What mobility in EU's mobility year ? - commentaires

What mobility in EU's mobility year ?

Dear Tina,

thanks for the answer. If it wasn't clear in my message, here it is : I totally support your claims and point of view, and certainly do not need to be convinced of the discriminatory nature of those restrictions. This being said, surely the French governement did not just say « oh, we want those restrictions for populist reasons, in order to discriminate against new member states ». They MUST have had some arguments, however much ill-founded and subject to criticism...

As for the directive, I really have never heard about it, but I'll look for it.

As for Fedwatch, surely its aim is to present a subjective point of view. But being subjective also means argumenting, if only to convince the reader that what one says is right... There's no point being subjective if one isn't convincing... On the French version of Taurillon (« Red Cards », the equivalent of FedWatch), they do write longer articles, so they can afford to give more facts... I know it may be hard to choose between being snappy and making one's point convincingly.

Anyway, that's it for now, thanks again very much for your reply, and looking forward to reading your future comments !

What mobility in EU's mobility year ?

Dear Manu,

My article had no aim to be neutral, it is judging and takes a clear side from the start. So unbiased and objective attitude is something you cannot expect from me, and I thought that was also not a purpose of the FEDwatch, that should clearly take side and condemn certain state behaviour, not write academic political analyses (at least that was the purpose of it at establishment, and as far as I am aware, all FEDwatch contributions are like that). One that follows daily news on developments in the EU, can read the FEDwatch articles only as a supplement comment to the happenings, not really use them as an information source. Correct me if my perception is wrong.

Since the comments and opinions should be short and clear, I of course didn't include many analyzes made in support of my claims, but you can find them on the following websites, if you are interested in following up some of my claims, your good starting point might be Euractiv, which also lists several links to other actors in the field : http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/free-movement-labour-eu-25/article-129648 http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/commission-calls-labour-movement-restrictions-lifted/article-152345

I will however take your criticism as an opportunity to improve my future comments and opinions with listing enough references for the reader.

However, I am still waiting for any statistics or prove that will support the true economic and not populist reasons behind the restrictions in the labour market. If you have any, please don't hesitate to forward them to me. As for the directive I am referring to, I'll need to do a deeper search, for my article was written more than half a year ago, but I am sure you can find the reference to it in the media of that time (mid-January ; I will also look for it too).

What mobility in EU's mobility year ?

Dear Tina,

however much I appreciate the aim of this Fedwatch article, I must admit I've been very disappointed by it.

I would have expected you, before castigating the selfish attitude of the old member states, at least to explain why they wanted to impose limitations on the free movement of labour for the new ones. You haven't sufficiently described the arguments of both sides, so it is difficult for the neutral reader to take side and support you.

It just isn't enough to say that the restrictions are an insult. It may be right, or it may be wrong. But you must susbtantiate your claims, especially when you're making such serious allegations as violations of human rights. And saying that it was difficult to understand in the first place is no good political analysis, if you ask me.

Then you're talking about a new EU directive, that « will make sure that the non-EU citizens will have more rights than the EU citizens coming from the 8 new member states. » When one says something as serious as this, you should at least document this accusation further : tell us the reference (title, date, number) of the directive, quote it, explain how and in which regard it gives more right to non-EU citizens.

Then you say « A valid point to ask ourselves is why the restriction are there in the first place. » Indeed. And I would have expected you to actually answer this question : why where the restrictions created in the first place ? Unfortunately, you just ask the question, but do not provide any answer. So what should we make of it ?