New Rules

Americans take a lot of criticism for their supposed ignorance about what their government is really up to but Europeans aren't much better.  "All politics is local," said Tip O'Neill, what people really care about is what is of direct concern to them and the communities in which they live.  Their level of concern and interest wanes with distance which can be geographical or psychological.  This is just as true of the inhabitants of Limoges, France as it is of the people in Port Angeles, USA.

And that's fine.  There are only so many hours in the day and aren't things like family, friends, work and the garden much more important than following the goings-on of distant bureaucrats and lawmakers?  It does make me smile, however, to hear a Frenchman talking about "those damn bureaucrats in Brussels" which reminds me of my childhood and the grumbling against "those damn bureaucrats in Washington."

I do try to pay attention to what's going on where I live both at the member state level (France) and at the superstate level (the EU).  Some of that stems from genuine interest (my undergraduate degree is in Political Science) but surely the fact that I am an immigrant has a lot to do with it.  There is a certain insecurity that comes with that status - a residency card does not make one the equal of a citizen - and it seems prudent to pay attention.

And, oh my, is there a lot to watch here in Europe.  The EU is and isn't a "United States of Europe."  All of the member states are sovereign states and most have existed for centuries.  For much of that time, they have been at odds with each other.  Borders have shifted back and forth, as well as the balance of power, depending on what era you're talking about.  Nothing quite like that ever happened in the U.S. which was founded relatively recently as a settler colony (or colonies) with people from those warring European states.  Some U.S. states (provinces) were independent early on in American history.  Texas, for example, and even today Texans like to point this out often and at great length.  As someone who comes from one of the other 49 states, can I say how boring this gets after awhile?  And do they understand how many of us, when they threaten to secede, are cheering them on?  Oh, please do.  Please turn yourself into an autonomous buffer state between the rest of us and part of that southern border.

Back to the EU.  So here you have 27 sovereign nations that have decided to come together and somehow they have to come up with common rules everyone can live with.  And that's precisely what they have been doing slowly but surely.  So slowly that many EU citizens seem completely unaware of what they've cooked up.  Just for fun, here are some examples that I follow regularly but when I try to talk about them with my friends and family here in France, they have no idea that these things were ever on the table, much less that EU laws and directives have actually been passed that are binding on them and that their national legislation (local laws) is being adjusted accordingly.

EU Blue Card:  This is an EU-wide immigration scheme very similar to a U.S. Green Card designed to draw highly qualified migrants to the EU.  It was proposed back in 2007 and was implemented in the member states in 2011/2012.  It offers very generous terms for work and residency in the EU and allows for mobility between member states.  A migrant can get a Blue Card in France and then move on to work in Austria, for example.

If you are a non-EU citizen interested in living and working in Europe, the EU has an immigration portal meant to help third-country nationals who wish to migrate here and have skills of interest to EU companies.

Cross-border Inheritance:  This one is pretty radical.  It offers nothing less than the right to choose the law under which you wish to have your assets distributed after your demise.  If you are French and you live in Germany, for example, you can choose either French law (nationality) or German law (domicile).  It even goes so far as to cover third-country nationals like myself.  I can, in theory, choose American succession law over French law even though I live in France and am married to a Frenchman.

Cross-border marriage:  Another fairly radical one concerning matrimonial property regimes is being negotiated. Divorce and custody were already the object of new regulations called Brussels II bis.   The Rome III Regulation allows cross-border couples to choose the law under which they wish to divorce.  Now the EU is looking at the issue of marital property regimes of cross-border (international) couples.  The Commission proposal is here.

I strongly urge all cross-border couples and their families in the EU to look into this legislation.  These rules were designed with you in mind and they impact you directly.

Social Security:  This goes back to a directive that was issued in 1992 (92/49/EEC) on insurance.  It allows EU citizens to opt out of public social insurance regimes and to purchase private insurance instead either in that EU member state or another.  Is it really possible to "quitter la sécu"?  Yes, but it's not easy and very few try.  To say that it is strongly discouraged would be an understatement but under EU law one does have the right to do this.

Automatic Information Exchange (The EU version of FATCA):  Talk of this has been around for a long time.  What the U.S. did with FATCA is something that politicians at the EU level have been dreaming of for a long time but there just wasn't enough support to launch something at that level.  FATCA changed the landscape and now the European Parliament thinks the time is right to push a similar system for EU citizens.  This proposed directive to amend "Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation"  was published right after the EP public hearing on FATCA and gives a framework for an EU version that builds on what has already been done, the European Savings Directive, for example, and the "DAC" which will require the automatic exchange of information between member states "on five categories of income and capital: employment, directors' fees, life insurance products not covered by other Directives, pensions and ownership of and income from immovable property.."  If passed, this new directive will expand the scope of the information to be collected to include "dividends, capital gains, other financial income and account balances."

My reading of this directive (and please feel free to correct me as I am not a tax expert or a lawyer) is that what FATCA does to U.S. Persons around the world, the  EU Automatic Information Exchange will do to EU citizens living in another member state.  So a Frenchman, for example, who lives in London or Berlin may have his financial information (income, account balances and so on) automatically sent to the French "fisc".  And if he's a U.S. Person as well?  He will have several states with seriously domestic budget problems looking through his personal finances and one does have to wonder what that will lead to.

This is going to be interesting for European banks and other financial entities.  Not only will they obliged to find U.S. Persons on their client list, they will also have to find and track those pesky German/French/British/Spanish Persons as well.  27 member states plus the U.S. - that's a lot of reporting.  It would not surprise me if some local banks in EU member states tried to wash their hands of ALL those damned foreigners (non-native EU citizens and third country nationals alike).

I respectfully suggest to my EU citizen friends that perhaps they might want to expand their definition of "local" and widen their circle of interest to include what's going on at the EU level.  Not all of the above apply to all but surely one or two have a direct impact on the lives of the EU citizens reading this post.  Grumbling about it after the fact is understandable (and a lot of fun, too) but that's not going to save any of us from the consequences, right?

New EU Rules on Cross-Border Inheritance

For new laws and regulations governing cross-border issues the European Union is really leading the way.  Here are 27 member states with their own sovereign territories and long long histories trying to build something together that they all can live with to mutual fun and profit.  The process is slow because there are so many actors, so much diversity, and so many interests.  Negotiations over EU proposals can take years before they finally come to fruition.  What they come up with is worth watching because their solutions could be a model for other regions wishing to form more closer unions and could have an impact on international law and even other countries' domestic laws.  No area is untouched:  education, voting rights, immigration, taxation, contracts and even family law.

On July 4th, 2012 after 7 years of negotiations, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union passed a new law to manage cross-border succession (inheritance) in EU countries.  The purpose here is to manage conflicts of law that arise when a deceased person, who may or may not have been living in his country of citizenship, had an estate located in multiple countries.  In those cases, which are becoming more and more common, the outstanding questions were:  Whose law prevails and do individuals have any say in how they wish their cross-border estates to be managed and distributed after death?  It was to answer this that the EU passed what is commonly known as the EU Succession Regulation or Brussels IV.

Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 on "jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession" is now EU law for 24 of the 27 member states (the UK, Ireland, and Denmark opted out) and member states have three years to bring their domestic legislation into compliance.  What's in it?  What does it mean for individuals whose lives span multiple countries?  And are there any inheritance issues not covered by this regulation?

Let's start with the situation prior to this regulation.  There was much variation in inheritance laws among the 27 member states.  France alone has some very complex and strict rules that many foreigners discover to their horror when they follow in the footsteps of Peter Mayle and retire in the French countryside.     Angelique Devaux, a French attorney who wrote a very good paper about the new EU regulation, describes what this meant in practical terms for a mobile European with one foot in the UK and the other in France when he passed on:

"For instance, a French citizen, married with 3 children, was living in UK where he died. He owned one property in Paris, France and one property in London, UK, one bank account in France and one bank account in UK. Both France and UK currently apply the division system. French law will only be applied on the French property and the British law on the rest of the estates (movable French estates and British movables and immovables). If the deceased had made a will in totally favor of his surviving spouse, his wishes could not be entirely applied on the French property because of the French forced share rule. This typical example creates an imbalance in the succession and it does not respect the last wills of the deceased."

According to EU Justice Commissioner Reding, "There are around 4.5 million successions a year in the EU, of which about 10% have an international dimension. These successions are valued at about €123 billion a year."So when the EU looked at how to better manage that 10% they had three objectives in mind:   Encouraging the free movement of persons within the EU,  harmonization of succession regimes and the avoidance of conflicting inheritance laws, and respect for the wishes of individuals.  

"The proper functioning of the internal market should be facilitated by removing the obstacles to the free movement of persons who currently face difficulties in asserting their rights in the context of a succession having cross-border implications."

So how do the new rules achieve this?

Unity of Succession:  One law/one jurisdiction will be applied to the entire estate regardless of how many EU countries are involved and what kind of assets are involved (movable or immovable).  But how to determine which law to apply?

Habitual Residence:  The EU looked at three possibilities for whose laws would prevail in a cross-border succession where the deceased had not expressed a preference prior to passing on:  citizenship, domicile and residency.  The EU went with residency.

"...this Regulation should provide that the general connecting factor for the purposes of determining both jurisdiction and the applicable law should be the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death. In order to determine the habitual residence, the authority dealing with the succession should make an overall assessment of the circumstances of the life of the deceased during the years preceding his death and at the time of his death, taking account of all relevant factual elements, in particular the duration and regularity of the deceased’s presence in the State concerned and the conditions and reasons for that presence. The habitual residence thus determined should reveal a close and stable connection with the State concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation."

So I interpret this to mean that if a German citizen who is a long-term resident of Spain with property and bank accounts in that country and in the home country gets hit by a car in Barcelona and dies unexpectedly without expressing his wishes in advance, his entire estate in Germany and Spain would fall under Spanish inheritance law.   It would seem to exclude those who simply have a vacation home in another country and only spend a few months there every year.  Sounds simple enough and yet I think we can all come up with situations where it would not be so clear which means that there will be some sort of arbitration involved to determine the closeness of the connection.  

Angelique Devaux takes exception to this decision to use habitual residence as the default and argues in favor of nationality being the determining factor.  I think she's wrong and greatly underestimates the prevalence of dual citizens in the EU.  It could be just as complicated to decide which nationality is dominant in such cases.  Residency has the advantage of being concrete and provable and it avoids conflicts between states over who has primary sovereignty over the deceased person and, by extension, the estate.  The regulation also allows for nationality to be used as one factor in cases where there is a real doubt about residency.  But she does make a very valid point that the heirs might look at at the two (or more) different regimes under which the estate could fall and, wishing to have the one most favorable to them applied, might provide a distorted view of the "facts" that prove or disprove residency.  

Professio juris (choice of law):  And here is where the new EU law is something of an innovation.  A way to avoid the application of the habitual residence principle is simply to declare in advance what regime one wishes one's estate to fall under.  This means that a person living in the EU can choose to have the estate fall under the inheritance laws of his country of nationality (no, one cannot decide simply to apply willy-nilly just any country's inheritance laws).  

"This Regulation should enable citizens to organise their succession in advance by choosing the law applicable to their succession. That choice should be limited to the law of a State of their nationality in order to ensure a connection between the deceased and the law chosen and to avoid a law being chosen with the intention of frustrating the legitimate expectations of persons entitled to a reserved share...
A choice of law should be made expressly in a declaration in the form of a disposition of property upon death or be demonstrated by the terms of such a disposition. A choice of law could be regarded as demon­strated by a disposition of property upon death where, for instance, the deceased had referred in his disposition to specific provisions of the law of the State of his nationality or where he had otherwise mentioned that law. " 

I'm assuming this means a will or other testament or contract prepared in accordance with the law of the state of nationality.  So a French person living in Italy can have a document drawn up that says that the division of his or her estate is to be done in accordance with French law, not Italian law.  What is very interesting about this choice is that it is not restricted to EU citizens - it also applies to EU residents and foreigners owning property in an EU member state.  So, in theory, I, a U.S. citizen, could have a will drawn up in accordance with the laws of Washington State in the U.S. (which pretty much says I can leave my assets to anyone I wish)  and it would have to be taken into consideration.  However where my wishes might be contrary to the "the legitimate expectations of persons entitled to a reserved share..." (which is the case under French law) this probably wouldn't fly.  Nonetheless this option opens up all kinds of new possibilities for multi-country estate planning and if done properly can greatly simplify cross-border succession.

European Certificate of Succession and Will Database:  To help keep matters simple and efficient, the new regulations provide for a certificate of succession, "a standard form certificate designed to enable heirs, legatees, executors or administrators to prove their legal status and/or rights" that can be written up in one member state and used in another.  There is also a project called IRTE which would connect all the European will registers so one could file a will and testament with one country's authorities and it could be easily located wherever the person happens to be when he or she dies.

That grosso modo is what the new succession law is all about.  What is not covered under this law?  Trusts, matrimonial regimes, gifts, taxation and a few other things.  It also does not completely resolve conflicts when they come up against a non-EU state's laws.  Angelique Devaux gives this example:

"For instance, a Belgian was living in the US, died with immovable assets both in Belgian and USA. American law will govern the succession Law as the habitual residence of the deceased. What does the American conflict of law’s say? American law applies the lex situs rule to immovables. Such consequences are that the American property will be governed by the American law while the Belgian property will be governed by the Belgian law. In that case, there is a revival of the division’s principle."  

So the law isn't perfect but since "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" (perfect is the enemy of good),  I'd call it a very satisfactory start.  We'll see how it plays out as it is translated into each member state's domestic legislation.

If you are in a situation where you face a cross-border succession either as a person with a multi-country estate or as an heir to one, my best advice is to do some research into this (please do not take my word on all of this as I am not an attorney) and then go talk to a competent professional.  "Easier" does mean "completely straightforward and anyone can DIY (do it yourself)."  A very good place to begin is this website run by the EU called Successions in Europe.  Available in 23 languages, it gives an good overview of the inheritance laws of all 27 member states. 

As usual I have been a bit wordy.  I will end this post with a short video by Commissioner Reding about the new law and the website.  

Free Movement within the EU

"The United States of Europe" is a work in progress.  Critics abound.  There are some who say that what is being created is nothing more than a huge, anti-democratic, opaque bureaucracy.  Almost every day I hear complaints about those "technocrats in Bruxelles."  There is some truth in that criticism.  But personally I am awed by the sheer scope of the project and how ambitious it is.  It's worth recalling that within living memory Europe was a world of sanguinary conflict with her countries at odds with each other to an extent that is inconceivable today.   This is progress and if anyone out there thinks otherwise, I would be highly interested in knowing why.

Is it perfect?  Of course not.  "Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made." Are Europeans better off because of this project?  On the balance, I would say "yes" though the benefits are not spread equally among the people here.  If you are older, mono-lingual and not blessed with useful (marketable) training or good diplomas, then chances are good that you feel a bit left behind and that is a serious problem.  But if you are young and talented and mobile then Europe has a great deal to offer.

For those who believe in open borders, Europe is the place to look since it is something of a laboratory  for seeing what really happens when countries within a zone drop the barriers to migration.  Free movement is at the heart of the European project.  Where adjacent countries have interesting opportunities and fewer bureaucratic hurdles to overcome in establishing residency, one would think that Europeans would take advantage of that.  Today I would argue that EU citizenship is probably one of the most valuable citizenships to possess since it facilitates access to a huge market where opportunities abound. And for someone from the UK or France or Italy or Eastern Europe, it's still close enough so that going "home" is a simple matter of a few hours of travel via train or plane.

But as we watch this grand experiment unfold, there are issues.  There are the low-skilled that I mentioned above but there are also questions about other impacts of this migration on the different countries.  What does this increased mobility means for social welfare programs, for example?  Or taxation?  Or the defense of local culture and language?  Assessing that impact is important in order to mitigate some of the less desirable consequences of increased regional mobility.

This month the Migration Policy Institute published a very interesting report called How free is free movement? Dynamics and drivers of mobility within the European Union.  It's not long (about 25 pages) and is a lovely synthesis of the major trends in inter-EU mobility, the impact of the financial crisis on that mobility, the major drivers behind EU migration, and the impacts on the receiving and sending countries (and how public services are affected).  There is also a fine list at the end of the report to other articles and reports that might be of interest.

A few things of note in the analysis.

Trends:  In the section on Trends in Intra-EU mobility, the report said that in spite of facilitated access for EU nationals, Third-Country National (non-EU) migration is still more important than regional European migration.  What?

While 4.1 percent of EU residents are from outside the European Union (‘third-country nationals’), only 2.5 percent are EU nationals living in another Member State (see Table 1).  Most foreign nationals reside in the ‘old’ European Union, the so-called EU-15. 

Some of this, they say, may be because EU citizens may work in other countries temporarily but don't necessarily bother to establish residency.  I still found these numbers to be surprising because it seems to fly in the face of the principle that most migration tends to be regional.

The figures for France were very interesting.  Using data from the Labor Force Survey (LFS) they say that in 2011 France had only 3% of the mobile EU-12 nationals (about 117,000 people).  This is very low compared to other Western European countries like Germany which had 667,000.   Looking at the table on page 3,  the total number of foreign nationals in France in the same year was 5.9% of the population of which only 2.1% were EU and 3.8% were third-country nationals.

A possible explanation for this is that France applied ‘transitional provisions’ (restrictions on the free movement of EU-8 workers) until 2008, which was relatively late compared to other major EU destinations. It also has a relatively rigid labour market, thus dampening demand for labour migration. In addition, France’s deportations of Roma communities to Bulgaria and Romania may have made it appear a hostile destination to Eastern Europeans.

Public Services:  The impact on public services in different EU countries is unclear.  The big question concerning migrants (be they EU or third-country nationals) is whether or not they are a drain on the public welfare systems. Anecdotal stories abound in my host country of how migrants are responsible for the public healthcare system deficit.  What is the reality?  Hard to know because it depends on the country, the age of the migrants, and other factors.  Where migrants are young, mobile and have yet to start families, the impact seems to be minimal (in fact these migrants tend to be net contributors - they put in more than they get out of these systems).  

In the United Kingdom (which has the largest evidence base on this question), studies have found that EU-8 migrants who have resided in the country long enough to become eligible for benefits are net contributors to the public purse and low users of public services. Evidence also points to a parsimonious use of health care among EU citizens, in part because many of them are young, single, and move frequently.

The picture is very different however in areas that welcome many retirement migrants.  In general, older people use more healthcare and this can be a big problem where there is also an exodus of the young who are no longer paying into these systems.  But it is difficult to measure this impact precisely.  On one hand retirement migrants with national pensions (Americans on Social Security or Brits on a state pension) living in the south of France are bringing money into that country and spending it locally. In general countries tend to welcome this kind of migration.  However, where some retirement migrants do not ever register as permanent residents, the host countries are unsure how much funding is needed to cover them in case of a medical emergency.  Some  retirement migrants even maintain nominal residency in the home country in order to access home country benefits if needed.  

In fact, the practice of making fraudulent claims for benefits in the sending country is so common that it has been given a name:  ‘grey abuse.’ In the United Kingdom, fraudulent claims for pension credits are thought to exceed the cost of fraud committed by people working while claiming unemployment benefits.

The Future:   What does the future hold for European mobility?  The report is direct and honest in saying that they really have no idea where this is going but it would be a good idea if someone was looking into it.

The authors of the report concluded (and I think they are safe in saying this) that the migration of the young and highly-skilled is likely to continue but it's also equally likely that the flows from Eastern Europe will drop even more as their populations age and the local economies improve.

(It should be noted as well that this is also an issue for the United States.  The major sending countries to the US are also undergoing demographic change and will probably not have the surplus population to send in the near future.  This puts an interesting spin on the immigration debate in the US.  Are US lawmakers actually taking this into account?  I very much doubt it.)

A good report overall with a lot of useful information.  Some might find its refusal to say too much about the future to be disappointing.  I personally found it rather refreshing and I was satisfied by the areas of research they recommended.

The questions that I would have at this point are:  Why is there not more mobility in Europe today given the relatively open borders?  What is stopping the movement?  Most discussions around immigration/emigration tend to revolve around the laws and procedures and whether they should be easier or harder.  Well, here is case where things were made much easier (closest thing we have right now to an open border experiment) and mass migration did not happen as a result.  Why is that?  The reports cites very briefly language and family ties as the most important barriers to mobility but this is based on public opinion surveys.  Is this true or are there other factors?  And does the EU have an interest in addressing them and making mobility within Europe more of a reality or is everyone content with the status quo?

The US, the UK and the EU

At first I thought the headline was a joke:  Obama administration warns Britain to stay in the European Union.   I double-checked and The Guardian is running the same story so there is basic agreement here on what was said and by whom.

In response to news that the UK may hold a referendum on membership in the EU, Philip H. Gordon of the U.S. State Department who was in London recently made it very clear what the United States thinks of that idea.

“We have a growing relationship with the EU as an institution, which has an increasing voice in the world, and we want to see a strong British voice in that EU. That is in America’s interests. We welcome an outward-looking EU with Britain in it.” 

“The EU in particular is such a critical partner for the United States on all of these global issues and therefore we also value a strong UK voice in that European Union. Britain has been such a special partner of the United States - that shares our values, shares our interests, and has significant resources to bring to the table. More than most others, its voice within the European Union is essential and critical to the United States."

Frankly I have never given a moment's thought to what the U.S. thinks of the EU.  Sure, I am vaguely aware that some right-wingers in the U.S. are pretty contemptuous of it but since I know many Europeans who have equal contempt for the American Right, I figured it was a draw and safe to ignore.  I've noticed however that when it really matters the U.S. and the EU seem to work pretty closely on security issues and migration.  

But the above statements by Mr. Gordon are practically a declaration of love.  The EU is not only a fine institution with a "growing relationship" with the US but it's at the level of "critical partner."  All Europeans should go out tomorrow and buy themselves bigger hats.  

All except for the Brits of course who only get one if they agree to stay on the team.

Diaspora Voting Rights - a Recent ECJ Ruling

Peter Spiro, the author of the excellent book Beyond Citizenship, has an interesting article up about a recent ECJ (European Court of Justice) ruling concerning voting rights for the Greek diaspora.

Unlike most EU countries Greece does not allow its citizens abroad to vote in Greek elections. Figures vary but there are around 3-5 millions Greeks living outside of their home country concentrated in places like the U.S., U.K. and Canada.  The recent Greek crisis has provoked considerable emigration with Greeks headed for other EU countries and North America.  According to this site, there are about 35,000 Greeks living in France and two of them decided to fight on behalf of Greek overseas everywhere.

In 2007 two EU civil servants living in Strasbourg who are Greek citizens asked the Greek Ambassador to France to allow them to vote from France (their country of residence) in Greek parliamentary elections.  The Greek ambassador said "no" because it was not practical for them to do so - no process existed to make this possible.

That led to the case Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece.  The plaintiffs argued that denying Greek expatriates the right to vote in Greece elections amounted to "disproportionate interference with the exercise of their voting rights."  It appears that the Greek Constitution does indeed have a provision that allows for expatriate voting but it doesn't seem to have ever been implemented - theoretically it's possible but the mechanisms have never been put into place to make it a reality.

EU citizens living outside their hosts countries should sit up and take notice because they lost.  Here is how the ECJ ruled:

The Court notably found that neither the relevant international and regional law nor the varying practices of the member States in this sphere revealed any obligation or consensus which would require States to make arrangements for the exercise of voting rights by citizens living abroad.

So if you are a citizen of France, for example, living abroad, understand that your right to vote in France is viewed as "desirable but not mandatory" from the standpoint of the EU.  This is true even where that right may be enshrined in the national constitution.

"Out of country" or "overseas voting" is a really tough call.  Let's be honest here - many countries and their citizens do not like this idea one bit.  I've had many hostile reactions from my compatriots when they discover that, after many years abroad, I still vote in U.S. elections.  I think it's fair to ask if this a good thing or not.  This excellent report from the European Commission on overseas voting rights in the EU is worth reading because it not only talks about where the different member states and other countries are in conferring these right on their expatriates, it also gives some pros and cons.  Here are some of the arguments in favor:

• Citizens are citizens wherever they are and should have the same rights regardless of where they live
• Overseas voting allows these citizen to participate in the "political life of the nation."  Though they live abroad they still have an interest and a stake in home country politics.  Voting is one way they maintain a tangible connection with the home country. 
• Not allowing them to vote would be discrimination.  Expatriates would be unequal to resident citizens.
• If overseas citizens lack the right to vote in their home countries and in their host countries, then they effectively have no right to vote at all, anywhere.  This shuts them out of any democratic process.

And here are some of the arguments against:

• Citizens abroad may be less concerned with or even have very limited knowledge of issues in the homeland.  I have absolutely no stake in American Social Security (U.S. state retirement program) so is it reasonable that I have a voice about what happens to it?  There is something to that "tenuous link" argument.
• Countries that have lots of citizens abroad could see their elections skewed by overseas voters.   This could happen in the U.S. in certain state elections but it could also be true of other countries that have large numbers of emigrants abroad.  It is possible that their vote could change the course of home country politics.
• It may be impractical.  There has to be a process for overseas voters to exercise the right to vote and some countries may simply lack the means to make it possible. 

It's quite a conundrum and, frankly, as proud as I am of my King Country voter card, I can see both sides.  Is this a topic on which, as member of the American Diaspora, I would be willing to negotiate?  Absolutely.  I don't speak here for anyone but myself but I would consider trading my U.S. voter rights for the right not to be taxed by or report my assets to the U.S. government.  I'm sure some of you would violently disagree with that but I think it is an option that we could discuss. 

All diaspora past, present and future rights are the result of negotiation between the home country and the "Domestic Abroad."  The expatriate Greeks may have lost this round but I don't think they should give up.  If this is something they really want then surely something could be arranged.  And, for those of you who are fortunate enough to be citizens of countries where voting rights and even direct representation are a fait accompli, be careful.  They have been given but they could be taken away and, in the case of Europe, this could happen with nary a peep of protest from the EU since it seems to be a "nice to have" and not a fundamental right.

Happy Valentine's Day - Family Reunification in the EU

And a very Happy Valentine's Day to all of you.   It seems appropriate to use this day and this post to talk once again about family reunification policy in the EU.  

Our Franco-American family exists today because of those policies - the right of EU citizens and legal residents to bring those they love to live with them in an EU member state.  Today these rights are being challenged in some countries and have been diminished in others even though the EU Directive 2003/86/EC,  firmly lays down the EU's position: "Family reunification is a necessary way of making family life possible. It helps to create sociocultural stability facilitating the integration of third country nationals in the Member State, which also serves to promote economic and social cohesion, a fundamental Community objective stated in the Treaty."

As I wrote in my original post last December, it used to be true that many EU states went above and beyond the minimum requirements to comply with the EU directive but in recent years a few have passed more onerous entry requirements (Denmark, for example).  Other states are taking note and considering similar actions. It is reported that both the U.K. and the Netherlands are looking closely at Danish policy. What kind of changes are being proposed? Education and income requirements, pre-entry tests (designed to measure the capacity of the person to assimilate), long waits for processing, application fees and "proof of attachment" to the host country are all possibilities.

In response to this flagrant disregard for EU policy the EU is holding a consultation.  They say they want to hear from all the stakeholders in this policy before they take action:  migrants and migrant rights organizations, family-members of EU citizens or legal residents wishing to come to the EU, member-states and even other states outside the EU. Yes, the last have an interest in this too. Countries of origin sometimes see other state's liberal family reunification policies as quite dangerous to their interests - it can diminish remittances, help migrants to integrate in the host country (not necessarily a good thing from their point of view), and reduce the likelihood that their people will one day return to the home country.

To get a good idea for the issues around this topic, have a look at the MIPEX blog and Thomas Huddleston's slides from the webinar they held late last year:

How to Respond to the EU Family Reunion Consultation - Webinar slides of 7 December 2012

View more PowerPoint from Migrant Integration Policy Index

I've heard many complaints about the EU being too bureaucratic and not responsive to the wishes and opinions of EU people.  Well, they do seem serious about getting feedback on this so I strongly urge everyone with an interest in this topic (and I think just about everyone is concerned since you never know who you might fall in love with) to use this opportunity well and wisely.  The deadline is March 1, 2012.   Contact details are here.  They accept contributions via both email and regular mail.

EU Single Permit Directive

Now this is very interesting.  On December 11 of last year the European Parliament adopted a new directive that would standardize immigration procedures to create a single permit for Non-EU nationals to reside and work in the territory of a member state.  This directive also grants Third-country nationals rights at the EU level to working conditions very similar to rights now enjoyed by EU nationals.  This MPG article says that the directive will:

Grant them a standard set of rights comparable to those enjoyed by EU workers, such as decent, basic working conditions, recognition of educational and professional qualifications and access to social security.

Third-country nationals will also be granted treatment equal with that of EU nationals in matters concerning pay and dismissal, health and safety at work, the right to join trade unions, and access to public goods and services.

In addition to equal treatment, Non-EU nationals will be guaranteed their pensions if they move back to their home countries at exactly the same rates and conditions granted to EU nationals in the host country.

Concerning the "single permit," Europa says that this directive will create a single residence and work permit for all EU member states with:

•a single application procedure for this permit

•the rights attached to this permit

However, member-states will still be able to decide the  conditions under which a residency or work permit is granted or renewed.
 
There are a few categories of migrants that are not covered by this directive:  long-term EU residents (like me), inter-company transfers, seasonal workers and refugees. 
 
Still, this is quite an extension of migrant rights.  The member-states, however, did vote for it and once the directive is published in the Official EU Journal, they will have two years to change their national laws to conform to it.
 
I thnk this clearly demonstrates that EU member-states are committed to creating a common European immigration policy.  Something they have been working on since 2005.  As I said before, the EU moves slowly but, like a glacier, it is a powerful, nearly unstoppable, force once it gets a bit of momentum.

Language, Nation, and State

It was a good Christmas at the Flophouse.  I had a number of books I had been lusting after and, lo and behold, Santa (via La Poste) graciously fulfilled my wishes.  Ever since late December, I've had my nose in a book (actually I've had my nose in a book since I was 5 years old much to the despair of my loved ones) and I've just finished one that I thought you might be interested in: Language, Nation, and State: Identity Politics in a Multilingual Age (Europe in Transition: The NYU European Studies)

It's a book of essays edited by Tony Judt and Denis Lacorne about language and identity - topics that people tend to have very strong feelings about.  All of the essays in the book are excellent but there was one that I thought was outstanding.  

"Difference Rights and Language in France," by Alain Fenet, a professor of International and European law at the Université de Nantes.  Throughout her history, France has been a multi-lingual nation and this was still true up until the 20th century.  I remember a trip to Brittany about 20 years ago where I met an farmer whose standard French was very strange (he had a very odd accent.)  I asked my family about it and they explained that his first language was Breton, a Celtic language that is still spoken by people in that part of the world.  I found this comforting - a confirmation that one could have an accent, or not be a native French-speaker, and still be French.

Though French has been the official language of France since the 17th century, there is a world of difference between a nation's language policy and the "facts on the ground."   It took centuries before multi-lingual France become mono-lingual France and even today there are holdouts in the provinces.  Call these people "the enemy within" which, in some ways, remains just as threatening as the external enemy, the Anglo-Saxons and the growing hegemony of English.  Fenet shows how laws to protect the French language:  Bas-Lauriol Law (1975), the amendment to the French Constitution (1992) which says, "French is the language of the Republic," and the infamous Toubon Law (1994), were also fine weapons in the hands of those wishing to eliminate regional differences and marginalize local languages in the Hexagon.

Then came Europe to the rescue with the European Charter for Minority Languages.  This EU charter recognizes that there are many languages  in Europe and offers some protection against their elimination.   This posed quite a problem for the French government and in 1999 the Conseil Constitutionnel did indeed declare that the Charter was incompatible with the French Constitution since:

The Charter conferred 'some specific rights to groups of speakers of regional and minority languages, in territories where these languages are used' and 'tended to recognize a right to practice a language other than French not only in private life but also in the public sphere.'

How did the story end?   It didn't.  We are the year 2012 and this is still an on-going issue, a festering sore in the heart of an otherwise blissful and trouble-free Europe. France is hardly alone here - see this document for progress of countries on the implementation of the Charter.  Very recently Francois Holland, the Socialist candidate for the French presidency was questioned about it during a campaign stop in Strasbourg.  He responded as any good politician would - he promised to "engage discussion" which in my mind indicates that any decision on this will be put off as long as possible.

Back to the book.  All of the above came from a reading of just one of the ten essays in this book.  Trust me, all the other essays are just as good, just as rich, and you can read about and admire the language policies of many states:  Switzerland, Israel, Canada, Ukraine, Belarus and California.  The book is a bit pricey but worth every penny. 

Europe 2020

The economy is on everyone's mind these days.  If there is a common denominator on both sides of the Atlantic which will figure prominently in the next election cycles, it will be concern over government provided services, growth and jobs.

So how many of you EU voters out there have heard of Europe 2020?  It's worth checking out since this is the European Commission's economic plan for the EU over the next 10 years.  Their vision is "a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy" with 5 targets to be reached by the end of this decade:

1. Employment:  75% of the 20-64 year-olds to be employed
2. R&D/Innovation:  3% of the EU's GDP (public and private combined) to be invested in R&D/innovation
3. Climate change / energy:  greenhouse gas emissions 20% (or even 30%, if the conditions are right) lower than 1990
20% of energy from renewables
20% increase in energy efficiency
4. Education:  Reducing school drop-out rates below 10%
at least 40% of 30-34–year-olds completing third level education
5. Poverty / social exclusion:  at least 20 million fewer people in or at risk of poverty and social exclusion

There are no fewer than 7 flagship initiatives that have been launched to achieve these targets.  The most interesting to me (and I would imagine the readers of this blog) is the Agenda for New Skills and Jobs.  To those who say that the EU isn't transparent and doesn't speak the language of regular folks, I'd say they are pretty clear and concise on this topic, "For our economy to grow and remain competitive, we need more jobs."  Amen to that.

The member-states are being held accountable for the results.  They must prepare two reports a year explaining how they have (or have not) moved toward stability, convergence and reform in line with the targets.  There is a Monitoring Platform and also a Europe 2020 Dashboard published by Eurostat. For the latter it appears that they have not yet brought all the data on-line but the site is relatively recent so give them a few months.

I like these targets and the overall plan.  Jobs are certainly the number one priority but the list includes measures to address environmental and social issues.  It is clear that the EU does not see this things as being incompatible.

A suivre.