EU labour mobility measures applicable to state benefits can also lay claim to a number of achievements. These measures aim to neutralise those elements of state social security schemes thought likely to deter people from moving within the EU to work. As a consequence of this EU activity, the uplifting the rating of the UK basic state pension is extended each year to 150,000 or so pension recipients residing in another Member State. In addition, UK pension rights in the process of being acquired by workers when they move to another Member State are preserved and paid out as a proportion of the current rate applicable in the UK when entitlement falls due. UK workers' pension rights acquired in other Member States are treated in a similarly advantageous way. EU labour mobility measures, in some circumstances, may also help UK workers to retain membership of the UK state scheme even though they are living and working in another Member State. (Jivela 2002)
While EU equality and labour mobility measures have led to clear gains for older people, the study shows that they are also capable of producing negative effects. These negative effects vary in kind from a straightforward reduction in pension provision to the more elusive situation in which the measures have failed in some other way to meet the expectations of those looking to them to ensure adequacy of financial provision in old age (ibid.).
EU equality measures have been shown to produce both kinds of negative effect. Thus, the raising of the occupational pension age for women to 65 in the name of equality leads to loss of benefit for women retiring before 65 in schemes operating an early retirement deduction. Similarly, the raising of the UK state pension age for women from 60 to 65 from 2010 onwards means women (an estimated 2 million in the year 2030) will have to wait five years longer and will have to pay five more years of contributions to gain access to the same basic state pension. They will also lose access to increments for deferring entitlement to the basic pension and to any SERPS entitlement that would otherwise have been due to them from age 60 to 65. However, it may be noted that although influenced by developments at the EU level, equalisation of the UK state pension age is not, strictly speaking, required by EU law.
Moreover, it seems unlikely that the 1.83 million women excluded from participation in the UK contributory system by a lower earnings threshold can look to EU equality law, as presently interpreted, to challenge this exclusion. In consequence, many of these 1.83 million women (and some 434,000 men) in the UK continue to be denied the opportunity of building up entitlement to the basic state pension.
Relatively, low-paid working women with earnings just above the lower earnings limit who do succeed in acquiring basic state pension rights are less likely than higher-paid women to be able to continue working up to age 65 and to wish to do so. They will thus be more harshly affected than their higher-paid counterparts by the raising of women's state pension age to 65.
Conversely, with regard to the negative effects of EU labour mobility measures; a price to be paid by UK mobile workers for having their state social security rights preserved is that their final pension payment is derived from a number of sources in different, often fluctuating, currencies. This in turn leads to uncertainty as to how much and when they will receive the various payments due.
A second problem with EU labour mobility measures concerning state schemes is that they cannot ensure that mobile workers enjoy the same levels of social protection as they move between Member States. They cannot, for example, compensate workers who find they are paying higher contributions or receiving lower benefits as a result of having moved to another Member State to work.
Verily, the impact of European Union in UK concerning the labour sector had opened the eyes of the Government to give emphasis to the fluctuations of pension funds for the workers. The Government had become more concerned about social legislation because of the emergence of the European Union, which voice out the voice of the masses in which the Government stand. Although it has many positive effects to the Government and its people, it also has some negative implication as stated above.
In order to specify the conditions under which domestic mobilisation influences the impact of European Union judicial politics, it is necessary to systematically evaluate a set of specific variables designed to measure the degree of openness of the political and judicial systems involved, and hence, the likelihood of domestic mobilisation.
Relatively, the United Kingdom has been particularly well receptive to Community judicial politics insofar as British gender equality law and Community legislation have been shaped partially by this interaction. As in every member state, gender equality litigation occurs still relatively seldom compared with the number of dismissals and redundancy claims in the area of employment law. Compared with other domains of Community law, however, the Article 177 referral rate of British courts pertaining to sex discrimination cases is certainly one of the highest in the European Union. Of course, the degree of interaction between the Community judicial arena and national ones cannot be entirely assessed through the number of preliminary rulings, although this number does provide a sound and verifiable indicator of the nature of the relationships between Community judges and national ones.
Conversely, not only do British courts make a surprising number of referrals in the gender equality field, they also cite European Court of Justice (ECJ) rulings quite frequently. The combination of a high rate of referral to Article 177 and a growing use of Community law by national judiciaries undoubtedly attests to a strong degree of responsiveness in the UK to EU judicial politics.
The constant flow of British references to the ECJ is frequently explained by two crucial factors: striking inconsistencies between Community and national law, on one side, and the fact that the Convention of Human Rights is not part of domestic law, on the other. From this perspective, British judges and litigants are said to be simply forced to use EC law.
The EU average is 76 percent. Certainly, there is some truth to the argument that the Member States with acute employment law problems have experienced both the highest litigation rates and the greatest innovation in equality litigation procedures. I do not deny that the impact of Community judicial politics rests partly upon a reactive basis to grievances on gender equality issues brought to the attention of the relevant bodies. It must be noted, however, that while gender equality norms in most Member States seldom meet Community standards, the majority of EU countries still exhibit low litigation rates in this field. (Prechal and Senden 1997) Inconsistencies or ‘misfits’ between national law and Community law are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for domestic mobilisation.
The United Kingdom is a strong, unitary state, although it is neither homogeneous unified nor autonomous. (Mény 1990) The said country is characterised by a high degree of centralisation and concentration. In the particular case of the UK, a further factor is the tradition of secrecy. Thus, these political systems are rather closed to their detractors and display very few access points. (Mény, Muller and Quermonne 1996) The United Kingdom offers a very rich configuration of allies and support in the field of gender equality. Public agencies, trade unions and interest groups are extremely active in the field of gender equality litigation.
Certainly, it is shown that the impact of EU judicial politics on modes of governance in the field of gender equality in three countries is influenced by domestic mobilisation, which depends in turn on the degree of openness of national political and judicial systems. It suggests a singled out a set of variables to measure the openness of the national political and judicial systems under scrutiny. While exploring how and under which conditions EU judicial politics interact with national modes of governance, it identified distinctive channels for the expansion of judicial politics in the national arena. Conversely, the exceptional litigious profile of the major opponent to a social Europe certainly owes much to the litigation strategy that has been developed by a cluster of public and private actors.
There is an active and significant equality forum, the EOC has developed a litigation strategy, women’s groups and trade unions are lobbying and supporting litigation. Certain national judges have also significantly contributed toward creating user-friendly structures for gender equality litigation at the EU level.
The Political impact of EU in UK suggests that the conflict structures of a unitary and ‘closed’ state may be counterbalanced by the extremely active mobilisation of a wide range to the public and private actors. It thus implies that Community legal developments on gender issues have successfully challenged the imagination of players in the field and provided them with a real window of opportunity for judicial action in the field. ‘Unexpected events’ do have their place, the configuration of structures of opportunity and incentives in the member states. These are the clear implications and impact the European Union had affected the political arena of UK.
Therefore it is concluded that the involvement of European Union in the government and politics in Great Britain had made the country’s social legislation policies more effective and somehow help the commoners voices heard by the government and politicking is somewhat minimised in order to accommodate the need of the people. That is the impact of European Union in UK’s government and politics.
Bibliography
Prechal, Sacha, and Linda Senden (1997). Monitoring Implementation and Application of Community Equality Law 1996. General Report 1996 of the Legal Experts Group on Equal Treatment of Men and Women. Brussels: DG-V, Commission of the European Communities.
Mény, Yves (1990). Politique comparée: Government and politics in Western Europe: Britain, France, Italy, West Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mény, Yves, Pierre Muller and Jean-Louis Quermonne (eds.) (1996). Adjusting to Europe. The Impact of the European Union on National Institutions and Policies. London: Routledge.
Ward, Neil (2003) Environmental Policy-Making in Britain, Germany and the European Union: The Europeanization of Air and Water Pollution Control. The Geographical Journal: Vol. 169, No 4, pp. 383 et seq.
Jileva, Elena (2002) Visa and Free Movement of Labour: The Uneven Imposition of the EU Acquis on the Accession State. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies: Vol. 28, No 4, pp. 683-700.
Budge, Ian, Ivor Crewe, David McKay, and Ken Newton (1998). The New British Politics. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
