Free movement of people – is it fair to poorer countries?

The ‘free movement of peoples’ is one of the most strongly-held tenets of the European Union. It would not be too much to say that the EU’s absolute adherence to this principle was one of the triggers of Brexit.

David Cameron, as British Prime Minister, begged the EU to allow the UK some leeway on this issue – his country was attracting half a million incomers each year – but he was sent away with a resounding ‘No’. Thus the Brexit referendum, the outcome of which we are now well aware.

But the problems arising from this free movement all over the 27 European Union countries is now being examined from a different angle. Is it just and fair to some of the less developed countries in the EU, who are being depleted of their young, their skilled and their fertile citizens?

‘Old
 people’

The Croatian author Slavenka Drakulic certainly believes so. By 2050, she predicts (drawing on research by the Balkan expert Tim Judah) Croatia will be “a poor country of old people with nobody to support them”. It will have lost 22% of its population who’ll have migrated to other, richer parts of the EU.

Ms Drakulic points out that Croatia is not alone: Bulgaria will lose around 39 % of its population, and Romania 30%. Poland, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovenia are in the same boat; the figures are slightly less but the trend is the same.

When the young migrate from their native land, it automatically dents fertility”

What are the chances for Latvia and Lithuania, both of which have experienced dramatic emigration surges since they joined the EU?

Free movement of peoples has allowed, even encouraged, movement towards the centre of the EU, and away from the less developed fringes. So poorer countries are afflicted with something which has haunted Irish history – the spectre of depopulation. And, of course, it is usually the skilled, younger people who leave.

This serious social problem is nowadays compounded by falling fertility: all over Europe, there is a shortage of births, which Ms Drakulic alludes to in passing. From Hungary to Finland, incentives are being introduced to encourage families to have babies. But when the young migrate from their native land, it automatically dents fertility – they take their fertility with them.

I have benefitted, in a way, from free movement myself. So have many Irish people. But looking at the bigger picture, a major social problem is certainly arising within the balance of the EU.

Slavenka Drakulic’s essay can be found on the website VoxEurop.eu

***

Once a month, a very nice cleaner comes and gives my habitat a good going-over. “I’m afraid it’s a bit of a mess, Janet,” I said as she arrived. “Mary,” she replied, “I get so much job satisfaction coming to you. Some houses I go to, they’re so spick and span I wonder if I make any difference. Here, when I’ve finished, I know I’ve made a difference!”

There’s a role for everyone in God’s universe, and those of us who are untidy clutterbugs are helped and supported by those who can put us straight!

***

A strange time to rebut advances

Mairead Boland-Brabazon, chief executive of L’Arche Ireland, has paid tribute to the ‘bravery’ of six women who have come forward to report that Jean Vanier, the founder, sexually abused them. But why did they not come forward when Vanier was alive? Why did this inquiry only emerge after the man was dead?

The women reported that Jean Vanier “initiated sexual relations with them, usually in the context of spiritual accompaniment”. Were these sexual relations fully consummated?  Are the “adult women” in question intellectually handicapped? If not, were they in a position to rebut advances?

Is this a Harvey Weinstein scenario? Just speaking personally, I feel there are more questions to be asked – and answered – in this regrettable situation.