![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.kent.ac.uk\/kentlawclinic\/files\/2018\/12\/Image-21.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nTegg began with a critique of the EU\u2019s conception of \u2018EU citizenship\u2019 as introduced (in response to no popular demand) by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. True citizens\u2019 rights must require no distinctions on any grounds between those accepted as citizens of a given territory. This means the unfettered right to enter and remain in the whole territory, including rights to vote, to work, study, claim benefits, etc. However, \u2018EU citizenship\u2019 has never approached that universal understanding. From the beginning the concept of free movement has been constrained by economic considerations, so that effectively only those who are useful and valuable to the EU economy enjoy free movement, and even they enjoy very limited democratic rights in the host Member States. Tegg described the experiences of EU national Clinic clients, some resident in the UK for decades, who face destitution because of the restrictive interpretation of free movement laws \u2013 in his view demonstrating that \u2018EU citizenship\u2019 was never envisaged as applying to the poor, or those who lost their jobs, or became sick, or who simply made poor life choices. At the very moment when such people need support, the EU abandons them. Valcke disagreed with Tegg\u2019s criticism of the CJEU\u2019s role in restricting free movement rights, laying the blame with right-wing neoliberal government (foremost being the UK under Thatcher, which from the early 90\u2019s campaigned strongly against \u2018benefits tourism\u2019).<\/p>\n
However, Tegg used his critique of \u2018EU citizenship\u2019 to develop his broader argument for \u2018better out than in\u2019. For Tegg, the EU as a structure and as a project is destructive of the social or welfare state, leaving those wishing to defend people\u2019s social rights and entitlements to judicial activism instead of political discussion and political action. He concluded by emphasising the importance of democracy \u2013 that we are governed by those we elect, on the basis of the fullest possible debate \u2013 and thus we cannot hand over major decisions about citizens\u2019 rights, or any other matter, to distant bureaucratic institutions which prioritise economic interests and do not have the interests of people <\/em>at heart.<\/p>\n Both speakers were clear, informative, courteous and entertaining, and received deserved applause. The questions from the floor were well thought out and imaginative, and the answers illuminating. Afterwards one member of the audience said they had so far “despaired” of the Brexit debate occurring in the media and was very pleased to attend a debate where the facts were discussed sensibly and reasonably.’ It was a treat, a privilege to be present at an event where people disagreed but spoke not across one another but to and with each other.<\/p>\n In the Kent Law Clinic we endeavour to create and sustain a space where people feel able to debate legal, political, social, cultural issues, where all opinions can be analysed and challenged. We will be holding more \u2018Brexit debates\u2019 \u2013 watch out for them!<\/p>\n Sheona York,\u00a0Kent Law Clinic Solicitor<\/em><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n