ΑΝΝΑΔΙΑΜΑΝΤΟΠΟΥΛΟΥ
ΑΝΝΑOpen borders, closed minds:
How should progressives respond to Europe’s immigration anxieties?
Comrades from the Labour Party and elsewhere,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
First of all I would like to start by thanking all the organisers, the Labour Party, the European Parliamentary Labour Party and the Policy Network for the opportunity to participate at the conference and to talk about such an important issue which concerns people everywhere. It is a real pleasure.
In my view, the question can be answered within two distinct aspects. The first concerns how we can create and influence a European approach to migration, and the second concerns influencing the debate and addressing specific anxieties of the people.
No one can deny that Immigration is a touchy political subject but our responsibility as progressive politicians is to ensure that liberal principles apply but in conjunction with safeguards that put people’s minds at ease.
When examining a European approach, or even, common policy to immigration, we must first agree that it is a question of economic parameters, intra-EU solidarity and humanitarian principles.
In other words, Europe is aging, gateway-countries are rarely final destination countries, and human life must be protected.
Within the EU framework, many important steps have been taken in recent years. The Lisbon Treaty introduces Qualified Majority Voting for decisions on asylum, immigration and integration but wisely leaves many decisions in the hands of national governments.
The European Neighbourhood Policy focuses on bilateral agreements and funding for projects aiming to promote employment and to reintegrate returning migrants.
But EU co-operation must be promoted in order to facilitate an exchange of experience and ideas in addition to agreement on money and resources to help the gateway-countries deal with the issue. The countries at the EU’s periphery, of which my country Greece is one, bear a disproportionate amount of immigration pressures.
Helping these gateway countries is not just a matter of solidarity; it is also a matter of ensuring the application of humanitarian principles. The open sea can be a very dangerous place, as can a new country where it is easy to be victimised or exploited if you go in unnoticed.
It is therefore quite reassuring that agreement has been reached for an EU Migration Pact which will be decided upon at the European Council in October.
The five main guidelines developed in the Pact touch upon most aspects but we must be very careful that they are neither misinterpreted nor abused.
To better protect Europe by controlling its borders in a spirit of solidarity.
The countries themselves will be responsible for the control of their part of the EU external borders, but the most exposed countries will also benefit from “solidarity on the European scale”. Here we often hear criticisms about creating the impression a “Fortress Europe”. I do not think vocabulary like that is helpful or constructive. The key lies in combining security of our borders with protection of anyone trying to arrive to our shores.
To organise legal migration in harmony with the capacity of each member country to receive immigrants and in a spirit of solidarity.
Although this proposal centres on the European ‘Blue Card’ initiative, I think we must work hard to ensure that we do not confuse “regulation” with “penalisation”. I also think that there must be closer cooperation with employers so that they become partners in the system and not outsiders who try to exploit or bypass it. We do not want illegal employers any more than we want illegal workers. The Blue Card can also be used as a first step towards reform on migrants’ political, social and ethical rights because immigration without integration causes more problems than it solves. In this respect we should see legalisation as an instrument for integration and not as a prize to be earned.
To organise the selective repatriation of illegal immigrants.
Although this part improves cooperation and maybe even the fight against human trafficking, repatriation is of little use if people immediately start planning their return to the EU. Projects like the Moroccan Agency for Employment, could be strengthened as a balancing measure.
To build a Europe of asylum. Apart from the obvious humanitarian considerations which are often undermined under bureaucratic conditions, we must also ensure that all countries respect and implement the agreed EU standards.
The fifth and final guideline ie: To promote the development of the countries of immigration needs great care so as not to backfire.
First, unfortunately many of the countries of immigration are facing enormous corruption problems which undermine any developmental aid. Second, assisting studies programs for legal migration could start a brain drain from these countries if it is not accompanied by significant employment opportunities. In other words we need a Global Approach promoting democratic and financial institutions that can be trusted, stability, prosperity and employment in migration countries.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the development of the Third world cannot be achieved through the policies and levels of funding that are currently being applied and delivered. The policies are often undermined by our own (like agricultural subsidies) while the funding is nowhere near adequate. We must therefore continue to look for ways to create a new architecture within our global economic edifice. I would therefore reitirate a proposal which was discussed during the Belgian EU Presidency in 2000 when I was EU Commissioner:
A tax on capital movements, what is also known as a ‘Tobin Tax’ after the economist and Nobel Laureate. Although originally conceived as a tax to reduce profiteering, there are economists today who argue that it could also be used to reduce poverty in the Third world. It is in essence a small added cost of around 0.1% in tax which could provide development funds to extents that are unheard of, reaching as much as $50 billion in Aid.
Here is not the place to get into the specifics but, administrative and financial considerations aside, it must be seen as a political issue which requires political will.
In a world with increasing pressures for changes in global governance, the implementation of such a proposal could be just what is needed to kick-start the entire process of change.
Dear Comrades,
It is widely understood, and not contested by research, that immigration has made, and continues to make, a positive contribution to the economy.
Yet Public Opinion, throughout Europe is increasingly unconvinced and turning against it.
Why does that happen? I believe that there has been a failure within our societies. We have failed on inclusion. We are failing to address immigration from within our societies.
For the Right, the question of migration is relatively easy. Policy proposals concerning immigration and immigrants without really looking deeper. For us progressives, our answers must focus on much more. We must concentrate on the inner workings of our society.
We must also not fall victim to the approach adopted by the Right throughout Europe. Progressives must resist the temptation for tough rhetoric. Instead we focus on practical solution for real problems encountered by real people.
The differences between the Left and the Right on immigration issues are central differences.
We want to regulate while they want to control.
We adopt a pragmatic approach based on the realities on both sides of the immigration issue, they want a mechanistic system where immigrants are seen as numbers or biometric data.
We must continue to emphasise the needs for cooperation among EU countries and with migration countries.
We must bear in mind that remittances from immigrants are four hundred percent greater than developmental aid. Stopping these remittances, even if we could, would therefore create enormous economic problems in these countries. And social and political problems would undoubtedly follow.
Progressives also have the obligation to educate our own people on the need to promote social rights instead of exploitation even for illegal immigrants.
Access to Education and Healthcare even for illegal immigrants are factors of stability within our societies. It is not always financially easy but a society’s inner qualities are also judged along these lines.
I also believe that from the three levels of governance, ie local, national and international, the national is probably the least important. At the local level, the scale allows for approaches which directly affect individuals, while at the international level we can promote cooperation and address the real causes of migration, ie both the pull and the push factors. At the national level, sentimentality and rhetoric can often be overbearing and distorting.
Progressives have the responsibility to educate people and to resist temptation for easy solutions.
Public Opinion is stabilising around the issue of migration but there is still a great deal of confusion. Multiculturalism is a fact of life in many countries, including the UK but not yet fully accepted in others.
We must continue top try to influence not just the policies on immigration but the entire framework in which the discussion takes place. And we must do this everywhere. From our neighbourhood councils to the European Parliament.
Thank you for your attention.