|
And now, what do we do on migration?
|
|
|
|
By Jorge Liboreiro
We have officially entered the last stretch, the very last month, before hundreds of millions of citizens go to the polls to elect the next members of the European Parliament. So let’s talk about one of the most (persistently) burning topics on the agenda: migration and asylum.
First and foremost, we should note that migration does not seem to be a make-or-break issue in the June elections. The Euronews/Ipsos poll put it as the fourth most important priority while the Eurobarometer ranked it lower, at number seven. In both surveys, the economy took center stage, with voters calling for more action against rising prices, poverty and social exclusion, a sign of how hard the cost-of-living crisis has hit consumers. The adoption of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, an all-encompassing reform, has somehow cooled down the temperature of the debate and helped focus minds around the table.
Still, the prominence of migration in the political discourse cannot be denied – or escaped.
Migration has an inherent explosiveness that no other subject can replicate. It combines elements of demography, employment, religion, ethnicity, social inclusion, welfare state and, most controversially, national security. These factors are calibrated differently according to political affiliation, resulting in perceptions that are often incompatible: migration as an opportunity for economic growth vs migration as a threat to stability and cohesion.
Looking at the manifestos of each party, we can easily see how much the topic can be stretched for electoral convenience. The centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) wants a beefed-up role for Frontex, “comprehensive” electronic monitoring at all entry points and more deals with neighbouring countries to decrease irregular departures. They suggest these agreements could lead to outsourcing the processing of asylum claims, in a similar vein to the UK’s “Rwanda model.”
The hard-right European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group goes further and bluntly declares their objective is to “ensure that the majority of applications for international protection are assessed directly outside of the EU.” They also float a naval mission to block migrant vessels and new rules to increase repatriations.
By contrast, the Party of European Socialists (PES) opposes “any form of EU border externalisation” and pitches an EU-led mission to search and rescue migrants in the Mediterranean Sea. In an interview with Euronews, Nicolas Schmit, the PES lead candidate, said the bloc should take a second look at the deals it has signed with Tunisia, Mauritania and Egypt.
“I think we have to revise them and see what can be done, how can we do it differently because we do not know exactly how the money is used,” Schmit told us.
“I am absolutely against what we call the 'Rwanda model.' This is against the basic rights and fundamental rights Europe is built on,” he added.
But progressive views are struggling to make inroads, so it’s unlikely his party’s proposals, or the Greens’ ideas for “climate visas” or a “mandatory relocation mechanism,” will go anywhere beyond a declaration of intent. As we know, the pendulum is pushing the Parliament to the right, which is poised to favour the line of “stronger borders” that conservatives are running on.
Despite all the criticism it has received from some MEPs, the strategy of making deals with neighbouring countries already has the backing of those who matter the most: heads of government. In the past year, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, Greece’s Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Spain’s Pedro Sánchez and Belgium’s Alexander De Croo, all of whom hail from different political families, have joined Ursula von der Leyen in her official trips to sign the multi-million agreements.
Yes, the jury is still out trying to decide if these memos are an effective investment or a waste of money but it would be naive to pretend this line of action will be toned down, or even reversed. It would be equally naive (and reckless) to assume that striking deals is enough to manage migration and we can just sit back comfortably and rely on the goodwill of autocratic regimes to do the work for us.
Editor’s note: The Briefing is exceptionally being sent on Wednesday due to a national holiday in Belgium. |
|
|
|
“I am absolutely against what we call the 'Rwanda model.' This is against the basic rights and fundamental rights Europe is built on.”9/5/2024, 01:40