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.

Waning German solidarity?

Yesterday Angela Merkel made it clear that the next German federal election will be fought on Europe, and that she would continue to fight for the current approach to the crisis (in more detail in German here). Not something to enthuse her many detractors and those who want to see more solidarity in Germany's approach to the Eurozone. But it's not only Europe - the Transfer Union is taking a bit of a knock in Germany too, as the state of Bavaria has taken a case to the German Constitutional Court to complain at the fiscal transfers it has to pay to the other German states.

"Bavaria is not really German", is something you might hear in Germany. The Freistaat Bayern certainly has a very distinct identity within the German federation - Merkel's party doesn't organise there, but allies with the separate sister party of the Christian Social Union, which is part of her governing coalition in Berlin. For now the Bavarian government remains unique in bringing its challenge before the constitutional court, with the other contributing states preferring to continue with negotiations with the recipients. The Bavarian Prime Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) has been issuing complaints and threats over the Länderfinanzausgleich (clumsy translation: "Financial equalisation of the states") for a while, and has been a firm opponent of Eurobonds and further Eurozone integration. While the idea of banking union - and the move towards the separation of banks from the states - has been generally well received around Europe, Seehofer insists that the state ultimately remains liable for European support: something that contradicts Spain's preferred narrative and direction.

It will be interesting to see how the debate over fiscal transfers in Germany develops, and if it will impact on the wider European debate on the Eurocrisis. Tagesschau has already pointed out that though Bavaria is by far the largest contributor, it has also benefited a lot in the past from fiscal transfers. In any case, it serves as a reminder that German state politics have the potential to impact on the European debate, and that talk of any kind of European transfer union will be compared to the state of the German one domestically.

Hessen to vote on Sunday. And general ramblings on German politics.

The German state of Hessen (of Frankfurt am Main fame, though its government is based in Wiesbaden) is gearing up for elections this Sunday. The result is tipped to be a CDU-FDP win as the two right-wing parties, which would ensure CDU leader Roland Koch remains at the head of the state government as Minister-Praesident.

Hessen (German spelling; it's Hesse in English) has been a particularly interesting state over the last year. The elections in Jan 2008 saw the CDU greatly weakened, losing its majority, but struggling on as a minority government since the SPD couldn't form a workable coalition to oust him. The rest of the year saw many bizarre and frankly embarrassing attempts by SPD leader Ypsilanti desperately try to form a minority coalition with the Greens which was to govern with a supportive Die Linke (which would remain outside the coalition).* Ypsilanti's tactics resulted in widening the left(er)-right(ish) split in the SPD, and helped (accelerate) SPD party chief Beck's downfall.

The whole thing could end up helping to cost the SPD the next Bundestag election. Ypsilanti remains a divisive figure (German).

Not that the Conservatives have had it all their way this year either, with the CDU's sister party, the CSU, loosing its majority in Bavaria for the first time in 46 years. They're still in power though, just with the FDP.

Germany is now a five party system (CDU, SPD, FDP, Buendnis 90/Die Gruenen and Die Linke), sparking some fears that there will be instability from now on: "Jetzt wird es zu bunt! (Das Volk entscheidet: Ist die Republik regierbar?)".**

With the two biggest parties in a Grand Coalition at federal level, there could be a bigger movement to the smaller parties than would normally be the case if dissatisfaction with the government continues to grow. But pushing the government at the ballot box may cost Germany the stability it needs to get through the economic crisis.

As for the EU, it is never a good time for one of the "big 3" to become ineffective.





* Long-winded explanation:

Die Linke are the successors to the ruling Communist party in the old east Germany.

Since the SPD don't deal with them outside the eastern states (much in the way governments refuse to negotiate with terrorists... most of the time), Ypsilanti's political games split the SPD into those who wanted to work with Die Linke, and those who saw them as a threat and refused to talk to them.


**"Now it becomes a rainbow! (The people decide: Is the republic governable?)" [The "rainbow" is a reference to the German habit of naming coalitions after the colours of the parties. CDU-FDP would be Black-Yellow. With 3 parties involved they get more creative names, like the "Jamaican Coalition," made up of the Black-Yellow-Green of the CDU-FDP-Gruenen; or the "Traffic light coalition": the Red-Yellow-Green of the SPD-FDP-Gruenen.