intimately tied to the broader question of the trajectory of European integration, as well as to changing perspectives about the character of citizenship as a membership status. To highlight that paradoxical character, I offer below some brief reflections on the autonomy of national citizenship laws, on the consequences of Brexit, and on how choices and actions by individuals and groups may

! For an overview of different ‘imperial’ repertoires see Gammerl, B. (2017),

Subject, citizens, and others: Administering Ethnic Heterogeneity in the British and Habsburg Empires, 1867—1918. New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books.

This essay was written whilst I was holding a EURIAS Fellowship at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, and the financial support of the EURIAS Programme and HCAS is acknowledged with thanks. I am very grateful to Rainer Baubéck for comments on a draft.

© The Author(s) 2019 1 R. Bauböck (ed.), Debating European Citizenship, IMISCOE Research Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89905-3_1 impact upon the future of EU citizenship. This discussion is prefaced by an initial exploration of the challenges and complexities of EU citizenship and of the relationship between citizenship and concepts of integration and Europeanisation.

Challenges and complexities of EU citizenship

The current difficulties faced by the European Union are many and varied. They include the pressures caused by the UK’s Brexit vote, the effects of increasingly illiberal, populist and anti-constitutionalist regimes in Hungary and Poland, the lingering impacts of the financial crisis, among them austerity and challenges to the health of the Eurozone, and the continued aftermath of the migration/refugee crisis. These all raise questions about the vitality of citizenship of the European Union as a political, socio-economic and constitutional construct of a supranational kind, and many of them are debated in different ways by the various multi-author ‘forums’ presented in this book. Whether these difficulties do or do not pose an existential threat to the EU and thus to EU citizenship lies beyond the scope of this essay. Even so, contemplating the possibility of disintegration and/or de-Europeanisation is central to the task of reinterpreting EU citizenship, 25 years after it formally entered into force through the Treaty of Maastricht in 1993. This is because of the centrality and overwhelming importance of the Brexit challenge (both for the individuals directly affected and also for the historical trajectory of the European Union), to which we will return later in this short reflection on some of the ‘constitutional’ characteristics of EU citizenship.

It is important to remark, however, that at the current stage of the European integration, no person deprived of their EU citizenship through dissolution of the Union or departure of a member state would normally be at risk of losing their national citizenship and their anchor within the system of states, their ‘right to have rights’.* Although the functions and forms of citizenship are dispersed across the multi-level structure of the EU polity and EU citizenship is established constitutionally in Article 9 TEU and Articles 20 and 21 TFEU, at the present time states retain a monopoly over determining who their citizens are, and would continue to do so were the EU to dissolve in the future.

At whatever point we choose to ‘stop time’ and write a historical reinterpretation of the EU’s experiment with a form of supranational citizenship, it will always be a complex and contested story. It is important to resist the

2 Arendt, H. (1967), The Origins of Totalitarianism. London: George Allen & Unwin, 296.

temptation to take a ‘frozen in time’ approach to explicating this story. On the contrary, we should remind ourselves, by reference to classic texts such as that of TH Marshall,’ that the location of citizenship forms and functions has always been a mobile process, morphing at different points in history between the local (e.g. the city), the regional, the national and the supranational. In fact, we can use the concept of citizenship across all of these levels, wherever there are institutions of political authority.

The idea of the link between a community of citizens and a political authority was not really the starting point for EU citizenship. The European Union began its journey towards recognising a uniform legal status for individuals at the supranational level not by acknowledging and supporting the political agency of individuals as citizens, but by giving them rights and freedoms. Specifically, it was through the civil and socio-economic rights and freedoms that are inherent in the idea of a single market that a notion of the individual having a stake in the integration project originally emerged. Much of the power of these rights and freedoms to effect a transformation of individual rights lay in the recognition of individuals as autonomous legal actors within the European legal order by the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This was an important conclusion, which the Court derived from a purposive reading of the founding treaties. In addition, some further contributions towards the development of the rights of EU market actors were also made by the EU legislature, especially when it came to giving effect to the principles of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and mutual recognition. Most of this work predated the formal establishment of the legal concept of the Union citizen.

Only later was a modest edifice of political rights constructed (once the Treaty of Maastricht had entered into force and the constitutional provisions we recognise today had been introduced) and it was even later still that we have come to see a closer legal and constitutional intertwining of the legal statuses of EU citizenship and national citizenship, again largely as a result of the interventions of the CJEU. We will come back to this dimension of EU citizenship shortly. What has been most noticeable about this process has been that the idea of the ‘civil’ (a ‘Europe of law’) has underpinned and accompanied every stage of the putative building of supranational citizenship. This looks, at first blush, like a wholly top-down construction of

3 Marshall, T.H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

citizenship that does little to illuminate the broader political quest to identify ‘who are the Europeans?’ .*

Another way of highlighting the idiosyncracies of EU citizenship involves looking at the classic elements commonly associated with modelling citizenship as a form of full membership (e.g. status, rights, identity, duties). It is only in the sphere of rights that EU citizenship seems well developed. As to the issue of identity, the sense of ‘Europeanness’ that exists across the collectivity of citizens is relatively thin in nature, again focused on rights, and it is hardly comparable with the form of societal glue that gives community cohesion to the national (and subnational) polities on which the EU is built.’ Moreover, the status itself remains derivative from national citizenship — only citizens of the member states are citizens of the Union.

And yet despite all of this negativity, there is also a more optimistic reading that suggests that EU citizenship could be evolving into a different sort of concept than was perhaps anticipated when the member states originally set up the legal framework, mainly as an additional bonus for market participants. Scholars laud EU citizenship as an emerging postnational concept that escapes ‘narrow’ nationalist constraints of state-based citizenship regimes.° The comparison with other forms of supranational citizenship, such as Commonwealth citizenship, makes EU citizenship look like a relative success story. Commonwealth citizenship largely withered on the vine because of the evisceration of most of the rights attached to it (e.g. right of abode in the UK), or the non-adoption of the concept by Commonwealth countries. By contrast, we have a rich, if sometimes contradictory, case law of the Court of Justice on the status of EU citizens resident in other member states that ensures that in many spheres of life EU citizens have to be recognised as holding rights under the precise same conditions as nationals of the host state.

Furthermore, there is now a discussion, as evidenced by section 3 of this book on citizenship duties and social solidarity, as to whether this dimension of EU citizenship should be filled out in due course, in ways that would make EU citizenship relevant not only to mobile citizens, but also to those

4 See generally Shaw, J. (2011), ‘Citizenship: contrasting dynamics at the

interface of integration and constitutionalism’, in P. Craig & G. de Burca

(eds,), The Evolution of EU Law, 2nd Edition, 575—609. Oxford: OUP.

Bellamy, R. (2008), ‘Evaluating Union citizenship: belonging, rights and

participation within the EU’, Citizenship Studies 12 (6): 597-611.

€ Kostakopoulou, D. (2018), ‘Scala Civium: Citizenship Templates Post-Brexit and the European Union’s Duty to Protect EU Citizens’, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j;ems.12683.

who remain in their member state of origin. At that point, EU citizenship could be said to be moving much closer to being a recognisable variant, at the supranational level, of the classic national model of membership as a status and as a reference point around which citizens can cohere, even if it is not (yet) recognised in international law as a form of ‘nationality’. In order to achieve this transformation it would, however, have to be no longer just a ‘citizenship of mobiles’. Only then could it also become the vehicle for a wider sense of citizen mobilisation.

Europeanisation and de-Europeanisation in EU citizenship

It will already be evident that many of the concepts I have tossed around in these short paragraphs are contested and hardly have stable meanings. This complicates considerably the task of reinterpreting EU citizenship, whether constitutionally or politically. The concept of EU citizenship needs to be understood in the context of both citizenship theory and integration theory. Our interpretation of the distinctive features of EU citizenship requires a combination of the analytical frames offered by both citizenship studies and European Union studies. It is only by this means that we can construct a historically and contextually sensitive interpretation of this evolving and contested concept. To put it another way, EU citizenship is a product not only of a hesitant process of polity-building beyond the state but also of a move away from a predominantly state-centred conception of citizenship. It relies equally on rethinking ideas about ‘integration’ and on rethinking citizenship as a relational concept and not a fixed structure,’ combining both plural and multi-level institutional elements and also the bottom-up practices of citizens as legal and political actors in a non-state context. Rethinking integration in turn requires acknowledgement that the story of the EU is not one of linear progress towards ‘an ever closer union’, even though it is quite common still for EU citizenship to be lauded as somehow embodying this historic mission. The better view, however, is to recognise that there is no unidirectional process of Europeanisation in which the elements and constraints generated by EU citizenship are simply downloaded onto national citizenship regimes, with alterations to policies and institutions made accordingly.: In fact, uncovering and analysing the narrative of EU citizen-

7 See Wiesner, C. et al. (2018), ‘Introduction: Shaping Citizenship as a Political Concept’, in C. Wiesner et al. (eds.), Shaping Citizenship, 1—17 (10).

New York: Routledge.

For an extended analysis in these terms see Thym, D. (ed.) (2017), Questioning EU citizenship. Judges and the limits of free movement and solidarity in the EU. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

ship reveals that there is no such story of linear progress, but rather a set of complex and often countervailing narratives of Europeanisation and de- Europeanisation, which together combine to make up the full picture.

For the purposes of this essay, we need to think of Europeanisation as more than just the principle that membership of the EU means that member states must comply with EU law and implement legislative measures and new administrative requirements introduced by the EU legislature. It is also a two-way track in which elements of national choice and institutional ‘style’ find their way into EU-wide measures and approaches to policymaking as well as into its institutional forms, not least through the participation of member states in the legislative process. This is a broader and more sociological concept of Europeanisation than is commonly deployed in political science, and it incorporates also aspects of legal culture as well as formal compliance with EU law. A similar approach is also useful when analysing counter moves of de-Europeanisation. At the collective level, there is the trend towards intergovernmental approaches to become once again the norm, with a resurgence of control by the member states vis-a-vis the Commission or the Court of Justice. At the level of member states it encompasses not just deviations in compliance, but equally the alienation of (some) member states from the core requirements or principles of integration, through practices such as flexibility and differentiated integration. Finally, it includes also the hitherto unique phenomenon of Brexit, where a member state is negotiating a formal exit from the EU, but also, for the future, a revised relationship perhaps akin to association or membership of the EEA via a ‘Norway’ or EFTA model, or perhaps much looser in character. Under the former model, some of the underpinning principles of EU citizenship, such as free movement, may continue to apply, which is one reason why it is presently very controversial in the UK as a possible post- Brexit scenario.

We can now take a closer look at some of the criss-crossing pathways of Europeanisation and de-Europeanisation. What might be seen as opposing trends of ‘integration’ and ‘disintegration’ are in fact occurring simultaneously. First we examine the extent and character of the apparently increasing EU law constraints upon the citizenship laws of member states. This raises the question of how autonomous national citizenship laws may be in the future. Second, we explore some of the main ‘citizenship consequences’ of the Brexit vote and the anticipated departure of the United Kingdom from the EU. The two issues are interrelated in many ways, and not just through a common preoccupation with the question of the autonomy of different levels within the EU’s current multilevel citizenship regime. Furthermore, the reflections below will help to show, amongst other insights, that EU citizenship is not just a matter of institutional choices but also, increasingly, of choices made and routes followed by individuals and groups. It has both a top-down and a bottom-up dimension.