EU Asylum and Immigration Policy: Difficulties defining safe countries

Written by Graham Watson MEP and published in De Volksrant on Wed 19th Jul 2006

The recent collapse of the Balkenende II governing coalition over a 14 year old asylum claim strangely enough failed to trigger an in-depth nation-wide debate about the approach of the political establishment to asylum and immigration issues. All EU countries are facing similar challenges. Spain has also been in the firing line for granting amnesty to thousands of illegal immigrants without consulting its European partners.

The new Finnish Presidency of the EU is to consider changing the basis of policy making in this area 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, migrants 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.