Talk:Four Freedoms (European Union)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject European Union, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Massive simplification
"In a well-known series of cases beginning with case 8/74 Dassonville, continuing with case 120/78 Cassis de Dijon and culminating in C-267/91 Keck and Mithouard, the Court has said that discriminatory and non-discriminatory rules of Member States (therefore not actions of private corporations or individuals) that hinder trade shall be illegal."
Rules that hinder trade shall be illegal? This passage is unclear and basically inaccurate. I do not have time to rewrite this second, but there needs to be reference to the articles in play (Art 25 for the most part), competence creep, and the actual tests developed and implemented.
I agree with you that the passage is a simplification that needs clarifying. However, I do not agree that it is inaccurate. Dassonville judgment (C-8/74) says in paragraph 1 of summary: "All trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions." Hindrance to trade, even only potential, is here suggested as the test by which legality of measures shall be judged. Of course, not all rules that hinder trade are illegal, but only some. In Cassis, the Court was ready to add non-discriminatory ones to the list (e.g. a rule forcing all producers of utter in Member State A to use packaging of certain shape or size). The European Court of Justice has spent decades trying to determine which rules exactly shall be illegal, and their answer has varied widely, to the extent that they were prepared to depart from their own views in Keck. The debate is still open, but the Court has always affirmed its basic formula in Dassonville. As a matter of fact, every case on the subject quotes it. Hence my insisting on it.
You are right that a clearer account of what various EC Treaty articles say is needed, but Article 25 deals with a customs union and plays no role in the Dasonville line of cases. Surely, you mean Art. 28? Or, you want to say that customs union (Art. 25) and taxation (Art. 90) ALSO need to be discussed? If the latter, then you are absolutely right and I agree with you. I also agree that we need a detailed discussion of the tests in all the cases.As286 23:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] criticism
The criticism section is too polar, as if there is only a (political) debate between 'neoliberals' and 'left-wing criticasters'. There are more fundamental issues at stake too. Intangible 22:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
- I read through it, and it does appear to be quite compact and specific on small issues. I'm not versed in EU politics. For those of us who live outside the EU, the section provides no context, explanation or proper introduction. I'm going to slap a different tag on it, if you don't mind. It still needs improvement. Joffeloff 21:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- No problem. About the free movement of persons being a negative right, I am not sure that is the case though for the EU. This is one of those fundamental issues that needs to be talked about in the article. Intangible 21:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Most libertarians agree that closed borders are coercion, and that free movement over borders is a negative right. The way I interpreted this, the 'free movement' in the EU guarantees the right to be able to work in other EU countries, as long as you have got work there - I'd consider that a negative right. Of course, if it's anything like FDR's 'freedom from want', it's definitely a positive right. This is part of what I mean, I don't get this stuff since I don't discuss it daily like you (perhaps) do. :) Joffeloff 05:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] new version
I have substantially rewritten the article, explaining the basics in simpler terms, and covering in a little more detail two of the four freedoms. Other will, without doubt, be added. I felt complied to remove the 'criticism' section completely, not because it lacks interesting points but mainly on the account of the confusing way in which it was written. User:as286, 23:29, 23 June 2006 (GMT) 2
