EU Referendums

 Economic Stats

Average Monthly Wage:

In Western EU—3,000 euros
In Lithuania—300 euros
In Latvia—350 euros
In Estonia—400 euros

GDP per capita:

In Western EU—20,000 euros
In Lithuania—6,500 euros
In Latvia—6,500 euros
In Estonia—8,000

Economist estimates on years it’ll take to reach full EU living standards:

In Lithuania—53 years
In Latvia—58 years
In Estonia—31 years

Current Unemployment (2003):

In Lithuania—10 percent
In Latvia—9 percent
In Estonia—5 percent

Annual Inflation (2003):

In Lithuania— -1 percent
In Latvia—3 percent
In Estonia—1.5 percent

GDP growth predictions for 2004:

In Western EU—2 percent
In Lithuania—7 percent
In Latvia—6.5 percent
In Estonia—5.5 percent

GDP growth in previous years:

In Lithuania—
2003 9 percent
2002 7 percent
2001 5 percent
2000 2 percent
1999 –4.1 percent
1998 5.1 percent
1997 7.3 percent
1996 4.7 percent
1995 3.3 percent
1994 –9.8 percent
1993 –16.2 percent
1992 –21.3 percent

In Latvia—
2003 7.5 percent
2002 6 percent
2001 7 percent
2000 5.5 percent
1999 0.1 percent
1998 3.9 percent
1997 8.6 percent
1996 3.3 percent
1995 –0.8 percent
1994 0.6 percent
1993 –14.9 percent
1992 –34.9 percent

In Estonia—
2003 5 percent
2002 5.5 percent
2001 5 percent
2000 6 percent
1999 –1 percent
1998 4.7 percent
1997 10.6 percent
1996 3.9 percent
1995 4.3 percent
1994 –2.0 percent
1993 –9.0 percent
1992 –14.2 percent

Sources: EU, Baltic statistics offices.




































































































































































































 

MODEL IRELAND
What the Baltic countries might learn from the Celtic Tiger's EU experience.

The Baltics, and most other EU newcomers, aren’t shy about revealing their greatest fantasy now that they are firmly in the bloc: it is, namely, to be another Ireland, to be another Celtic Tiger. As of the mid-1980s, the Emerald Isle was an economic basket case, relatively speaking. It joined the European Union in 1973, but for decades it couldn’t seem to get the economic spark it so badly needed. Then, in the early 1990s—Boom! The low-regulation, low-tax Irish economy took off and hasn’t landed since. Annual growth rates in the late ’90s regularly soared above 9 percent; per capita income, around half Great Britain’s in the 1980s, is now higher than Britain’s. Ireland is now widely pegged as one of the world’s great success stories. Baltic leaders frequently point to its lean, mean laissez-faire economy as an inspiration.
       CITY PAPER spoke to Irish Ambassador to Estonia and Moldova Sean Farrell about Ireland’s successes and about whether the Baltics can learn from its experiences in the EU.


CITY PAPER: Is Ireland flattered by the desire of the Baltics and other nations to emulate it?

       Yes, we do hear this all the time. I’m not sure, though, to what extent it will be possible for the new member states to replicate what we did. There were a number of factors in what happened to Ireland. Decisions had been taken 30 years before, as far as restructuring our education system, making it more job-oriented, turning toward what were then the new technologies—and it all came to fruition 30 years later. Our progress in the 1990s also coincided with a big surge in the U.S economy. So companies in Ireland—a lot of them American—were well poised to take advantage of that upturn. One factor going for us—and this could also be an advantage of the Baltic states—is that we were small and had no particular industrial base to speak of. We didn’t have a lot of rust-bucket industries that had to be radically, painfully restructured. The Baltics didn’t really have that either.
       Actually, we did much of our restructuring after we got into the EU. Whereas the Baltics have done theirs before joining. So if a country is going to do what Ireland did, it is more likely to be one of the Baltic states. Estonia would appear to have a slight edge on the others with their emphasis on new technology.

CITY PAPER: What could the Baltic states learn from the Irish experience inside the EU?

       The first advice is to fiercely maintain your sense of identity and notions of your separateness and uniqueness. It is almost tautological in that what has distinguished all three Baltic states is a fierce and passionate pride in their own identity. It took them through bad times and it will hopefully now take them on to good times. And times are getting better.

CITY PAPER: Does Ireland share Baltic aversion for any common EU tax policy?

       For us, there is a fundamental issue of sovereignty involved. When a country loses control of its taxation policy, the government ultimately loses control of its income. There are social objectives to be achieved in every European country —and social objectives differ according to the age structure of the population, the health needs and the general state of development. And one size fits all does simply not appeal to us.

CITY PAPER: Has Ireland managed to carve out a niche in the EU? If so, how might the Baltics do that?

       I think we should get away from the notion that countries carve out national niches for themselves in the EU. We are respected for being good communitaire members. We are respected as being people who are seen as willing to listen to the other points of view, as not being too doctrinaire about pursuing our own points of views. That is the way to earn respect. Talk about carving niches paints a picture of the EU that is not necessarily the correct one.
       One area where the EU has failed is in explaining the small print of how the EU operates to the public. This is an information deficit that has got to be tackled.
        The EU is ultimately based on a system of compromises. There is a lot of democracy involved. And more importantly, all voices are listened to. The great thing we discovered in Europe is that a small country does not become submerged in the EU.
        You don’t have rigid groups of countries and alliances in the EU. The EU is a complex, interactive series of alliances and compromises. And this is why it has been, up to now, so successful. And if you don’t think it has been successful, well then have a look at the way Europe and Brussels was 30 years ago and look how it is now. And I’m not talking about postwar Europe, which is ancient history. It’s ancient history because the EU has been so successful in pouring balm on the ancient hatreds that tore Europe apart.

CITY PAPER: Given what you say about alliances, is it nonsensical to speak about Ireland and the Baltics being natural allies in the EU?

       I hesitate slightly. What we saw in the IGC (Intergovernmental conference) and the Convention on the Future of Europe was that there was a developing split between the big nations of Europe and the small nations. That never happened before—and it still hasn’t happened. It would be anathema to Ireland, the existing member states and to most of the new states if this were to develop. I’m not saying that Ireland and the Baltic states couldn’t be natural allies. But it would be a pity to see alliances being formed on the basis of size—pitting the small against the big. It would be appalling. That is not to say that on a lot of issues smaller countries might feel we should stick together. But I would not like to see that as a principle.
In Europe, the aim is to not create conflicting situations, but rather, if at all possible, to find a middle way where everybody gets something—everybody comes away with the feeling that a fair and equitable settlement has been found.

CITY PAPER: Nevertheless, there is that anxiety in the Baltics that they will be pushed around by the bigger countries in the EU.

       That certainly has not been Ireland’s experience. I can’t think of any country that would have experienced it. There is always a recognition that a vital national interest of a particular country should not be infringed upon. What countries learn is just how few issues there are of vital national interest—once you deconstruct the various issues. A lot of things that might appear to be of vital national interest, on analysis, appear not to be. I think that will be the experience of new countries as well.

CITY PAPER: Another Baltic anxiety is that the EU is too bureaucratic and will end up pulling Baltic economies down.

       Ireland’s Celtic Tiger status rather proves the point that EU bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily hold a country back.

CITY PAPER: Perhaps I could ask the question another way: Is Ireland a Celtic Tiger because of its EU membership or in spite of it?

       Without the EU, we would not have been able to do what we did. You’ll notice that this is not a yes or a no answer. When we joined in 1973, 80 percent of our trade was with one country—the United Kingdom. Now, about a third of our trade is with the UK. The bulk of the change has come about as a result of exports to other EU countries. We have also greatly increased our exports to the non-EU United States. So, without the opportunities afforded by the EU, we would not have been able to get where we were. In a nut shell, that opportunity was market access.


                                        —CITY PAPER-The Baltic States



comments/feedback to citypaper@citypaper.ee

Home