Article 1 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights states "Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected." I feel like that would be broken were we to allow this behaviour towards workers.
First of which, if your rights are being infringed, then you have to wait for years and years to be able to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, only after all of your national appeals have been depleted. Which, when you know how national governments can destroy you trough legal proceedings (eg. Aaron Swartz, physical/psychological torture by police/prison, etc) is a HUGE problem.
The truth is there's no place for human dignity anywhere in the industrial capitalist civilization, because it's all about profits. Remember the Aquarius? European governments were competing in cruelty, refusing to welcome these refugees. At one point, a french-colonized island (Corsica) proposed to receive them... which the national government denied.
Or take a look at police abuse cases. How many people have to die or lose an eye before we acknowledge the police is a terrorist organization and needs to be treated as such? TRIGGER WARNING: this is just from the gilets jaunes protests, there's a lot more injuries/deaths due to "non-lethal weapons" -> http://lemurjaune.fr/
Lately, the French government has renewed its tradition to persecute anarchists (in the 19th century, anarchism became illegal and the ancestor of Interpol was founded to repress anarchism) and keeps on rounding up more people for "criminal organizations with a terrorist purpose" (association de malfaiteurs à caractère terroriste). This happened in anti-nuclear struggles in Bure as well as for spraypaint in Toulouse (though not with the terrorist label), in anti-GSM struggles in the plateau des Mille-Vaches, but also against activists who are not accused of anything beyond thought crimes (the 8th of december arrestees), one of which is being held in solitary confinement since early december as psychological torture in an attempt to break him down before trial.
No, human rights are never compatible with a Nation State. Because a Nation State is a construct based on violence and exploitation. In my humble opinion, we should burn all States and corporations if we want a tiny chance to live free. But since today is french national day, let's take a minute to remember that this day celebrates July 14th 1789 when armed peasants took the Bastille prison by force and liberating everyone, marking the start of the revolution. Kissing the arse of the french army's défilé is an insult to the french revolution. Admittedly, all of France is an insult to the french revolution and its ideals of freedom, equality and siblinghood. Nique la France! Feu aux prisons!
Let me strongly disagree here. Modern republics like France/USA were explicitly built against democratic ideals which were seen as dangerous "rule of the mob". Also, the executive branch has so much power that it is in fact a monarchic republic where the people at the top are entirely unaccountable both to the people and to the rest of the State apparatus (neither Sarkozy nor Bush spent a single day in prison despite their many well-known crimes against the people).
Finally, since they exist these "democratic republic" have strongly fought off any popular movement. These same republic were endorsing slavery and fought off slaves rebelling, just like they were endorsing women being properties of men and fought off women rebelling, etc... When you dare to protest established power structures, you're faced with an army of robocop psychopaths (recruited for their fascist tendencies) who are grinning about hurting people like us.
A proper democracy requires a few properties: no political parties or elections because every body gets to decide on EVERYTHING (delegating power to a parliament is the INVERSE of democracy), the lower scale can always override decisions from the top because higher-up structures are only there to coordinate not to impose, and people are not bound to a single nation-wide identity (a principle imposed by the nazis in France, which the proto-fascist government of De Gaulle was happy to retain), or to quote from 1981:
`If we look back at the history of the past 40 years, police has hunted in the name of Republican or National order freemasons, communists, jews, resistant fighters, collaborators, Indochine's independance partisans, Algeria's independance partisans, members of the OAS, leftists, terrorists. Just imagine: if that police had done their job right every time, what would be left today in France? Democracy mandates this irreducible minimum that one can forge fake identity papers.`
>The executive branch has so much power that it is in fact a monarchic republic
That is not true. The executive does not hold power for life, rule is not hereditary. Also, the executive branch is not a republic. What would that even mean? The executive branch is more like a dictatorship within government that is held accountable by congress, the judiciary, and the people. And the executive is ultimately held accountable by the people via the election of representatives.
To your point that democratic republics fight popular movements such as the protesting of slavery, every state has the capability to do bad. This is not surprising in the least. This is about as surprising as saying ‘humans are capable of doing bad’. The good news to my mind is that the democratic republic is the least bad option and has performed fairly well over time in response to changing social mores.
Don't kid yourself thinking that the EU is a special place that is somewhat exempt of any of this.
The larger point of EU workers having more rights is, on average, very true. The US (and China and Russia) treats their workers very poorly by comparison.
There are limits though.
You have a 3 months period where you can stay in another UE country then the national authorities can ask for your leaving. There are statuses that allows you to stay longer (work, studies, retirement, etc.) but those statuses have requirements and obligations. You can't take your tent, set it up somewhere in another country and declare you live there without some fiscal authorities coming for you at some point.
If I understand correctly you are free to move from and to any states (notwithstanding court orders) in the US .
I'm not so much saying you're wrong as afraid you're right, do you have sources ?
> People who are employed in another EU country are entitled to live there. Jobseekers are also allowed to stay in another country while they are looking for a job. (See the right to look for a job)
> The host country may require them, as "EU migrant workers", to register with the authorities as residents. (See Directive 2004/38/EC)
> Other legal and administrative formalities depend on the length of stay – up to 3 months, more than 3 months, or permanent.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-ri...
> Still looking for a job after 6 months
> […]
> Can you be deported or asked to leave?
> Your host country can ask you to leave if you can't prove that you have a realistic chance of finding work there.
> In exceptional cases, your host country can deport you on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health - but only if it can prove you pose a serious threat.
> The deportation decision or request to leave must be given to you in writing. It must state all the reasons for your deportation and specify how you can appeal and by when.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-ri...
This is part of the FAQ/information forms when asking for information about moving in a EU country for EU citizens.
As an EU citizen, you have the right to move to any EU country for a period of up to 3 months as long as you have a valid identity card or passport. If you want to settle in another EU country but you have no intention to take up any work or education there, you need to prove that you:
have sufficient resources for you and your family during the time you want to stay in your new country
have comprehensive health insurance
During the first 3 months of your stay in your new country, as an EU citizen, you cannot be required to apply for a residence document confirming your right to live there - although in some countries you may have to report your presence upon arrival.
After 3 months in your new country, you may be required to register your residence with the relevant authority (often the town hall or local police station), and to be issued with a registration certificate.
You will need a valid identity card or passport and:
proof of comprehensive health insurance
proof you can support yourself without needing social assistance benefits: resources may come from any source, including from a third person.
You may live in the other EU country as long as you continue to meet the conditions for residence. If you no longer do so, the national authorities may require you to leave.
I couldn’t register in Finland as an EU citizen (when I was one) without an employment contract or proof of self sufficiency. You have three months from arriving to register. It's true that if you don’t you're unlikely to be actively tracked down - but good luck trying to achieve anything here without that registration.
[1] I.e. with a government body responsible for enforcing immigration. It is likely that you would be asked to register to be on the electoral register at the house you are living in. This is not really the equivalent, I am talking about going to the Immigration authority of the country with your passport and papers.
Yes, in addition to alibarber reporting their experiences in Finland, the same is true for EU citizens in Denmark: https://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-GB/You-want-to-apply/Residence-...
Where you see that you can stay in Denmark provided you're a worker at a Danish company, a student, a self-employed person, have sufficient funds or are from another Nordic country.
So this is very much up to the EU country and Denmark really doesn't want to have people moving there (and the rules for non-EU citizens are even more restrictive).
So in general the EU freedom of movement is "freedom of movement of workers", not just anyone.
Exactly. For Americans (and other) readers there are four freedoms in the single EU market: free movement of goods, capital, services, and workers, known collectively as the "four freedoms".
People and workers may/are often used interchangeably but in laws it is about worker's freedom to move between borders, not people.
I think it's an interesting difference with the united states which is older than the EU but younger than Europe. It also highlights that in law, in modern Europe, capital goods, services and workers have rights to cross borders while the US American citizens are free to cross state borders.
Strangely those laws are all about workers and the market but nevertheless and contrary to the US most EU countries still have a much better social security net (for people) than "neoliberalcapitalisticmoneyhungryonly" US which has freedom at its core.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market#People
> Since its foundation, the Treaties sought to enable people to pursue their life goals in any country through free movement.[122] Reflecting the economic nature of the project, the European Community originally focused upon free movement of workers: as a "factor of production".[123] However, from the 1970s, this focus shifted towards developing a more "social" Europe.[124] Free movement was increasingly based on "citizenship", so that people had rights to empower them to become economically and socially active, rather than economic activity being a precondition for rights. This means the basic "worker" rights in TFEU article 45 function as a specific expression of the general rights of citizens in TFEU articles 18 to 21. According to the Court of Justice, a "worker" is anybody who is economically active, which includes everyone in an employment relationship, "under the direction of another person" for "remuneration".[125] A job, however, need not be paid in money for someone to be protected as a worker. For example, in Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie, a German man claimed the right to residence in the Netherlands, while he volunteered plumbing and household duties in the Bhagwan community, which provided for everyone's material needs irrespective of their contributions.[126] The Court of Justice held that Mr Steymann was entitled to stay, so long as there was at least an "indirect quid pro quo" for the work he did. Having "worker" status means protection against all forms of discrimination by governments, and employers, in access to employment, tax, and social security rights. By contrast a citizen, who is "any person having the nationality of a Member State" (TFEU article 20(1)), has rights to seek work, vote in local and European elections, but more restricted rights to claim social security.[127] In practice, free movement has become politically contentious as nationalist political parties appear to have utilised concerns about immigrants taking jobs and benefits.
There's probably not a great incentive chasing down and expelling other EU nationals unless they are actually causing trouble or breaking other laws.
Obviously you would have to pay taxes. Or I miss the point about fiscal authorities finding you.
The only 'requirement' is that the government (may) want to see you can provide for yourself in the form of capital, a job, a retirement pension, etc. This is because most countries in the EU have a social safety net, and some have a very strong one. Without this rule the countries with the most generous social security would see mass immigration from rent seekers with no recourse.
The USA doesn't need this rule because it lacks the strong social security.
Whilst it's great to make generic EU vs. US statements the EU(/EEA) is still ~30 different sovereign nations with their own citizenships.
Maybe on paper. I wonder how much this is used.
The only time I remember this being used in practice, is when Sarkozy ordered the deportation of ~100 Romanian Romanies back to Romania, as part of his attempt to siphon far right votes.[1]
Apart from these few political stunts, I doubt this is often used.
[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/fre/toute-l-actu-en-bref/la-france-...
I think as general rule of thumb for all intents and purposes it becomes a problem when you don't have money (or do criminal stuff).
> You may live in the other EU country as long as you continue to meet the conditions for residence. If you no longer do so, the national authorities may require you to leave.
> In exceptional cases, your host country can deport you on grounds of public policy or public security - but only if it can prove you represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.
> The deportation decision or the request to leave must be given to you in writing. It must state all the reasons for your deportation and specify how you can appeal and by when.
Can you do that within any one single country? In Germany I have to register within 4 weeks of moving anywhere, it has to be a place that is registered as residential zone and you need an owner-ship or rental agreement certificate (even when living with your parents). Nothing of that is about your citizenship, so what does it have to do with another country?
I don't think so, this would be surprising.
> Nothing of that is about your citizenship, so what does it have to do with another country?
I am sorry I don't understand this point.
> In Germany I have to register within 4 weeks of moving anywhere, it has to be a place that is registered as residential zone and you need an owner-ship or rental agreement certificate (even when living with your parents).
For the record, in Belgium, when moving to a different administrative territory (for lack of a better word, think cities, small territories) you have to register to your new town hall and a police officer will check you actually moved in.
But if you are homeless and still have a social net the social worker can register a public place as your contact address so you keep your rights and their benefits.
And the US is a big country. You can work in CA which has unemployment insurance, cheap healthcare coverage, plenty of worker protections, etc.
It's not like Poland and Hungary are doing so without any kind of repercussions from EU.
Those in power who commit crimes will usually never spend a single day in prison, and when they exceptionally do they get built a special-purpose luxury cell which has nothing to do with prison. The rest of us get tortured and imprisoned because of fake police testimonies.
The situation is not as bad here in France as it is in Belarus/China/USA/Colombia, but it's certainly not as good as human rights declaration imply. If only human rights declarations were respected, then we would have a decent life and nobody would struggle for basic survival (food & housing). Unfortunately, we all know how it goes in the 5th richest nation in the world with 10% of the population living under the poverty line.
It is rather laughable looking at the lives of many citizens even in richer countries, though.
The grievance is that the US lacks many of those articles.
Principles of EU > Principles of US >>>> Principles of China.
But man, compared to the US where I can give notice, take my left over vacation and start at a new company all in 2 weeks, it does a lot for worker mobility.
[Surprise or downwards] mobility is what people want to avoid in permanent employment.
Such contracts are meant to give people the peace of mind that they focus on life and work and not think constantly about searching for the next job.
If you want mobility and higher pay, contracting is very popular in the UK.
In the US you may be free in theory but if your job requires you to work 14 hours a day and you can't afford to quit, then, in practice, you are a slave. In many parts of Europe, you have laws that simply don't allow people to work 14 hours a day, and the remaining hours are under a minimum wage. So yes, it is a restriction on the individual, but in the end, employees have more freedom.
It is far from perfect, but in general most of the EU is less stressed than the US. But as you said, to each their own, to a minority of people, the US is the best. Many software devs are part of that minority.