A NEW generation is on the move in Europe, migrating from the fringes of the continent in search of work. The Polish plumber ventured out when his country joined the European Union in 2004, followed a few years later by the Romanian fruit-picker. Now it is the Irish graduate, the Spanish engineer and the Italian architect who are packing their bags. For the people of eastern Europe, migration is a way of catching up with western incomes; for those from the crisis-hit southern and Celtic periphery, it is a means of escaping mass unemployment.

This is the way the EU was meant to operate. Goods can move to the consumers; workers can move to the jobs. Migration can relieve the public finances of countries in a slump and fill labour shortages in booming economies. Even so, Europeans remain less mobile than Americans. At their summits, European leaders call for greater mobility to ease youth unemployment and boost growth.

But do they really mean it? Migration inevitably causes resentment among some, especially the low-paid. But it has become a more acute political issue with the rise of anti-immigrant and anti-EU parties of all stripes. Increasingly, suspicion that was once directed at asylum-seekers and other dark-skinned migrants from poor countries is now also aimed at legal migrants from within the EU. In hard times it is easy to blame go-getting eastern newcomers for stealing jobs, benefits, or both. One of the EU’s most cherished freedoms is thus under growing strain.

Lodewijk Asscher, the Dutch deputy prime minister, last month issued a dramatic warning. The flow of European migrants, he said, had reached the equivalent of an “orange alert” in the country’s flood-warning system. Though Mr Asscher did not spell it out, the Netherlands and many other countries are worried about a flood of migrants from Romania and Bulgaria, the poorest countries in the EU, when the sluice-gates to their emigrants are fully opened at the end of the year.

Yet the Netherlands is hardly the country most affected by the free movement of Europeans: less than 1% of its population is made up of citizens from central and eastern Europe, compared with 5% in Ireland, 2.5% in Spain, 2% in Britain and 1.5% in Germany. Since 2010 the biggest flows have been to Britain and Germany. Perhaps the real reason for the Dutch panic is the country’s poisonous politics. The far-right Freedom Party of Geert Wilders is leading in opinion polls.

A fragile coalition government, and the rise of the UK Independence party (UKIP), help to explain the uproar in Britain. The question of EU workers touches on three explosive issues: Europe, migration and welfare. That is why David Cameron, the prime minister, is focusing on migration as part of his campaign for reform of the EU. Some think that reforming benefits for EU workers would allow Mr Cameron to show that he is addressing public concerns, winning allies in Europe and, together with other reforms, successfully redefining Britain’s relationship with Europe. He could then campaign for Britain to remain in the EU in a referendum that he wants to call by 2017.

The trouble with this strategy is that Britain must demonstrate there is a need to fix the EU’s rules and find allies ready to push for change. Under EU procedures it is for the European Commission to propose legislative changes to rules governing the free movement of workers. In April the interior ministers of Britain, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria urged the commission to take action. But the commission says they have offered no proof so far of widespread “benefit tourism”, providing only anecdotes and alarmist tabloid headlines. Viviane Reding, the justice commissioner, says they should stop “populist scaremongering”. Even if the commission were minded to tighten the rules, the European Parliament is certain to try to block change.

Such resistance can be overcome only with a concerted push from governments. But migration has hardly figured in the German general-election campaign. Instead of criticising multi-culturalism, Angela Merkel, the chancellor, is more liable to talk of the need for migrants to shore up Germany’s demographic decline and alleviate its skills shortages. Moreover, any German chancellor will be sensitive to the views of neighbouring Poland, which supports the commission. In France, despite the strength of the far-right Front National, François Hollande, the president, has avoided his predecessor’s get-tough rhetoric on migration. Southern European countries worry most about illegal migrants from northern Africa, and have little interest in restricting their citizens’ ability to work in the rest of Europe.

Brits out

There will be little or no action from Brussels, at least before a new parliament and commission are in place at the end of next year. If a tide of Eurosceptic MEPs were to flow in, the political balance might change. For now, British demands are treated with disdain. Was it not the British who pushed the EU to go far and fast with its eastward enlargement? What about all those British pensioners putting a strain on Spain’s health services? And was it not the British this summer who urged the commission to act against Spain’s restriction on traffic from Gibraltar in a row over fishing rights?

The four ministers rightly say that freedom of movement within the union is not unconditional, and the perception of unfairness undermines support for the EU. Yet often the problems are about enforcement, rather than the rules. European leaders would make a stronger case for action against abuse if they were more welcoming to hard-working European migrants. Creating a freer, more dynamic economy requires Europe to cherish its dynamic workers.

Economist.com/blogs/charlemagne