WRITTEN QUESTION P-1062/04 by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Economic impact of migration following enlargement of the European Union.
Date: 2004-03-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, accession to the European Union, economic consequence, economic statistics, enlargement of the Union, labour market, migration

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/937

The Commission wishes to point out that the ATC constituted a major result of the Uruguay Round
negotiations in favour of developing countries and that it has no intention not to abide by this carefully
negotiated result. In fact, the EU, United States, Canada and Japan have already notified the WTO Textiles
Monitoring Body that, in conformity with the provisions of the ATC, restrictions on imports of textiles and
clothing from WTO members will be eliminated on schedule by the end of 2004. Any modification to the
contents of the ATC, and in particular its duration or extension, would have to be agreed upon by WTO
members. To the Commission’s knowledge, no WTO members have to date put forward such a proposal.

In response to the Honourable Member’s comments about unfair competition, there is the possibility of
anti-dumping, anti-subsidy or safeguard measures, in response to a complaint from European industry,
when the necessary conditions are fulfilled.

In addition there are specific modalities which apply to China and according to which safeguard measures
may be taken against imports from that country beyond the duration of the ATC. Such specific measures
are authorized under China’s Protocol of Accession to the WTO.

(2004/C 84 E/1035)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1062/04

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject: Economic impact of migration following enlargement of the European Union

On 26 February 2004, the European Commission presented a new study, drawn up in conjunction with
the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions,
into patterns of
migrant-worker flows after the forthcoming enlargement. The conclusions of that study indicate that, over
the next five years, some 1 % of the population of the new Member States will move to the countries
which currently make up the European Union. According to the Commission, that percentage translates
into about 220 000 people per year.

Can the Commission indicate whether it has any estimates which include figures for each host country,
and, in particular, what the likely impact of such post-enlargement migration will be on France?

Can the Commission also indicate the economic impact of enlargement on the labour market of a country
like France, where the unemployment rate is particularly high?

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The study to which the Honourable Member refers is based on the results of a Eurobarometer survey
carried out on a population sample in the future Member States and the candidate countries, one of the
topics being opinions concerning intentions to migrate in the next five years. On this basis, the figure of
220 000 per year is an indicative estimate of the possible annual migratory flow from these countries to
the current European Union. As it is an opinion poll, its conclusions should be interpreted with caution.
However, they confirm the conclusions of previous Commission studies (1) on the low migratory flows to
be expected from the new Member States to the existing ones, although the migration estimates provided
by these studies are based on statistical models and are therefore not strictly comparable to those set out in
the study referred to by the Honourable Member.

According to the updated study, the number of residents from the central and eastern European countries
(CEECs) in France would be approximately 25 800 in 2001, compared with 22 000 in 1997, representing
0,04 % of the total population. Migration to France would be 7 000 in 2004 and 9 000 in 2005. The
studies confirm that Germany and Austria are the main destinations for migrants from the CEECs.

C 84 E/938

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

With regard to the economic impact of this enlargement on the labour market, the Commission believes
that the Union must make the most of the positive effect of enlargement on Europe’s economy (2).
Moreover, the Commission Communication on immigration, integration and employment (3) highlighted
the positive contribution which immigration has made to economic growth and employment in the EU
and pointed out
immigration would lead to an increase in
unemployment. The Commission believes that labour mobility within the EU and taking greater advantage
of the potential offered by immigration are crucial
issues for EU competitiveness and achieving the
objectives of the Lisbon agenda.

there was little evidence that

that

(1)

‘The Impact of Eastern Enlargement on Employment and Labour Markets in the EU Member States’ and its
‘Potential Migration from Central and Eastern Europe into the EU-15 (cid:1) An Update’. The study and its
update,
update are available at the following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/employment_analysis/
impact_en.htm
(2) COM(2004) 29 final.
(3) COM(2003) 336 final.

(2004/C 84 E/1036)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1063/04

by Marie-Françoise Duthu (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Subject: Russo-Chechen conflict (cid:1) mediation by the European Union between the governments of

Vladimir Putin and Aslan Maskhadov

Since 1994, Chechnya has been ravaged by two wars of exceptional violence. According to the most
recent estimates, one fifth of the civilian population has been killed, a capital city of 400 000 inhabitants
has been razed to the ground,
the infrastructure has been completely destroyed, and hundreds of
thousands of refugees are living in inhumane conditions in ‘temporary’ camps.

All the humanitarian and human rights NGOs working on the ground have made the same observations: a
marked deterioration in the situation of civilians and an increased number of disappearances and deadly
‘cleansings’ of villages by Russian troops.

On 23 March 2003, in the midst of the war and while Russian tanks were still in the streets of Grozny,
Moscow enforced the holding of a ‘referendum’ on a ‘new constitution’. The results of the referendum, for
which the turnout was 80 % and in which 96 % of the electorate voted for the constitution, were
reminiscent of the Soviet era and disputed by all independent observers.

On 5 October 2003, Moscow’s stooge, Akhmad Kadyrov, became the ‘official’ President of the Republic of
Chechnya in a sham election, the thinly disguised aim of which was the political
isolation of Aslan
Maskhadov’s government. The election of that government, the most recent legally elected government in
Chechnya, was recognised in 1997 by the OSCE, and it remains the only legitimate government to date.

Since the beginning of the second war in October 1999, the European Parliament and the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe have adopted numerous resolutions calling for a political solution to
the conflict in Chechnya, but they have not, however, produced the desired effect.

I believe that Europe could do more than it is doing at present to promote a negotiated political solution
to the current conflict.

It is clear that a serious attempt to find a political solution to the war in Chechnya will, sooner or later,
ultimately bring to the negotiating table the two parties to the conflict, the representatives of Vladimir
Putin and those of Aslan Maskhadov.

What specific action does the Commission plan to take in the next few weeks and months with a view to
promoting a negotiated political solution of that nature? In particular, does the Commission intend to
contribute to the establishment of a dialogue between the two sides in the conflict, the government of
Vladimir Putin and that of Aslan Maskhadov? What incentives does it think that it will be able to propose
in order to encourage them to take part in this dialogue?