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.

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.