Swiss vote puts EU to the test on Free Movement

The Swiss referendum on immigration restrictions for EEA nationals - effectively a vote on ending the free movement of people in the single market for Switzerland - was passed by a very narrow majority of 50.3%, but it has big consequences. The bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the EU form a dense and developed relationship; there are some 120 individual treaties. But the treaties are inter-related: should Switzerland breach one of the free movements, then the other single market provisions will be brought to an end. So Switzerland could potentially be exiting the single market.

As The Economist notes, this puts the EU in a bind: does it bring these agreements to an end and uphold the single market, or does it try to accommodate Switzerland for fear of inflating the Swiss vote? The Commission is quick to highlight the sanctity of free movement at every opportunity, but it is a delicate situation: the referendum doesn't have immediate effect, as the quota system needs to be drawn up and implemented. So when and how should the EU approach the question of bringing the single market agreements to an end? The EU should not come across as heavy handed - above all the decision of the Swiss electorate must be respected. But the relationship runs in two directions, and the Swiss should not be allowed to benefit from the single market without extending the same rights to the rest of the EU.

In the end, the issue will have to be confronted. Accommodation of the dilution of the single market unpicks the EU and the commitments Member States, and in this case also Switzerland, have made. If Switzerland chooses to opt out, then that's their choice, but it entails opting out of the single market, not just the parts they don't like. The EU should wait for the Swiss proposals, while making clear that they will stick by the treaties with Switzerland.

For Eurosceptics, the Swiss result is a victory, but the real question is if it is accommodated by the EU system. If it is, then the question will be: why not restrict free movement within the EU? It is one thing to say that the free movement rights are key to the single market, it's another to stand up politically for the benefits they bring and for the integrity of the single market as a whole. In the referendum, the impact of the result on Swiss access to the single market was debated. If Switzerland breaches its EU treaties and brings them to an end, that is their decision.

No Free Movement Rights for the Working Class?

The debate over the free movement of people is continuing to grow. It's worth remembering that EU citizens currently have the right to reside in another Member State for 3 months to look for work, with no obligation on the host Member State to provide benefits (Citizen's Directive, PDF). They can stay longer than 3 months if they are employed, self-employed, or have the resources to support themselves. When they're a worker (an employee), then they have access to the same social and tax advantages as the host country's nationals (Directive 1612/68).

In the UK, some Tories are calling for a 2 year period before EU citizens will have access to the welfare system. That's 2 years of living, working and contributing in a country without being able to draw on the same support open to other citizens. Given that so many supported by the welfare system are in work (an indication of how wages have stagnated and the worrying necessity to support those in work to ensure that they can actually make a living), such a long period would greatly disadvantage poorer people from exercising their Treaty rights in practice.

Labour appears to be thinking of controlling intra-EU migration for the skill levels of the migrant, as Chuka Umunna said on the BBC's Question Time last Thursday:

"Umunna said the EU should change its rules to prevent citizens from travelling to other member states in search of work, with a focus on banning highly skilled workers from less affluent EU members taking low-skilled jobs in richer member states.
[...]
He said this would revive the spirit of the EU's founding fathers, who wanted to encourage freedom of movement for highly skilled workers to highly skilled jobs."

I'm not sure what founding father he's talking about; he didn't quote any and I can't remember any famous quotes about Europe only being for graduates. Labour's position is very confusing. They seem to be talking about preventing movement to other countries to find work (so you'd already need to have a job before you move), preventing highly skilled workers from the new accession countries from taking lower-skilled jobs in the older Member States (which sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare to define and enforce, never mind getting all the Member States to sign off on it), and limiting the free movement rights to the highly skilled.

This last point, which seems to be the most likely, is an odd position for the Labour party. So the highly skilled (presumably also those from more privileged backgrounds) should have these rights but the less well skilled shouldn't (which is hard to define and probably just means "poor")? It's a sad state of affairs when the Labour party is for disenfranchising the poor in Europe rather than opening up more opportunity and creating work and security...

Even the Liberal Democrats have voiced support for limited access to benefits. Perhaps someone can explain the electoral rationale behind this move, because I can't see it. Nobody who wants a tough stance on immigration is going to vote for the Lib Dems over the Tories because of this. The net result is that there's no real political voice that is speaking out in defence of free movement rights.

It's widely reported, and accepted by supporters for tougher immigration controls such as Migration Watch, that EEA migrants claim less than locals, and contribute more to society and the economy than they receive in social welfare. The political weather has changed so much that even the politicians that make this argument are supporting a dilution of free movement rights. This political cowardice just lets the panic over immigration to grow. Without dissenting voices, the political culture as a whole shifts in an ever more anti-immigrant direction - you could say that it's a microcosm of the overall EU debate in the UK.

Political attitudes of the CSU in Germany are also hardening on this, though opinion polls suggest that a majority thinks that Germany has benefited from immigration and that it has benefited from EU membership overall.

Poland says No to watering down Free Movement

The Polish government has made it clear that it will veto changes to the free movement of people in the EU Treaties. Since the EU Treaties can only be changed by unanimity, this is a blow to calls from Cameron's UK government (and from the Bavarian CSU) for changes to the system.

I've written before about how the UK debate seems to frame the single market as the only good thing about the EU when the social elements are such a big part of the bargain. This is desire for the single market to respect national social protections gives rise to a kind of European social contract - a kind of minimum (and from the left's point of view it is very minimum) level of protection that limits the single market in undercutting national welfare and social systems (though the single market has had a big impact on these). But now the debate has shifted to reviewing and limiting one of the fundamental freedoms of the single market.

The fears over EU immigration in the UK (with the ending of the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens) has been the main spark for this, and the idea of being tough on immigration is popular. And because a "market" is seen as just goods you buy in a shop, rather than an economy people live in, the free movement of people is perhaps seen as not really being part of the single market. Despite this, there are polls indicating that Britain would be welcoming of immigrants who play by the rules, so the panic may be more linked to the rhetoric over benefits and the young than might be seen at first glance.

Watering down free movement rights is likely to come up against fierce opposition from many Member States - not just Poland, but also Spain, Ireland, Greece, and other countries afraid to see their citizens treated as second-class EU citizens - so it's unlikely to work. But watering down further the social side of the EU will make everyone more economically insecure and could further undermine support for free movement rights and solidarity in the wealthier Member States, and ultimately support for the single market.

For Cameron to be able to claim victory through renegotiation, he will have to get something big in the area of social policy now that so many other areas are sealed off (the UK is outside of Schengen, the Euro and has an opt in to justice legislation). The undermining of social rules and standards needs to be resisted.

Free Movement Night's Eve?

"Who cheats, flies", runs the campaign of the Christian Social Union in Bavaria. Fear of an influx of Romanians and Bulgarians seems to be at fever pitch, with Tory activists in the UK petitioning the Prime Minister to use an emergency clause to limit immigration and the new CSU campaign, which has angered its coalition partners (the CSU is part of Merkel's governing coalition). From tomorrow, the transitional restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian citizens from enjoying the full rights of EU citizenship will expire and they will be able to work across the EU under the same conditions as other citizens.

Counter arguments, that Germany and others benefit from migration, that migrants contribute more than they receive in benefits and that the freedom of movement is a two-way street, don't seem to have broken through. However that doesn't mean that anti-immigration arguments and rhetoric are necessarily well-received. The "Go Home" campaign piloted in Britain - where a van pulling a billboard urged illegal immigrants to contact the Home Office and "go home" - was a laughing stock, with people cheekily trying to use the contact number to ask the Home Office to arrange for their trip home across London. Similarly, the "Who cheats, flies" - Wer betruegt, der fliegt! - campaign was mercilessly ridiculed online, with pictures of prominent CSU ministers on planes appearing under the slogan.

And a recent poll in Britain suggests that integration rather than immigration is the crux of the concern, with a majority of people accepting of immigration if people play by the rules. This is probably why the clumsy attempts to tar groups of immigrants - actual or potential - with the same brush has struck such a hollow ring with people. In this day and age scapegoating a group of people is simply not acceptable. The concern is more over pressure on the welfare state, public services and integration into the local community. These are issues - and it's sad that evidence of migrants' contributions haven't had much traction yet - and they also seem to be tied up with the wider debate over the welfare state and who deserves help: the old concept of the deserving poor.

The image of people flying in just to cheat the system may be ridiculous, but in tougher economic times there is a fear of cheaters. Announcements to reduce and cut away at the welfare state are not just about austerity, but also tinged with suspicions that some are milking the system, even as demand for charitable services like food banks rise. But as the welfare system is made tougher, it's made tougher on everyone... The political battles over immigration and welfare will continue into the new year, with parties bidding to be tougher on immigrants and welfare "scroungers". Past experience with populist campaigns may have jaded the public to these stunts, but we are drifting towards a tougher society.

Cameron, Eurozone budgets and the Single Market

David Cameron signaled his support for the competence review to look at whether the free movement of people should be changed on The Andrew Marr Show on Sunday. You can watch the interview on BBC iPlayer if you're in the UK (the interview starts at 28.45, the European section starts at around 43.30).

The Home Secretary, Theresa May, first issued a call for the free movement of people to be looked at in order to control migration within the EU more. At the last election, the Conservatives promised to cap immigration and they've been criticised for ignoring the free movement of workers within the EU as the major source of immigration. Given the difficulties of the Tories in government, perhaps Cameron wants to repatriate Conservative voters from southern France and Spain!

Changing the free movement of people is a big ask. It's one of the fundamental freedoms of the single market (remember, the single market the Conservatives are supposed to be in favour of?), and the rights of free movement of EU citizens are already pretty much subject to a worker test (i.e. you have to be working or have worked in a Member State before you can claim benefits there). So it's not really a question of EU nationals "pulling their weight", but whether they should be allowed on the job market at all.

This really points to a shallowness in political thinking. The only form of regulation the Conservatives seem to believe in is regulating the movement of people! But the point of the single market is to have a more open and dynamic market where people can enjoy more goods, services, business and working opportunities. Tightening the screws on the movement of people within the EU is of little use if the aim is to protect British workers, because they will still be in a competitive European market, and businesses and capital can still move within the EU. It would be much better to improve the social side of the European Union to help drive social and economic standards up across the Member States to prevent a race to the bottom while allowing us to enjoy the benefits of the single market, including the free movement of people.

This just highlights the fact that the single market is a political project.

On the EU budget, Cameron said that the UK would veto any big increase. But he also indicated that a separate Eurozone budget may be required for fiscal transfers within the Eurozone, and that such a development would be welcome. It's a very interesting point, because a separate budget would mean that there would need to be a division in the European Parliament for it, and divisions within the EU institutions would raise further questions of diluting the UK's influence in the EU generally. And the official reason for the veto last year was that there weren't enough safeguards in the (not yet negotiated) Fiscal Compact to protect the UK's political influence in the single market! Cameron seems to be aiming for a kind of EEA membership within the EU: the perks of the single market plus the political influence without the obligations and financial responsibilities. He'll have a hard time walking that line.

EU against Swiss Quotas

The EU has remained united against Switzerland's move to introduce a quota on immigration from the Member States from the 2004 enlargement. Introducing the quota is contrary to the EU's agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of people, Catherine Ashton said (PDF). Switzerland is still allowed exemptions for Romania and Bulgaria under the treaty (Member States can - and have - introduced temporary restrictions for Romania and Bulgaria when they joined in 2007, but these are supposed to expire after a few years).

The EUObserver has reported that the right-wing Swiss People's Party:

"...has recently campaigned for a referendum on EU immigration using posters which show black workers' boots trampling the Swiss flag."

The posters read "Jetzt ist genug! Masseneinwanderung stoppen." - "Now is enough! Stop Mass Immigration.". If Switzerland votes against the treaty on the free movement of persons, then the EU might cancel all its other treaties with Switzerland on the internal market.

It's good to see that the EU intends to stick up for the equal rights of EU citizens for free movement - it hasn't been a good year for this right of free movement so far this year, at least politically. In the Netherlands Geert Wilders' PVV launched a website encouraging people to report Eastern Europeans for crime and "economic competition", and a similar website was launched by a far-right Flemish party in Belgium. The Commission yesterday proposed more liberalisation in the labour market by dropping the remaining restrictions, but it's hard to see this position getting anywhere in the current political and economic climate...

Is nursing war by another means?

It has been reported by EUReferendum and by the Daily Express in the UK, that EU law is preventing safety checks (and in the caase of the Daily Express), language checks on nurses from other EU countries that want to be registered as nurses in the UK. In a follow up post, EUReferendum spelt out just how dastardly this is:

"...Seventy years ago, "foreigners" were trying to kill us. Today, largely the same bunch of foreigners are still trying to kill us. And it really does not matter whether it is a bomb or an ill-trained nurse. You are just as dead."

I'm not selectively quoting the one paragraph that has war-like imagery; read both EUReferendum articles, and you'll see that the whole affair is really just a re-run of the Battle of Britain.

The law that supposed to be the cause of these restrictions isn't mentioned in the articles, but I assume that it's Directive 2005/36/EC, or the Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive (PDF). It's aim is to allow the free movement of professionals with equivalent qualifications in other member states, including nures (Articles 31-33). This means that if a nurse has an equivalent recognised qualification in, say, France, then s/he will be treated the same as a a UK trained nurse. Not less strictly than a UK national, as EUReferendum suggests, but the same. So the aim of the legislation is to set down rules for the recognition of qualifications so that professionals from other EU states are treated equally in the host state if they've equivalent qualifications.

You can read the list of recognised nursing qualifications from this PDF. From this, and Articles 31-33 of the Directive, it's clear that the training has to include a theoretical element and clinical experience. The recognition of qualifications are "harmonised" in that there's a list that has to be respected throughout the EU, but these have been chosen on the basis of meeting the training requirements. There are other qualifications that might be treated differently, and the member state can use "compensatory measures" (tests, etc.) to check skills not included in that qualification's training. But the list of automatically recognised qualifications is set out to include qualifications that meet these standards, and therefore there should be no further tests that would not be applied to nationals of the same professional training.

But what about recent work experience - whether the nurse has worked in healthcare recently? I've asked the Commission representation in the UK what the position is, and I got this reply:

"UK authorities require EU trained nurses without recent working experience to pass a “return to practice training”. The UK authorities are planning to drop this training for nurses who obtained their qualification in another Member State, as it might go against the Directive.

The Professional Qualifications' Directive does not forbid organising such training; it just cannot be a prior condition in view of recognition of a nurse qualification obtained in another Member State.

[...]

However, if an automatically recognised EU trained nurse has been inactive for more than three years in the home Member State, this nurse has to fulfil all obligations UK registered nurses have to respect. Thus, if Continuing Professional Development is an obligation for UK registered nurses, also these recognised nurses from other Member States must follow CPD trainings allowing them to keep their skills and competences up to date and fit to the practice in the UK while being registered and exercising the profession.

In conclusion, the "return to practice" training cannot be imposed as a requirement for the automatic recognition of an EU nurse qualification. However, the Directive does not prevent the UK requiring continuous professional training for EU trained nurses who are already registered in the UK, but do not possess recent working experience."

If UK nurses have to fulfil extra requirements if they haven't been "active" in the last three years, then so do the nurses from other EU states. In addition, further training that UK nurses have to receive can be required of other EU national nurses, though it seems that this is independent of the registration on the basis of their autonmatically recognised qualification. I will try and contact the UK Department of Health to check on the actual treatment of nurses.

When it comes to language, Article 53 of the Directive states that the professionals in question shall have knowledge of the languages necessary to do the job. The Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is the UK regulating body, says (PDF):

"Under EU law the NMC cannot require evidence of your ability to communicate in English for the purposes of registration. However, you need to make sure that you have sufficient knowledge of English in order to practise professionally (Article 53 of the Directive). Employers will expect this and have the right to require evidence of English language competence to ensure that they employ nurses and midwives who are able to communicate effectively. Therefore it is possible that any offer of employment in the UK may depend upon you being able to demonstrate competence in the English language through a test."

It's important to note that being registered doesn't automatically mean that you start working as a nurse straight away, and employers can add some extra requirements.

The Directive isn't exactly the most terrifying World War II weapon I've ever seen...

Eurosceptic, moi?

Libertas have tired to portray themselves as pro-European, but anti-Lisbon, though many aren't convinced due to some of his continental EP election allies (for example, French politician Philippe de Villiers). Combined with their general rhetoric and lack of policy alternatives (honestly, if you can't come up with any policies and your website counter says there's under 19 days to the election, why not just remove the line promising to reveal your policies in the coming weeks?), it's not surprising that most people consider Libertas a Eurosceptic party - apart from other Eurosceptic parties of the "Better Off Out" variety.

Still, with Ganley's vague musings on wanting a 25-page constitution, and perhaps an elected president (though I think this has been dropped recently), there was something there that could be spun into a critical yet pro-European image; a brand for those who don't hate the EU, but are still uncomfortable with it. Ganley has waxed lyrical on the single market, saying how he himself has benefited from the EU; the implication being that Libertas doesn't have a problem with the fundamentals of the EU.

Yet, with around 3 weeks left, the Irish Times have reported that Libertas have an immigration policy, both for EU and non-EU citizens coming into Ireland. They want a "blue card" system:

"[Caroline Simons, Libertas' Dublin candidate has been] calling for the adoption of a “blue card” throughout the European Union that would allow a citizen of the EU to live in another member state for up to two years as a guest worker as long as they were not a burden on the receiving state."

It's not just Simons:

"Her comments followed similar comments on Thursday by Libertas East candidate Raymond O’Malley, who said the time had come to stop the tide of workers coming from accession states."

Given that the single market has at its core the free movement of goods, capital, services and people, this represents a major attack on the single market. Hardly a pro-European policy.

This latest lurch deeper into right-wing populism may be a result of recent opinion polls which show that the 3 main parties are likely not to face any major challenge by Libertas - indeed, the current prediction is that Libertas will win no Irish seats. So even Ganley's chances are slim, despite having the advantage of being the sole candidate living in Galway, the most populous area of his constituency.

Considering that immigration has never been an issue in Ireland before - at least, not one where the main parties are prominent - it will be quite interesting to see how this goes down with the electorate. Speaking very generally, the economic boom and a certain sympathy for immigrants due to Irish history has ensured that the few grumbles there have been over immigration have been largely overwhelmed by appeals to the Irish people's image as a friendly and hospitable people.

I doubt it will be very effective for 2 reasons (beyond that of the historical sympathy):

(1) a reaction to the economic crisis was an increase in emigration. Not all of it is to the EU, and the degree of it may have been talked up by the Irish media since the image of people leaving invokes the pre-boom Ireland and can be seen as a symbol of the collapse. However, restricting emigration opportunities may not go down too well. I'd say people will still look at the restrictions such a policy would impose on them as well as other EU citizens as not being a factor unworthy of consideration.

(2) this stance shows desperation on Libertas' part. They have already portrayed themselves as ring-wing and Catholic, so I can't see how many extra votes this will get them. At the same time, Libertas needs to get more voters to embrace it by being more moderate and less of a fringe party. In other words, the Irish are still quite pro-European and any Eurosceptic party will need to be seen as somewhat respectable to get any sort of significant vote. The further right Libertas goes, the more it inhibits its ability to gain a wide base of support.

Of course, Libertas' support could get a boost in the next 3 weeks. Walesa will probably give another Libertas address, this time in Ireland, and Libertas will get a publicity boost if nothing else. (If Walesa gives this address, it will be his 3rd paid appearance for Libertas after Rome and Madrid, despite his son running under an EPP-aligned Polish party and despite saying that he doesn't support Libertas; he just values their role as a democratic opposition [or something along those lines]).

And interesting question would be: if no Libertas candidates are elected in Ireland, how long will Libertas hold together without/with a weak Ireland-based leadership?


On a wider note, here's some analysis in the Irish Times on the election: link. Interestingly, it seems to show that voters are distinguishing between candidates and current MEPs on one hand, and their opinions of the government and opposition on the other, despite the lack of a developed pan-European campaign. Perhaps not so much identification of European issues as opposed to national one, as identification with candidates and current MEPs, and a willingness to see them (slightly) separately from their parties. It's great to read that candidates are being judged on an individual level, and a pity that not all member states give their citizens this opportunity.