Fortunately we are heading towards the removal of a European anomaly. The majority of “old” Member States are moving towards opening their labour markets to workers from Member States in Eastern and Central Europe (see EUROPE 9149). Spain and Portugal have just announced that for them it's a done deal, Finland and others will follow and some will opt for gradual opening. Through its report last month, the European Commission demonstrated that restrictions were of no benefit, and showed that the three countries which did not impose restrictions were doing very well. Several MEPs expressed their full agreement. Those government, which have yet to make pronouncement on the issue, will have to say what they intend to do before 1st May, each for itself. The reflections and debates going on at European and especially at national level (each government decides for its own country) are instructive, and I would draw a few conclusions.
1. The countries of Eastern and Central Europe see these restrictions as discrimination, causing a deterioration in relations between the old and new Member States and damaging working together. In fact, the safeguard clause is only a “transition arrangement”, just like so many others since the birth of Europe (including the free movement of goods), but the symbolic aspect is important, especially after two years of diversified regimes. France is most exposed, since its is the most restrictive regime (identical to the one applied to workers from outside the Community); in the national debate, a senator said that “the influence and image of France in Central and Eastern Europe is suffering because of this closure policy”. The President of the Senate's delegation to the European Union delegation Hubert Haenel, a long-time supporter of the convention, stated, “France has long been a beacon of hope for Eastern Europeans, but, now that reunification has become possible, we have, paradoxically, appeared to be defensive and the dishonourable campaign on the 'Polish plumber' has widened the gap”.
2. Situations are not all exactly the same. The situation is easier for the United Kingdom, Sweden and Ireland, the three countries with no restrictions, because their unemployment rates are very low, indeed close to full employment. Germany and Austria have a particular problem, the long common borders with the new Member States: people come in each morning to work and leave again in the evening. Free movement could take on vast proportions. Geography offers other Member States greater protection (Iberian Peninsula). Denmark has a legal problem. Some countries will opt for a gradual opening, while retaining some precautionary measures which will disappear over the next few years.
3. Situation in the East. Leaving Poland to one side, the new Member States are relatively under-populated, and with a declining population. Their economies are going through a “catch-up” process and are doing so well in attracting investment that growth is sustained and employment opportunities are, and will continue to be, quite numerous. The old Member States which brought in measures on worker qualifications have found that ceilings have not been reached (Italy, with its ceiling set at 80,000, has received only 50,000 applications).
4. Restrictions are harmful to the countries that apply them. Restrictions refer only to employed persons: the self-employed are ready enjoy full access, posted workers are covered by separate arrangements and the free movement of citizens in general already exists. Everything is lawful, except being an employed person. This situation creates several perverse effects: employed persons who claim to be self-employed (and thus fall outside the social laws of the host country), undeclared work, encouraging “posted workers” (with no job in the host country). The restrictions, in fact, lead to illegal work. And we know that in several Member States the active population is falling.
5. Minister for “Community preference”. In a Senate debate, French Employment Minister Gérard Larcher insisted on the need not to confuse this issue with immigration policy. This latter relates to non-member countries and illegal immigrants, but workers from Eastern European Member States are part of the EU, the free movement of workers is their right. They have already shown how useful they are in a number of sectors (agriculture, tourism, the hotel industry etc.), and social conditions in their own countries will gradually come into line with European standards. In conclusion, the Minister felt that even in those Member States where some restrictions continue to be applied for some time to come, “people from the new Member States will have to be given a sort of Community preference” immediately.
(F.R.)