ANTHONY COUGHLAN,
Sir, - My views on immigration in the context of EU enlargement have been widely misrepresented, by the Minister of State for Europe, Mr Dick Roche, and others (August 22nd). .In the interests of an open debate on the costs of enlargement may I make the following points.
Last month, it became public knowledge that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, stated the following in a letter to Tom Kitt dated March 14th last. (The full text of this letter may be seen on our website at www.nationalplatform.org):
"Ireland took the decision to allow the citizens of new EU member-states full and free access to live and work here from the first day of accession.
"I took the opportunity to inform the foreign minister of each candidate country directly in a letter last June. I understand that three other EU member-states, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden, have also taken a similar decision to us. The rest of the existing member states have reserved the right to restrict the access of citizens of new member- states (excluding Malta and Cyprus) for up to seven years from the date of accession. This position reflects the fact that certain member-states have serious concerns that immediate access could result in distortions to domestic labour markets."
These statements mean that in June last year the Government, without Dáil discussion or public debate, agreed to accord Irish citizen rights to residence, work and social welfare maintenance to whatever percentage of the 75 million East European citizens might chose to take advantage of its offer from January, 2004, the likely date of coming into force of their EU Accession Treaties.
While East European emigrants would naturally prefer to work in their neighbouring EU countries, when they find that their doors are shut for up to seven years, but that they can come to Ireland without work permits, are many not likely to do that? If one percent of them do, it would be 750,000 people. If one-tenth of one per cent do, it would be 75,000. When Ireland suffered unemployment rates comparable to their's during the 1950s and 1980s, even though our real wages then were relatively much higher than current East European levels, net emigration from this country was between one half and one per cent of our base population per year.
I believe that this Government decision was quite irresponsible and is a reason for our calling for Mr Cowen's resignation, in addition to his advising the Government to re-run the Nice Referendum. It is likely to impose economic and social demands on the Irish economy that we are quite unprepared for. It should adversely affect Irish workers' wages and living standards and lead to increased pressure on public services. Minister Roche's talk of xenophobia etc. is meant to distract attention from Mr Cowen's foolish offer.
The recent TV statement by the Swedish Social Democrat Prime Minister, Mr Göran Persson, that Sweden would not need significant extra immigration for 10 years because the advent of new migrants could undermine the living standards of existing ones, raises another question over Mr Cowen's offer, for he quotes Sweden as one of the three other EU states willing to open their borders to the East Europeans from day one.
It is still open to the Government to insist in their ongoing negotiations with the 10 applicant countries that our EU partners should also adopt an open-door policy for East European citizens from day one of their EU accession.
That would entail far lower immigration flows to Ireland than the course Mr Cowen has committed us to. No sensible person could object to that and the National Platform would positively welcome it. - Yours, etc.,
ANTHONY COUGHLAN, Secretary, The National Platform, Crawford Ave., Dublin 9
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Sir, - It is universally accepted and enshrined in any modern democracy that opposition must exist in every sphere to question and debate basic political and social concepts in order to further consolidate democracy.
This consolidation does not occur, however, when the opposition, which in this case is the anti-Nice campaigners, use language as an active element to manipulate and confuse basic understanding to achieve their own political ends.
The language used in political discussion is significant because it tries to define and lend meaning to such complex and important entities as liberty, freedom, power and authority. As a result of this the language of politics does not merely reflect or mirror the world around us, but attempts to shape and structure our attitudes towards it.
Language carefully defined and used has the ability to advance greater acceptance and co-operation, but when used solely to realise political incentives can, for example, attempt to generate or create closed minds and xenophobic attitudes.
Examples of the anti-Nice campaigners using language in a manipulative and misrepresentative manner is evident when Justin Barrett refers to a post-acceptance EU being a "totalitarian federal regime" or when Anthony Coughlan describes it as an "empire" of old. These references appear to have been ultimately used for their propaganda value as opposed to the accuracy with which they reflect the entities in question.
While people may not see the immediate danger in this, and accept that this is to be expected in the political arena, the danger becomes all too apparent with the anti-Nice campaigners' description of "floods" of Eastern European workers arriving in Ireland if we accept Nice.
This is a blatant and alarmist attempt to create an artificial atmosphere in order to advocate their own agenda.
The majority of terms discussed in the Nice debate are essentially contested concepts in that the term encompasses a range of rival concepts, none of which could be understood as its true meaning, and as a result implies competing versions of the concept are also valid.
However, this does not excuse the anti-Nice campaigners deliberately and callously using concepts like power, authority and freedom to sway public opinion.
The anti-Nice campaigners' use of language seems to reflect George Orwell's worry about its misuse when he called for language to be used as an instrument for expression and not for concealing or preventing thought. - Yours, etc.,
CATHAL HORAN, Stillorgan Rd, Co Dublin