Nice European expansion?

dathi1

COUNTING THE COST OF IRELAND'S 'FREE-FOR-ALL' IMMIGRATION

>From 2004, many Eastern European immigrants will be able to live and work
here without permits. While this will bring economic and social benefits,
policies must be formed now to minimise any potential downsides, writes
EMMETT O'CONNELL

__________

How many economic immigrants are likely to avail of the Irish Government's
recently announced open door immigration policy for the East European EU
Applicant countries in advance of the seven-year waiting period provided in
their Accession Treaties?

As in all large-scale population movements, modern and pre-modern, there
will be winners and losers. To quantify the benefits and costs of a
'free-for-all' immigration policy, it is necessary to have some idea of the
numbers likely to be involved.

Certainly the Government's twin-track approach to benchmarking and
unrestricted immigration should bring a halt to the inflationary wage
spiral in the public and private sectors that is currently threatening to
derail the Irish economy.

By overcoming labour shortages in health care, construction, information
technology and certain areas of education and the services sector, wage
levels can be stabilised, and possibly even lowered, while at the same time
benefiting public services.

Heavy East European immigration should significantly change the bases for
comparison between private and public wage and work productivity levels
involved in the current benchmarking exercises.

It is little wonder that the Irish Government, employer groups, the IDA,
the banks and international investors favour acceptance of the Nice Treaty.
If it to be followed by a 'Big Bang' EU enlargement of ten new Member
States, then their citizens will be able to come to Ireland without
work-permits from January 2004, even though they will not be entitled to
move around the EU as a whole for up to seven years.

For those who must sell their labour power, there is a serious downside,
however. Competition in an open labour market resulting from a
free-for-all immigration policy for the East European Applicant countries
from 2004 will inhibit pay and promotion for existing Irish workers across
the board - in construction, services, banking and manufacturing.

The competition will come from a well-educated, physically fit,
well-motivated and often English-speaking workforce migrating from
post-communist high-unemployment, low-wage or no-wage economies.

It behoves us then to try and put a figure on the numbers likely to be
involved in order to prepare policies to mitigate the downside. So far in
this debate absolutely nothing has been done to attempt to quantify
realistically the impact of a free-for-all immigration policy from Eastern
Europe in this context.

Let us take some examples from modern day states that run proactive
immigration policies and use them as a template for the Republic of Ireland.

Canada has long practiced a proactive immigration policy. Given its vast
size and a population of 31 million, an active immigration policy is
central to its economic development. Canada's long-term goal is to admit 1%
of its population base each year as immigrants. In 2001 the figure came to
around 250,000 actually admitted, due to the tough criteria Canada lays
down for the health-level, educational standard, degree of occupational
skill, financial status etc. of those it accepts as immigrants. But 1% per
year over the long-term is its official goal.

The Irish government, by contrast, proposes no criteria or documentation
for immigrants from the ten EU Applicant countries. By applying the same
1 percent template to the Republic's population base of nearly four
million, one would get a figure of 40,000 immigrants a year to this state
as a long-term minimum.

There is, however, another avenue of statistical analysis by which to judge
the likely movement of population as between Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia,
Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus
on the one hand, and the Irish Republic on the other. This is to estimate
the number from this target area likely to avail of the opportunity to come
to Ireland.

Having regard to the fact that the great majority of the EU Member States
have insisted on a seven-year 'lock-out' before EU rights to freedom of
movement of population is permitted, it seems reasonable to estimate that
as the only English-speaking, low-unemployment, high-social-welfare,
high-wage state remaining, Ireland will get the great bulk of those who
emigrate from Eastern Europe over the seven year period from 2004 on.

The combined population base of the ten applicant states likely to sign and
ratify their Accession Treaties over the next year is some 75 million. In
addition, the Government has extended its open-ended invitation to come to
Ireland to the combined 30 million population of Romania and Bulgaria,
although their accession to the EU is expected to be later.

What percentage of these are likely to want to emigrate? Let us take a
modern example, and one we know well - Ireland itself. During the 1950s,
with a population base of 2.8 million, emigration from Ireland was running
at an estimated 50,000 per year, or nearly 2% of the base population.

During the 1980s, when the Republic had a domestic unemployment rate of 16
per cent, emigration amounted to 250,000, the equivalent of one-fifth of
our then labour force of 1,250,000. This was 25,000 a year, or
approximately 1 per cent of the base population, which is Canada's current
target.

Considering therefore the immigration open door proposed by Foreign
Minister Brian Cowen, which is now government policy, allied to inexpensive
three-hour air flights and generous social welfare benefits, it seems
plausible to assume that we shall see entire family units - no bad thing
socially - migrating to Ireland from January 2004.

It would seem reasonable, therefore, to expect a potential maximum level of
migration from Eastern Europe to Ireland in the years from 2004 - before
the EU law provisions of their Accession Treaties come into force - of 1
per cent of their base population of 75 million per year, which would
amount to 750,000 per year.

This raises obvious questions regarding the capacity of existing housing,
health, educational and ancillary services to handle such an inflow of
immigrants adequately. How many will actually take arrive here, no one can
dogmatise about, but there is clearly cause for concern.

The governemnt owes an explanation to the electorate on what preparations
it is is planning to handle the consquences of a Yes-vote in the re-run of
the Nice Referendum, in a context where the Government is planning to
abolish work permits for East European citizens seven years before this
happens in the rest of the EU.

Article for your information from yesterday's "Sunday Business Post", 11
August 2002, page 18, by Mr Emmett O'Connell, Chairman of Consolidated
Communications Corporation Plc. This company is quoted on the Ofex exchange
in London and operates subsidiaries in Bundapest, Moscow and St Petersburg.

pencil

I posted on this subject ages ago,

IMHO, with his proposed introduction of the NICE treaty, the level of uncertainty for the future economic stability of the average Irish worker is too great to ignore.

We live in the most expensive part of the Euro zone with some of the lowest levels of pay. Now the government wants to create unbelievable job competition in this low paid, high cost economy.

I'm suprised that the trade unions are so quite about this.

It will be a NO to NICE from if the current plan stays the same.

Ireland should open it doors to immigrants the same time as the rest of Europe.

bonkey

Originally posted by pencil
IMHO, with his proposed introduction of the NICE treaty, the level of uncertainty for the future economic stability of the average Irish worker is too great to ignore.
...
It will be a NO to NICE from if the current plan stays the same.

But hold on....

its not the Nice Treaty which is causing this. The EU is expanding. In its current form, sans Nice Treaty, it can still expand (another 4 member states, IIRC). The Nice Treaty ups the amount by which it can expand.

The Nice Treaty has not forced Ireland into accepting these immigrants. The EU did not force Ireland into accepting these immigrants. The Irish EU representatives declared that Ireland would extend full immigrant rights to member states on acceptance....despite not being obliged to.

Ireland should open it doors to immigrants the same time as the rest of Europe.

In theory I would agree with this, but it is our government who has, for whatever reason, chosen to take a different stance.

I'm surprised that so many people see this as a "NO to Nice" excuse, rather than a "no faith in our government" issue.

If we do not accept the Nice Treaty, the EU can still admit extra nations, and the Irish will still give them the same freedom of access as they are proposing to the extended list of nations seeking membership under the expansion terms of the Nice Treaty. We will still face the same potential difficulties.

Saying No to Nice will not mitigate this problem.

jc

pencil

its not the Nice Treaty which is causing this. The EU is expanding.

I was a bit unclear, should have went something like:

IMHO, the varibles chosen by the Irish governments for introduction of the proposed NICE treaty to this country, make the level of uncertainty for the future economic stability of the average Irish worker too great to ignore.

I'm surprised that so many people see this as a "NO to Nice" excuse, rather than a "no faith in our government" issue.

I'm so far past "no faith in our government", that it is no longer a issue for me!

Augmerson

Originally posted by dathi1
[B

This raises obvious questions regarding the capacity of existing housing,
health, educational and ancillary services to handle such an inflow of
immigrants adequately. How many will actually take arrive here, no one can
dogmatise about, but there is clearly cause for concern.
happens in the rest of the EU.
[/B]

The housing situation in Ireland isnt the best at the moment, and I think I'm putting that mildly. In my hometown of Portloaise, the county council has reversed on providing affordable housing for people. The last major council housing estate built in this town was in the 1970s, and after that smaller sized projects have been carried out. But now, in their unique wisdom, they are no longer building houses. They are purchasing existing ones from private developments. The housing list is enormous.

Yes, there are numerous private housing estates being built in Portloaise, but these are too exspensive for many people. If local Goverment continues to follow this policy, and if the immigrants start to come to Ireland, then we are in serious trouble, are we not?

article6

That's true, all of the new housing estates in Portlaoise are for Dubliners who now must commute because of high prices in the city, and only get the slightest of discounts on these private projects, which are slowly crawling into the countryside, into my area.

But I don't think Nice would affect these estates in particular, because your average Czech worker won't be able to afford the exorberant prices. Instead, we will be forced to either:

submit to the wishes of the socialist control-freaks in the Planning Authority and develop apartments in Athenry and condominiums in Cahirciveen or

house the immigrants in even less satisfactory establishments and hotels á la Black Day in Blackrock.

Personally, I think we need to get more sensible on European Union expansion, timing and planning. The Nice treaty is inherently flawed, but immigrants will come here whether we ratify it or not, and we need to develop a coherent solution to this potential problem.

gandalf

Interesting article Dathi1 but as bonkey says this is not really just a Nice issue. This really comes back to the fact that the Irish government has no idea what they are doing with regards to immigration or worse they have a hidden agenda with regard to cheap labour and the existing Irish work force who are now too expensive for their own good.

As regards people using this as a "No to Nice" excuse bonkey is right they will probably make a decision to vote no based on the feeling that Ireland will be flooded by hordes of eastern workers paid peanuts. The reason I am voting no to Nice is the fact the scales of power are been tipped in favour of the Germans & the French. The last time they held the reigns of power in Europe we had 2 World Wars.

I also feel that if these new candidate nations are admitted they should get the same deal that we have enjoyed from the EU and not get some Semi-EU Low Fat membership.

Gandalf.