Download pdf - Document1

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


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


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


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?


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


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


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.


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’


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


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


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


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.
