The 2-5-2 formula
Any potential migrant from each new European Union country will face a true kaleidoscope of legislative and regulatory confusion after EU enlargement in May this year. Although, according to analysts, only 220,000 migrants will actually, rather than merely in intention, begin moving to the European West in search of work annually over the next five years. Even for such a number of people, a common European immigration policy has not yet been devised. All 15 old EU members regulate access to their national labor markets with their own restrictions, sometimes exclusively on a bilateral basis with a particular state. The European Commission has no authority to demand that EU member governments report on the new measures they have chosen to introduce ahead of the EU's expansion to 25 members. "We know in broad terms from our own sources and from the press about the intentions of the current EU member states, but this is purely unofficial information," Commission representatives admit. "Apparently, in most cases the process is still at the draft stage."
All countries have the option to use a seven-year transition period, which began on May 1 and is divided into three stages: the first two years, then another three if a particular local labor market suffers from the movement of migrants from the countries that have just joined the EU, plus, as a final safeguard, a final two-year deferral.
Ireland, Britain, Germany, Austria, Finland, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, and Belgium have clearly stated their specific decisions on whether or not to introduce temporary measures of varying strictness to create obstacles for freeloaders from the former communist camp seeking a better life. Of these, only Denmark has so far reached a cross-party agreement on a law that is expected to be adopted shortly. Draft legislation has moved forward legally in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Luxembourg. France has limited itself to simply issuing instructions but has not published its intended actions for introducing new laws. Neither Greece nor Italy has yet indicated what plans, if any, they have for curbing immigration from the European East permitted under general EU rules.
The urge to change places
A recent study conducted by the EU showed that within the EU as it exists so far, approximately 1.5% of workers move from one region to another during the year, either changing their place of residence within their own country or going to another. The same study also revealed a significant gap between the number of people who say they want to move abroad and those who actually take such a step. For example, 8% of surveyed EU citizens are thinking about the possibility of changing their place of residence in the EU within the next five years. In practice, over the past 10 years, no more than 4% actually carried out a similar decision. Moreover, Brussels now openly speaks of its readiness to accept about one and a half million immigrants per year from outside the expanded European Union.
Based on these findings, European Commission officials publicly condemned the excessive fuss over fears of mass migration across the continent after May 1, calling such attitudes hysteria. It is emphasized that historically the emergence of the EU has had only a minor impact on migration processes within EU borders. Moreover, the movement of labor resources can become a painful issue only for a very small number of economic sectors. In practice, it is even appropriate to speak of insufficient mobility in EU labor markets, which is precisely the problem—in contrast to the extremely mobile workforce in the United States.
Nevertheless, on both sides—both among the old EU members and among the states that have just joined—the migration issue has acquired a political and emotional coloring. Claims met with counter-claims, no one really has reliable statistics, and, moreover, there were no precedents for an EU enlargement on the scale of the current one. As a result, the entire unfolding discussion is sinking into the realm of speculation and uncertainty. However, the disputes over potential migration have undoubtedly added drama to the act of enlargement and attracted far more attention than any other issue discussed during the negotiations on the terms for admitting new EU members.
An eye for an eye
Sweden very recently submitted to its parliament a bill requiring all workers from EU member states in Central and Eastern Europe to obtain a work permit should they wish to work on Swedish territory. Similar measures are being introduced in most of the European Union.
Bronisław Geremek, former Polish foreign minister, immediately stated that the proposed restrictions on the free movement of workers from the newly admitted states have already reduced the number of EU supporters in the country to 37%. Günter Verheugen, the European Commissioner overseeing the enlargement process, appealed to the European Parliament to oblige the governments of the old EU member states to better inform and prepare their citizens for enlargement, so as to prevent last-minute calls for new reservations and amendments to the transition period in already long-agreed arrangements. Alas, it is already too late.
Verheugen's colleague, Antonio Vitorino, responsible for justice and internal affairs, conveyed to MEPs his vision of the problem, explaining that new EU laws allowing citizens to move and reside freely across Europe will not lead to social tourism. According to him, there is no reason to expect an invasion of migrants from poorer eastern regions into prosperous EU countries under conditions of greater freedom after the formal enlargement of the European Union. Hans-Gert Pöttering, chairman of the largest center-right group in the European Parliament (EPP-ED), chose a different path, declaring that in the EU everyone is just waiting for people from Central Europe, Cyprus, and Malta and is ready to welcome them with open arms. "We can only rejoice that these people are adopting our values, democratic principles, market economy, and the rule of law," he said, speaking in parliament.
Such grandiloquent rhetoric is not able to break the ice in relations, for example, with Poland, which is more upset than others about the restrictions imposed on migration. In response, Warsaw is thinking about ways to close access to its own labor market for citizens of those EU countries where anti-Polish restrictions are expected. Earlier, Poland intended to fully open itself to all residents of the European Union from May 1. The news of the possible inequality of newcomers in the EU ranks served as a reason for Poles for a new public discussion with a formidable call: shouldn't Warsaw pay back in the same coin? "One of the options we are seriously considering comes down to the principle of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," one Polish government official is quoted as saying. Incidentally, the country's business community was not enthusiastic about the proposed retaliatory measures, warning that in this way Poland would become an even less attractive place for foreign investors, who already often complain about excessive bureaucracy and corruption in the country. "It will all come down to empty political gestures devoid of any economic sense," summed up Zbigniew Zurek, vice-president of the Business Centre Club entrepreneurs' association. In turn, Hungary nevertheless considered it necessary to give a worthy response and has already announced a reduction in employment opportunities for citizens of those countries that introduced restrictive measures against Hungarians.
In the bustle and confusion of recent events with EU enlargement, the situation threatens to become even more aggravated and complicated, causing additional political tension before there is a real chance to change everything for the better.
Briefing for a migrant
Why is this happening? Simply because in the current context, issues related to migration lie outside the EU's authority and are governed not by it, but by the template of bilateral agreements for a transitional period. The transitional period, as already noted, can last up to seven years. Consequently, any citizen of the newly acceded countries who wishes to study or find work in the old EU must make sure that a bilateral agreement exists between their homeland and the state to which they intend to go. Otherwise, they will have to face very unpleasant consequences.
The following basic principles concern the free movement of workers and are being introduced in all countries currently in the European Union:
l a two-year period during which state measures will be applied by old EU members to EU newcomers. It is not at all necessary that such measures look harsh - with good will they may even end up fully opening access to work;
l after the two-year period, it is planned to assess the results: one of such review reports has already been scheduled for the end of the second year of the enlarged EU's existence (i.e., two years after May 1, 2004), and subsequent reports are prepared at the request of one or another new country concerned, on a case-by-case basis. The procedure involves a Commission report, but leaves the final decision on changing the "status and regime" to the current EU states;
l the transitional arrangement should, in principle, end after five years, but it can be extended for an additional two years in those current EU members where serious labor market disruptions occur or there is a threat of such disruptions;
l EU states retain the right to apply safeguard measures until the end of the seven-year period.
There are also bright sides. A 'freezing' clause is introduced, which does not allow the introduction of stricter restrictions on the labor market of current EU countries than was the case at the time of signing the accession treaty. In other words, things will not get worse. In addition, in the case of competition for a job, preference must be given to a candidate from any EU country, rather than someone who came from outside the Union.
Austria and Germany have additionally asserted their right to look after their interests in border regions, where various troubles are expected in the services sector. It is considered there as the most vulnerable. According to the transitional agreements, the rights of those citizens of new EU countries who already legally reside and work in the old EU territory are fully protected. The rights of family members are also taken into account in accordance with the practice and experience of previous European Union enlargements.
Finally, the accession treaties for each of the acceding states imply that the current participants of united Europe are simply obliged to make every effort to fully and promptly liberalize their labor market for all EU citizens. They were expected to begin preparing the relevant legislation and think through subsequent steps even before the EU ranks were replenished in May 2004.
Generosity is not in fashion
Quite recently, Britain looked like the only country ready to completely abandon any restrictive measures. But now it no longer is. At some point, Her Majesty's Government was horrified to realize that if the British Isles, alone in the entire European Union, opened to migrants in full and undivided freedom, then all the covetous glances of the unevenly distributed potential Eastern European settlers would be directed precisely here.
Even greater political turmoil was caused by the disclosure by Steve Moxon, a responsible Home Office official, which was prompted by his disagreement with the official actions of his superiors (he has been suspended from work for now for speaking too freely). So, Mr. Moxon revealed that thousands of Eastern Europeans had been admitted to the country without proper checks. These were mainly businessmen from the East who claimed to be able to support themselves. They were let through the border without proper quarantine examination. Yet they cannot support themselves. Moxon considered this practice flawed and complained to the public. The hasty simplification of checks, apparently, was caused by the desire to quickly bring order to the figures that were to be published after May 1.
Skeptics saw in the revelations excellent proof of the confusion and disorder inherent in British immigration policy. The argument plays into the hands of those who argue that ministers have de facto already lost track of who can and who cannot be allowed into the country. According to government officials' calculations, only 13,000 migrants from Eastern Europe will express a desire to settle in Britain each year. But against the background of Mr. Moxon's concerned voice, the press has serious doubts about the reliability of the government's immigration policy. For the time being, hospitable Britain is still ready, from May 1, to freely admit citizens of eight Eastern European states and allow them to work in the country. The only restriction already in place is on some of the benefits usually granted to workers. However, left alone with their open-door policy, the ministers nevertheless made it clear: if Britain becomes a target for too many workers, controls will be introduced - especially in the industrial sectors.
Ireland is having equally deep doubts - it currently holds the EU presidency on a rotating basis. Dublin has to reluctantly hide behind the backs of others. The country's vibrant economy, as we know, is experiencing a significant shortage of labor in a number of areas, so it would gladly accept skilled migrant workers. But, as with Britain, the Irish cannot allow themselves to be uniquely generous during the transitional phase, i.e., the period while the unhindered movement of labor is only being introduced in Europe. They have to resort to measures similar to those taken by the British.
Doesn't it seem to you that the entire so-called free labor market is in complete disarray, and, it seems, disorder in it is guaranteed for at least several more years? And rightly so. The best advice for everyone who is considering moving to another EU state is to first carefully check how things stand between your countries on a bilateral basis, then check again, and again, and again. Such a vague birth of the grand EU brotherhood may seem somewhat disappointing, but it has at least one useful distinguishing feature - it is realistic.