The End of a Political Consensus on Freedom of Movement. Explaining the Contestation of an EU Principle

After a very long period of consensus on the key function that freedom of movement of persons has in EU integration, the principle has become a contested issue in EU Member States. In the 2010s, protectionist backlash against EU migration of diverse and visibly poor groups lead to debates that highlighted the negative effects of these migrations on social cohesion and public goods. In contrast to the policy’s proclaimed benefits for EU integration, negative effects of intra-EU movements became politically salient. Based on actual data or perceived risks, both mainstream and populist parties argued for policy change. At the EU level, EU institutions such as the European Parliament and the Commission have responded to the growing salience of the issue. This paper tries to answer the question why effects of EU freedom of movement policy actually have become politically salient. The paper presents research on consequences of EU freedom of movement and respective party positions in Belgium, Spain, and the UK. The findings of this comparison reveal that the contestation of freedom of movement cannot be explained by consequences of free movement alone. The paper argues that populist and right wing parties question legitimacy and efficiency of freedom of movement as an essential element of their anti-European agenda. It is mainly these parties that break the elite consensus on the pro-integration effects of freedom of movement by emphasizing negative side effects of the policy.