EU more and more disunited in dealing with the asylum seekers crisis, and now it was made clear that mutual solidarity is not a must
by Emanuele Bonini
The first access country is always responsible for migrants and asylum seekers, even in time of crisis, so ruled the European Court of justice today. That means that people landing on the Italian ground can't be allowed to pass through the national territory to submit their asylum application to the EU member State where they would like staying. Juridical clarity was made, now both political measures and practical solutions have to be established as well. Rules are there to stay as they are and always have been, but this doesn't solve the the migration issue. Or, well, it does just in part. First access countries - such as Italy and Greece, in the specific case - are left alone by law in dealing with migrations flows. It's up to them to table credible and sustainable solutions, exactly what didn't happen so far.
It has been recognised that the rules in force have not been thought for managing emergency situations, but under a legal point of view this doesn't justify any derogation to the implementation of the European regulation for the single asylum system, knows as the Dublin regulation. The latter «must be interpreted» in a scrict way: even in front of an emergency («an unusually large number of third-country nationals» arrived to the European Union territory) every transit must be regarded as having «irregular crossing» of the border of the first Member State. This is about justice, which is different from fairness.
As a consequence of the judgement of the EU Court some MEPs have started asking for a revision of the European legislation, but the only and real consequence of this decision will be, on the contrary, the maintenance of the status-quo. Since the beginning of the migration crisis there was a lack of solidarity: fences have been set up instead of showing cooperation (this was the case of Hungary), national borders have been closed (this was the case of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden plus Norway, not in the EU but in Schengen), and no efforts have been made to alleviate the pressure in Italy and Greece (that was the case of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic). It is not realistic to imagine national governments starting to act now. On the contrary, today judgement just confirms the validity of the choices made so far in the other 26 capital cities. All the main responsibilities always lie in the first access countries, and cooperation and solidarity are not compulsory. That's nothing but what has been sustained so far.
Italy is politically weak and too much absent in Europe, and this is a fact. But Italy is isolated, and this also a fact. Greece is not in the (economic) condition to go on open war to the EU Member States. So these countries find themselves in the middle of a disunited Union whose only approach is the non-European dimension of the migration crisis. In times of populism and far-right movements there will be no goverment moving a single finger to host asylum seekers if not stricly unavoidable. From now on first access countries can just apply the European law, hoping in some external aid. The European Commission has been trying to help Italy and Greece, but the EU Commission can do little. Rules can be approved and modified by the Member States, and these are in favour of keeping the rules as they are. Under their point of view, the migration issue shows what democracy is about: a system where a majority prevails over a minority, with Italy and Greece being in overwhelming minority. The judgement of the Europen Court of Justice didn't change anything and probably won't, unless a change in the Dublin regulation. Asylum seekers will remain stopped in Italy and Greece. The real question now is how many people, especially in Italy and Greece, can still trust this unfair Europea Union. Something to be not underestimated.
Another side effect of the decision taken in Luxembourg is about reforming Europe, or even refound it. The European Union was built on the idea of cooperation and solidarity, and with migration this revolutionary idea has been put in question in its basis. Eastward, democracy and EU fundamental principles are undermined, in the North a country is exiting the Union. Now migration shows all the difficulties in respecting the idea of what the EU mean or was supposed to mean. New frustrations are going to be added to other frustrations. Now that rules have been clarified, clarity on the future of the EU is needed.
The first access country is always responsible for migrants and asylum seekers, even in time of crisis, so ruled the European Court of justice today. That means that people landing on the Italian ground can't be allowed to pass through the national territory to submit their asylum application to the EU member State where they would like staying. Juridical clarity was made, now both political measures and practical solutions have to be established as well. Rules are there to stay as they are and always have been, but this doesn't solve the the migration issue. Or, well, it does just in part. First access countries - such as Italy and Greece, in the specific case - are left alone by law in dealing with migrations flows. It's up to them to table credible and sustainable solutions, exactly what didn't happen so far.
It has been recognised that the rules in force have not been thought for managing emergency situations, but under a legal point of view this doesn't justify any derogation to the implementation of the European regulation for the single asylum system, knows as the Dublin regulation. The latter «must be interpreted» in a scrict way: even in front of an emergency («an unusually large number of third-country nationals» arrived to the European Union territory) every transit must be regarded as having «irregular crossing» of the border of the first Member State. This is about justice, which is different from fairness.
As a consequence of the judgement of the EU Court some MEPs have started asking for a revision of the European legislation, but the only and real consequence of this decision will be, on the contrary, the maintenance of the status-quo. Since the beginning of the migration crisis there was a lack of solidarity: fences have been set up instead of showing cooperation (this was the case of Hungary), national borders have been closed (this was the case of Austria, Denmark, France, Germany and Sweden plus Norway, not in the EU but in Schengen), and no efforts have been made to alleviate the pressure in Italy and Greece (that was the case of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic). It is not realistic to imagine national governments starting to act now. On the contrary, today judgement just confirms the validity of the choices made so far in the other 26 capital cities. All the main responsibilities always lie in the first access countries, and cooperation and solidarity are not compulsory. That's nothing but what has been sustained so far.
Italy is politically weak and too much absent in Europe, and this is a fact. But Italy is isolated, and this also a fact. Greece is not in the (economic) condition to go on open war to the EU Member States. So these countries find themselves in the middle of a disunited Union whose only approach is the non-European dimension of the migration crisis. In times of populism and far-right movements there will be no goverment moving a single finger to host asylum seekers if not stricly unavoidable. From now on first access countries can just apply the European law, hoping in some external aid. The European Commission has been trying to help Italy and Greece, but the EU Commission can do little. Rules can be approved and modified by the Member States, and these are in favour of keeping the rules as they are. Under their point of view, the migration issue shows what democracy is about: a system where a majority prevails over a minority, with Italy and Greece being in overwhelming minority. The judgement of the Europen Court of Justice didn't change anything and probably won't, unless a change in the Dublin regulation. Asylum seekers will remain stopped in Italy and Greece. The real question now is how many people, especially in Italy and Greece, can still trust this unfair Europea Union. Something to be not underestimated.
Another side effect of the decision taken in Luxembourg is about reforming Europe, or even refound it. The European Union was built on the idea of cooperation and solidarity, and with migration this revolutionary idea has been put in question in its basis. Eastward, democracy and EU fundamental principles are undermined, in the North a country is exiting the Union. Now migration shows all the difficulties in respecting the idea of what the EU mean or was supposed to mean. New frustrations are going to be added to other frustrations. Now that rules have been clarified, clarity on the future of the EU is needed.
No comments:
Post a Comment