Migrant workers

PanchoVilla

The EU has been instrumental in passing legislation which allows migrant workers throughout Europe to travel freely across the continent. Some say this is beneficial to countries who need more workers, others say it's detrimental to native workers because of the massive difference between economies and the value of the euro in different countries, namely eastern Europe and the west.

Did the EU envisage so many workers from eastern Europe coming west to find jobs? How do they intend to limit the flow of currency from western countries like Ireland to eastern countries like Poland? Does the EU have any concern at all for the Irish workers who have lost their jobs/are passed up for jobs because Irish employers can get away with paying below the minimum wage? What measures will be put in place to normalize the value of the euro across Europe?

This is not an immigrant bashing thread. I myself emigrated to the U.S. with my family so I know what it's like. This thread is about the EU making it very difficult for western EU countries to compete with eastern EU countries where wages and the cost of living is a fraction of what it is in countries like Ireland. How are we expected to accept a common market with a common currency if the value of that single currency is so dramatically different in various countries?

Scofflaw

I can't help but feel that there are a couple of contradictory points in there.

First, if we take a migrant worker moving from Poland to Ireland, what relevance has the value of the euro in Poland got to that worker? She's no longer living in Poland, but in Ireland.

Second, if the argument is that the Polish worker depresses wages in Ireland because they are willing to work for less, that makes us more competitive with respect to Poland, not less.

Third, if we take the flow of currency - presumably the transfers home from Ireland to Poland - yes, that's money taken out of the Irish economy. It's also part of a levelling mechanism that helps to bring Poland up to the level of Ireland. We ourselves benefited both from such informal transfers and from the formal transfers from the EU, and they had the effect of bringing our standard of living up to that of the rest of the EU. I know we like to complain about how bad things are right now, but they're not anything like the Eighties, and the disparity between our standard of living and that of the rest of the EU is either absent or reversed, whereas only 25 years ago it was very visibly behind - and still we're net beneficiaries.

The EU isn't there to keep Poland poor and Ireland wealthy, any more than it was there to keep the UK wealthy and Ireland poor - quite the reverse. It's intended to have that levelling effect - to bring all of Europe up to the same standard of living. We've now played a (small) part in that process - the same process we benefited from. It seems to me churlish to complain about it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PanchoVilla

With all due respect Scofflaw, this is meant to be TalktoEu, not TalktoModerators who lock threads they don't like. I don't think I'll bother posting here anymore if I can't express concerns without fear of being censored by moderators.

First, if we take a migrant worker moving from Poland to Ireland, what relevance has the value of the euro in Poland got to that worker? She's no longer living in Poland, but in Ireland.

Migrant workers who come here, working tax free because they're on minimum wage, spending their money in Polish shops, then sending the remainder back to Poland is a pretty big issue especially now that our country is bankrupt while Poland's economy gets stronger and stronger. There's also a lot of money going over the China. This is a drain on our already broken economy and needs to be addressed. As I said, this has nothing to do with the Polish or Chinese in particular, it's to do with legislation that allows large amounts of money to leak out of our economy.

Second, if the argument is that the Polish worker depresses wages in Ireland because they are willing to work for less, that makes us more competitive with respect to Poland, not less.

The only problem with this is the cost of living remains incredibly high compared to other countries in the EU. If our minimum wage drops but the cost of living remains the same then w have serious problems. Regardless of what the media try to tell us, prices have not dropped in this country. Rents remain extremely high and people are struggling to stay on top after so many pay cuts in the private sector and now we are facing tax hikes after this upcoming budget.

Coillte_Bhoy

PanchoVilla wrote: »

With all due respect Scofflaw, this is meant to be TalktoEu, not TalktoModerators who lock threads they don't like. I don't think I'll bother posting here anymore if I can't express concerns without fear of being censored by moderators.

.

Eh??? Just beacuse Scofflaw is a mod does not preclude him/her from replying or does it? Where is this censorship you speak of?

Scofflaw

PanchoVilla wrote:

With all due respect Scofflaw, this is meant to be TalktoEu, not TalktoModerators who lock threads they don't like. I don't think I'll bother posting here anymore if I can't express concerns without fear of being censored by moderators.

If it wasn't clear enough from my earlier mod posts, this forum now follows the standard politics guidelines. That includes no conspiracy theory stuff, and no discussion of moderation on-thread, both for the usual reasons.

PanchoVilla, you either accept that the rules apply to you or you lose your access to these forums - which is a privilege, not a right. If I close a thread, you disagree with me by PM, rather than whining about mod oppression on another thread, contrary to the forum charter.

moderately,
Scofflaw

southsiderosie

PanchoVilla wrote: »

Migrant workers who come here, working tax free because they're on minimum wage, spending their money in Polish shops, then sending the remainder back to Poland is a pretty big issue especially now that our country is bankrupt while Poland's economy gets stronger and stronger. There's also a lot of money going over the China. This is a drain on our already broken economy and needs to be addressed. As I said, this has nothing to do with the Polish or Chinese in particular, it's to do with legislation that allows large amounts of money to leak out of our economy.

Over 60% of Ireland's revenues come from income tax and VAT.

Because income tax is based on a wage, not the nationality of the person who earns that wage, the issue of minimum wage workers who do not pay tax would exist, even if there was not immigration.

Because VAT is a consumption tax, it doesn't matter if people buy goods in a Polish shop or an Irish shop, they pay tax on it. Again, this has nothing to do with nationality.

If you want to make an argument that immigrants under-consume because they send money home, well maybe you can. But given the events of the last decade, I would argue that Irish OVER-consumed and relied far too much on credit, thus artificially inflating VAT revenues. In addition, the government's fiscal philosophy has been "when we have money, we will spend it, and when we don't we won't", which is madness. If they had saved in good times, and spent in bad times (counter-cyclical spending), then there would possibly be more money moving through the economy today that could help make up for shortfalls in consumer spending.

Finally, you seem to have a problem with people making private monetary transfers out of the country. What people do with their own money is their own business. However, I would note that the biggest outflow of money is Ireland is from the government to foreign bondholders; this has nothing to do with Poles and everything to do with profligate politicians, all of whom are Irish.

TalkToEU: John

Did the EU envisage so many workers from eastern Europe coming west to find jobs?

When, in 2004, the EU extended into many Eastern and Central European states was a lot of concern about the influx of immigrants from these new states. It was for this reason that existing member states agreed to allow themselves to place limits on the numbers of immigrants they would allow into their countries. Ireland however, due to a massive demand for workers, was one of the only countries that decided not to place any restrictions on immigrants coming into the country.

How do they intend to limit the flow of currency from western countries like Ireland to eastern countries like Poland?

There are no restrictions on this, or plans for restrictions. People are perfectly entitled to send their money anywhere they like.

Does the EU have any concern at all for the Irish workers who have lost their jobs/are passed up for jobs because Irish employers can get away with paying below the minimum wage?

It's illegal to pay under the minimum wage in Ireland. This does of course happen, but it's a matter for the Irish authorities to deal with this.

There is concern when mass unemployment is caused by large companies like Dell or SR Technics relocating to cheaper places to do business. The EU has acted in some these cases to help provide funding for re-training and re-skilling of the laid off workers.

What measures will be put in place to normalize the value of the euro across Europe?

None. What you get for one euro in one country compared to another is determined by the cost of living and cost of doing business, among numerous other economic factors relative to the local/national economy. You can even see this at national level between different areas of the country, although not as extreme.
In an ideal (and very optimistically speaking) future, with all member states equally as prosperous and developed as each other, it could maybe happen naturally that the value of the euro in terms of purchasing power is roughly the same across the EU.

southsiderosie

OK, I just realized what was going on with this "Talk to EU" thing - this is kind of cool!

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

It's illegal to pay under the minimum wage in Ireland. This does of course happen, but it's a matter for the Irish authorities to deal with this.

But wage and hour violations seem to be a particular problem in countries with large immigrant populations. Given that there is now a common labor market, why wouldn't the EU take a stronger role in labor law enforcement, or at least indirectly support enforcement, inspections, etc?

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

In an ideal (and very optimistically speaking) future, with all member states equally as prosperous and developed as each other, it could maybe happen naturally that the value of the euro in terms of purchasing power is roughly the same across the EU.

Many of the 2004 accession countries said at the time that they would move towards adopting the euro. But since then, it seems like this enthusiasm has dampened somewhat. If Eastern European countries continue to attract export-oriented investment, wouldn't they have an incentive to maintain their own currencies, and keep them relatively low vis-a-vis the euro? This seems like it would also be an attractive policy option for countries with large remittance inflows from the eurozone.

sirromo

The question I would have is whether there is any provision in the treaties to allow governments to suspend the right of free movement from accession states in the event of an unplanned-for influx of people from those countries. I'm nearly certain I saw someone before reference an article from one of the treaties that would allow this.

There's this quote as well from the Europe minister Dick Roche (taken from here) in response to Anthony Coughlan's prediction that the Nice treaty would lead to a massive increase in immigration:

Dick Roche wrote:

The Commission will monitor it and see how it develops. We, as a member state, can go to the Commission and ask it to take special measures. Those special measures exist under existing law, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Nice Treaty . . .

As we have hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and as we still have people from eastern Europe arriving here (although in far fewer numbers than during the boom), would the government be able ask the commission for a temporary suspension, at least until the economy begins to recover and we've managed to bring unemployment below 10%

TalkToEU: John

sirromo wrote: »

The question I would have is whether there is any provision in the treaties to allow governments to suspend the right of free movement from accession states in the event of an unplanned-for influx of people from those countries. I'm nearly certain I saw someone before reference an article from one of the treaties that would allow this.

There's this quote as well from the Europe minister Dick Roche (taken from here) in response to Anthony Coughlan's prediction that the Nice treaty would lead to a massive increase in immigration:


As we have hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and as we still have people from eastern Europe arriving here (although in far fewer numbers than during the boom), would the government be able ask the commission for a temporary suspension, at least until the economy begins to recover and we've managed to bring unemployment below 10%

Hi Sirromo,

Once the Member State allows immigration from a new Member State, there is no provision for stopping the immigration of workers thereafter under the Accession Treaties...

Freedom of Movement of people is guaranteed as as right in the EU - in fact, it's one of the four fundamental freedoms that the Union is founded on. Restrictions can be placed on new member states when they first join, but this is on a case-by-case basis, is at the discretion of each EU country and can only be fixed for a limited amount of time. (In Ireland's case we didn't place restrictions on countries that joined in 2004, but did place restrictions on Romania and Bulgaria in 2007). After that initial phase, then restrictions on movement can only be put in place for matters of public policy, like the foot and mouth outbreak that happened here.

In a country like Ireland, where the economy is suffering severely, the expectation is that immigrant workers will move to another State for work or return home. This a evidenced by large numbers of eastern european immigrants now emigrating from Ireland.

In the case of Romania, Bulgaria, and any new member states that join, Ireland may well use it's options to restrict immigration.
For the first two years they can place restrictions based on national policy. Eg:only allow certain types of workers, or have a strict work permit policy. They can then apply a further 3 years of restrictions, and if necessary, they can apply for a further two years of restrictions if they predict that it will cause serious labour market disturbances.

caseyann

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

When, in 2004, the EU extended into many Eastern and Central European states was a lot of concern about the influx of immigrants from these new states. It was for this reason that existing member states agreed to allow themselves to place limits on the numbers of immigrants they would allow into their countries. Ireland however, due to a massive demand for workers, was one of the only countries that decided not to place any restrictions on immigrants coming into the country.

My question is to the bolded.
Why werent the Irish who have no skills and who could have been trained into these so called jobs that there was massive demand for,as most of the jobs polish took were construction work.While there was thousand of young men with no qualifications,who could have took those posts.Rather then leaving them on the dole and importing people from abroad.
There wasnt much of a limit put on how many as far as i could see,and then shop staff which now is flooded with other nationalities along with polish girls who were flown in by their bfs and Irish who are losing jobs have no where to go.And Irish who leave school cant even get a job in a store to support themselves especially now with college fees rising.
I hope i am getting what i am trying to say across ok.
Why wasnt polish economy built up and fixed there for them rather then forcing so many out of their own country to find jobs.
The logic of EU imo is flawed.

#15

caseyann wrote: »

Why werent the Irish who have no skills and who could have been trained into these so called jobs that there was massive demand for,as most of the jobs polish took were construction work.

Ireland had the lowest rate of unemployment in the Eurozone in 2004.

Most of the Irish were working.

While there was thousand of young men with no qualifications,who could have took those posts.

They could have, but most people who actually wanted work in 2004 could have got it.

along with polish girls who were flown in by their bfs

What has this got to do with anything?

Scofflaw

caseyann wrote: »

My question is to the bolded.
Why werent the Irish who have no skills and who could have been trained into these so called jobs that there was massive demand for,as most of the jobs polish took were construction work.While there was thousand of young men with no qualifications,who could have took those posts.Rather then leaving them on the dole and importing people from abroad.
There wasnt much of a limit put on how many as far as i could see,and then shop staff which now is flooded with other nationalities along with polish girls who were flown in by their bfs and Irish who are losing jobs have no where to go.And Irish who leave school cant even get a job in a store to support themselves especially now with college fees rising.
I hope i am getting what i am trying to say across ok.
Why wasnt polish economy built up and fixed there for them rather then forcing so many out of their own country to find jobs.
The logic of EU imo is flawed.

I shall forbear from making the obvious comment, but as #15 has pointed out, we were at full (structural) employment during the boom - the only people who were long-term unemployed (>18 months) were those incapable of employment for various reasons.

The reason the government decided not to implement the restrictions allowed for in the Treaties was: (a) an Irish government decision rather than anybody else's; and (b) a rational response to a serious and growing labour shortage.

It would be cynical to say that the Irish government expected quite a lot of workers, but also expected them to go home if things turned sour, but I think it's also probably true, despite the rhetoric of the time. While they worked here, they paid taxes - if they hadn't been here, nobody would have been in their jobs to pay those taxes.

Had the government decided to 'protect' the Irish labour market, the result would have been similar to what we saw, but rather more dramatic - rising wages driving rising house prices and business costs for both domestic and foreign companies. The government could, of course, have decided to tax the heck out of people's salaries in order to cool things down (and set aside money for a rainy day), but that would hardly have played well at election time.

As to the 'logic of the EU' - we, the Irish, did exactly what the Poles did here, all round Europe, worked abroad and sent home money. Between that and the structural funds we did well out of the EU and raised our standard of living. However, the process took time (20 years or so) - are you saying that we, having joined the EC as a poor country, should not have been accorded freedom of movement until we were decently wealthy?

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

sirromo wrote: »

As we have hundreds of thousands of people out of work, and as we still have people from eastern Europe arriving here (although in far fewer numbers than during the boom), would the government be able ask the commission for a temporary suspension, at least until the economy begins to recover and we've managed to bring unemployment below 10%

There would be little point in the government asking for a temporary suspension since as has been pointed out the conditions for doing so are very limited and - perhaps more importantly - the "Accession 10" states complete their "accession period" on May 1st next year. Hence, it would be a case of putting a suspension in today and then lifting it in 6 months time.

Also, any such suspension would, of course, not effect all the "old" member states all of whose populations would remain free to move here en masse the day after the suspension was put in place.

As an aside - I have to confess that I suspect that the people who complain about the Poles being here probably wouldn't have been much happier if we had lots of, let's say, Spanish or even Germans here instead (Although they never seem to complain about our by far and away largest immigrant population - the British - who almost outnumber the combined population of every other member state).

motherriley

Ireland

For more details on this topic, see Polish minority in Ireland.


After Poland joined the European Union in 2004, Ireland was one of three existing EU members to open its borders and welcome Polish workers as relatively cheap qualified labour (the others being the United Kingdom and Sweden). Ireland quickly became a key destination for young Poles seeking work outside the country. According to the 2006 Census, there are 63,090 Poles living in Ireland,[8] constituting the largest ethnic minority, after British nationals, in the country. These figures reflect official numbers of Poles who have settled permanently in Ireland and is likely to be an underestimation of the total number of Poles actually living in Ireland, whether officially and permanently or otherwise. And it is thought that this number could be as high as 200,000.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonia#Ireland

caseyann

Scofflaw wrote: »

I shall forbear from making the obvious comment, but as #15 has pointed out, we were at full (structural) employment during the boom - the only people who were long-term unemployed (>18 months) were those incapable of employment for various reasons.

The reason the government decided not to implement the restrictions allowed for in the Treaties was: (a) an Irish government decision rather than anybody else's; and (b) a rational response to a serious and growing labour shortage.

It would be cynical to say that the Irish government expected quite a lot of workers, but also expected them to go home if things turned sour, but I think it's also probably true, despite the rhetoric of the time. While they worked here, they paid taxes - if they hadn't been here, nobody would have been in their jobs to pay those taxes.

Had the government decided to 'protect' the Irish labour market, the result would have been similar to what we saw, but rather more dramatic - rising wages driving rising house prices and business costs for both domestic and foreign companies. The government could, of course, have decided to tax the heck out of people's salaries in order to cool things down (and set aside money for a rainy day), but that would hardly have played well at election time.

As to the 'logic of the EU' - we, the Irish, did exactly what the Poles did here, all round Europe, worked abroad and sent home money. Between that and the structural funds we did well out of the EU and raised our standard of living. However, the process took time (20 years or so) - are you saying that we, having joined the EC as a poor country, should not have been accorded freedom of movement until we were decently wealthy?

cordially,
Scofflaw

My point was,they could have trained those who were on long term unemployment for such jobs as should all the other EU countries,and created the jobs for Polish in their own country.Rather than them having to leave their own country to find work.
In other words EU is not in anyway what so ever long term planners.And to Bolded part Scofflaw,I do not know how they got away with not doing that,i mean wasnt anyone with a brain in our dáil I mean logic would have pertained to doing exactly that.They should have been doing it from beginning of the boom.Not waiting for it to come in first place.
You can bet your ass they certainly have put away enough for their own personal rainy days.In this case i would call it a tsunami not rainy day.
I mean what has Poland got to offer the EU now anything? No one will be going there for jobs at least not in the thousands and not in hundreds either.

#15

I'm going to put it bluntly, because subtle is not working.

caseyann wrote: »

My point was,they could have trained those who were on long term unemployment for such jobs

Most of the migrant workers were in jobs that did not require significant training.
Any Irish person on the dole could easily have got a job.

Most of those who were unemployed during the boom were unemployed because they didn't want to work.

No amount of training could have changed that.

It was fairly easy to get unskilled work during the boom.

Also, Fás was having a little boom of its own - there was training available to anyone who wanted it.

as should all the other EU countries,and created the jobs for Polish in their own country.

It's not that simple.

caseyann

#15 wrote: »

I'm going to put it bluntly, because subtle is not working.



Most of the migrant workers were in jobs that did not require significant training.
Any Irish person on the dole could easily have got a job.

Most of those who were unemployed during the boom were unemployed because they didn't want to work.

No amount of training could have changed that.

It was fairly easy to get unskilled work during the boom.

Also, Fás was having a little boom of its own - there was training available to anyone who wanted it.


It's not that simple.

So why werent they forced into these so called unskilled jobs by social welfare?
Logic does not compute so they took in a load of unemployed migrant workers for jobs that could have been filled by people who are sitting on their asses at home,and didnt need to be skilled in construction at all?
Funny i dont recall to many fas training facilities offering men or women if they wanted to be plasterers or painters or brickmason.I believe there was forklift driving training available and computers and the likes but was the construction training readily available?
I mean if they walked on to a site which they had no previous experience in such industry would Irish dole claimer have got that job?

How is it not that simple,they send in companies to open in such a country which creates jobs then there is a call for structural upgrading creating more jobs and bobs your uncle.
What is the state of their economy now?

K-9

caseyann wrote: »

So why werent they forced into these so called unskilled jobs by social welfare?
Logic does not compute so they took in a load of unemployed migrant workers for jobs that could have been filled by people who are sitting on their asses at home,and didnt need to be skilled in construction at all?
Funny i dont recall to many fas training facilities offering men or women if they wanted to be plasterers or painters or brickmason.I believe there was forklift driving training available and computers and the likes but was the construction training readily available?
I mean if they walked on to a site which they had no previous experience in such industry would Irish dole claimer have got that job?

How is it not that simple,they send in companies to open in such a country which creates jobs then there is a call for structural upgrading creating more jobs and bobs your uncle.
What is the state of their economy now?

Well Unemployment was about 4/4.5% and as far as I know, people on disability benefit are included in those figures and people on short time and seasonal work eg. Fishermen.

FAS ran plenty of Construction related courses, Safepass, apprentices and the like. Maybe as I was employed in that sector I am aware of them more than you. Indeed one of the criticisms of the recent FAS report was that they were 2 a penny.

Considering how employment fell from 11/12% around 2000 to 4/5% in 05/06, I'd assume, yes, plenty did get employment on sites with very little experience.

Tbh, I think you are looking for ways to blame EU rules when we should be looking closer to home at who to blame, like, whoever decided having Construction comprising about 20/25% of our GDP was a good idea, or rather, did nothing about it. Immigrants go where the work is as we should know from this country.

#15

caseyann wrote: »

So why werent they forced into these so called unskilled jobs by social welfare?

1) I don't think you can be forced into work
2) Welfare is high enough to allow people to live comfortably (not lavishly, but well above the poverty line)

Logic does not compute so they took in a load of unemployed migrant workers for jobs that could have been filled by people who are sitting on their asses at home

That's exactly it.

,and didnt need to be skilled in construction at all?

I said nothing about construction at all. There were jobs in other areas e.g. working in a shop doesn't require training.

Funny i dont recall to many fas training facilities offering men or women if they wanted to be plasterers or painters or brickmason.I believe there was forklift driving training available and computers and the likes but was the construction training readily available?

What's with the emphasis on construction? There were plenty of service jobs available too.

I mean if they walked on to a site which they had no previous experience in such industry would Irish dole claimer have got that job?

Have no idea. Are you suggesting that untrained migrants got skilled work ahead of untrained Irish citizens? That doesn't make any sense.

How is it not that simple,they send in companies to open in such a country which creates jobs then there is a call for structural upgrading creating more jobs and bobs your uncle.

Who sends in companies?

Are you really wondering why Poland didn't have lots of multinationals?

Nodin

caseyann wrote: »

Funny i dont recall to many fas training facilities offering men or women if they wanted to be plasterers or painters or brickmason.I believe there was forklift driving training available and computers and the likes but was the construction training readily available?

I'd suggest that posting a concept in a serious discussion based on ones own memory of what was and was not available at some unspecified moment in time is not likely to lead to many meaningful replys.

Scofflaw

caseyann wrote: »

My point was,they could have trained those who were on long term unemployment for such jobs as should all the other EU countries,and created the jobs for Polish in their own country.Rather than them having to leave their own country to find work.

Um, no, because there weren't enough long-term unemployed. Literally, the labour market had hoovered up everybody who wanted or was able to work, and was just sucking on empty. Long-term unemployment number in Ireland in 2004 were about 30% of total unemployment, which in turn was only about 4%. That means there were about 20,000 long-term unemployed in Ireland in 2004, and when you consider that a lot of those will have been disabled in some way (there were 50,000 people receiving disability benefit in 2004), there's really nobody left over.

caseyann wrote: »

In other words EU is not in anyway what so ever long term planners.And to Bolded part Scofflaw,I do not know how they got away with not doing that,i mean wasnt anyone with a brain in our dáil I mean logic would have pertained to doing exactly that.They should have been doing it from beginning of the boom.Not waiting for it to come in first place.
You can bet your ass they certainly have put away enough for their own personal rainy days.In this case i would call it a tsunami not rainy day.
I mean what has Poland got to offer the EU now anything? No one will be going there for jobs at least not in the thousands and not in hundreds either.

Poland doesn't have to offer the EU anything, any more than Ireland did when it joined. It wanted to join, and it met the criteria - having "something to offer" isn't part of the entry requirements.

cordially,
Scofflaw

caseyann

Scofflaw wrote: »

Um, no, because there weren't enough long-term unemployed. Literally, the labour market had hoovered up everybody who wanted or was able to work, and was just sucking on empty. Long-term unemployment number in Ireland in 2004 were about 30% of total unemployment, which in turn was only about 4%. That means there were about 20,000 long-term unemployed in Ireland in 2004, and when you consider that a lot of those will have been disabled in some way (there were 50,000 people receiving disability benefit in 2004), there's really nobody left over.



Poland doesn't have to offer the EU anything, any more than Ireland did when it joined. It wanted to join, and it met the criteria - having "something to offer" isn't part of the entry requirements.

cordially,
Scofflaw

To the first part thanks for explaining that to me,how the hell is so many people on dole then now?

Why is their economy still so crap,I didnt say they should be offering anything to EU when they joined,but after joining it i would expect in this time frame they would have built up something.And for there to be jobs for their own and perhaps others EU counter parts by now.
How is their economy still so rubbish? In long run was it only good for them to join so they could get jobs out side of their own country and send money home to live.
So in actual fact EU didnt help their economy at all just helped people to emmigrate.

Nodin

caseyann wrote: »

To the first part thanks for explaining that to me,how the hell is so many people on dole then now?

Why is their economy still so crap,I didnt say they should be offering anything to EU when they joined,but after joining it i would expect in this time frame they would have built up something.And for there to be jobs for their own and perhaps others EU counter parts by now.
How is their economy still so rubbish? In long run was it only good for them to join so they could get jobs out side of their own country and send money home to live.
So in actual fact EU didnt help their economy at all just helped people to emmigrate.

Poland's high-income economy[4] is the 6th largest in the EU and one of the fastest growing economies in Central Europe, with an annual growth rate of over 6.0% before the late-2000s recession.[5] It is the only member country of the European Union to have avoided a decline in GDP, meaning that in 2009 Poland has created the most GDP growth in the EU[6]. As of December 2009 the Polish economy had not entered recession nor contracted, while its IMF 2010 GDP growth forecast of 1.9 per cent is expected to be upgraded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Poland

#15

caseyann wrote: »

Why is their economy still so crap,I didnt say they should be offering anything to EU when they joined,but after joining it i would expect in this time frame they would have built up something.And for there to be jobs for their own and perhaps others EU counter parts by now.
How is their economy still so rubbish? In long run was it only good for them to join so they could get jobs out side of their own country and send money home to live.
So in actual fact EU didnt help their economy at all just helped people to emmigrate.

Your expectations are completely unrealistic. It has only been 6 years since they joined.

It took Ireland a lot longer than that to 'build something up', as you put it.

Scofflaw

caseyann wrote: »

To the first part thanks for explaining that to me,how the hell is so many people on dole then now?

Because our property bubble collapsed, and the economy with it.

caseyann wrote: »

Why is their economy still so crap,I didnt say they should be offering anything to EU when they joined,but after joining it i would expect in this time frame they would have built up something.And for there to be jobs for their own and perhaps others EU counter parts by now.
How is their economy still so rubbish? In long run was it only good for them to join so they could get jobs out side of their own country and send money home to live.
So in actual fact EU didnt help their economy at all just helped people to emmigrate.

Ireland joined the EC in 1973 - it took twenty plus years to "build something up", even with the highest European financial assistance per head anyone has ever received, and still we're net recipients to the tune of about half a billion a year in EU money. At that rate, you needn't expect anything out of Poland until about 2030 or so, although personally I think they may well get there rather faster than we have.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

caseyann wrote: »

To the first part thanks for explaining that to me,how the hell is so many people on dole then now?

Why is their economy still so crap,I didnt say they should be offering anything to EU when they joined,but after joining it i would expect in this time frame they would have built up something.And for there to be jobs for their own and perhaps others EU counter parts by now.
How is their economy still so rubbish? In long run was it only good for them to join so they could get jobs out side of their own country and send money home to live.
So in actual fact EU didnt help their economy at all just helped people to emmigrate.

They are at an earlier stage of development and membership.

A fair comparison would be comparing them to us around 1978/79.

Not much difference, if anything we'd have been worse off, despite the advantages we had in being the first "poor" European country admitted.

Cavehill Red

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

When, in 2004, the EU extended into many Eastern and Central European states was a lot of concern about the influx of immigrants from these new states. It was for this reason that existing member states agreed to allow themselves to place limits on the numbers of immigrants they would allow into their countries. Ireland however, due to a massive demand for workers, was one of the only countries that decided not to place any restrictions on immigrants coming into the country.

That's not what the government here said at the time. Let me quote one minister of many on the matter during the Lisbon debate 2002:

"The second myth is that the Nice Treaty will mean mass immigration from the new EU member countries in Eastern Europe. This is probably the most odious of the myths propagated by some in the "No" campaign."

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's not what the government here said at the time. Let me quote one minister of many on the matter during the Lisbon debate 2002:

"The second myth is that the Nice Treaty will mean mass immigration from the new EU member countries in Eastern Europe. This is probably the most odious of the myths propagated by some in the "No" campaign."

That's right - that's what the government said at the time. Currently, if we recall, they're claiming we've turned several corners.

amused,
Scofflaw

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's right - that's what the government said at the time. Currently, if we recall, they're claiming we've turned several corners.

amused,
Scofflaw

I suppose after so many years of them lying to us, the electorate perhaps now knows to expect it from them. But that wasn't the case in 2002, especially when the EU, and all the major parties here were assuring us that Nice would not lead to mass immigration.
But spoofing works, especially in relation to euro-matters. Anyone else still waiting on those jobs we voted for in the last Lisbon referendum? :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I suppose after so many years of them lying to us, the electorate perhaps now knows to expect it from them. But that wasn't the case in 2002, especially when the EU, and all the major parties here were assuring us that Nice would not lead to mass immigration.
But spoofing works, especially in relation to euro-matters. Anyone else still waiting on those jobs we voted for in the last Lisbon referendum? :rolleyes:

Oh come on - the government had a really splendid track record of telling complete porkies, broken promises, finagling and hypocrisy right through the Eighties and Nineties - and the only reason I can't personally vouch for before then is by virtue of having been too young to care.

And no, nobody is waiting on the Lisbon jobs, because I think pretty much everybody understood that was a pretty meaningless slogan. "Vote Yes to have the EU keep bailing us out" would have been a little too honest as political slogans go, but I think you'll find that's what people understood they were voting for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rockery Woman

Most of those who were unemployed during the boom were unemployed because they didn't want to work.

No amount of training could have changed that.

It was fairly easy to get unskilled work during the boom.



It's not that simple.[/QUOTE]

Agree. And all those people who say to me "The Polish should go home" were the same ones who wouldn't lower themselves to do the jobs the Polish migrant workers were doing during the boom.

I work in a factory, lots of Polish people work there with me. Many Irish people turned up their noses at these jobs, now the tide has turned and some Irish people feel they are entitled to kick out the foreigners and take up the jobs themselves.

So my Polish colleagues are entitled and welcome to stay here as far as I am concerned.

Cavehill Red

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh come on - the government had a really splendid track record of telling complete porkies, broken promises, finagling and hypocrisy right through the Eighties and Nineties - and the only reason I can't personally vouch for before then is by virtue of having been too young to care.

A lying politician is a truism of ancient lineage. But that doesn't mean that the government and the EU and the opposition weren't taken at their word when they maligned the No campaign in 2002 by lying blatantly about mass immigration.

Scofflaw wrote: »

And no, nobody is waiting on the Lisbon jobs, because I think pretty much everybody understood that was a pretty meaningless slogan. "Vote Yes to have the EU keep bailing us out" would have been a little too honest as political slogans go, but I think you'll find that's what people understood they were voting for.

Of course no one is waiting on the Lisbon jobs because it's now patently clear there aren't any.

But again, at the time of voting, it was jobs they were promised and exit polls showed that this influenced many people's decision on the matter.
Perhaps you interpreted that campaign as meaning something else.

Perhaps you were even correct to do so. But perhaps the electorate in general is not as subtle an interpreter of overt statements by political campaigns as you are.

K-9

Cavehill Red wrote: »

A lying politician is a truism of ancient lineage. But that doesn't mean that the government and the EU and the opposition weren't taken at their word when they maligned the No campaign in 2002 by lying blatantly about mass immigration.

Or maybe, and considering the mess of the last 5/6 years, they just never foresaw the levels of immigration we had. Basically, they were honest at the time but Revisionism has proved them wrong?

I doubt Dick Roche or any other politician would have forecast the bubble in Construction either in 2001. Once the money started to role in after Nice, all they seen were the € signs.

Basically, I don't think Roche knew that immigration was going to be so high.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Or maybe, and considering the mess of the last 5/6 years, they just never foresaw the levels of immigration we had. Basically, they were honest at the time but Revisionism has proved them wrong?

I doubt Dick Roche or any other politician would have forecast the bubble in Construction either in 2001. Once the money started to role in after Nice, all they seen were the € signs.

Basically, I don't think Roche knew that immigration was going to be so high.

Also a possibility. I have to say that I didn't come across anybody at the time who actually thought Lisbon meant there would be new jobs - and the exit polls I know of of have "Good for economy/jobs/taxes/EU funding" as all one category, for 20% of the voters. That does represent a large increase on the first vote - which had 3% of voters choosing those as a reason for saying yes.

On the other hand, it doesn't mean that people believed Lisbon would create new jobs, and I really don't think anyone believed that it would, as opposed to being better for the economy in a more general sense, which I have to say I think it was, if indirectly rather than directly. The only people who ever bring it up as if people expected jobs directly from the Treaty are No voters - and they clearly didn't believe it.

Also, I have to say that twice was enough, thanks. I'm happy to discuss what Lisbon means in terms of the new version of the EU it created, but I don't feel that the "where are the jobs then?" line is anything more than a frustrated and very facile gibe at this stage. What won the referendum was, at the end of the day, the recognition by the Irish electorate that we weren't in a position to keep up the Celtic Tiger narrative of "in your face, losers, who needs ya!" - something that's turned out to be all too true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also a possibility. I have to say that I didn't come across anybody at the time who actually thought Lisbon meant there would be new jobs - and the exit polls I know of of have "Good for economy/jobs/taxes/EU funding" as all one category, for 20% of the voters. That does represent a large increase on the first vote - which had 3% of voters choosing those as a reason for saying yes.

On the other hand, it doesn't mean that people believed Lisbon would create new jobs, and I really don't think anyone believed that it would, as opposed to being better for the economy in a more general sense, which I have to say I think it was, if indirectly rather than directly. The only people who ever bring it up as if people expected jobs directly from the Treaty are No voters - and they clearly didn't believe it.

Also, I have to say that twice was enough, thanks. I'm happy to discuss what Lisbon means in terms of the new version of the EU it created, but I don't feel that the "where are the jobs then?" line is anything more than a frustrated and very facile gibe at this stage. What won the referendum was, at the end of the day, the recognition by the Irish electorate that we weren't in a position to keep up the Celtic Tiger narrative of "in your face, losers, who needs ya!" - something that's turned out to be all too true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In fairness, I was responding to claims in Nice 1 or may have been 2!

Definitely not Lisbon! There does seem to be an effort to tie both in!

Forward planning was not one of their advantages! I'd say very few of us would disagree on that!

View

Cavehill Red wrote: »

That's not what the government here said at the time. Let me quote one minister of many on the matter during the Lisbon debate 2002:

"The second myth is that the Nice Treaty will mean mass immigration from the new EU member countries in Eastern Europe. This is probably the most odious of the myths propagated by some in the "No" campaign."

The Minister was correct. The provisions contained in the Nice Treaty did not effect the Freedom of Movement for Workers clauses in the EU Treaties in any way.

You might, of course, claim that the subsequent Accession Treaties did "mean mass immigration from the new EU member countries in Eastern Europe" but as the Minister's comment refers to the Nice Treaty - not the subsequent Accession Treaties - that would be a bit pointless.

Dob74

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

Hi Sirromo,

Once the Member State allows immigration from a new Member State, there is no provision for stopping the immigration of workers thereafter under the Accession Treaties...

Freedom of Movement of people is guaranteed as as right in the EU - in fact, it's one of the four fundamental freedoms that the Union is founded on. Restrictions can be placed on new member states when they first join, but this is on a case-by-case basis, is at the discretion of each EU country and can only be fixed for a limited amount of time. (In Ireland's case we didn't place restrictions on countries that joined in 2004, but did place restrictions on Romania and Bulgaria in 2007). After that initial phase, then restrictions on movement can only be put in place for matters of public policy, like the foot and mouth outbreak that happened here.

In a country like Ireland, where the economy is suffering severely, the expectation is that immigrant workers will move to another State for work or return home. This a evidenced by large numbers of eastern european immigrants now emigrating from Ireland.

In the case of Romania, Bulgaria, and any new member states that join, Ireland may well use it's options to restrict immigration.
For the first two years they can place restrictions based on national policy. Eg:only allow certain types of workers, or have a strict work permit policy. They can then apply a further 3 years of restrictions, and if necessary, they can apply for a further two years of restrictions if they predict that it will cause serious labour market disturbances.

Really, do you any evidence. Most people I work with from the EU12 are not returning home and never plan to. The last CSO show more irish people leaving the workforce than migrants.

Why isn't there any prevaling wage laws similiar to the US?
Or do the leaders of the EU want western european workers to work for the same rates as eastern european workers?
Is there anything similiar to the Davis Bacon Act(prevailing wage act in the US) in the works?

BetterLisbon

Scofflaw wrote: »

Oh come on - the government had a really splendid track record of telling complete porkies, broken promises, finagling and hypocrisy right through the Eighties and Nineties - and the only reason I can't personally vouch for before then is by virtue of having been too young to care.

And no, nobody is waiting on the Lisbon jobs, because I think pretty much everybody understood that was a pretty meaningless slogan. "Vote Yes to have the EU keep bailing us out" would have been a little too honest as political slogans go, but I think you'll find that's what people understood they were voting for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So lets get this straight. When the people vote Yes the lies/spindoctoring of the Yes campaign had no effect but when the people vote No the lies/spindoctoring tricked the people.
If "Yes for Jobs" was just a slogan then surely "1.84 minimum wage?" was just a slogan to crystallise the anti-worker judgments of the ECJ that now stand on a stronger legal basis under Lisbon.

Amhran Nua

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

Once the Member State allows immigration from a new Member State, there is no provision for stopping the immigration of workers thereafter under the Accession Treaties...

This is incorrect. If a labour market imbalance can be shown, there are mechanisms to reassert constricted movement of labour and the reintroduction of working visas.

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

Ireland however, due to a massive demand for workers, was one of the only countries that decided not to place any restrictions on immigrants coming into the country.

Cavehill Red is correct on this point - it was not so much the demand for labour, but that the government that made the decision to allow free movement of labour were completely and utterly blindsided by the numbers of migrants that arrived. Likewise the UK expressed surprise at the number of migrant workers who landed from accession states.

Judi Meet

We have had the opportunity to discuss and condem an asylum seeker Pamela whose name has become a shadow in the lives of many anti immigrant campaingners in Ireland. But what is so pathetic and hypocratic about the deviant responses we have read so far from some media and political groups is that 'we' hardly hear anything when the Minister for justice and law Reform is engaged in act of fraud and illegality by virtue of its own act. But if there is any suspicion of fraud about an asylum seeker and the immigration system in Ireland, it would seem as if the world is about to fall apart.
Let me remind readers and bloggers about Case-C-162/09, Secretary of state for work and pensions v. Lassal delivered on the 7th October, 2010 about the right of Union citizens and their family members who have resided in Ireland legally under earlier community law instrument, whose residency under Article 10 of Regulation 1612/68 ended prior to the implementation of Article 16 of Directive 2004/38/EC into Irish domestic law. We are yet to hear any correction or amendment being made to the incorrect and illegal implementation of Regulation 12 of S.I No. 656 of 2006 which wrongly implements Article 16 of Directive 2004/38/EC into Irish domestic law. It is so unfortunate that irrespective of a judgment of the ECJ, those applicants who have been refused the right of permanent residence under EU law on the grounds that their five years residency ended prior to 28th April, 2006 are still being left in legal limbo and still being denied their legal entitlement. What a shame and sham?. Where are the media in this act of illegality? Where is your article condeming the state for involving in Fraud and illegality. If it was an issue relating to an asylum seeker like 'pamela' you would be very quick to open your gups. What are you going to do about this state of affair?.

beagle001

Pamela is a fraud who cost the Irish state hundreds of thousands in unnecessary legal expenses to further her own selfish goals and she tarnished the cases of the very minority of genuine asylum cases by her actions.
She cares only about herself and the little pot of Irish benefits she was fraudulently claiming.

Judi Meet

This is the kind of attitude that a typical Irish citizen would display when he or she finds it difficult to justify a racist, oppressive and consistent abuse on the part of the Irish authorities most especially the fraudstars who call themselves state officials working in the Department of Justice and so called law Reformers. You have not answered my question and perhaps may I tell you that thousands of Union citizens and their family Members who may have been entitled to welfare benefits and state aid for educational courses have been denied these privileges accorded them by virtue of EU law because the Minister for Justice has persistently denied them their legal right to permanent residence. Let me ask the question again, when would the Irish Government amend Regulation 12 of S.I. No. 656 of 2006 to comply with the recent judgment of the ECJ in the Lassal case-162/09? What the Minister for Justice is doing is akin to a criminal offence perpetuated against thousands of people and more fraudulent than what Pamela did. Your Minister for justice should be sent to jail.

oscarBravo

Note that this thread is about migrant workers, not asylum seekers. Don't conflate these very different issues.

number10a

caseyann wrote: »

Why is their economy still so crap,I didnt say they should be offering anything to EU when they joined,but after joining it i would expect in this time frame they would have built up something.And for there to be jobs for their own and perhaps others EU counter parts by now.
How is their economy still so rubbish? In long run was it only good for them to join so they could get jobs out side of their own country and send money home to live.
So in actual fact EU didnt help their economy at all just helped people to emmigrate.

This is actually hilarious.... Have you ever even been to Poland? Have you read anything about their economy? Do you actually know anything about life outside this wet miserable rock in the middle of the sea holding its paper cup out to the world??

I've been to Poland a good few times since they joined the EU and seeing the difference in the country every year is staggering. Poland is flying into the future and not solely on the basis of foreign credit. For one, they are the only country in the EU that did not go into recession since this crisis started in 2008. Their cities are strides ahead of our own. So much so that you would actually think Ireland was the poorer of the two - amazing public transport (just one example: Kraków has 322km of tramlines vs. Dublin's 34km - and Dublin is a bigger city, and supposedly richer), decent (and free) festivals, shopping centres so big that the corridors and open areas are called streets and squares. Their education system is outstanding. They don't have a state-of-the-art health system, but it's miles better than ours - again "poor" country beats the "rich" country. What Poland has done in six years, we didn't do in 25 years. Wages might be lower there, but I would prefer to live there for the rest of my life than be stuck here paying for the mistakes of once-rich Irish people. Poland is one of the places that I'm considering moving to (that or Spain) - I'm a teacher. Both countries have much lower wages, but in my opinion offer a better quality of life. So it works both ways - they can work here, we can work there.

I am not Polish. I am Irish, something I was once so proud of. Now, I see no future for me here. This is not the fault of some Polish people sending a few hundred euro home every month - if you ever actually spoke to a Polish person, you might know that they're not the money-making remittance robots that you seem to think they are. I know loads of Polish people and any of them who've ever shared their financial habits with me have said they only send money home for birthdays and Christmas - just like we would do if we lived somewhere else.

This whole crisis is the fault of a power-hungry, greedy, croney-minding government that was hellbent on spending their way into power election after election. Now, billions are flowing out of our country every month to pay interest on bonds. This is not the fault of migrant workers. It's the fault of a small group of Irish people whose job it is (apparently) to serve this nation's best interests.

Just like me, you're probably someone who would consider moving to USA/Australia/Canada/NZ in the morning if you found yourself unemployed. But of course, that's alright because you're a Western European so it's fine for you to go to other countries (that aren't even in the EU) to look for a job. The difference between you and me is that I accept the fact that people can come here to work if they want to - even if it means stealing jobs from dole-scrounging layabouts* in 2004/5/6/7.

*I am on the dole myself now so this is not intended for people who find themselves in difficulty nowadays. Like other posters have said, the vast majority on the dole from 2004-2007 were on it because they wanted to be - these are the people I mean.

Judi Meet

oscarBravo wrote: »

Note that this thread is about migrant workers, not asylum seekers. Don't conflate these very different issues.

This issue is as sensitive as any other issue that has instigated public outrage in this country since the last few years in respect of immigration matters in the Irish state. Some clamour over delapidated infrastructure in the state as if it was the fault of Polish migrant workers. The Irish is known for displacing economic and social aggression that affects its internal political system on innocent foreigners who may otherwise be contributing economically to the development of the Irish state. It is this state of hypocracy that bewitches social harmony in the state. If Polish politicians does well for their country by providing basic amenities for their people, then it was because the polish public voted for the right people into Governement. The economic situation today in Ireland is as a result of decadence of corruption and mismanagment of public resources instgated by confused and corrupt voting practices in the state-that makes the state look like a one party state.'No doubt the country messiahs are in other parties'.
Again, the issue I raised has not been answered. The question is, when is the Minister for Justice and Law Reform going to do the honourable thing and correct the provisions of Regualtion 12 of S.I. No. 656 of 2006 to enable the law in the state recognize five years legal residence that ended prior to 30 April 2006 under Regulation 1612/68 to be taken into account for the acquisition of the right of permanent residence in the Irish state in accordance to the Lassal judgment of the ECJ?.

oscarBravo

Judi Meet wrote: »

Again, the issue I raised has not been answered. The question is, when is the Minister for Justice and Law Reform going to do the honourable thing and correct the provisions of Regualtion 12 of S.I. No. 656 of 2006 to enable the law in the state recognize five years legal residence that ended prior to 30 April 2006 under Regulation 1612/68 to be taken into account for the acquisition of the right of permanent residence in the Irish state in accordance to the Lassal judgment of the ECJ?.

I'm not sure why you're asking that question here and complaining about not getting an answer.

The only honest answer anyone in this forum can give you is "I don't know." If you want an answer to the question, ask the minister for justice. Please stop restating your question and complaining that it's not being answered by someone who isn't here to answer it.

This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. If you want to discuss the thread topic, do so. If you want to ask the minister for justice a question, write him a letter.

For the avoidance of doubt: this post is a moderator instruction. Don't reply to it. If you have a question, send me a PM.

djpbarry

Dob74 wrote: »

Really, do you any evidence. Most people I work with from the EU12 are not returning home and never plan to.

The latest CSO migration estimates show that just under 6,000 EU12 nationals migrated to Ireland in 2010, while just over 19,000 left. Furthermore, the number of non-Irish nationals in the workforce is declining rapidly (about 13% per annum).

Dob74 wrote: »

The last CSO show more irish people leaving the workforce than migrants.

I don’t know about that. The latest CSO figures I’ve seen show that non-Irish nationals account for about 12.2% of all people in employment, which is down from 13.7% in 2009 and 15.4% in 2008.

Dob74 wrote: »

Or do the leaders of the EU want western european workers to work for the same rates as eastern european workers?

I think you’ve got that backwards – as happened in Ireland, the EU will, over the medium-to-long term, allow incomes and standards of living in the EU12 to rise.

proon4

caseyann wrote: »

My question is to the bolded.
Why werent the Irish who have no skills and who could have been trained into these so called jobs that there was massive demand for,as most of the jobs polish took were construction work.While there was thousand of young men with no qualifications,who could have took those posts.Rather then leaving them on the dole and importing people from abroad.
There wasnt much of a limit put on how many as far as i could see,and then shop staff which now is flooded with other nationalities along with polish girls who were flown in by their bfs and Irish who are losing jobs have no where to go.And Irish who leave school cant even get a job in a store to support themselves especially now with college fees rising.
I hope i am getting what i am trying to say across ok.
Why wasnt polish economy built up and fixed there for them rather then forcing so many out of their own country to find jobs.
The logic of EU imo is flawed.[/

caseyann

proon4 wrote: »

My question is to the bolded.
Why werent the Irish who have no skills and who could have been trained into these so called jobs that there was massive demand for,as most of the jobs polish took were construction work.While there was thousand of young men with no qualifications,who could have took those posts.Rather then leaving them on the dole and importing people from abroad.
There wasnt much of a limit put on how many as far as i could see,and then shop staff which now is flooded with other nationalities along with polish girls who were flown in by their bfs and Irish who are losing jobs have no where to go.And Irish who leave school cant even get a job in a store to support themselves especially now with college fees rising.
I hope i am getting what i am trying to say across ok.
Why wasnt polish economy built up and fixed there for them rather then forcing so many out of their own country to find jobs.
The logic of EU imo is flawed.[/

lol why did you quote the post and not reply:D

sirromo

djpbarry wrote:

The latest CSO migration estimates show that just under 6,000 EU12 nationals migrated to Ireland in 2010

I find that hard to believe. According to this, over 8,000 PPS numbers were issued to Polish people last year. Over 3,000 were issued to Latvians and over 4,000 to Lithuanians.