Housing Misery in the World: Juncker’s Refugee Quota System
“It is true that Europe cannot house all the misery in the world. But we have to put it into perspective.”
EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, Sep 9, 2015.
European Union President Jean-Claude Juncker knows it. Most of Europe knows it. In his “state of the union” speech to
the European parliament, Juncker found himself deep in reflection about disunion and mismatched aims. “There is a lack
of Europe in this European Union, there is a lack of union in this European Union.”
Such political reflections are not new. Europe has seen political experiments that tended to go more pear shaped than
develop in even harmony. In what remains one of the more curious political assemblies of history, the Holy Roman Empire
proved to be more eclectic and disparate than the Oxbridge college system.
Appendages in title were added over time, be it the term “Roman Empire” and the addition of “Holy”. Battles were waged
between dynasties, and between the Pope and the secular ruler in the form of the Holy Roman Emperor. The patchwork
imperial system brought the famous quip by Voltaire: it was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire. Eventually, Napoleon
killed it off.
Juncker’s refugee plan, which covers the resettlement of 160,000 migrants from Italy, Greece and Hungary, has various
components. He further urged member states to accept and equitably resettle a further 120,000 on top of 40,000. He
leaves little room for discussion: “This has to be done in a compulsory way… 160,000 that is the number.”
Other aspects of the proposal involve a permanent relocation system, a proposed list of safe countries, a review of the
Dublin system requiring arrivals to claim asylum in the state they first enter the EU and a better overall control of
external borders and improvement of legal channels for migration (BBC News, Sep 9).
The target of the Juncker plan is unevenness in EU refugee policy. Some countries regard themselves as unbound by
imposed targets. This is proving problematic for such states such as those in the Visegrad group, whose citizens have
benefited from a looser migration regime. Quotas, argue Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, cannot exist without genuine border
security.
Then come those stormy critics, such as UKIP’s Nigel Farage, who claim that the piecemeal terms of what is currently in
place are too broad as they are. “As I warned you in April, the EU’s common asylum policy sets its terms so wide that to
say that anyone who sets foot on EU soil can stay.”
The threat, and one constantly being voiced by Farage, is how such quota policies will convince the electorate that the
European family is worth divorcing. If Prime Minister David Cameron, for instance, were not given “back control and
discretion” over Britain’s borders, “the Brits will over the course of the next year, vote to leave.”
There is another dimension at stake here. Some governments have made the obvious decision that rapid incorporation and
acceptance of refugees is in order. Germany’s approach, by way of comparison to other member states, looks staggering.
This, argues economics commentator Robert Peston, may have as much to do with the growth factor than anything else.
Germany’s population is aging; its dependency ratio (welfare against earners) is rising, and it needs the rush of
migrants.
Viable, hardy refugees will add a boost in the long term and it has been said that German Chancellor Angela Merkel “is
creaming off the most economically useful of the asylum seekers, by taking those who have shown the gumption and
initiative to risk life and limb feeling to Europe.” Another experiment in population adjustment is taking place at the
heart of Europe.
Indeed, Merkel is very aware of pushing a rhetoric in sharp distinction to her EU colleagues. Avoid, she seems to be
intoning, the reference to “Gastarbeiter” or “guest workers”, a suggestion that the people being welcomed are more in
the league of citizens than before. She has lately said that, in future, she expects many of the latest refugees
arriving to “become new citizens of our country”.
The EU problem, just as it is in finance, is what standards to impose. The debate about any union is what obligations
cut deepest. Germany’s formula on this, just as it stands in finance, will not be appreciated by others. Merkel is
already nudging the line that the Schengen arrangements may be at risk if other states do not muck into the refugee
intake. But the milk of human kindness wasn’t abundant to begin with, and internal debates are proving furious.
The very idea of imposed quotas, sanctioned by executive decree, is bound to send nationalist groups to the streets.
Latitude, it is being suggested in what are putatively sovereign halls, must be granted to states. Denmark, this week,
has already given a taste of that latitude with the cancellation of all trains to and from Germany to discourage
migrants. Government advertisements are also being run in the Middle East publications to discourage arrivals (Financial Times, Sep 9).
Creeping up in the Juncker ripostes to his opponents, most vocally that of Farage, is a certain authoritarianism.
Another UKIP member, David Woburn, was given a serving when interjecting in Juncker’s speech. “I will not at each time
respond to what you are saying because what you are saying is useless.” Others did not agree, with an interjecting
Italian MEP sporting an Angela Merkel mask.
Such is the face of European Disunion: avoid such opinions at your peril. The treatment of Greece by the troika
continues to plague Europe’s dream, but the treatment of refugees is bound to provide another, perhaps sterner test.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.
Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
ENDS