transatlantic disharmony
This is a little off topic but here goes. We’ve discussed issues of free movement of persons in the EU. But without rules on free movement of persons it can be difficult for people to move about. I was stunned to read today that the Halle Orchestra, founded in 1858 and based in my home town (city) of Manchester, has cancelled a planned US tour because it decided that the enormous cost of obtaining visas (because of lost work days due to the need to visit the US embassy in London for personal interviews) meant that the visit was not sensible from an economic point of view. I have heard similar stories about academics deciding not to try to come to the US because it is too complicated.
Halle and Farewell…
Caroline writes,I was stunned to read today that the Halle Orchestra, founded in 1858 and based in my home town (city) of Manchester, has canceled a planned US tour because it decided that the enormous cost of obtaining visas (because of lost work days…
Couldn’t these orchestra companies rework their compensation structures so that the company in their respective countries can continue to employ/pay them? That way they can come to the US just on a visitor visa.
This is off topic as well(but ties in toward the end)…but SPEAKING of Trans-Atlantic…in my Con Law class, we are currently studying Congress’ power via the Commerce Clause. It was interesting to note that the development of this area of American Constitutional law mirrors some of the topics we’ve studied in EU. I’ve found that drawing comparisons between EU and Con Law is a helpful way to understand the policy (mandatory requirements) behind EU decisions:
1) Harlan’s Dissent in United States v. EC Knight.
–> here, Harlan makes a comment to the effec that Congress should have the power to enact a monopoly regulation over this sugar company trying to obtain 98% of the market because the Constitutional limits would not intend to prevent Congress from eradicating evils that undermine the Constitution’s objectives. This is how I feel about a lot of EU topics…where, although many people seek to challenge directives, such restrictions are necessary in order to acheive the economic goals that are the main objectives of the EU’s formation;
2) Houston, East & West Texas Railway v. United States
In this case, shipments on a railway (which runs from California to the east coast) cost 37 cents from Marshall, TX to Dallas, TX (150 mi) but 56 cents from Marshall, TX to Shreveport, LA (42 mi). Despite the seperate autonomies of State & National govt…the court found it was Constitutional to prevent TX from charging less for in-state shipments. The reasoning behind it was that the state discrimination impeded interstate commerce. This mirrors the free movement of goods objective of the EU…despite member state’s national sovereignty, the EU still has the power to regulate in-state activities that may discourage international trade. (See BUY IRISH case).
3) The Heart of Atlanta Motel case, and Katzenbach v. McClung –> held that Anti-discrimination Acts for accomodations and restaurants, respectively, were Constitutional (even though not specifically related to commerce) because racial discrimination in these facets discouraged interstate travel. (Liken to Truck case, where limits to tonnage at night time affect international trade…maybe discourage trade between Germany and Italy)…ALSO, diffuculties for blacks in obtaining housing & food off of interstates (which ultimately deter travel) can be compared to the Halle Orchestra refraining from an international visit because of difficulties in the travelling process. Undoubtedly, if a visa were required for them to visit Italy, and the Orchestra decided not to go because of the costs of obtaining those visas–the EU would have a case about free movement of workers/services just waiting to happen!