This introduction contextualises the hypothesis of the two-year research project on which this book is based, and explains how the single chapters relate to this hypothesis. The reader will see that we are opening a new debate with new questions, which still await definite answers.

Introduction

Writing in 2002, Fritz Scharpf warned: ‘the only thing that stands between the Scandinavian welfare state and the market is not a vote in the Council of Ministers or in the European Parliament, but merely the initiation of . . . legal action by potential private competitors before a national court that is then referred to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary opinion. In other words, it may happen one day’. The day appeared to come with the referral of two cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) in 2005: Laval and Viking. At issue in each case was whether industrial actions by unions to force firms to abide by nationally negotiated collective agreements constituted an infringement of free movement of services. Coming in the wake of contentious battles over the Services Directive and in ongoing political negotiations leading up to Lisbon, the cases attracted a great deal of attention as to how the Court would reconcile these competing economic and social demands. Moreover, given that the cases involved employers based in old Member States (Sweden and Finland) seeking to employ workers from new Member States (Latvia and Estonia), the cases also exacerbated ongoing concerns that eastward enlargement would spur a race-to-the-bottom in wages and social protections. With the ECJ ultimately ruling in favour of the employers the cases appeared to vindicate concerns raised by Scharpf and others that direct interventions by the courts pose the most significant threat to existing national socio-legal frameworks.

Introduction

The project of ‘European economic integration’ has never been an end in itself. Economic integration has, on the contrary, always been considered an instrument to attain non-economic goals. Economic rule-making should in that respect facilitate and promote the realisation of non-economic objectives, including the protection of weaker (contract) parties, protection of the environment or prevention of climate change and protection of fundamental social rights.

Finding the right balance between non-economic goals and purely economic objectives in principle remains a matter for political decision-making. Political balancing is nevertheless said to take place within the confines of a European economic constitution framework. This chapter discusses and assesses that framework in the current stage of European integration.

Introduction

It is commonplace that directly applicable EU Treaty law exerts influence on various social fields at national level, including healthcare. There has been ample debate about the impact of free movement rights and public healthcare systems, recently complemented by an analysis of the relationship between public healthcare and EU competition law. This case study aims to highlight a different aspect of the tensions between social and economic dimensions of European integration. By providing healthcare as a service of general interest, some Member States have taken recourse to the ‘third sector’, consisting of not-for-profit organisations offering social services based on a specific ethos. At the same time, a need to respond to ever diversifying social demands has developed. Co-operating with not-for-profit organisations as service providers as well as including them in the process of conceptualising services may be one way to respond to this. Such inclusion can be perceived as enhancing social integration through active civil society participation – a strategy which may also be suitable to enhance social dimensions of European integration.

One often finds analyses of the family and the state in historical and social scientific research but it is less common to see civil society included in the picture. This chapter explores what the addition of a civil society focus might bring to traditional analyses of the family–state relationship in Ireland and on that basis seeks to draw some conclusions about the value of the civil society concept as a tool for the examination of social and institutional change both in Ireland and in modern societies generally. Within the space available, it is not possible to deal with these issues comprehensively, even for Ireland. The approach adopted, rather, is to select two contrasting cases of civil society institutions in Ireland and examine them as illustrative instances of the different ways that civil society can play a role in the family–state relationship.

The first instance selected is the Catholic church, an obvious choice when it comes to questions of influence on either the family or the state in Ireland, but perhaps questionable as an example of a civil society institution. Scholars disagree on whether churches, especially those that play a hegemonic role in their societies, should be considered part of civil society. Certainly, the Catholic church in its heyday in Ireland might be thought to have been too dominant and too resistant to active participation by the laity for it to be classed as a civil society institution.

Introduction

In October 2003, the European Commission presented a proposal for a brand-new EU Regulation on chemicals under the name REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals). The REACH proposal sought to overhaul existing EU chemicals legislation. It would require a huge number of chemicals, including chemicals already on the market, to be tested for environmental and health risks. Moreover, it laid the responsibility for (and associated costs of) these tests with the producers of chemicals, rather than governments. Because the regulation of chemicals concerns both issues of (environmental) safety and issues of innovation and competitiveness of European industry, the proposal was presented jointly by the European Commission's Directorate-General (DG) Enterprise and its DG Environment.

After its release, the proposal went to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament for decision-making. Within the Council, it was discussed in two configurations, the ‘Environment Council’ and the ‘Competitiveness Council’, which included the environmental ministers and ministers of economic affairs of the member states, respectively. Within the European Parliament, the responsible committee was the Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, but the proposal was also discussed in nine other parliamentary committees. While the proposal was being discussed in the Council and the EP, formal opinions were issued by two advisory bodies: the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.