Original article (in Croatian) was published on 14/4/2024; Author: Anja Vladisavljević
The European Parliament has approved several legislative texts related to migration and asylum, with all Croatian MEPs who voted endorsing the proposals from the package.
After the European Parliament approved the new EU Migration and Asylum Pact, the European political elites eagerly announced the news to the public, highlighting both the EU’s “pride” in finally addressing this challenge and the “historical importance” of the day.
The issue of asylum and migration has long challenged the EU’s principle of “unity in diversity.” For over a decade, the EU struggled to reconcile differing views among member states and parliamentary groups. This field saw numerous conflicting interests: countries on the bloc’s external borders, governments staunchly opposing any form of migrant and refugee acceptance, and nations viewing such acceptance as an opportunity to replenish their young labor force.
Countries like Hungary, which adopted a strong anti-immigrant stance, sometimes blocked other procedures and decisions within the bloc, making their cooperation contingent on resolving the migration crisis.
This is why the primary focus of these reforms is the responsibility for migrants and asylum seekers upon their arrival in the European Union, particularly whether member states not on the Union’s periphery should be obliged to provide assistance. The approval of these reforms arrives just before the European elections, scheduled for June 6 to 9, 2024, which will definitely feature the topic of migration.
Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament, believes that the recently approved set of laws ensures a “balance between solidarity and responsibility” among member states.
“This has been more than ten years in the making. But we kept our word. There is still more to do, but I am proud that the European Parliament has defied the odds and addressed an issue that matters to people. That respects our shared humanity. That recognises that this is an issue that Europe must address together. This is the European way,” Metsola wrote on her social networks.
This “European path” was endorsed by a slim majority. The five laws in the package secured an average of 300 votes in favor and 270 against. Opposition to the pact came from diverse quarters, including the extreme right and left, each for their distinct reasons. The vote was also disrupted by human rights activists who, protesting the pact, shouted at MEPs, “This pact kills, vote against it,” and threw paper airplanes toward them. Meanwhile, another group of activists demonstrated outside the parliament building in Brussels.
Penalties for Refusing to Accept Migrants and Refugees
By adopting these measures, the European Parliament declares its commitment to “responding to citizens’ expectations to strengthen the EU’s role in tackling all forms of irregular migration and strengthen the protection of the European Union’s external borders, while respecting human rights, to apply common rules uniformly in all member states on the first reception of migrants, to strengthen the EU’s role and reform the European asylum system based on the principles of solidarity and fair share of responsibility (…)”
The MEPs have agreed on a system of “binding solidarity,” meaning that member states will support countries facing significant migration pressures by either relocating asylum seekers or persons with international protection to their territories, providing financial contributions, or offering operational and technical assistance. The criteria for determining which member state is responsible for processing international protection requests (commonly referred to as the Dublin rules) will be updated. Specifically, members will be given a choice: accept a designated number of migrants or, if they opt out, contribute 20,000 euros per refused individual to a common fund. Brussels aims to achieve 30,000 relocations annually, with quotas assigned to each country based on its population.
Tensions within the bloc escalated with the surge of migrants and refugees during the migrant crisis of 2015/2016. In response, in 2008, the EU established a mechanism for managing “crisis situations and situations of force majeure.” Under these provisions, national authorities are permitted to implement stricter measures, including extended periods for registration and detention. The Commission will also have the authority to request additional “solidarity” actions.
Furthermore, rigorous checks of third-country nationals will be implemented at external borders, and a new, expedited common procedure for the recognition and revocation of international protection will be introduced. Additionally, the “conditions of detention and restrictions on freedom of movement” will be standardized, new uniform standards for the recognition of international protection will be set, and all data concerning individuals entering the EU through irregular means will be stored in a European database.
The UK’s The Guardian reports that it is questionable whether the Pact will work. Hungary and Poland were quick to state their opposition, indicating they would not accept resettlement under the new solidarity rules. Parties from both ends of the political spectrum, along with non-governmental organizations, have declared — for varying reasons — their intention to continue opposing the Pact.
The extreme left criticizes the proposed laws as overly harsh, arguing they represent a departure from the “European values” of compassion and human dignity while they give more latitude to the right to diminish and relativize human rights.
The far right, on the other hand, advocates for even stricter regulations and enhanced border security. Moreover, they may escalate their criticism of the Pact, which they consider too lenient, as a focal issue in the upcoming European election campaign.
The Guardian further reports that experts have voiced significant concerns about the feasibility of the Pact. They argue that even with a system based on shared responsibilities, it would be far more complex and not all members might be willing to contribute equally.
Following the voiced disapproval of the Pact, Ylva Johansson, the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, warned that member states failing to implement the Pact could face legal action, potentially leading to an infringement procedure for violating EU law.
Once the EU Council officially approves the package, the regulations will take effect following their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. Member states will then have two years to incorporate the necessary changes into their national legislation.
Croatian MEPs Use Migration Issues as Battleground between HDZ and SDP
According to the official records, six out of twelve Croatian MEPs cast their votes. Romana Jerkovic, Predrag Fred Matic, and Tonino Picula from the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Karlo Ressler and Tomislav Sokol from the European People’s Party (EPP), and Valter Flego from the Renew Europe (RE) group—all supported every legislative proposal in the package.
With only a few days remaining in Croatia’s pre-election campaign for the parliamentary elections, some MEPs have capitalized on the momentum from Brussels to bolster their campaigns at home. HDZ’s Sokol specifically targeted the opposition parties in the Croatian Parliament—the SDP more directly, and the Mozemo! (We Can!) party less so, by mentioning human rights associations and their ties to that party.
“The European Union cannot accept on its territory all those who want to come to the EU just because it is better to live there. That is why it is important to prevent frequent abuses of the asylum system and distinguish between economic migrants and refugees. This is why today we voted for the Pact on Migration and Asylum, which is our response to the record pressure of migrants on European borders. We need new rules so that European socialists never again think of landing on the Croatian border as they did in 2021 when they illegally tried to cross the state border of the Republic of Croatia and thus provoke an international incident in which they were defended by their colleagues Pedja Grbin and Biljana Borzan. At the same time, at the sensitive moment of Croatia’s accession to Schengen, non-governmental organizations associated with the Mozemo party continuously sabotaged Croatia’s entry into Schengen, using every opportunity to slander the Croatian police for no reason,” Tomislav Sokol posted on Facebook on April 10, 2024.
This time, SDP members refrained from directly criticizing their counterparts. As reported by Jutarnji list, Tonino Picula commented that failing to support the agreement “would provide extremists and populists with opportunities to further exploit this issue, casting significant doubt on any future agreements.” Additionally, Fred Matic emphasized that the most crucial aspect for Croatia is that the new Pact “secures additional financial resources to coordinate and address border challenges.”
Last year, the SDP and HDZ engaged in a heated exchange, offering differing interpretations of the controversial “wire vote” in the European Parliament. The discussion around using border barriers to curb irregular crossings in Croatia has become highly politicized, going beyond concerns about the inhumane treatment of migrants. Considering Croatia’s 1,011-kilometer border with Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the fact that Croats, who are one of the three constituent nations, reside in that country, politicians across the political spectrum have long been reluctant to endorse the idea of dividing the two countries with a barbed wire.
The contention centered around the Report on General Guidelines for the Preparation of the EU Budget for 2024, specifically an amendment seeking substantial EU funds to enhance surveillance cameras and personnel at the borders. SDP members accused HDZ members of supporting the construction of a fence between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Conversely, HDZ members argued that SDP members were neglecting the security of Croatian and European borders.
What about Human Rights?
It is unclear whether the paper airplanes thrown by activists at the MEPs struck any of them or how much attention they drew to the (in)humane aspects of the Pact.
Last year, the EU received 1.14 million requests for international protection, marking a seven-year record, and recorded 380,000 irregular border crossings, half of which occurred via the central Mediterranean route. Germany continued to receive the highest number of requests by far, with 334,000 in absolute terms, although Cyprus, with 12,000 arrivals, faced the greatest pressure relative to its population size.
Civil society organizations have long been sounding the alarm about inhumane practices occurring at the external borders of the European Union (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). These practices include the lack of willingness and promptness in rescuing migrants at sea, the installation of barbed wires and fences along borders, and the violent expulsion of migrants and refugees from EU territory, commonly referred to as push-backs. According to numerous reports, the latter practice is frequently associated with the Croatian police. International organizations, in addition to domestic non-governmental organizations, which Sokol associates with the We Can! party, have also issued warnings about this issue (1, 2, 3, 4).
Long before the vote of support for the Pact on Migration and Asylum, such organizations warned of the potentially fatal consequences of its implementation. Over 50 European civil society organizations, including the Croatian Center for Peace Studies, as well as networks and trade unions at both European and national levels, issued a call before the vote in the European Parliament for “mass mobilization – online and in person in Brussels – against the Pact on Migration and Asylum.”
“The New pact creates a system whereby the right to seek asylum in the EU is severely threatened and will engender a proliferation of human rights violations against people across Europe due to their migration status,” stated the joint statement of the organizations.
Among the problematic aspects of the Pact is the provision that anticipates quicker deportations to countries of origin or transit countries labeled as safe, despite potential inaccuracies in their designation. Accelerated asylum procedures have also raised concerns as they “heighten the risk of unjust deportations and human rights violations through insufficient and unfair assessment of asylum claims.”
The non-governmental organization No Name Kitchen (NNK), dedicated to combating violence against people on the move, has highlighted several other unfavorable points. These include mass surveillance and access to migrants’ personal data, as well as restrictions on their movement. NNK argues that the proposed asylum seeker database could “turn into a weapon of mass surveillance,” with children as young as six potentially subjected to fingerprinting, digital facial recognition technology being employed, and individuals facing coercion to provide information under threat of detention.
Regarding freedom of movement, the EU itself states that ” The conditions of detention and the restriction of freedom of movement will be regulated, to discourage applicants from moving around the EU.” The NNK finds this problematic because similar rules in countries like Turkey have resulted in the “separating families, friends, support systems, and trapping people in often isolated places with no opportunities for work or education.”
There are only a few clauses of the Pact “which might improve the situation for some people on the move”, according to NNK. For example, member states will have to ensure equal acceptance standards for asylum seekers when it comes to, for example, housing, education and health care, and registered asylum seekers will be able to start working no later than nine months after submitting their application.
However, regardless of some bright spots of the Pact, it is quite clear to observers that European “solidarity” does not extend to people on the move.
