1
Click here to load reader
-
Upload
ioana-stanciu -
Category
Documents
-
view
32 -
download
3
Transcript of 1
New Problems Resulting from EUEnlargement: Freedom of movement — A right, a privilege, or a problem
Vladimir Prvulović*
ABSTRACT
Free movement of people, goods, services and capital is one of the
basic assumptions of EU. The accession of ten new member countries
in 2004 first, and then of Bulgaria and Romania on 1st January 2007
has contributed to large migration from the East to the West – from
poorer to richer EU countries. With the latest economic crisis and the
increase of unemployment, particular countries (Italy, Germany, Spain,
France, and the UK) are facing a large number of migrants with EU
passports in legal search for a job and better life. This results in the rise
of xenophobic atmosphere and intolerance towards newcomer
migrants, particularly among the unemployed or xenophobic political
parties and movements. However, a question duly arises: are
newcomers from Bulgaria, Romania, Poland and other EU members
from Eastern Europe immigrants, and could they be treated as such
having in mind that they have EU citizenship? Does EU have
mechanisms of the allowed (legal) restrictions on free movement for
EU citizens, particularly from the new EU countries? How will this
influence further EU enlargement, particularly from the countries of
the West Balkans?
Key words: free movement of people, goods, services and capital, human
rights and freedoms, Maastricht Agreement, Treaty of Lisbon, economic
migrants, the third world countries, immigrants, EU enlargement,
Schengen Agreement, White Schengen List.
80 The Review of International Affairs
UDK: 341.231.14:339.923.061.1Biblid 0543-3657, 60 (2009)Vol. LX, No. 1133–34, pp. 80–93 Original Scientific PaperMarch 2009
* Professor Vladimir Prvulović, Ph.D., Megatrend University, Belgrade.
Introductory notes
Free movement of people, goods, services and capital is one of the
fundamental assumptions of the European Union since it was established.1 It was
one of the reasons the pioneers of the idea of EU and its founders pointed out to
citizens of Europe as the basic motive for the achievement of this European
integration. Up to the present days, the idea of free movement of people has
passed through its evolution, transformation and concretisation. It does not only
involve the right and freedom to move and settle in whatever EU member
country you wish, but also to get a job, to enjoy the rights resulting from
employment, and also to achieve, to some extent, voting and other political rights
in the country of settlement. All this aroused excitement with citizens of then
candidate countries who thought that they could come out of the isolation before
the fall of the Berlin wall through a painstaking transition, finally entering “EU
as a pastry shop” they could only watch through glass till then. By the
enlargement of EU the idea of frontier-free Europe became quite real for 500
million of its citizens.
These provisions were later elaborated in detail in the so-called
consolidated versions of the Treaty on the European Union and they are as
follows: the Maastricht Treaty of 7 February 1992, the Treaty of Amsterdam of
9 November 1997, the Treaty of Nice of 10 March 2001, the Brussels
consolidated version of the Maastricht Treaty of 29 December 2006, the Lisbon
Treaty of 13 December 2007 and finally the consolidated version of the
Maastricht Treaty of 9 May 2008.2 However, all these fundamental EU
The Review of International Affairs 81
1 Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome of 25.03.1965):
Third part: Community Policies, III Freedom of movement of people, freedom of movement of
goods, services and capital, Chapter 1, Article 48:
„1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community. 2. Such
freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality
between workers of the Members States as regards employment, remuneration, and other
conditions of work and employment 3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified
on ground of public policy, public security and public health: (a) to accept offers of
employment actually made; (b) to move freely within the territory of Member State for this
purpose; (c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the
provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or
administrative action), quoted from the book: Lopandić, Duško, Ugovor o Evropskoj uniji:Rim-Mastriht-Amsterdam, Medjunarodna politika, Službeni list, Pravni fakultet, Institut
ekonomskih nauka, Belgrade, Serbia,1999, p. 87.2 Source: Versions consolides du Traite sur l’Union europeenne et du Traite instituant la
Communaute europeenne du 29.12.2006, Journal officiel de l’Union europeenne N. C321,
p.11, 57 et 59.
The Brussels consolidated version of the Treaty on EU and the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union of 9 May 2008.
documents are not untouchable.3 During the evolution of the European
integration, they have been subject to continuous adaptation, improvement and
promotion, this including, among other things, the field of the fundamental
right of EU citizens to freedom of movement, employment, residence and
settlement. Of course, those rights and freedoms are intended to be used as
fully, appropriately and efficiently as possible. The below mentioned articles
from the so-called consolidated versions of the basic EU treaties illustrate this.
All of them, with the exception to some extent of the Amsterdam Treaty, further
confirm, guarantee and elaborate freedom of movement of people (labour
force) and prohibit restriction of this human right of EU citizens.
However, are there bad aspects of this right? Can freedom of movement of
EU citizens can be a danger for citizens of the receiving countries of newcomers?
Can this freedom be restricted?
All this has become current after the accession of the new members from
Eastern Europe in 2004 and especially recently when Italy has stated that
“immigrants” have caused enormous economic, political and security troubles,
what makes it restrict the freedom or actually limit the number of settlers and
“immigrants”.
Are, for example, the Romanians and Bulgarians, citizens of the member
countries, “immigrants”? I wish to discuss this issue in the paper.
Reasons for alert
Let us try to understand the seriousness of the Italian warnings and the
reasons for alert.
According to numerous official data that have been made public about
300,000 Romanians (most of them are Roma) have constantly resided in Italy
with a 90-day permission to stay.4 Many of them, having the passports of an EU
member country, are coming legally and settling in caravans and trailers in the
suburbs of the Italian cities. They establish there an illegal market of “new
services”: prostitution, begging, car thefts, burglaries, pickpocketing, sorcery
practising and taking spells off, being also involved in small crime activities.
Italy has been shocked by some new business – reselling of flowers that have
been stolen from the graves on the entrances of cemeteries in big cities. Playing
music in public transportation and at city squares has already been organised
82 The Review of International Affairs
3 I am very grateful to Dragana Cvetojević, who has helped in the verification of the data and
excerpts from the documents used here. I express my special gratefulness to Mr. Miloš
Prvulović, EUROJUST Legal Officer, The Hague, Netherlands, for his help and suggestions.
4 Brady, Hugo, EU migration policy: An A-Z, Centre for European reform, London, 2007, p. 28.
well and one should say that this has been an accepted phenomenon performed
by newcomers. Thus, they have established a new shallow underworld.
However, the security of citizens of Rome, Milan, Florence and other Italian
cities has never before been endangered as is it is now by the organised groups
of new EU citizens. Italy made an attempt to resolve this problem by enforced
expulsion of “newcomers” at its own expense after a 90-day period but this
produced no effect. They would come back in the same, legal way performing
their “business”. By all this, not all of them who stayed more than 90 days could
be detected or returned to the countries they had come from. Moreover, the
expenses of taking them into custody, finding them a place to stay as well as
those of the organised collective deportations were enormous.
Italy, then, alarmed the European institutions pointing to a great influx of
immigrants from the East and threatened to introduce restrictive measures and
limit broad freedoms of movement.5 However, does it have the right to do this
and is it in accordance with the EU documents? Italy made a bilateral agreement
with Romania on intensifying the control measures for coming out of the country
The Review of International Affairs 83
5 There is a lack of new EU official data on the number of migrants. The last official data on the
number of migrants from 10 candidate countries date from 2001–2002 period. According to
them, 1,027,887 migrants had stayed in EU in that period and they came from 10 countries that
acceded EU in 2004. According to those data, the greatest part of them had stayed in FR
Germany and there were 597,137 of them, while in Italy there were 107,419 of these migrants.
Source: Potential Migration from Central and Eastern Europe into the EU-15, Report for the
European Commission, DG Employment and Social Affairs, Patricia Alvarez-Plata, Herbert
Bruckler (coordinator), Boris Sliversons, DIW, Berlin, October 2003, p.14.
For this reason I shall use the forecast data on the number of migrants from the new member
countries in FR Germany for 2008, 2009 and 2010, focusing my attention especially on those
coming from Bulgaria and Romania (by the so-called High Scenario and based on the model
used by the below quoted authors): In 2008 in FR Germany will stay 1,804,246 migrants from
10 countries (acceded in 2004) (this including 383,629 from Bulgaria and Romania), in 2009
there will be 1,975,841 migrants (of which 420,155 from Bulgaria and Romania) and in 2010
there will be 2,115,436 migrants (of which 451,638) from Bulgaria and Romania.
These are the forecasts, but in reality, they have gone far beyond. (commented by V.P.).
Ibidem, p. 70.
I will also quote a datum from the paper on the forecast number of foreign citizens in EU-15
that was made according to the Baseline-Scenario (table A.5) for 2008, 2009 and 2010 for FR
Germany, Austria and Italy. These are the countries where there will be most of them and
collectively it totals as follows:
In 2008 — FR Germany 1,591,203, Austria 325, 288, Italy 176,195 migrants, and EU-15 in
total: 2,539,017 foreigners. In 2009 – FR Germany 1,730,141, Austria 346,260, Italy 187,609
migrants, and EU-15 in total: 2,760,715 foreigners. In 2010 – FR Germany 1,842,220, Austria
346,260, Italy 187,609 migrants, and EU-15 in total: 2,939,554 foreigners. The trends of
constant rise in foreigners that have settled in these countries are obvious. In the meantime, EU
enlarged to 27 member countries, thus making the total numbers much bigger.
and of organised deportation of persons who break the laws of the receiving
country, especially when their stay is longer than 90 days. Taking into account
the statements of the Italian officials and articles in their press, these measures
have not produced satisfying results so far.
There is another example that illustrates how serious this situation is. Since
1 January 2007, apart from Romania, Bulgaria has become a new member of
EU. According to the official data, when it acceded EU there were 7.6 million
inhabitants in Bulgaria.6 The accession of Bulgaria to EU is certainly a turning
point in its transition transformation, this making a basis of great expectations of
its citizens.
Two years later, in 2009, also according to the unofficial data that have not
been statistically recorded and which I received from Bulgaria scientists and
representatives I made contacts with, Bulgaria has 5.3 million inhabitants!
According to these data, in two years this country was left by 2.3 million
inhabitants. These are mostly young, physically and mentally most capable
Bulgarians that used their inviolable right to freedom. The main destinations
of these new Europeans are the following: Germany (16 per cent), Spain (12
per cent), Italy (10 per cent), Great Britain, Cyprus and France (7 per cent
each), Austria, Greece (5 per cent each), non-EU countries – Canada, Australia
and New Zealand. 7
It is hard to say what implications this produces for the receiving countries.
But, Bulgarian newcomers have certainly made an additional pressure on meagre
jobs creating a new army of unemployed “getting on in their Bulgarian ways”.
Having come to their new destinations in a legal way and with passports of an
EU member country they use freedom of movement searching for a new, better
life, almost applying the American constitutional recipe of “searching for
84 The Review of International Affairs
6 According to the 2007 official census, Bulgaria had 7,932,984 inhabitants. Due to the great
emigration and negative population growth (-0.813 per cent in 2008) according to the census
in 1989 the population was reduced from 9,009,018 to 7,262,675 inhabitants (the official
estimate from July 2008). According to the official data, the unemployment rate is 6.3 per cent.
Source: CIA World Facebook.
In this data mess, one can see that officially there is a big outflow of inhabitants of Bulgaria
(1,746,343) from 9,009,018 in 1989 to 7,262,675 in 2008. The last unofficial data of 5.3
million inhabitants living in Bulgaria seems striking and very symptomatic. If they are true, it
means that almost 4 million people (or more precisely 3,709,018) have left Bulgaria in the last
20 years.
7 According to the official estimates in late 2008, Bulgaria had 7,606,551 inhabitants. Taking into
account those data, during 2008 due the negative population growth and migrations the number
of inhabitants was reduced by 33,700 inhabitants. By the same data, the decrease is much
bigger comparing it with 1990 when Bulgaria had 8,669,269 inhabitants. Since then the
number of inhabitants have drastically decreased.
happiness”. The unemployment rate in Europe 27 has already reached 8.2 per
cent on average.8 Has anyone the right to abolish or restrict that freedom not
violating the documents establishing EU as well as other legal ones.
The third example and the reason for alert is the following: The Poles have
almost flooded Great Britain, Ireland, Germany and to a lesser extent France (as if
they had made an unwritten agreement with the Romanians and Bulgarians on the
division of the target countries. All jobs that were in the past avoided by British,
Irish, German and French workers have been taken by the Poles. With the feeling
of solidarity, almost unknown, for example, to the British, they have invited and
“brought” they countrymen creating comparatively compact colonies (the
attachment to the Catholic Church has exerted its influence on this) and being
ready for the adjustment and even assimilation. The blows of the world economic
crisis and mass unemployment have made them become a sort of “booke miser”
for most of the problems in those developed countries and true “enemies” of
British, Irish, German and French workers who have lost their jobs or are
unemployed. The xenophobic slogans and movements brutally made start a wave
of violence and intolerance towards the “immigrants”. Above all, such a situation
threw a negative publicity on the process of further EU enlargement and was one
of the causes for the French rejection of the EU Constitution project at the
referendum that took place in 2005.
However, are newcomers immigrants at all and may the authorities and
citizens of receiving countries treat them like this?
The Review of International Affairs 85
8 Since 2000, the decrease of unemployment rate was the biggest in 2006 in EU-27. The average
unemployment rate in EU-27 dropped from 9 per cent in 2005 to 8.2 per cent in 2006.
Observing the EU countries individually there were some of them that recorded unemployment
rate below 5 per cent and these are as follows: Denmark and Holland 3.9 per cent, Ireland 4.4
per cent, Cyprus 4.5 per cent and Austria and Luxembourg 4.7 per cent. However, three
countries recorded unemployment rate that was above 10 per cent, and these are the following:
Germany 10.2 per cent, Slovakia 13.4 per cent and Poland 13.9 per cent. Bulgaria, Romania
and Italy reduced their number of long-term unemployed, while in 2006 more than half of
unemployed persons in Bulgaria were searching for a job more than a year.
Source: Eurostat regional yearbook 2008, Eurostat, European Commission, Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008, p. 85.
Perhaps for the above mentioned, this is not the reference year for our research Since that time
the situation has seriously aggravated, this particularly including the period from the beginning
of the world economic crisis. This has also made a specific impact on the migration policy and
economic immigrants in general.
The true nature and legal treatment of freedom of movement
One should make a clear difference and consequently treat legally and
administratively freedom of movement for: a) EU citizens, particularly those
from the new member states who are searching for jobs, stay or settlement, what
is in accordance with the rights granted by the EU basic documents, and b)
immigrants from third countries. This is the way we are going to structure the
study of the above mentioned problems in this paper.
Freedom of movement for EU citizens
The governments of the EU member countries have before themselves a
logical question: how to restrict this huge inflow of citizens from new EU member
countries not violating the guaranteed right to freedom of movement. After all, this
freedom of movement within EU is not going only in one direction from poorer
members states to richer ones. According to the data presented by Hugo Brady, it
is estimated that about 750,000 British have settled in Spain in recent years.9
Some EU member countries that in the implementation of freedom of
movement of EU citizens went the farthest signed the well-known Schengen
Agreement that abolishes any border and passport control or restriction of freedom
of movement within the EU borders.10 In other words, once they have passed
control on the EU external borders that is being exercised by border polices and
supervised by FRONTEX officers EU citizens, this including citizens from third
countries move freely within the framework of Schengen Agreement zone of EU
member states with no other obstacles, restrictions and controls, with the exception
of measures and extraordinary situations related to the fight against various forms
of organised crime. 11 The Schengen Agreement provides the zone of police and
86 The Review of International Affairs
9 Brady, Hugo, EU migration policy An A-Z, Centre for european reform – Briefing, London,
2008, p. 18.
10 „By the treaty signed in June 1985 in Schengen, FR Germany, Belgium, France, Luxembourg
and Holland agreed to gradually abolish their common border controls and introduce freedom
of movement for all natural persons – citizens of the signatory states, of other EU member
countries or of third countries. The Schengen Convention was signed by the five mentioned
states in 1990 providing guarantees for the implementation of freedom of movement. The
original signatory states were later joined by Italy (1990), Portugal and Spain (1991), Greece
(1992), Austria (1995), as well as Sweden, Finland and Denmark (1996). The Schengen
Agreement and Convention, together with the decisions made on the part of the Schengen
Executive Committee make the so-called „acqui“ that was included in the text of the Amsterdam
Treaty since it treats a part of its internal market – freedom of movement of people“. Source:
http://www.mfa.gov.yu.
11 Frontex, the EU agency based in Warsaw, was created as a specialised and independent body
tasked to coordinate the operational cooperation between Member States in the field of border
security.
judicial co-operation in this field and co-operation in the area of Union external
borders control. In the meantime, the principles that were of key significance for
signing of the Schengen Agreement proved to be fully affirmative what made the
so-called Schengen Zone extend to most of the EU member states. The extension
of the Schengen Zone to the East was of historical significance and this occurred
on 21 December 2007 when it was joined by the following new members: Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Cyprus, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and the
Czech Republic. These countries implement this agreement autonomously (but
partly) taking into consideration the fact the right to freedom of movement and
employment of their labour force is suspended in the 7-year transition period (till
2011 or till 2014, respectively). The zone includes two non-EU countries —
Iceland and Norway, while Switzerland joined the Schengen Agreement in 2008.
Only Bulgaria and Romania, as new member states are not yet ready to join the
Schengen Agreement. Great Britain and Ireland, as old member states, decided not
to join the agreement, maintaining control of their borders and freedom of
movement within them.
Approved measures for restricting freedom of movement of people within EU
The above mentioned EU basic documents provide only some general and
implicit legal restrictions of freedom of movement of EU citizens in other
member countries. The Amsterdam Treaty of 10 November 1997 elaborates in
detail the conditions, forms and mechanisms of restriction in the implementation
of this fundamental human right of EU citizens.12 Various measures for holding
back, restricting and legalising “economic immigration” are implemented in the
countries that are most exposed to pressure caused by this phenomenon.13 By
The Review of International Affairs 87
12 Traite d’ Amsterdam du10.11.1997, Journal officieles Communautes eurpeens, C340, p. 28,
29, 30.
13 According to the latest data the number of economic immigrants in the EU countries with their
greatest inflow is as follows: FR Germany — 3.5 million in total, of which 842,000 Turks,
385,000 Italians, 208,000 Serbs; Spain — 1,826,000 in total of which 266,000 Ecuadorians,
251,000 Moroccans, 169,000 Romanians; Great Britain — 1,773,00 in total of which 154,000
Indians, 152,000 Irish, 151,000 Poles; Italy — 1,463,000 in total of which 191,000
Romanians, 164,000 Moroccans, 148,000 Albanians; France — 1,456,000 in total of which
304,000 Portuguese, 184,000 Algerians and 181,000 Moroccans. I stress that these are only
the officially registered and recorded migrant workers while an enormous number (almost
twice as much of newcomers from the EU member states) is not registered or they are staying
as tourists up to 90 days. It can be also noted that with the exception of several cases (Indians,
Ecuadorians, Algerians, Moroccans, Turks, Albanians and Serbs, of which the latter three are
on their way to joining EU) that most of them are EU citizens that cannot be treated as
immigrants.
making a bit panicked statements by prime minister Berlusconi Italy was, at least
rhetorically, most ardent in announcing that it would introduce greater control
and even hold back the inflow of unemployed from the new EU member
countries, even it had to change the provisions of the EU basic documents. In
practice, it acts in a more balanced way. On the basis of the legitimate restrictions
of freedom of movement provided by the EU documents — not to violate public
order, endanger security and health, Italy recently adopted the law according to
which the local civil patrols (city police) had the right to check, search, and
investigate suspicious immigrants, while medical doctors should report to the
police all patients with no regular identity and work documents, this actually
including visas, permissions to stay or certifications of permanent employment.
Freedom of movement in EU for citizens of third countries
According to the data presented by the quoted British researcher, the EU
borders are annually crossed 300,000 times over 1,700 crossings.14 The already
mentioned agency — FRONTEX, whose Director is Finnish Ikka Laitinen and
which is tasked to control the EU external borders and inflow of illegal
immigration has at its disposal 21 aircraft, 27 helicopters and 116 ships and in
the opinion of many people it has a small budget (68 million euros in 2008).15
Since it was founded, the Agency has made agreements with Libya, Mauritania,
Morocco and Senegal, what enabled it to return numerous ships (with about
4,000 people) to the waters these countries control.
88 The Review of International Affairs
14 The EU Mediterranean states were taken by surprise by a sudden wave of mass migrations
from non-European and European countries that reached their ports and island by various
vessels. Coast guards and rescue services were too busy rescuing the African and other
shipwreck victims from the tragic death, who for the most part were exhausted and sick. The
main points these illegal immigrants flew in were as follows: 1) Canary Islands (Spain) – only
in 2006 31,000 African migrants arrived there. A strict coast control and successful co-
operation with Senegal and Morocco has considerably reduced the arrival of illegal
immigrants in the following years. 2) Malta – with 400,000 inhabitants the smallest EU
member state is a very attractive destination for illegal immigrants from North Africa. It has
been criticised as an EU weak point of defence from illegal immigration. 3) Lampedusa (Italy)
– the Italian island that as the geographically nearest European place in the Central
Mediterranean is the most frequent destination of migrants from North Africa, especially with
thousands of vessels travelling from Tunisia and Libya. According to the data of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs of Italy only in 2006, 178 vessels brought around 10,000 illegal immigrants
to this island. There is a shelter and a reception centre for immigrants. 4) Samos (Greece) —
a Greek island in the Western Mediterranean is a very attractive destination for illegal
immigrants from Albania, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc. Only in the period from January
to August 2007 the Greek police located there more than 70,000 illegal immigrants, what is
by one quarter more than the previous year. Source: Hugo Brady, op.cit., p. 19, 20.
15 Laitinen, Ikka, “Frontex — Facts and Myths“, November 2007, http://www.frontex.europa.eu.
“According to the present data EU absorbs 2 million migrants a year – what
is in proportions in comparison with its own population more than any other
region in the world, including North America... The increase of migration in
Europe is a part of the global trend. Cheaper travels and more information bring
qualified and unqualified workers from poor to rich countries. According to the
current trend UN predicts the increase in the number of migrants by 40 per cent
on the world level in the next 40 years (UN: “Trends in total migrant stock: The
2005 revision”, 2006)... Immigrants have become a subject of the growing
severe political debates in many EU countries. Therefore, an information might
be interesting on the number of foreign citizens (foreigners) in the total
population of EU-25, EU-15 and in the states with the greatest number of
foreigners in 2007 that is being presented in the EU official statistics.16
After the EU enlargement in 2004, the inflow of workers to Great Britain and
Ireland was the greatest immigration ever recorded in these countries even for a
two year period. In the last ten years, the Spanish population has increased by
400 per cent... At the same time, the robust increase of unemployment has
contributed to growing concern over the impact of immigration on the local
labour market... Many Europeans agree that the co-ordinated effort of EU to
regulate migration is not only desirable but indispensable to maintain the right to
freedom of movement of people, what is one of the preconditions for the
operation of a single market. 17
A special problem in EU is the increasing number of asylum-seekers. Every
year millions of people all over the world run away from wars, destruction or
persecution searching for protection and shelter. International law has defined the
rules to be implemented in the procedure concerning newcomer refugees and the
decisions to be made on their requests. This is defined in the 1951 Geneva
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. For this reason in 2003, the EU
member states agreed to adopt the policy in this field under the name the Dublin
Regulation. It provides the uniform legislation treating the requests of potential
refugees to be implemented by the EU countries they would first enter. The
intention is to prevent economic immigrants that have been granted asylums in
one country from using it in another that provides better working conditions or
better social care. For this reason, the EU-wide database of applicants’
The Review of International Affairs 89
16 The number of foreigners in the total population in 2007 is as follows: EU-25: 28,861,974
foreigners in total (estimate) of which in EU-15: 27,416,282; Germany: 7,255,949 foreigners
(estimate); Spain: 4,606,474 foreigners (estimate); Great Britain: 3,659,900 foreigners
(estimate) and Italy: 2,938,922 foreigners.
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat — Site 3 — TGM table, Population by citizenship —
Foreigners (persons).
17 Brady, Hugo, op. cit. p. 1.
fingerprints has been made under the name EURODAC. It enables to return
“asylum traders” or EU applicants whose applications have been rejected to the
EU country they first entered.
In some official statistical documents EU points out that due to various
criteria applied in the Union member states it is very difficult to measure
migration exactly. “Migration can be extremely difficult to measure. A variety of
different data sources and definitions are used in the Member States, with the
result that direct comparisons between national statistics can be difficult or
misleading. The net migration figures here are not directly calculated from
immigration and emigration flow figures. As many EU Member States do not
have complete and comparable figures for immigration and emigration flows net
migration is estimated here as the difference between the total population and the
‘natural increase’over the year. In effect, net migration equals all changes in total
population that cannot be attributed to births and deaths”.18
The increase of xenophobic and racist feelings and exclusiveness in the EU
member states with the greatest number of immigrants and the highest
unemployment rate is the cause of special concern.
The intolerance to foreign workers is especially prominent in Great Britain
where since the outbreak of the current global economic crisis over two million
British have lost their jobs. This has been confirmed by the recent research of the
London Financial Times. More than three quarters of the polled British (or more
precisely 78 per cent) are of the opinion – at this moment of crisis – that
immigrants should leave the island. At the same time, most of the polled British
are against that citizens of other EU member states get jobs in their country.
Spain has decided to apply a different model. It has offered all foreign
workers who are willing to leave the country immediately and not return to Spain
in the following three years at least to buy one-way tickets and pay
unemployment compensation in regular instalments during this period.
According to the official data, more than 5.3 million foreigners live legally in this
country of which 2.8 million are not Europeans. Most of them have come from
the former Spanish colonies in Latin America (newcomers from the Spanish
speaking areas) and from the North African countries. They think that Spain is
historically obliged to them, this making the problem more complicated.
This is a well-known formula that is being used more and more on the part
of the EU countries: to urge foreign economic migrants to return to their home
countries by paying them financial compensation to start small – and medium
business and contribute in this way to the development of their countries and
90 The Review of International Affairs
18 Eurostat regional yearbook 2008, Eurostat, European Commission, Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008, p. 25.
families. They sign that they will not return any more (or at least several years)
to the countries whose stimulating financial support they have received. This was
used in numerous bilateral readmission agreements (return) of our legal and
illegal immigrants – rejected asylum-seekers, economic emigrants, etc. that
Serbia signed with most of the EU countries and Switzerland. This was a
prerequisite to continue the European integration process and join the “White
Schengen List”.
In the meantime, Ministers of Internal Affairs of Great Britain, France,
Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain meet every six months as the so-called G-6
group. The purpose is to strengthen the practical co-operation between security
and immigration services within EU. In October 2008, during the French
presidency of EU these countries adopted the European Pact on Migration.19
One of the priorities of the Pact is to put an end to the practice of granting mass
amnesty for illegal immigrants in EU. The decision taken by Spain to make legal
the stay of 750,000 illegal migrants in 2005 was particularly opposed. In this
way, freedom of movement within EU was enabled to them.
The fate of EU enlargement and freedom of movement of citizens from new
member states.
Big discussions in EU are going on the fate of further process of EU
enlargement, this particularly concerning the West European countries. This is in
accordance with the Thessaloniki Declaration adopted in 2003 and further
documents confirming the EU enlargement policy. Regardless of the problems
that have arisen after the rejection of France and Holland at their national
referendums to ratify the EU Constitution project and the ratification of the
Lisbon Agreement overcoming such a situation, we hope that this will not
suspend the EU enlargement for a long-term period. For the West Balkan
countries, including Serbia in particular, it is of crucial importance since they
have reached national consensuses on their European future. At present, there are
several options of influential member countries on the fate of the EU
enlargement, this also including the enlargement of freedom of movement to
new candidate countries or potential candidate countries. France advocates the
idea of suspending the process of EU enlargement until the ratification of the
Lisbon Agreement is reached and EU with 27 member states achieves its
stabilisation. Germany supports the idea of receiving another candidate country
– Croatia and then to suspend the enlargement process until EU achieves its
stabilisation. The other countries, among which are Austria, Sweden, Spain,
Italy, the Czech Republic, Greece, Cyprus, Romania and some others support the
idea, that after the legal and other harmonisations have been completed as
The Review of International Affairs 91
19 Brady, Hugo, op. cit. p. 11.
provided for by the EU documents, the West Balkan countries should become
EU members with no delay or suspension of the EU enlargement process.
Till the expected accession to EU on the part of the candidate countries
(Turkey, Croatia and Macedonia), Montenegro that applied for candidacy in EU
and the countries that endeavour to implement the “road map” and the
requirements they should fulfil by the implementation of the Stabilisation and
Association Agreement (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia) these
countries have the opportunity to expand freedom of movement for their citizens
within EU by abolishing the required visas or by joining the White Schengen
List. Croatia is already on the White Schengen List. Serbia is passing through the
final stage of the process of legislative, legal, administrative, police and border
adjustment and fulfilment of the detailed requirements prescribed by EU in order
to join the List by the end of 2009. In this way, it would enable its citizens
freedom of movement within the Schengen Zone with no required visas. For this
reason, it is very important to keep on pursuing this process and not restrict
freedom of movement within EU or suspend the countries that are on the road to
joining EU as their crucial, national priorities for the current economic crisis or
the above mentioned internal problems with migrants.
Otherwise, it would produce an adverse effect and seriously jeopardise and
even probably suspend the process of accession of new member states to EU.
These countries set much store by this process and it would also jeopardise the
process of creation of a new political geography and the achievement of new
stability in the region.
Will citizens of the candidate countries or the new EU member states be
treated even more “severely” after the accession to the “European family”
considering the increased xenophobic tendencies and the growth of
unemployment? We wish to believe that EU will find a way to overcome the
existing problems without applying any serious restrictions of freedom of
movement as one of the key assumptions of the European integration.
Conclusion
In spite of understanding for the serious situation and the reasons for concern
expressed by Italy, Spain, Great Britain and other developed receiving countries
that are under pressure of the newly arrived cheap labour force, but also of
criminals and idlers I think that there are no legal bases in the EU documents for
the restriction of freedom of movement of those “immigrants”. They cannot be
treated as illegal immigrants regardless of the problems they cause to the
receiving countries.
In spite of this, taking into consideration the high unemployment rate,
recession effects and the growth of xenophobic feelings and forces some
92 The Review of International Affairs
countries (Belgian Vlaams Blok, French National Front, German National
Democratic Party that achieved success in the local and regional elections), after
the enlargement in 2004 and especially after the accession of Bulgaria and
Romania in 2007 the EU countries introduced a 7-year transition period before
opening their labour markets for workers from new EU member states. However,
when it ends in 2014 freedom of movements among EU member states will be
completed. Then, only the provision on closing of the labour market in state of
emergency will remain for restriction of the freedom. It would be implemented
if the European Commission, to which the Council submits its proposal, adopts
such a decision.
Thus, freedom of movement of citizens of member states will remain
guaranteed within EU. However, its effects increase tensions between some
“old” and “new” EU member states, what is also present within the states that
are exposed to such “immigration”. The tensions will be present all until
economic reasons (to be eliminated by the accelerated development of new EU
member states) for such economic move of citizens from the East to the West and
from the South to the North of the European Union cause mass and legally
approved migrations. Therefore, since it cannot directly abolish or restrict the
right upon which it is based the European Union and its member states should
search for new agreed and adopted ways within acquis communuautaire in order
to resolve or limit the negative aspects and consequences of the guaranteed and
undeniable freedom of movement of its citizens within EU. However, it is of key
importance that such mechanisms and measures do not substantially jeopardise,
suspend or permanently restrict this crucial right of EU citizens, the right of
freedom of movement within EU.
The Review of International Affairs 93