Case: Policy coherence in general

21-09-2010 MEP Griffin asks Commission about Mode 4 in trade negotiations with India

Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Nick Griffin (NI) asked a question to the European Commission whether in the trade negotiations with India the Mode 4 has been discussed. This is part of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and specifies the movement of persons across borders for the purpose of supplying services. This would create a new way for temporary labour migrants coming from third countries as part of trade agreements instead of immigration policies. Nick Griffin points out that if Mode 4 has been discussed, this has been done in secrecy and the question is raised why. Moreover, he asked what the consequences will be for the labourers and their rights under this new policy.

There are strong links between development, migration and trade. Development can benefit when there is an open market and legal migration, but only if the markets of both developed and developing countries are fully open. The EU protects its own markets to maintain stability, while developing countries are paying the price for this, since they are forced to open their markets. This is creating unequal trading conditions.

The same concerns can be raised for migration. While it is creating opportunities for the person who is migrating, the sending country is missing out on one more, often trained, labourer. This is known as brain drain. In order to stimulate development, receiving countries must invest in either training the labourers before they return or invest in training of new personnel.

Nick Griffin (NI) is recognized as Fair Politician for expressing his concern for the rights of labourers under Mode 4. He will therefore be awarded a point in our monitoring system.

Monitor fair: NI

Parliamentary questions
7 July 2010
E-5095/2010
WRITTEN QUESTION, by Nick Griffin (NI)

Subject: Mode 4 General Agreement on Trade in Services

With regard to the EU/India trade discussions and all trade agreements under discussion could the Commission clarify:
1. The UK Governments position on Mode 4, i.e. the movement of persons across borders for the purpose of supplying services?
2. The current status of discussions on Mode 4 between the EU and India?
3. The reason for the secrecy in respect of those discussions?
4. How many people the Commission expects to enter the EU in connection with cross-border activities for the supply of services in the first five years of implementation of Mode 4?
5. Clearly, the mass movement of labour across borders will create dire downward pressure on middle- and high-income wage earners in the relevant service industries. It will also create a significant new wave of potential immigration, as a proportion of the new workforce will seek permanent entry and the inclusion of dependents. Are these negative social and labour consequences the reason why the Commission has kept these matters away from the realm of public debate, public information and consultation? If not, why are these issues not being debated and brought to the notice of the public?
6. Is the Commission aware that Members of the US Congress have opposed Mode 4, which they view as an immigration issue rather than a trade issue?
7. Does the Commission accept that Mode 4 enables corporations to import cheap labour and capitalise on the wage differential between developed and developing countries?
8. Will the Commission acknowledge that once migration of labour moves to corporations, then governments lose the ability to oversee their borders and determine immigration policy?
9. To what extent has global business lobbied for Mode 4?
10. To what extent has Goldman Sachs lobbied for Mode 4?
11. What representations has Goldman Sachs made to the Commission in respect of Mode 4?