Introduction

Defining what kind of organization the European Union is has always been a challenge. In fact even those people who worked in its heart have had great difficulty pinpointing its essence. Jean Monnet, the first President of the High Authority, called the European Coal and Steel Community ‘a new political form’. Given the nascent status of European integration in those days we could forgive him for being so vague. Three decades later, Jacques Delors, a two-term President of the European Commission, could do no better, describing the European Community as a UPO, an unidentified political object. After sixty years, the President of the Commission, José Barroso, was only a little more precise, when he characterized the EU as a ‘non-imperial empire’. Barroso's remarks made immediate headlines in the Eurosceptic British press which felt that finally the real purpose of the EU had been revealed: to rob the member states of their sovereignty and transfer all powers to Brussels. His fellow commissioner Margot Wallström tried to limit the damage by giving yet another description. In her view the EU should be regarded as a football club: a ‘Citizens United’ that brings the people of Europe together.

There is probably a very simple explanation for these rather vague and disappointing definitions. Trying to capture the EU in a single definition is simply impossible if one does not know what exactly one wants to say about it.

Introduction

For a long time many observers have lamented the lack of a clear personification of the EU. Take, for example, the European Council – the institution that brings together the Heads of State and Government of the member states. It traditionally made use of a rotating chairman, which came from the member state that happened to hold the Presidency of the EU, a responsibility which lasts for only six months before it is handed over to the next member state in line. Because this chairman was the face of the EU when it comes to meeting heads of state of other countries, someone like the president of the USA would have to deal with no less than eight different EU ‘Presidents’ during his or her four years in office. This arrangement was neatly characterized by Commission President Barroso who once remarked that even soccer clubs change coaches less frequently.

The Lisbon Treaty tackled this problem by creating a somewhat more permanent post of President of the European Council, which would be appointed by the European Council itself and chair its meetings for a renewable term of two and a half years. This new position would not only facilitate more lasting relations with other countries, but also ensure more continuity in the work of the European Council.

Every year, the French president officiates at a ceremony to confer the Republic's Médaille de la famille française upon those who have brought up a large number of children. The decoration has been awarded annually since 1920; it was especially feted by Marshal Pétain during the Vichy period. There are several categories of medal: bronze medals for those with four or five children, silver for six or seven children and gold for eight or more children. The ceremony brings together politicians, family associations and families from around France; it receives a good deal of media attention and is the occasion for a reiteration of the state's commitment to families. In 2009, President Sarkozy used the event ‘to reaffirm my attachment to family policy and my desire to support all families because they are the basis of our society’. He also celebrated France's high fertility rates, in particular the record number of births – the highest for thirty years. The 2008–9 bumper crop of 834,000 French babies included little Maddox and Vivienne, born in the Var in August 2008. The twin's parents were the Hollywood stars, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Despite having six children, Ms Jolie was not eligible for nomination to the silver family medal – her children do not have French nationality. However, the large family's residency in France did mean that it was entitled to substantial family benefits, an integral element of the family policies of which the president so proudly spoke.

Introduction

To most European citizens the Ninth of May will be a day just like any other. In Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg however, this is different. In these cities a sizeable number of people work for one of the institutions and organizations of the European Union (EU). If we follow the official historiography of the EU, their jobs found their origin in a press conference held sixty years ago by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Robert Schuman. On 9 May 1950 he proposed a plan that laid the foundation for today's European Union by proposing to set up a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).

In 1985 the leaders of the member states of the EU decided that it would be good to celebrate this day as Europe Day. But most citizens will not notice this. Maybe this is not surprising given the fact that the day marks a rather obscure event in history. After all, commemorating a press conference is quite different from celebrating a rebellion (like the USA's Fourth of July) or a revolution (such as France's Quatorze Juillet).

Despite its humble origins, the EU has in the meantime developed into a political system that seriously impacts the lives of these same citizens. Within a timespan of only sixty years it has established itself as a unique form of political cooperation comprising 27 member states and 500 million inhabitants, with a combined income that is the world's largest.

Introduction

In January 2004, the European Commission released its proposal for a Services Directive. The Directive sought to make it easier to provide services in another EU member state. It primarily did so by introducing the ‘country of origin’ principle, which meant that firms and individuals would be able to provide services in any other EU member state under the rules and regulations of the member state in which they were established.

Somewhat to the surprise of the Commission, the proposal evoked massive opposition from various sides. Trade unions feared that the Directive would lead to ‘social dumping’, for instance when plumbers from Poland worked in France under Polish labour regulations – including (much lower) Polish wages. The Polish plumber became an iconic figure in the debate when the Commissioner responsible for the proposed Directive, Frits Bolkestein, said he would love to hire a Polish plumber to work in his French holiday home. In response, French plumbers cut off his water supply. Another bone of contention was the inclusion of public services in the proposed Directive. The Directive, including its country of origin principle, would not just apply to plumbers and other commercial service providers but also to sectors such as health care and public transport. In that way, it would contribute to the liberalization of sectors that were strictly regulated in most member states.

Margaret Thatcher, speaking to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland on 21 May 1988, praised ‘the basic ties of the family which are at the heart of our society and are the very nursery of civic virtue. And it is on the family that we in government build our own policies for welfare, education and care.’ Family was the basic building block, as she saw it, of modern society. This argument has returned again and again to political discourse, since it was used by Aristotle, and has most recently appeared in the same narrative of fragile social bonds under pressure in speeches by the then leader of the opposition, David Cameron, talking about the failure of the family as the central problem of broken Britain. His solution was to operate through taxation reform to privilege propertied families by reducing the tax on those who had children while legally married. But Thatcher's speech also demonstrates another intellectual problem in a narrative of the family as building block. The state is to build on it but, in order to do so, needs to intervene in it. State policy has historically attempted to preserve an ideal of an integrally private domain in which social and psychological health can be left to flourish. The family raises difficult questions for politicians and officials about the inequality of power and resources between ages and sexes in the family and hence can be seen not as an entity or unit but as a site in which different people share a location but have different tasks within it.

Introduction

On 8 December 2005, the European Commission published its Green Paper on obesity, the health condition more commonly known as ‘overweight’. The Green Paper outlined the prevalence and underlying causes of obesity within the European Union, identified possible EU actions to reduce obesity, and invited member state governments and stakeholders to submit comments. Earlier that year, the Commission had already launched the European Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, which brought together representatives from industry, consumer organizations and health NGOs in order to arrive at mutual commitments to reduce overweight. On the basis of the responses to the Green Paper, the Commission released a White Paper with more concrete proposals in May 2007, which was embraced by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament and formed the basis for further initiatives in this field.

The sudden attention for the issue of obesity at the EU level was not self-evident. To begin with, why the EU? Overweight would not seem to be the most logical issue to be taken up by the EU. Cross-border aspects, the self-proclaimed rationale for EU initiatives, are not immediately clear in this case. Moreover, health (care) issues are firmly under the member state governments' remit. The EU Treaty even explicitly prohibits harmonization of legislation on health grounds. In addition, why 2005? The problem of overweight, and the health conditions associated with it, was apparent long before that time.

Introduction

In the spring of 2007 the Italian city of Naples experienced an acute breakdown of its rubbish collection system. Because waste landfills were full, rubbish collection became impossible and piles of trash quickly built up in the streets of Naples. Although the region of Campania had been struggling with its waste management system for years, the situation proved to be especially urgent this time. Residents started burning the rubbish in order to alleviate the smell of rotting material, transforming the city's streets into a grim scene with dark clouds of smoke and pedestrians covering their faces to avoid the smell. The crisis not only made headlines in the world news but also incited action on the part of the European Commission, which accused Italy of not living up to the terms of the Waste Framework Directive. A month later the Commission sent a formal warning to Italy because it had ‘failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive by not putting in place an appropriate network of disposal facilities ensuring a high level of protection for the environment and public health in the Campania region’.

Although the Italian government succeeded in addressing the most urgent problems – for example by sending its waste by train to waste incineration facilities in the German city of Hamburg – the Commission later that year still considered Italy to be in violation of the terms of the Directive.