Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Plumber?

The humourous Polish answer to previous

 French worries about ‘the Polish plumber’

by Rikke Brammer Buk

It takes time to really find your place in a new family. It takes time, before you are accepted as part of the family on an equal level and as an integrated member. And so, in the surroundings of an EU summit on immigration, Poland seems to have a hard time as one of the younger members of the EU family. One the first day of the summit, Poland was one of the few states to emphasize the fact, that the EU needs immigrants in order to keep its economy running. Prime Minister Donald Tusk pointed out that it is not only high-, but also the low-skilled workers which the EU needs, or at least that Poland needs. In response to this, French President Sarkozy flatly pointed out that Poland would not have that need, if it was not for the fact that all the Poles were coming to France and Germany. And so it would seem that being a member of the Schengen Area does not prevent you from being viewed as an “illegal immigrant” or at least as an unwelcome outsider.

In the light of Sarkozy's remark, one comes to think of the resent scandal-website created by The Party of Freedom in Holland. The site was created to provide a forum where Dutch people could complain about Eastern Europeans coming to Holland. One has to ask oneself how long it will take for the Eastern European member states to shake off their “Eastern-ness” in the eyes of their western neighbours. But also, whether we can allow ourselves to hope for a “migrant-centred” immigration policy as an ending to this summit, when we do not even like it when our own family members come to visit?

Sarkozy also made clear, that he still considers the possibility of pulling France out of the Schengen  Agreement in order let France control it own borders. And thus, Sarkozy has proven that he has taken his election-mode immigrant policies with him to the summit. At least, one cannot accuse him of being Janus-faced.

Fences, Carrots, and Loads of Immigrants

The fence currently being constructed 

on the Greco-Turkish border

by Rikke Brammer Buk

Greece is in the hotspot at this summit. It is estimated that 90% of illegal immigrants entering the EU do so by crossing the border between Greece and Turkey.

Greece cannot contain, let alone administer, this massive flow and has come to the summit with the hope of convincing its fellow EU member states to help resolve this problem. One of the frustrations, expressed by Prime Minister Lucas Papademos, is that Turkey does not do anything on its part to prevent the illegal immigration across its borders. Thus it is proposed that the Commission should provide Turkey with an “EU-carrot”, in order to inspire Turkey to help securing EU’s external borders. This carrot does not entail membership, as Turkey probably realize by now, but even if the Turks are in the mood for carrots, Greece still has a larger burden than it can handle, having to deal with its already overflowing asylum camps. Germany, France, England, Sweden and the other states who have chosen a harsh and demanding tone when it comes to Greece, do take their fair share of people who have been granted asylum, but Greece is still left with the overwhelming portion of applicants.

Also, persistent warnings are coming from NGO's, that if Greece should find itself successful in securing its external borders, this would not change the amount of people who illegally try to enter the EU. It will only change their route and, as La Strada has pointed out, the harder it gets for the immigrants to enter the EU, the better business get for criminal involved in trafficking human beings.

At the moment, Greece is building a fence at the weakest land spot of its border, but according to La Strada this has just resulted in the flow of immigrants moving south of the fence. Due to Greece's EU-colleagues seemingly wanting Greece to show that it can stand up for itself, before being willing to lend a hand (whatever form this may take) in solidarity, the Greek fence-building exercise could very well be seen as such an attempt. Denmark is one of the states expecting something from the Greeks before being willing to show solidarity, and they do not seem overly impressed by the Greek fence. 

300 Million Euro to Greece – Where are the money?

Germany’s Minister of the Interior, Hans-Peter Friedrich, 

next to Greece’s Minister for Citizen Protection, Chritos Papoutsis

by Simona Ion Bădulescu

Greece was inevitably in the spotlight at the yesterday’s press conference of JHA ministers, through their admission that even though they respect the guiding principle of human rights, they can’t safeguard them more than they’re presently doing. “We can’t afford so many illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. We are trying to help them and offer them basic humanitarian conditions, but this is all what we can do right now“, said the Greek Minister for the Protection of the Citizen, Christos Papoutsis.

Greece itself agrees with the fact that they can’t manage the current situation and they’re begging for help from the European Union and implicitly its member states. “You can call it a disaster! The human rights are going down. We really need help from EU and also some bilateral agreements with the third countries because we can’t deal the problem so much, as we really would like”, Papoutsis continued.

But what have they done in order to strengthen their own borders so far? How have they spent the money they’ve received? These are the questions German Federal Minster for the Interior, Hans-Peter Friedrich, would like to have answered: “Germany provided 300 million euro to Greece in order for it to strengthen its borders“. While Germany is making efforts to understand the Greece’s situation and how difficult it is to be an EU border country, especially when a lot of inflows of immigrants are coming from Turkey, Hans-Peter Friedrich can’t help raise the questions of what happened to the money Greece already received: “Germany is turning not towards Greece, but towards EU to provide a better system, a better framework to help Greece in dealing with this issue. A European Union solution would be transparency in knowing how the money has been spent.”

This is not to side with or against any particular member state, but maybe this time we can agree with Federal Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, when she mentioned that Germany does not request of introducing any kind of punitive measures against Greece. They would simply like to know if theCommission is taking into account the probability of adding control mechanisms to monitor if countries are complying with the requirements and the goals of the programs and aims, for which they receive EU funding. When asked how to solve the conflict with Greece, she answers very sincerely: “There is not a conflict! It is an attempt to get deeper into the details of the work Greece has done so far to prevent the influx of illegal immigrants to its territory, and whether Greece has something concrete to offer other member states, except of requesting more funding, before clarifying how effectively the previous and current funding is being used.”

A Quick Conference-related Commercial: See where the REAL deals are struck

Not too big on Danish wine?

Then a visit to the local conference haunt may be worth your while:

The Commissioner Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

by the editor

The latest document from the Commission is a fascinating read. Page after page cowered in wonderful words and good intentions, such as solidarity, common burdens, human rights, safe ports and migrant-centred approach and so on ad nauseam. What it all means, probably not even the lawyers know. It will work its way into reality through bureaucrats and probably a series of lawsuits at the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights – as usual. These ‘nice’ aspects of common efforts and respect for human rights – along with assurance that no extra funds will be needed – were also what the Commission was most interesting in promoting. However, when one turns from high-minded principles to the ‘nuts and bolts’, the questions starts queuing up. The Commission envision a resettlement program to apportion those granted asylum ‘fairly’ (that’s what ‘burden sharing’ means). Staffed by ‘experts’ (in what? No one knows) appointed by the member states and working in their home state’s interest, they will divvy up the immigrants among the EU states… How? And why should ‘experts’ representing a national interest be less intractable than politicians doing the same? And the new ‘European Neighborhood Policy Instrument’ (to replace the existing European Neighborhood Policy) is perhaps very aptly named: With its focus on ‘conditionality’ and ‘monitoring’ it has a whiff of blackmail diplomacy. Note for instance the idea of ‘Safe Ports’. These are primarily to be located outside the EU. Such ‘Safe Ports’ on EU territory is only for use in situations where asylum seekers can’t immediately be expedited out of EU… Oh sorry, ‘where it is impossible to admit people in the Safe Ports at the partner-countries’.

National Responses — and Responsible Nationalists?

by the editor

Of great interest is the Commission’s opening of the possibility of renegotiating the Dublin II Agreement, something the Danish presidency has completely rejected, and which they reiterated at today’s press conference. The Greeks meanwhile must be almost ecstatic, as they are currently left holding the bag due to Dublin II. The Germans, true to form, where mostly concerned with costs, and where delighted to be promised that all could be financed within existing budgets (I’ll believe that when I see it). The ‘no more immigrants’-one-trick-ponies in the Alliance of European Nationalists Movements, represented by Front National’s Bruno Gollnisch (France), and British National Party’s Nick Griffin, where remarkably well behaved at the press conference. They confined themselves to polite questions of how the proposal could ‘protect’ EU countries against immigrants but otherwise they were almost unnoticeable. Still, as Churchill once said: ‘This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end, but it may be the end of the beginning’.

Big EU Immigration Policy Conference Kicks Off

by the EuroNews Staff

The Danish presidency opens conference on common EU politics. Themes of unity in diversity with just a few false notes

Today’s grand opening of the EU conference on common migration policy was full of all the pomp and ceremony that could be expected and with their choice of unity in diversity for the food, the Danes may have laid the ’tap water presidency’ jibes to rest. First impressions do not bode particularly well for reaching a final agreement. The Greeks just want to get rid of the Dublin II Agreement, which settles them with most of the immigrants trying to reach the promised lands in the EU. The Germans worry about costs and funding. The Danes certainly don’t want Dublin II to go. The Brits are worried that they may have to take on more immigrants due to Commission proposals of ’burden sharing’. The French do not seem to keen either. And the Poles are mainly interested in keeping internal borders of the Schengen Area open.

The Commission and the Danish presidency invited everyone to a 'townhall meeting'

However, Danish Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt may expect a less than ecstatic greeting by her own parliamentary colleagues due to an unfortunate statement on today’s press conference. When the Alliance of European Nationalists Movements, represented by Front National’s Bruno Gollnisch (France), and British National Party’s Nick Griffin, asked for the umpteenth time, if a common migration policy wouldn’t lead to more immigration, and how to prevent this, she gave an answer that may antagonize both left and right simultaneously. First she said that, ’there is no such thing as too many immigrants’, providing off course that they are ’the right kind of immigrants’. The first party will certainly rile her political opponents, while the second may anger her political allies.

Today’s press conference did briefly touch on the recent Greco-German spat over enforcement of Schengen rules, when the Germans raised the issue of new instrument to punish non-compliance with the proposed new common migration policy. But compared to the latest vitriolic rhetoric between the two, the tone was almost amicable.

From left to right: La Strada’s Marieke van Doornick, followed by the President of the Migration Policy Instite, Demetrios Papademetriou, and the Commission’s own trafficking expert. Centre stage is Danish PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt, flanked by Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, and the Commissioners for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström, and Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, Stefan Füle

Apart from the national delegations, the NGOs’ statements were fairly unsurprising. The anti-trafficking group, La Strada, complained that trafficking had received too little attention in the Commission’s proposal. This opinion was actually seconded by the Commission’s own expert on the area, but a remedy will hardly be an intractable issue. Although Amnesty Intenational was not formally represented. They certainly can’t fault the language of the proposal. Continually, the Commission highlights respect for human rights and fair treatment of immigrants (in Eurocratese: ’a migrant-centred approach’).

Since few, if any, of the non-state actors had any chance to read the proposal in advance, the Commission was quickly cast in the role of overbearing school teacher. President of the Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, was quick to explain that wording in the proposal  hinting at a limitation of the current rights of Schengen states to extraordinarily close their borders, should not be understood as a requirement that member states first ‘ask permission’ of some EU agency. How the passage ‘a mechanism should be required to allow for a European level-decision to be made as to when and which Member States would, for a limited period of time, exceptionally reintroduce internal border control’ is then to be understood is not entirely clear. It certainly sounds like asking permission, but we have the word of the Commission Chief himself that that is not so…

Other NGOs were also true to form. The aforementioned Alliance of European Nationalists Movements kept on asking whether the proposal would lead to increased immigration, and how to prevent it, but otherwise kept a kept a fairly low profile. None of the heckling or ’controversial’ statements that one might otherwise expect from these outspoken rightists.

Compatriots, hardly companions: French President, Nicolas Sarkozy (left) with Front Naitonal’s, Bruno Gollnisch. Msr. Gollnisch is attending as President of the Alliance of European Nationalist Movements. Surprisingly, none of them complained of being served Danish wine.

Perhaps more surprising, was the fairly inconspicuous role played by the otherwise flamboyant French President, Nicholas Sarkozy. Often nicknamed ‘the little Napoleon’ or ‘President Bling-Bling’ did not make much of an impression today. Perhaps this is due to the recent tragic events in Toulouse, which were also remarked upon by the Danish presidency, which offered its condolences on behalf of all of the EU.

’Sarkozy without Merkel is nothing and Merkel without Sarkozy is nothing.’ The dynamic duo of current EU politics  who have long ago morphed into the superhuman ’Merkozy’. ’Die Kanzlerin’ is on the right.

As already mentioned, the lunch must have quieted the critics of the Danish ‘tap water presidency’. In addition to the unity in diversity theme, by serving local wines the Danes proved that even the North can produce wines fit, if not for a king, then at least for Prime Ministers and Presidents. Choosing to capitalize on the newfound fame of the so-called ‘new Nordic kitchen’ the Danes must have satisfied more than a few pallets at the grand reception.

Whether the choice to serve local wines should also serve as a reminder of global warming, was not mentioned outright. But if so, it was certainly a very subtle and elegant way of underlining the need for the avowedly ‘green’ Danish presidency.

So, while the Danish presidency did not always seem to play from the same score as the Commission, the Danes cannot be entirely dissatisfied with the inaugural day of the conference. Whether the end result will be to their liking is of course an entirely different matter.

One big, happy family?
Well, at least they're not fighting (openly)