Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
192.168.6.56/handle/123456789/55165Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.editor | Peter Scholten Mark van Ostaijen | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-03-19T07:08:43Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2019-03-19T07:08:43Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
| dc.identifier.isbn | 978-3-319-77991-1 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://10.6.20.12:80/handle/123456789/55165 | - |
| dc.description | One of the cornerstones of the development of the European Union is the principle of free movement within the EU. The EU has created an unprecedented area in which not just capital, goods and services but also people can move around relatively freely. This freedom of movement is guaranteed by EU law and enshrined in the principles of the Lisbon strategy with the objective of creating ‘more and better jobs, by reducing obstacles to mobility’ (European Commission 2004, 2007). Especially after the EU enlargements in 2004 and 2011 with various Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, the scale of EU movement has grown significantly. Migration from the EU Member States in Central and Eastern-Europe (CEE) has evolved into one of the main migration flows within Europe (Black et al. 2010). For instance, it resulted in more than 2.2 million people from Poland engaged in international migration or mobility between 2004–2007 (Grabowska-Lusinska et al. 2009). This contributed to a ‘new face’ of East-West migration in Europe (Favell 2008; Favell and Recchi 2010). It is therefore important to know more about migration from Central and Eastern to Western parts of Europe. Because this ‘new face’ has not remained without consequences (Van Ostaijen et al. 2017). This ‘new face’ triggered for instance national Ministers to call for attention that “this type of immigration burdens the host societies with considerable additional costs” (Mikl-Leitner et al. 2013) and ask to combat ‘the improper and abusive use’ of the Posted Workers Directive (Hundstorfer et al. 2015). In a response, the then Home Affairs Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, criticized this outcry and stated that: “they are mixing apples and oranges” by “mixing up internal EU mobility and immigration” (Hansen 2015). By an external research report, the European Commission concluded that: “the overall evidence suggests that this situation is not placing major issues and burdens” (EY 2014, p. 2). This makes visible that this ‘new face’ caused contestation, in many member-states. For example, in France, the ‘Polish plumber’ played a significant role in the public debate that led to the rejection of the EU constitution in 2005, in Sweden there were fierce debates around ‘new’ beggars and homeless people (Favell and Nebe 2009) and the Dutch Deputy Prime Minister called upon a ‘Code Orange’ for a better awareness on the ‘shadow sides’ of free movement (Asscher and Goodhart 2013). This reveals a paradigm conflict between the European Commission versus its member-states and local municipalities regarding free movement as a clearly contested issue and a site of policy conflict. | - |
| dc.language | en | en_US |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Springer | en_US |
| dc.subject | Migration | en_US |
| dc.title | Between Mobility and Migration | en_US |
| dc.type | Book | en_US |
| Appears in Collections: | Population Studies | |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.