I nd ex
In s ea rch of equ a l p a rtners _S WA N A _ EU 24
4. Some conclusions and recommendations F
irstly, in the search for possible action at EU level, two general facets of the SWANA community of artists and cultural workers need to be taken into consideration. These are: 26 a) the community is very diverse even in terms of legal status and types of residency permit b) mobility is essential for the community as it is primarily rooted in transnationalism rather than specific geographies. 27 This implies that any meaningful future EU action needs to be tailored in a way that benefits the whole community. In other words, such action risks not being beneficial if it replicates the narrow approach used in national integration policies exclusively focusing on migrants or geographical definitions. Secondly, both culture and integration are policy areas that fall under national competence. This is not to say that action on the EU level is not possible at all. However, where the EU lacks competence, its actions normally involve no direct interventions in the Member States. Instead, the EU institutions normally offer complementarity and cooperation with the Member States. One illustrative example is the recent resolution of the European Parliament28 advocating for a European framework on working conditions
26
Both these features have been pinpointed by the expert reading panels, as well as being confirmed by a recent study by the Belgian arts organisation Mophradat (see: Nadia Cherif, Transnationals: Who are They and What do They Want? (2021), available at: https://mophradat. org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/27NOV2021-Nadia-Cherif-booklet-ENGLISH-pages.pdf
27
It should also be emphasised that mobility between Europe and the countries of origin goes in both directions.
28
This refers to the European Parliament resolution of 20 October 2021 on the situation of artists and the cultural recovery in the EU (available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/ document/TA-9-2021-0430_EN.html
