Populism wins the day in Brussels
Editor's note: Marek Matraszek will return next week.
In those golden days of the late 19th century and the early 20th century, you could travel and work freely throughout most of Europe, and cross borders with just a passport. Inside the Austro-Hungarian Empire, one could even do these things without a passport judging by the memoirs of many famous writers.
These were times of flourishing liberalism and liberties in this region, in part because politicians were pretty weak at the time. They didn't have the money to exert so much power and create things like unemployment with it. No one was afraid of losing a job to foreign workers. Austrians (or mainly German-speaking citizens of the empire) were not protesting against Czechs working and living in Vienna. The common level of taxation at the time was lower than 5% of GDP. And not only economic growth was enormous: Politicians also didn't have that much power to influence and promote their protectionist or isolationist schemes. This golden era unfortunately ended with World War I. (The causes of this catastrophe were many, but among the most important were the growing interests of military and heavy industry, which needed governments, silly politicians and high taxes not a free market.)
It is useful to remember that these days. The European Union (EU) recently came forward with an officially articulated demand that new candidate countries like the Czech Republic grant one major concession in the early days of their EU membership. Czech, Polish and Hungarian citizens would forego automatic permission to work anywhere in the EU for at least seven years. For seven years they are to remain outside the EU labor pool just as they are now even while they are "valid" and "full" citizens of the Union in other respects. But what do "valid" and "full" mean, after all, in this context?
This diplomatic demand was officially presented to the Czech side by the EU commissioner in charge of the enlargement agenda, Gunther Verheugen, while he was accompanying European Commission head Romano Prodi, on a Prague visit several weeks ago. By making this an official demand, the EU has aided political opponents of integration. And any intellectual defenders of quick EU membership are losing one of their most compelling and noble arguments one unfettered by all-out materialism or financial gain (as opposed to aid to poor regions, the Common Agriculture Policy, and increased foreign investment).
For a liberal, the best thing about the whole EU business has been exactly this: the prospect of free movement, together with a chance to study in Paris, Florence or London. The freedom to move and find a job anywhere you want if you are sufficiently skilled is one of the most important liberties. It's not only a human right, it's a liberty and a noble ideal. It helps people learn more about the world. But more than that, it's a practical thing and mutually enriching. Non-populist politicians should encourage and promote this. It is beneficial for nations and societies, for those who enable it and for those who do it.
The chance to study anywhere in Europe won't be restricted, supposedly. But this is not as clear as it might seem. Most students are at least partly employed while studying, both here and in Western Europe. Not everyone has wealthy parents, not everyone has a chance to win a scholarship and, if there is tuition to be paid, it's not generally subsidized for foreigners as it is for locals. It is clearly going to be more complicated for students coming from the new member states to study in the West than for locals.
The second problem is that it's no longer so easy to differentiate between studying, learning, gaining practice and experience (outside of legal terms). With the dizzying pace of innovation, studying is a lifelong task for anyone who wants to remain competitive and achieve something. Younger people are generally most likely to work in other countries and learn new languages, and are not only willing to work hard, but are also hungry to learn new working methods, entrepreneurial culture and gain experience. There is no morally defendable reason for these people to have their options in this regard restricted more than university students.
This EU demand, articulated first by German social democratic politician-turned-commissioner Gunther Verheugen, has created surprisingly little fuss in the Czech Republic and among those who follow and comment on political developments. Deputy Foreign Minister Pavel TelicŠka responded that seven years seemed to him an excessive period. Foreign Minister Jan Kavan offered that his government would certainly negotiate a favorable agreement with Brussels on the issue. Parliamentary Chairman Vaclav Klaus blasted the proposal in April.
This EU demand should be very strongly rejected by Czech, Polish and Hungarian governments first on the grounds that it would create second-class citizens. Until now all of the EU's citizens have enjoyed equal rights. This whole plan now smacks of something we used to call apartheid in South Africa.
Jan Machacek is an award-winning journalist who covers politics and the economy. He is a former writer for the investigative weekly Respekt, and can be emailed at jmachacek@pbj.cz (mailto:jmachacek@pbj.cz).
