Theresa May leaves the room at Lancaster House in London after outlining her plans for Brexit, saying, "I know that you cannot control immigration overall…". Is that right?The
free movement of people to take up employment in another EU country is one of
the fundamental rights guaranteed by Community law. Yet until the 2004
enlargement to eight countries from Central and Eastern Europe, there was no
large scale take-up of this right by Europeans. In 2005, less than 2% of EU
citizens lived and worked in a member state other than their country of origin.
That figure had not changed for more than three decades.
A
survey of 24,000 EU citizens in 2005 found that concerns over a lack of
language skills (50%) and adapting to another culture (20%) were key factors in
discouraging people from working abroad.[1]
In addition, people did not want to lose direct contact with their family and
friends as well as crucial support for every-day life in terms of childcare or
care for the elderly.
The
survey also confirmed that there was a weaker labour mobility culture in Europe
as compared to the United States with the average duration of employment in the
same job being 10.6 years compared to 6.7 years in the US. This complemented
other studies which showed much lower labour mobility across Europe when
compared to the United States. The general position remained that most
Europeans were extremely reluctant to look for work in another EU country. During
this period the European economy grew steadily as did overall living standards.
In other words, the effective functioning and prosperity of the European
economy and its Single Market did not depend on large flows of migrant labour. Significant numbers of Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians
started to move west, especially to the UK and Ireland.
The
entry of eight new member states from Central and Eastern Europe changed all
that, above all in the UK and Ireland where no transitional controls on the
movement of labour were imposed. Just as following German unification in 1991
when large numbers of citizens from the low wage eastern part of Germany
flocked to the west, so after 2004 significant numbers of east Europeans saw new
opportunities beckoning in western Europe with wage levels three to four times
higher than what they could expect in their own countries. Significant numbers
of Poles, Latvians and Lithuanians started to move west, especially to the UK
and Ireland, followed subsequently by others.
This
trend has been exacerbated by the impact of the prolonged financial recession
after 2008 and the deflationary, austerity policies that the EU has pursued.
With high unemployment levels across the whole of southern Europe, especially
amongst the young, the last few years has seen a new flow from southern Europe of
migrants into the big cities of northern Europe. These trends have been
reinforced by the spread of ICT technologies of all kinds which lessen the
disruption of population movement by making it much easier and cheaper to
retain connections with family and friends back home as well as the emergence
of low cost air travel and European-wide coach services.
Across the Single Market this
unprecedented, easy movement of labour has brought substantial economic
advantages for employers. They gain a ready supply of skilled, low-cost labour.
For the individual migrant, the large wage differentials between east and western
Europe mean that s/he gets new work opportunities and higher wages than are
available in their own countries. For southern Europeans, it means they get
employment.
But the social and cultural costs of
large-scale people movements are not picked up by any public authority. They
are just experienced by citizens living in the areas with large migrant
populations – additional kids in local schools, where they often do not speak
the local language; extra pressure on housing; more people in doctors’
surgeries. When combined with the added competition in the labour market, with
east Europeans often prepared to work for longer hours and for much lower
wages, this adds up to a volatile cocktail and is fertile ground for racist
groups. Tackling this requires European-wide action and a reshaping of the
operation of the Single Market. Its economic benefits need complementary social
measures such as a European minimum wage and a migration integration fund to
ensure that economic efficiency is combined with social justice. At the heart of this
issue is a question of politics. Politicians created
and shaped the Single Market. They can reshape it too.
At the heart of this issue is a question of politics. Politicians created and shaped the
Single Market. They can reshape it too. However, to do so the EU has to
return to its founding social market principles and to ditch its recent
conversion to neo-liberalism. It is an irony of history that the increasing
orientation of the EU towards a free trade, supply-side competition policy
without social protection has been rejected by voters in Britain, precisely the
country that originated and was the main driver of these neo-liberal policies.
In order to address the consequences of Brexit the EU itself has to discard
these neo-liberal policies, above all in relation to migration. Freedom of
movement is specifically tied to agreed, contracted employment and recognises
the need to balance labour supply and demand.
Contrary to the repeated statements of Commission
President Juncker and others, the Treaty of Rome is not a neoliberal free for
all. This will surprise many readers since the regular refrain from both EU and
UK politicians is that access to the Single Market depends on the wholesale
application of the four freedoms of goods, services, capital and people.
However, the precise wording of the official EU treaty documents shows that
this is not the case. Freedom of movement is specifically tied to agreed,
contracted employment and recognises the need to balance labour supply and
demand. Article 48 of the original
Treaty of Rome states that “freedom of movement for workers shall
entail the right (a) to accept offers of employment actually made; (b) to move
freely within the territory of member states for this purpose.” Article 49
calls for “the achievement of a balance between supply and demand in the
employment market in such a way as to avoid serious threats to the standard of
living and level of employment in the various regions and industries.” In other
words, these have to be managed processes. These clauses were transposed
into the Treaty of Lisbon, word for word. In order to
address the consequences of Brexit the EU itself has to discard these
neo-liberal policies, above all in relation to migration.
Too many politicians have conflated the freedom to
travel without restriction across the EU with the right to work. Theresa May repeated the mantra
in her Lancaster House speech. “I know that you cannot control immigration
overall when there is free movement to Britain from Europe.”[2] This is simply mistaken.
The Treaties offer the
basis for a serious negotiation between the UK and the rest of the EU. Its Articles
show that it is perfectly possible on the basis of the EU’s existing treaties
for the UK government to negotiate a managed migration policy. This is true for
all European states but for the UK, which is not a member of the Schengen area,
there are fewer complications. Within the terms of the Treaties, there is
nothing to stop the UK government from organising seasonal agricultural labour schemes
to enable fruit and vegetable farmers to get their food picked and processed and
indicating the number of nursing and care staff the UK needs for its hospitals
and care homes. This would be balancing supply and demand in ways that avoid
serious threats to levels of employment and living standards in various
regions. Mrs. May’s government is presenting migration as the obstacle that
prevents the UK from being part of the Single Market as Norway and Switzerland
are. The EU Treaties do not prevent this: neo-liberal politics are the
obstacle. It is perfectly possible on the basis of
the EU’s existing treaties for the UK government to negotiate a managed
migration policy.
Returning to the original principles of the Treaties
of Rome and Lisbon would be in the interests of all parties. It is not just in
the UK that there is a need to balance labour supply and demand. The EU should
indicate its preparedness to apply the principles actually laid out in its
Treaties. This would break the political log-jam and put the hard Brexiteers on
the defensive. It would also indicate that the EU was returning to its original
social market principles rather than the neo-liberal economic direction it has
taken in the last decade with such dire results. Such a move is long overdue.
Can Brexit be the trigger for this much-needed policy shift?
Last part of
Responding to Brexit tomorrow – Breaking with neo-liberalism
[1]
Eurobarometer 64. Survey on geographical and labour market mobility.(2005)
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-brexit-speech-full/