The (de-) politicization of EU freedom of movement: political parties, opportunities, and policy framing in Germany and the UK

Original Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Freedom of movement (FOM) of EU citizens within the European Union (EU) has become a salient issue in some member states. In Germany and the UK, EU FOM prompted governments to tighten the residency and benefits prerequisites for EU migrants. Interestingly, these policy reforms prevented EU FOM from becoming a major political concern in Germany but not in the UK. Understanding the causes of this divergence can cast light on the driving factors behind EU de-politicization. Analysis of the UK case shows that several key factors, including rightist party ideology, political opportunity, and policy framing strategies, fuelled the country’s critical debate over its EU membership. By contrast, Germany’s successful de-politicization of the EU FOM issue can largely be explained by the absence of Euroscepticism in the government, limited political opportunities for mobilization, and the specific framing strategies used by the politicians who reformed EU FOM at the domestic level. Taking into account the existing scholarly work on politicization, this article provides an in-depth qualitative case study of the driving factors behind reactions to EU FOM in the UK and Germany, and discusses how to prevent the politicization of EU policy to turn into criticism of the EU polity level.

Keywords

EU freedom of movement Politicization Political parties Opportunity structures Framing 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Ilke Adam, László Andor, Adrian Favell, Randoll Hansen, Regine Paul, Florian Trauner, and the two other anonymous reviewers for useful comments on earlier versions of the article. Research support from IES at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and editorial assistance of Laura Cunniff at Europa-Universität Flensburg is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. BBC. 2014. Immigration target unlikely to be met, says Theresa May. Interview, 23 November, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30167160, Accessed 27 October 2017.
  2. Balch, A., and E. Balabanova. 2016. Ethics, politics and migration: public debates on the free movement of Romanians and Bulgarians in the UK, 2006-2013. Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9256.12082.Google Scholar
  3. Balch, A., and E. Balabanova. 2017. A deadly cocktail? The fusion of Europe and immigration in the UK press. Critical Discourse Studies 14(3): 236–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blauberger, M., and S.K. Schmidt. 2014. Welfare migration? Free movement of EU citizens and access to social benefits. Research and Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168014563879.Google Scholar
  5. Börzel, T., and T. Risse. 2000. When Europe hits home: Europeanization and domestic change. European Integration online Papers (EIoP) 4(15). www.eiop.or.at.
  6. BMI and BMAS. 2014. Abschlussbericht des Staatssekretärsausschusses zu Rechtsfragen und Herausforderungen bei der Inanspruchnahme der sozialen Sicherungssystem durch Angehörige der EU-Mitgliedstaaten, Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, D. 2014a Speech on Immigration. London, 28 November.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, D. 2014b. David Cameron’s Speech to the Conservative Conference. London, 1 October.Google Scholar
  9. Cameron, D. 2011. Prime Minister’s Speech on Immigration. London, 10 October.Google Scholar
  10. Christlich Soziale Union (CSU). 2014. Dort wo die Menschen Wohnen: Die Belange der Kommunen Zukunftsfest gestalten, Klausurtagung CSU Landesgruppe, January 7–9. Germany: Wildbad Kreuth.Google Scholar
  11. Conservatives UK. 2015. The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015, London.Google Scholar
  12. Denkler, T. 2014. Ohrfeige für die Scharfmacher der CSU. Süddeutsche Zeitung. 26 March, http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/bericht-zu-armutszuwanderung-ohrfeige-fuer-die-scharfmacher-der-csu-1.1922056, Accessed 27 October 2017.
  13. De Wilde, P., A. Leupold, and H. Schmidtke. 2016. Introduction: The differentiated politicisation of European Governance. West European Politics 39(1): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Wilde, P., and C. Lord. 2016. Assessing actually-existing trajectories of EU politicisation. West European Politics 39(1): 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Wilde, P., and M. Zürn. 2012. Can the politicization of European integration be reversed? Journal of Common Market Studies 50(1): 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Wilde, P. 2011. No polity for old politics? A framework for analyzing the politicization of European integration. Journal of European Integration 33(5): 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dolezal, M., and J. Hellström. 2016. The radical right as driving force in the electoral arena? In Politicising Europe. Integration and Mass Politics, ed. S. Hutter, E. Grande, and H. Kriesi, 156–180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Entman, R.M. 1991. Framing U.S. coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eurofund. 2015. Social dimension of Intra-EU Mobility: impact on public services. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  20. European Council. 2016. Conclusions. European Council meeting. EUCO/16, 19 February, Brussels.Google Scholar
  21. Farage, N. 2014. The main parties don’t listen to the working classes, Evening Standard, March 10, https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/nigel-farage-the-main-parties-don-t-listen-to-the-working-classes-9181460.html, Accessed 9 February 2018. 
  22. Favell, A. 2014. The fourth freedom. Theories of migration and mobilities in ‘neo-liberal’ Europe’. European Journal of Social Theory 17(3): 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ford, R., and M. Goodwin. 2014. Revolt on the right. Explaining support for the radical right in Britain. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Freie Hansestadt Hamburg. 2013. Abschlussbericht der Bund-Länder Arbeitsgemeinschaft “Armutswanderung aus Osteuropa”. Unpublished paper, Behörde für Arbeit, Soziales, Familie und Integration, 11 October, Hamburg.Google Scholar
  25. Geddes, A. 2013. Britain and the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grande, E., and S. Hutter. 2016. Beyond authority transfer: explaining the politicisation of Europe. West European Politics 39(1): 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grande, E., and H. Kriesi. 2012. The transformative power of globalization and the structure of political conflict in Western Europe. In Political conflict in Western Europe, ed. H. Kriesi, E. Grande, M. Dolezal, M. Helbling, D. Höglinger, S. Hutter, and B. Wüest, 3–35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Green-Pedersen, C. 2012. A giant fast asleep? Party incentives and the politicisation of European integration. Political Studies 60(1): 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gundlach, J., Schuler, K, and Dobbert, S. 2016. Darf sie das? Bundesarbeitsministerin Andrea Nahles will Sozialleistungen für EU-Ausländer einschränken. Wie ist eigentlich die Gesetzeslage und was will sie ändern? Zeit Online, 28 April, http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2016-04/eu-auslaender-andrea-nahles-hartz-iv-sozialhilfe, Accessed 27 October 2017.
  30. Haas, E.B. 1958. The uniting of Europe: political, social and economic forces 1950–1957. London: Stevens.Google Scholar
  31. Helbling, M. 2013. Framing immigration in Western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40(1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heinikoski, S. 2015. Britain and the other: moral perceptions of the right to free movement in the European Commission and in the UK. Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 14(1): 71–92.Google Scholar
  33. Heissler, Julian. 2014. Der heisere Löwe. der Freitag, 5 March.Google Scholar
  34. Hooghe, L. and G. Marks. 2009. A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: from permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hoeglinger, D. 2016. The politicisation of European integration in domestic election campaigns. West European Politics 39(1): 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kennedy, S. 2015. Measures to limit migrants’ access to benefits. London: House of Commons Library. (Briefing Paper Number 06889).Google Scholar
  37. Kriesi, H. 2007. The role of European integration in national election campaigns. European Union Politics 8(1): 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Labour Party. 2015. Labour Party manifesto 2015: Britain can be better. Newcastle upon Tyne: The Labour Party.Google Scholar
  39. Letter of the Ministers of the Interior to the Council Presidency. 2013. http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/apr/eu-4-ms-welfare-letter-to-irish-presidency.pdf, Accessed 27 October 2017.
  40. Liberal Democrats. 2015. Liberal Democrats party manifesto 2015: Stronger economy fairer society. London: Liberal Democrats.Google Scholar
  41. Merkle, S. 2015. Populistische Elemente in der Kommunikation der Alternative für Deutschland. Eine qualitative Analyse von Wahlwerbung und Pressemitteilungen im Europawahlkampf 2014. In Europawahlkampf 2014. Internationale Studien zur Rolle der Medien, ed. C. Holtz-Bacha, 129–152. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  42. Nahles, A. 2016. Ohne Integration werden die Leistungen gekürzt. Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales. 31 January, Bonn.Google Scholar
  43. Paul, R. 2016. Negotiating varieties of capitalism? Crisis and change in contemporary British and German labour migration policies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42(10): 1631–1650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Recchi, Ettore. 2015. Mobile Europe. The theory and practice of free movement in the EU. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  45. Ruhs, M. 2015. Is unrestricted immigration compatible with inclusive welfare states? The (un)sustainability of EU exceptionalism. WP 125. Oxford: Centre on Migration Policy and Society.Google Scholar
  46. Sindbjerg Martinsen, D., and H. Vollaard. 2014. Implementing social Europe in times of crises: re-established boundaries of welfare? West European Politics 37(4): 677–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Squire, V. 2015. The Securitisation of Migration: An Absent Presence? In The Securitisation of Migration in the EU. Debates since 9/11, ed. G. Lazaridis and K. Wadia, 19–36. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  48. Statham, P., and H.-J. Trenz. 2014. Understanding the mechanisms of EU politicization: lessons from the Eurocrisis. Comparative European Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2013.30.Google Scholar
  49. UK Government. 2014a. Migrants from the EEA who claim to have been in work or self-employed to get benefits, will face a more robust test from 1 March 2014. Press Release. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/minimum-earnings-threshold-for-eea-migrants-introduced, Accessed 4 March 2016.
  50. UK Government. 2014b. New measures to tighten up the Immigration System. Press Release. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-measures-to-tighten-up-the-immigration-system, Accessed 4 March 2016.
  51. UKIP. 2015. UKIP Manifesto 2015: Believe in Britain. Newton Abbot: UK Independence Party.Google Scholar
  52. UKIP. 2010. UKIP Manifesto 2010: Empowering the people. Newton Abbot: UK Independence Party.Google Scholar
  53. Von Altenbockum, Jasper. 2014. Die Wirklichkeit der Städte. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 6 January.Google Scholar
  54. Wonka, A. 2016. The party politics of the Euro crisis in the German Bundestag: frames, positions and salience. West European Politics 39(1): 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Europa-Universität FlensburgFlensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations