The EU wants to outlaw restrictive migration policies

By
BrusselsReport.eu
-

Writing for Brussels Report, Swedish MEP Charlie Weimers, Vice-chair of the ECR Group and delegation leader of the Sweden Democrats in the European Parliament, warns that if the European Commission’s proposal or the European Parliament’s version of the new EU asylum and migration pact were to become reality, the option to conduct restrictive migration policies at the national level will be undermined. 

The establishment centre-right loves to make deals with social democrats, greens and liberals, instead of reaching out to conservatives or nationalists.  In the Nordic countries, we have seen this many times. For example under the Moderate Reinfeldt-led government in Sweden, deals on open-borders migration and climate policy were struck between centre-right (EPP/Renew) parties and the Greens. The political benefit as a centre-right politician of making deals with your political opponent is, among other things, to receive praise in mainstream media, as woke credentials are strengthened.

In the European Parliament, the Swedish Moderate party (EPP) holds the role as lead negotiator on the main file on the proposed EU migration pact. Despite having agreed with the Sweden Democrats at the national level to reduce migration to the minimum possible under EU law, it has chosen a different approach in the European parliament. There, the Moderates have put Brussels first.

Cheered on by the EPP in Brussels, the Swedish government is considering a push to seal a deal on the new EU Asylum and Migration Pact. Eager for a signature victory during its EU presidency they are tempted to prioritize positive media coverage in the short-term over Sweden’s long-term national interest. This despite Sweden still paying the price for decades of open-door policies.

Policymakers must be able to take a step back and think strategically instead of just trying to survive the next press conference. If they do not, there will be a political price to pay when the costs of the migration pact materialize. Only then, they will reluctantly realize how naive they were.

The EU Commission’s proposed Migration Pact is undemocratic and expensive

The European Commissioner responsible for Migration Ylva Johansson’s 2020 proposal for a new supranational asylum and migration pact is both undemocratic and expensive. It includes forced redistribution of migrants against the will of Member States and mechanisms to fine those who refuse. Since the proposal was unveiled, the battle over migration policy between the different EU institutions and between Member States with diverging interests has only intensified.

Recently, the European Parliament’s LIBE committee adopted the EP’s position ahead of the upcoming negotiations with the Council and the Commission. Chief negotiator Tomas Tobé (Moderates – EPP), claimed victory saying “forced redistribution” of migrants has been averted. This is, unfortunately, far from true.

Although his committee deal with the left and greens removes references to “compulsory redistribution”, it grants the European Commission the power to assign migrant quotas to Member States if their voluntary commitments are not considered sufficient to reach the targets for redistribution. For countries that under previous decades have taken in a disproportionate share, such a redistribution of migrants will be an immense burden.

As chief negotiator on the main file, Tobé made several other significant concessions to the left. For example, new entities controlled by Eurocrats will be established to manage the redistribution scheme. Once these systems are in place it will be easy to scale up volumes.

The initial articles set the tone of the Tobé compromise. Removal of references to “mutually-beneficial partnerships” on the return of migrants and the “prevention of irregular [sic.] migration” in Article Three should have been a red line for the EPP. But they were not.

The parliament compromise, adopted by a majority consisting of EPP, S&D, Renew and Green group members, also broadens the definitions for family reunification, introduces new grounds for being admitted and establishes fast-track procedures.

The EP’s proposed migration deal offers new incentives to migrate to the European Union

If all of this were to be adopted, millions of potential migrants would have new incentives to enter the EU. Once inside, they would be relocated to other EU member states, provided they have a relative in the country. Moreover, since applicants for international protection have the right to travel freely within the union, destination shopping will continue as it always has.

Less than seven percent of the 68,000 migrants which Germany tried to return in 2022 were accepted by the EU Member State in which they first arrived and should have filed their application for international protection under the Dublin accords.

Both EU Commissioner Johansson’s original proposal and the left-leaning parliament deal de facto deprive governments of the possibility to decide who can enter their territory. Tobé chose to not make a deal with right-wing parties. Predictably, liberals, greens and the left instead forced him and the EPP to make major concessions. In the media, prolific Swedish open-border activist and Green party MEP Alice Bah Kuhnke celebrated “a broader concept of family reunification” and the fact that greens succeeded in preventing that aid payments from the EU being made conditional on countries taking back their citizens.

Instead of seeking support for restrictive legislation that could meet the migratory pressure of the future, Tobé chose to build a majority consisting of a motley of parliamentarians who pursue a line that undermines Swedish interests, security of our streets and societal cohesion. The result was easy to predict. With few exceptions, the EP committee’s position is much worse than Commissioner Johansson’s proposal.

Explosive population growth in Africa and the Middle East

Both Johansson’s and Tobé’s proposals ignore the demographic developments that drive the massive migratory flows to Europe. If nothing drastically changes, migration pressures will increase dramatically in the coming decades as a result of explosive population growth in Africa and the Middle East.

The Sweden Democrats, having secured a historic paradigm shift away from uncontrolled mass arrivals and failing integration at home, have made constructive proposals for a restrictive and realistic migration policy approach in the European Parliament. During negotiations, we proposed, together with Nordic sister parties, that Member States should be able to move the entire asylum process to third countries. Such policies, in combination with pushbacks at sea and communication of a zero tolerance policy have effectively ended drownings at sea outside Australia.

Both the conservative British and socialist-liberal Danish governments – Denmark is able to do this, thanks to its permanent derogation – are currently working to put similar systems in place. It would give migrants the right incentives. Genuine refugees would be happy with a safe haven in Rwanda, while those who wish to migrate for a better standard of living would probably refrain.

If, however, the Commission or Parliament proposal were to become reality, the possibility of pursuing a restrictive migration policy would be undermined for the foreseeable future. Left-liberal legislation would stay in place regardless of who has a majority in national parliaments. This is unacceptable and an undemocratic slap in the face of both voters and national parliaments.

The ECR and ID groups have jointly objected to the leftist negotiation mandate approved by committee. The plenary will make its voice head on Thursday and I sincerely hope all center-right members who consider themselves advocates of security, safety and stability will take the chance we’re offering to make a new deal – a better deal – a centre right deal that focuses on strong borders, increased returns and national responsibility.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR