EU Asylum and Immigration Policy: Difficulties defining safe countries

Written by Graham Watson MEP, Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe and published in The Times of Malta on Wed 19th Jul 2006

Malta finds itself on the front line in the current European immigration debate. The spiralling number of migrants arriving on the island from Sub-Saharan Africa has finally caught Europe's attention. It is now generating feverish debate in Brussels on how to address significant migration movements from countries suffering poverty, conflict or political instability and reconcile concerns over border security with a duty to care for the welfare of the migrants.

In a Single European Market where people and goods can move freely across borders any disjointed thinking by Member States is rapidly exploited by migrants who literally 'shop around' until they find a country that takes them in. This is an unacceptable situation and serves neither the interests of the Union nor the interests of 'bona fide' migrants who may have a genuine claim to asylum or are able to fill a gap in the labour market.

Why has the EU failed to rise to the challenges of recognising that it needs migrant labour and making arrangements for an orderly way of satisfying demand? Because policy-making in this area requires unanimity. Any member state can veto any proposal.

The new Finnish Presidency of the EU will therefore consider changing the basis of policy making by scrapping national vetoes that prevent a more effective common European approach. The current requirement for unanimity amongst all Member States is responsible for the lack of progress in this area since the last Finnish presidency launched the idea in Tampere in 1999.

As for asylum, on 19th July the European Commission is set to agree a revised list of so-called safe countries, as part of ongoing efforts to prevent the practice of 'asylum shopping' whereby asylum seekers file parallel asylum claims in different EU Member States. By adopting such a list, however, the EU executive will fail to set an example for the Member States of strategically tackling the issues of immigration and asylum. Instead it will oblige them to treat asylum applications from certain places - many, not coincidentally, well-known transition states for refugees fleeing persecution - as unfounded in the first instance.

Opinion is divided about 'safe countries'. In my view, in the best-case scenario, this safe list would prove little more than a PR stunt to allay fears that Europe is under siege from illegal migrants. In a worst-case scenario it would drastically undermine the rights laid down in the Geneva Convention to which the European Union has always professed allegiance. Commissioner Frattini has insisted that the inclusion of a country in the list does not rule out a case-by-case evaluation but most analysts predict that government departments would be prone to turn down asylum applicants from a safe-state without carrying out a full and thorough investigation.

One would have thought that such a move could only be considered in the most pressing of circumstances. Yet statistics show that overall asylum claims within the European Union have been consistently decreasing. According to the UN High Commission for Refugees around 112,000 people applied for asylum in the first half of 2005, down 17 percent from the first half of 2004. Public perception may be distorted by high-profile media attention on peaks in asylum demand in some countries but Governments should be honest about the global picture.

Europe faces a stark choice in dealing with migrants from beyond our shores fleeing war, hunger, persecution or sheer despair. Either we allow their countries to develop by importing more of their goods and pressing their governments to behave democratically, or we will have to deal with their migrants who will ultimately vote with their feet.

Moreover, as Kofi Annan has pointed out, migrations are necessary. Particularly since the EU's working population is expected to fall by six million in the next 15 years, putting an intolerable strain on pensions and social services as people age and the tax base dwindles. Solving Europe's economic problems means governments will have to rethink their desire to shut the gates of Fortress Europe and bring migration within the parameters of EU legislation. Rather than finding ever more elaborate ways of excluding migrants, Member States may find they need to attract them in ever increasing numbers. Only when EU leaders embrace a common, managed migration system, like that used successfully in Australia or Canada to attract skilled migrants, can progress be made towards a sensible and considered policy.