Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary have vigorously criticised the latest proposals from the European Commission which could limit labour migration for seven years after they join the European Union. The Commission is responding to representations from the German and Austrian governments which have come under strong pressure to secure such concessions from the populations of border regions. The candidate states dispute the assumption that there will be a great influx of cheap labour after they join. They say such restrictions are discriminatory and treat them on a second-class basis.
Systematic research into labour migration tends to validate the case made by the candidate states. The large waves of migration that followed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War tailed off in the second half of the 1990s. In Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary the authorities have found workers are very reluctant to move from east to west, because they prefer to stay at home. This is so even when wage and other incentives are high.
The Commission policy should reflect those demographic realities. But after a heated debate, it has accepted the line put forward by the commissioner in charge of EU enlargement, Mr Gunter Verheugen, saying account must be taken of fears in Germany and Austria that migration would fuel a right-wing populist backlash and upset local labour markets. Hence, the proposal for a transition period of seven years before their workers enjoy unrestricted access, with some provision for flexible application of this principle.
It is early days in the negotiation of these issues, since it will be the EU member-states and the candidates rather than the Commission which reach a final conclusion. They should also be seen in the wider context of shrinking populations in most of the member-states; already the Commission has pointed out the need for a much more co-ordinated EU policy to encourage labour migration to Europe from the rest of the world.
It may be that the real fears are directed not against the applicant countries but their neighbours to the east, such as Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and Romania. Hence the plans to impose fortress-type border controls there. This may suit the more developed western states, but at the grave risk of distorting the development of better relations between the candidate states and their neighbours. In the long term that is a better guarantee of stability and development.
The arguments about labour migration are a useful reminder that the EU enlargement negotiations are reaching a crucial stage in coming months. The forthcoming referendum here on the Treaty of Nice will highlight this process. It should be recognised that governments in the candidate states have welcomed the treaty as a firm commitment to enlargement. They would regard its rejection by the Irish electorate as a rejection of their ambitions to join the European Union. It will be up to the treaty's opponents to demonstrate that this would not be so.