A funny kind of welcome. This business of restricting free circulation of workers from the new Member States has something deeply unpleasant about it. I won't go into the legal side of the measures announced by several governments, because they are doubtless in line with Community law. I can even understand why some governments or other which had decided in principle not to apply any restrictions on 1 May have back-pedalled slightly, in the fear of a greater than anticipated influx of workers from central and eastern Europe, due to the provisional closure of neighbouring borders. We can also see why Germany and Austria, which are border countries, are the keenest to avoid distortions to their labour markets. But the fact remains that, according to the available indications, only Great Britain and Ireland will be applying none of the transitional quantitative restrictions authorised by the Accession Treaties. As an commentator wrote, "it's not much like a welcome into the EU for its 73 million new citizens".
It is to be hoped that the psychological effect of the restrictions will not go down too badly in the public opinions of the new Member States. I use the word "psychological" advisedly, because all indications are that the real effect will be limited or non-existent, for a very simple reason: the analyses and surveys prove that the risk of invasion by workers from the East is virtually non-existent. The joint report by the European Commission and the "European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions" is well-founded and convincing; for the numbers, see our bulletin of 27 February, p.10 [The entire text of the official summary of this report can be found in Nr. 266 of our publication "Uniting Europe" of 3 March]
A danger, but to whom? Experience proves that these accessions to the EU will lead not to in increase but a decrease, radical in some cases, of immigration from the new Member States into the old, although the former were traditional providers of labour. This was the case of Italian workers in the early days of Community history, and later for Spanish and Portuguese workers. And if there could be a problem with "clandestines", this would concern Romanians, who are not yet joining the Union. According to surveys carried out in the new Member States, the profile of candidates for emigration is as follows: young, single, highly qualified. The result, notes the study in question, is that the countries of the current Union may expect an increase in highly qualified work-force, which would boost their economic base in the short term and- in the longer term, if they stayed for good- their demographic balance. And if they do settle permanently, it should be borne in mind that nationals of central and eastern Europe pose no problem in terms of integration into the host country, generally speaking, neither immediately nor in the "second generation". They are accepted by the population, because they fit easily into the local social and productive fabric, and contribute to the funding of public services and the security and assistance mechanisms they benefit from.
Can what I have just summed up be called a risk? It's an opportunity! The EU top brass are always underlining the importance of "human capital" in the context of the Lisbon strategy, and the need to make the words "life-long" more widespread. Michel Barnier recently observed that the level of training and education is generally higher in the countries of central and eastern Europe than in the South of the current Union. Almost everyone in these countries who is likely to emigrate speaks one, and often two, of our languages. I remember like it was yesterday being in Bratislava and asking what great asset Slovakia would bring with it into the Union, and being told "our education system". If there is a risk, it's more likely to be on the other side: that of a "brain drain" to the detriment of the new Member States!
No rights without duties. It is true that although Great Britain and Ireland have not announced quantitative restrictions on entry, they have announced certain limits in access for certain social benefits. But their authorities have clearly stated that the aim is to avoid abuse and stopping any attempts at "social tourism", i.e. people entering the country in the sole aim of benefiting from the host country's social security. The Commission has announced that it will make absolutely sure that these "precautions" contain no element of discrimination against workers. As long as this is the case, I believe that protection against possible abuse is legitimate. Social security implies a balance between rights and duties; except in special cases of assistance, those with the "right" to benefit by it should are those who fulfil their "duty" to contribute to it. In the absence of this balance, no regime is fair.
(F.R.)