Politik Archive - Page 11 of 13

Interim assessment of the German Council Presidency

Erik Marquardt on 30 November 2020

We MEPs from the Green Group on Europe have drawn up an interim balance sheet and are now providing a Overview of the different topics. On asylum and migration issues, Germany has blocked a lot and achieved little during this period, and the crises at the external borders have worsened during the German Council Presidency. Here are the assessments of my areas of work at a glance:

Mass camps for refugees at EU external borders

After the Fire in Moria there was no coordinated redistribution of refugees. The homeless people were shipped to a new Moria on an old shooting range, where living conditions are even worse. The German Council Presidency has failed to work towards distribution and an end to the mass camps at the EU's external borders.

Green Position: The Greens have called for the immediate evacuation and redistribution of refugees from Moria.

Common European Asylum System

The work on the asylum and migration pact is only in its infancy, but there is reason to fear a deterioration of European asylum law. The German government is in favour of mass processing of asylum seekers under detention-like conditions in future border procedures.

Green Position: This creates more morias instead of preventing them. Protection seekers must be redistributed from the external borders as quickly as possible and given fast, fair procedures based on the rule of law. We have also set out our proposals for a fair and efficient asylum system in Europe in this position paper set out.

Asylum and Migration Fund:

In the ongoing trilogue negotiations with the Council of Ministers on the asylum and migration fund, the German Council Presidency is opposed to direct EU funding for municipalities willing to receive asylum seekers.

Green position: Municipalities that want to take in people should be able to help and be supported. Solidarity should be promoted through financial incentives.

Development cooperation instruments:

In the discussions on the largest foreign policy and development cooperation instrument of the next seven-year EU budget - the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) - the German Presidency managed to reach a good compromise with the European Parliament on new development cooperation funds. By introducing human rights guarantees, the fund will hopefully be able to leverage private investment while ensuring, among other things, the safety of workers in the implementation of projects.

EU-Africa

2020 is an important year for EU-Africa relations. The German government had announced before the start of its presidency that it would make Africa a focus of its work. However, due to the pandemic as well as a lack of creative planning to look for alternative solutions, consultation with civil society in partner countries was not successful, while important decisions were taken in developing a joint strategy for the European and African Union.

Green position: The implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris climate targets should be financed not only with public but also with private funds. Binding human rights and sustainability criteria as well as transparency and sufficient control mechanisms are essential when awarding and implementing investments in developing countries. Harmful exports of electronic waste or skimmed milk powder with vegetable fats have been flooding the African market for years - to the detriment of local production, the environment and health.

How the EU facilitates deportations to the most dangerous country in the world

Erik Marquardt on 26 November 2020

In 2016, the EU and Afghanistan signed the Joint Way Forward Agreement during the Brussels Donor Conference. The aim is to facilitate deportations to Afghanistan.

It is an informal, non-binding legal instrument, and the European Parliament was not involved in its agreement. Because the agreement expired on 6 October this year, the EU wants to negotiate a two-year extension until the end of 2020.

Afghanistan has been rocked by war for over 40 years, forcing millions of Afghans to leave their country over the decades. Contrary to the pervasive narrative, however, the vast majority of Afghan refugees have sought shelter in surrounding countries such as Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey. Thus, Afghanistan represents those worldwide second largest refugee population to civil war-torn Syria.

People have good reasons to flee Afghanistan. For the second year in a row, Afghanistan was named the "most dangerous country in the world" classified." The reasons for this include the ongoing violent conflicts between the Taliban and the Afghan government, as well as regular terrorist attacks on civilians. Thus died in 2019 over 3,000 civilians and nearly 7,000 were seriously injured.

Therefore, the recognition rate of Afghan refugees in the EU last stood at 58% in August this year. However, the recognition rates in the individual member states vary drastically. For example, the recognition rate of Afghan refugees is in Italy 94% and in Bulgaria 4%. In many media and also in the EU Commission, there is constant talk of "illegal migrants and economic migrants", although the majority are refugees fleeing terror and have a very realistic claim to protection under EU legislation. Also the The German Government continues to take the viewAfghanistan is a country to which one can deport and thus deliberately turns a blind eye to the situation on the ground. Many human rights organisations and lawyers call for the Deportations to Afghanistan as Infringement of the prohibition of non-refoulement laid down by law (non-refoulement): in other words, people may not be deported to countries where they are threatened with torture or other serious human rights violations.

Deportation to an unknown country

Furthermore, the Joint Way Forward Agreement ignores the reality of Afghan refugees. As already mentioned, many Afghans live in the surrounding countries and have been doing so for decades, so that there are repeated deportations of refugees who have not yet left Afghanistan. have never set foot in and have to find their way around in a completely foreign country. In addition, despite official requirements and international and EU legislation, there are more and more reports of Deportations of young women and children who are abandoned in the streets of Kabul and thus abandoned to a fate of destitution and renewed flight. Moreover, time and again the Suspicion expressed that financial development assistance to the Afghan Government linked to deportations will. We do not need more deportations to Afghanistan, but rather a a better European asylum systemSecondly, there is a need to ensure that protection seekers are granted their rights, for example by introducing equal recognition quotas across the EU, based on the actual situation on the ground. Secondly, informal agreements must also complied with the law for example, the non-refoulement ban and the non-refoulement of persons in need of special protection, also in recognition of the complexity of Afghan migration. In addition, financial development aid must under no circumstances be tied to deportations. Last but not least, the successor programme must be adopted in a legally binding manner in democratic agreement with the European Parliament and monitored through regular evaluations.

Peace negotiations between government and Taliban

For decades, the Afghan people have longed for an end to violence and conflict, and never before have the Afghan government and the Taliban sat down to negotiate a possible peace. Both sides seem to have realized that there is no military solution can give.

Thus, on 29 February 2020, the Doha Agreement was reached, in which agreement was reached on the initiation of intra-Afghan peace negotiations. Particular attention was paid to ensuring that the negotiations take place without outside influence from states such as Russia or the US. Despite the forthcoming negotiations, Afghanistan has continued to be affected in recent months by above-average violence and many people died, although the population had hoped for a ceasefire. In particular, the last five weeks before the start of the negotiations were described by experts as the most difficult. most dangerous weeks in the last five years in terms of the quantity and brutality of violence. The Doha Agreement is also accompanied by the gradual reduction and eventual elimination of the US troop presence, as this is a basic condition for the Taliban to participate in the peace talks. Currently, about 4,500 of the original 13,000 troops remain in the country. Nevertheless, the election of Joe Biden as US president now raises many unanswered questions, as the Doha deal was negotiated under the Trump administration and Biden had said during the campaign that he wanted to maintain a small troop presence in Afghanistan.

Now, the peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government began in Doha on September 12, 2020. The start of the substantive negotiations has been delayed since then, as they have so far been dominated by structural and procedural conflicts and disputes over the agenda are characterized. The stakes are particularly high for women: from 1996 to 2001, women lived under lock and key during the Taliban regime and were only allowed to leave their homes when accompanied by a male guardian. Since 2001, with the invasion of US troops, the situation has changed and women have increasingly taken part in social life again. Today, Afghan civil society thrives on committed, educated women and the big concern is that Taliban involvement in government would undo all the work of the last 20 years in this area. The Afghan government has a total of only four women at the negotiating table, while the Taliban are all men.

It is impossible to predict the next steps of the peace negotiations, but the civilian population is longing for a CeasefireHowever, this is on condition that fundamental rights are not compromised in the peace process and that criminals from the ranks of the Taliban and the Afghan governments are finally prosecuted. Despite the peace talks, attacks on civilians continue, such as the bloodbath at Kabul University on 2 November.

Terrorist attack in Kabul University – Attack on the future of Afghanistan

On the same day as the attack in Vienna, there was a terrorist attack on Kabul University. Three gunmen stormed the university and shot at the students. It took the security forces and the arriving military six hours to secure the campus. Twenty-two students were killed and 27 others were injured. badly hurt. Even if those responsible have not yet been clearly identified, this is driving a wedge into the peace negotiations, which are already getting off to a difficult start. There are initial calls to boycott the negotiations in Doha, for example under the hashtag #BoycottDohaTalks or in the form of protests against the government, which has been unable to protect the young people. One of the demands is not to make a deal with the Taliban. It remains to be seen how the chain of violence will continue and how it will affect the peace negotiations.

Afghan refugees in Europe

The situation of Afghan refugees in Europe is fatal. Half of all refugees on the Greek islands comes from Afghanistan. It is widely known that the conditions in the completely overcrowded camps as well as in the new Moria are absolutely inhumane and untenable. Many have been there for many months or even years, some children were even born there. They are either waiting to apply for asylum or for it to be processed. The application for family reunification, for example, turns out to be a long, rocky road for many Afghan families, because the Federal Office for Migration and Asylum in Germany often rejects such applications unjustly and the people concerned usually lack access to legal counsel to appeal.

If their application for asylum is granted, the Greek authorities transfer some of the protection seekers to mainland Greece, but without housing them. Instead, many Afghan refugees and families live in homelessness on the streets of Athens, receiving only makeshift assistance from local non-governmental organizations. But it is precisely this assistance that is proving particularly difficult at the moment, as Athens is once again in lockdown and aid workers can only distribute meals and other goods in secret.

Furthermore, in October of this year, Greece and Afghanistan agreed on a Memorandumwhich is supposed to facilitate the deportation of "illegal migrants" to Afghanistan in the future – a shocking development considering the dangerous situation in Afghanistan. Also the situation on the Balkan route is a human rights disaster. The Afghan refugees there are part of a cruel game of cat and mouse. They try to enter the EU via Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, only to be brutally deported back to Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Croatian border police or in so-called chain deportations from Italy, Austria or Slovenia. For years now, reports have been accumulating of Torture and violence by Croatian border police officerswhich are repeatedly rejected by the Croatian government as spurious. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, many refugees live in empty houses or in the cold, wet forests, where they sleep under tarpaulins – including families with children. Just as in Greece, humanitarian workers are largely prohibited from assisting refugees. Especially with the upcoming winter, another humanitarian catastrophe is looming.

Berlin sues Seehofer

Erik Marquardt on November 17, 2020

Finally, we're getting somewhere: The state of Berlin is suing the Federal Ministry of the Interior so that Berlin can finally take in refugees. The lawsuit is promising, because Interior Minister Horst Seehofer wants to prevent the admission despite legal leeway. You can find more information about this in the Press release of the Berlin state government.

For those who want to delve more deeply into the legal framework: I have a Expert opinion commissioned, which proves that Seehofer may not so simply refuse his consent for the admission.

25 EU successes that make our lives better

Erik Marquardt on 27 October 2020

If you look at the EU today, the abuses often stand out: at the external borders, human rights are too often only valid on paper, there are Member States that completely refuse to show European solidarity and reports about strange laws that come from Brussels. It is clear that there is much that needs to be improved, but No EU is no solution either. The alternative would be to retreat into national calamity.

And so the greatest merits of the EU are perhaps those that cannot even be enumerated: It is hard to imagine what the world would look like without the European peace project.

But besides the grand vision and many problems, there are also some successes of the EU. Here are some enumerated:

A lot done, still a lot to do

EU recovery plan: support during the Corona crisis

Corona caused economic damage in all EU countries, but not to the same extent everywhere: to help member states rebuild their economies, 750 billion is to be made available over the next three years. Of this, 500 billion will be spent without repayment for particularly affected regions. The remaining 250 billion are to be treated as loans.

Free movement within the EU

EU citizens may move, reside and work freely within the EU plus Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Travel from the Algarve to Lapland without border controls: After centuries of barriers within Europe, what was once unthinkable is now taken for granted. The Freedom of Movement Act also includes the right to vote in local elections in the country of residence.

Peace within the EU – longer than ever before

Peace among EU member states is now taken for granted – that is historically unique. While alliances and joint trade have always helped to maintain peace between allies at times, never before has this peace lasted as long and as broadly in Central Europe as it has thanks to the EU.

German-French friendship

After centuries of "hereditary enmity" and countless wars, joint membership of the EU now provides the framework for the close ties between the neighbouring countries. More than 57 years ago, France and Germany signed the Elysée Treaty and reaffirmed their understanding of friendship last year with the Treaty of Aachen. Franco-German relations are to remain deepened through understanding and exchange.

A few laws that make life better

Abolition of roaming charges

Since 15 June 2017, surfing and making calls within the EU has become a little bit easier. With the abolition of roaming charges, mobile internet, calls and SMS in EU countries are now possible at the service provider's domestic price. Even before that, these charges were gradually capped more and more by the EU, so the days when a single international call multiplied the monthly bill are thankfully finally over.

European data protection

With the European Data Protection Regulation, which came into force in May 2018, the EU has achieved a milestone in the defence of citizens' rights against corporations. The law sets uniform standards for data protection in the EU and plays a pioneering role worldwide.

Details: DSGVO: EU General Data Protection Regulation

An example of where the GDPR has a concrete impact: The GDPR shows its first teeth: 50 million fine imposed on Google

Ban on some single-use plastic items

A first step against the plastic flood: In 2019, the directive on the EU-wide ban of single-use plastic articles was adopted. From 2021, plastic cutlery (forks, knives, spoons, stirrers and chopsticks), plastic plates, plastic straws, plastic cotton buds, plastic balloon pens, oxodegradable plastics and expanded polystyrene food containers and cups are to disappear from our supermarkets.

National implementation: Legal rules: How Germany wants to ban single-use plastic

Transactions without additional fees

The EU guarantees that no additional costs will be incurred when abroad in Europe: Transfers, payments, withdrawals and direct debits to accounts in the eurozone must not cost more than at home.

Ban on antibiotic use on healthy animals

As early as 2005, the European Parliament adopted a regulation banning the use of antibiotics to promote growth in farm animals. Since then, there have already been several reclassifications of antibiotics aimed at further curbing their use. In 2018, it was decided, among other things, that some antibiotics may only be used for humans and imported goods must meet EU standards. The aim is to prevent or slow down the development of antibiotic resistance in germs.

Labelling of nutritional values and allergens on foodstuffs

The EU Food Information Regulation No. 1169/2011 informs consumers about the nutritional content of foods and beverages. Since 2016, this has made it easier for us to decide whether a product is good for us or not: it makes it easier for us to determine the true nutrient content or possible allergenic ingredients of a product behind the companies' advertising.

European funds that make life better

European exchange programme Erasmus

The European Erasmus Programme is the world's largest funding programme for stays abroad at universities. It allows students, but also professionals and young people to participate in a funded exchange abroad in Europe. In 2014 – '20 alone, the program was funded with 14.8 billion, so in June 2019 a milestone was reached: By then, a total of more than 10 million people across Europe had participated in Erasmus+ or its predecessor programmes.

All possibilities: Erasmus+: Home page

European Regional Development Fund and European Social Fund

EU funding supports regions according to their structural development and thus ensures a kind of European redistribution. In the new funding period 2021 – '27, there will be increased investment in ecological and social transformation.

Joint European Research Funds

In the financial framework 2014-'20, 80 billion euros were available to fund European research and science projects. It is the world's largest single funding programme for research and innovation, and negotiations are currently underway for the next period up to 2027.

Rights and securities that make life better

European Convention on Human Rights

In 1950, the Council of Europe adopted the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a catalogue of fundamental and human rights, the implementation of which is enforceable by every person. Its observance is monitored by the European Court of Human Rights.

European Social Charter

The European Social Charter is a binding international agreement adopted by the Council of Europe and ratified by most member states. It guarantees the economic, social and cultural rights of EU citizens.

Common food standards

Common food standards apply within the EU. With such regulations and directives, Europe-wide minimum standards are ensured, which may not be fallen short of. The EU focuses on the areas of food hygiene, animal and plant health and contamination and residues. EU authorities check compliance with the standards.

Medical costs abroad in the EU are reimbursed by your own health insurance company

In the event of an accident or illness, the European Health Insurance Card covers medical expenses abroad in the EU. All benefits are reimbursed that would also be reimbursed in the country of origin. In this case, all EU member states, Norway, Liechtenstein, Iceland, Switzerland and, since 2010, Algeria, Andorra, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Kosovo, Libya, Macedonia, Morocco, Monaco, Montenegro, San Marino, Serbia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the Vatican City State belong to the EU.

2-year warranty for all products throughout the EU

The 2-year warranty is generally known. In fact, it has only been set at a minimum of 2 years by EU law. Buyers can demand free repair or replacement of the goods within a reasonable period of time. If this is not possible, the purchase price must be refunded or reduced. Once the product has been repaired or replaced, a new warranty period begins, again with a duration of two years.

Guest contribution: Tear down Moria!

Erik Marquardt on 3 October 2020

The Berliner Zeitung asked me to write a guest article on the occasion of 30 years of German unity:
The courage of 1989 should be more important than the fear of 2015. Let's not look the other way when the EU testifies at the external borders.

I am writing these lines on Lesvos, one of the most beautiful places in Europe, which is telling one of its most terrible stories these days. Moria, the largest refugee camp in Europe, has burned down completely. 13,000 people, who were already living in undignified conditions, are now homeless.

For days, local police prevented aid agencies from providing medical care and food to the homeless victims of the fire disaster. Many did not eat or drink for days, and children quenched their thirst with sewage, which left them with severe diarrhea. Police used tear gas on men, women and even children. Burns remained untreated for days.

For 28 years, the Berlin Wall stood as a symbol of repression, lack of freedom and the imprisonment of its own people. The lessons learned from this period are now being sought in vain at Europe's external borders. And walls are also in vogue worldwide. There are now 70 border walls in the world - about five times as many as in 1989. The Berlin Wall no longer exists. But the idea of using a structure to keep out the other, the foreign, the hostile, still thrives in many places.

The happiness of freedom seems forgotten

But why is the desire for freedom not stronger today than the desire for new walls? The wall is a structure that is supposed to protect. But it also keeps one side from seeing the other. In a world that is becoming more and more complex, the desire for new walls is probably not only a desire for security and safety, but also a desire to put up a protective wall against the increasing complexity in order to counter one's own excessive demands by the unknown. The wall not only keeps out the unknown, but also keeps in the known.
Now there is a new Moria. And the conditions are worse than ever. While small children play in the dirt behind barrier tapes and fences, soldiers search for mines and ammunition remnants on the other side. People infected with Corona are locked behind barbed wire with others who are suspected cases. This is a crime.

When the Berlin Wall fell, I was two years old. I couldn't write any texts and I had never read a history book. The Wall, dictatorship and shoot-to-kill orders robbed millions of their freedom. The Wall fell because the idea of democracy tore it down. Now, 30 years later, I am sitting here, and a few miles away democratic states are responsible for the degradation of people. Thirty years later, we seem to have forgotten how lucky we are to be able to share freedom.

I am lucky that I no longer had to consciously experience the dictatorship in the GDR. I am lucky to live in this time, in this Europe. I owe this good fortune to courageous citizens who fought for our freedom. Not by force, but with an idea. The idea that we must build a society on a foundation of the rule of law, human rights and the dignity of every individual - because that is the only way we can build a house that no one can tear down. People took to the streets with this idea, not knowing if it would become a reality. They couldn't know that no shots would be fired. On November 9, 1989, the time finally came. The Wall fell and the world celebrated. But today the Berlin Wall stands again - in Moria.

Moria is a signal to its own population, but also to people on the run: Those who dare to flee to Europe should not rely on their own expectations. The freedom, democracy and rule of law that many seek in Europe should no longer be found by those seeking protection. Instead of a sea rescue in the Mediterranean for people fleeing Libya, we are building a wall of drowned people.

This strategy of degrading external borders follows a simple logic: as long as the Mediterranean and Moria are no more dangerous than the civil war in Libya, the wall of deterrence will not stand firm. If fewer people are to arrive, more must suffer and die.

Is this not a sign that we should be more afraid of ourselves than of the other side beyond the wall? While probably most European leaders advocate the rule of law in speeches, the reality at Europe's external borders looks grim. Instead of using the rule of law to determine what reasons a person has for climbing onto an overcrowded rubber dinghy and risking his or her life for freedom, those seeking protection at the external borders are met with truncheons, tear gas and warning shots. Wall deaths have occurred several times, and some have been shot. "Efficient border management" is the name of the "anti-fascist protective wall" today.

For many, tugboats are the only way

Further fighting words are to stabilize the wall: In October 2015, when the whole world was talking about escape, Manfred Weber, as chairman of the EPP Group, awarded the Robert Schumann Medal to Wolfgang Welsch. Welsch, an escape agent, had helped over 200 people to get out of the GDR and into the Federal Republic. A great achievement.

After the laudatory speech for yesterday's prize-winning refugee, Manfred Weber of the EPP called in the public debate for the "trafficking mafia" of today in the Mediterranean to be combated.

The judgement of the EU governments is clear in its blindness to history: the escape helpers of the past deserved medals for their services on the path from dictatorship to democracy - today, on the other hand, the escape helpers are the culprits for the deaths on our walls and should be fought. A successful escape is no longer celebrated. A successful escape is the failure of the strategy of compartmentalization. The main thing is never again 2015, the main thing is no new wave of refugees.

The traffickers from Libya certainly do not act out of humane motives, but for many refugees they are the only way to get to an asylum procedure in Europe, where protecting the dignity of every single human being is actually the task of all state authority.

Europe shows its ugly side

But state violence at Europe's external borders has degenerated into a worthless zombie with a single goal: Fewer people should come to Europe - whatever the cost. Many speeches, especially since 2015, have repeatedly stressed the need to fight the causes of flight. Since 2015, more than 15 million additional people have fled worldwide.

But how should we deal with the fact that we want to protect human rights, but 80 million refugees worldwide really cannot come to Berlin or Thuringia? "How many millions more are supposed to come?", those who campaign for the human rights of refugees are asked again and again. It is worth considering whether, on the way to the fall of a new wall at the external borders, some of the mental walls that have been erected in people's minds in recent years need to come down first.

In early March 2020, when Erdogan declared the borders to Europe were now open and 15,000 people were pushed to the border, the world watched this supposedly peaceful Europe show its ugly side. Erdogan abused the people as a weapon. Yet we did not disarm him with a democratic response. Europe simply shot back.

The shooting with ammunition and tear gas was justified above all by the fact that these were not "real refugees from Syria". Apart from the fact that the reasons for flight are examined in asylum procedures and not in border skirmishes, the absence of Syrian refugees was particularly striking. For years, there were warnings of a rush of millions of people sitting on packed suitcases in Turkey. And then, despite the opening of the border, only a handful of the 3,500,000 Syrian refugees we feared arrive? How can that be?

The future is never easy

The answer is simple: there are not these millions of people who are rushing to Europe. 3.5 million fathers, mothers and children from Syria are not fleeing. They are living in Turkey. They are not fleeing to Europe because they do not want to flee to Europe.

In reality, the fear articulated by governments of a loss of control at Europe's external borders is a metaphor for the fear of losing control over their own electoral outcomes. Too often and for too long, this fear has paralysed the will to overcome challenges. But when democratic governments - as in asylum policy - create the impression of a house in danger of collapsing, there's no need to be surprised when the population starts looking for another home.

Those who want to tear down the walls at the borders must first and foremost tear down the desire for new walls. Not with violence, but with a thought. Just as courageous people took to the streets against an unjust state back then, our powerful ideas of freedom, dignity and the rule of law must once again tear down the injustice in our own Europe today. Then the Wall will fall too.

The future is never easy, because we do not know it. But we should do everything we can in the present so that later we can proudly tell our grandchildren about the past. About when we were the brave ones in 2020 who rebelled against the wall in our heads and at our external borders. From when we finally understood that we don't protect our prosperity, freedom and security by taking it all away from others. From when Moria burned down and from the ashes arose the power to learn what we already knew in 1989. From when we learned that the courage of 1989 was more important than the fear of a new 2015.

This article is for the Day of German Unity in the Berliner Zeitung erschienen.

Migration pact – Why the EU Commission's proposal does not prevent another Moria

Erik Marquardt on 30 September 2020

The EU Commission's proposal for the migration pact won't prevent another Moria. On the contrary, it would cast the model of the Greek mass camps in legal form. Border procedures and closed camps at the external borders would become the norm in Europe. The failure of the Dublin system would be perpetuated and escalated, further without a mandatory solidary reception of refugees. Germany is also threatened with considerable tightening of asylum law. The Commission's proposal on asylum procedures tightens up the 2016 Asylum Package II and casts it in European law.

European values are being damaged

With the Pact, the EU Commission has set itself the ultimate goal of European unification at any price. In order to achieve this, it accepts that refugee protection and our common European values will be severely damaged. Instead of orderly and fair procedures throughout Europe, the Pact will exacerbate the crisis at the external borders. The Pact must now be discussed and agreed in the European Parliament and among Member States in the Council. We Greens will campaign in the negotiations to end the systematic suffering of those seeking protection at the EU's external borders. A fair and humanitarian European asylum system must emerge from the ashes of Moria.

At this link you will find our proposal for a fair asylum system in Europe.

Border procedures: mass detention of refugees

According to the EU Commission's proposal, all persons who want to enter the EU without valid papers or are apprehended should be taken to closed camps under detention conditions. This also applies to those rescued from distress at sea. Those arriving must first undergo a preliminary examination, which must be completed within five days. This includes registration as well as a health check and a security check in European border and security databases.

The pre-screening should also record what type of procedures the arrivals
and whether they will continue to be held under detention conditions:

– A normal asylum procedure should only be given to those who come from a country with a recognition rate of more than 20 per cent, i.e. when at least everyr fifth asylum seeker from this country in the EU as a refugeer is recognised.

– A fast-track asylum procedure under detention conditions at the border (border procedure) must be undergone by anyone who comes from a country with a recognition rate of less than 20 per cent, anyone who poses a security risk or anyone who provides false information about their identity.

People from a previously safe country of origin (e.g. the Balkans) or from a safe third country (e.g. Syrians arriving via Turkey) must also go through a fast-track asylum procedure, but not necessarily at the border.

– Those who do not apply for asylum should be deported directly from the camp.

The Commission is thus significantly expanding the detention of refugees. According to the Commission's plans, most fast-track procedures are to be carried out in closed camps at the border. Only unaccompanied minor refugees and children under 12 and their families are exempt from this. They will be housed in an open facility during their fast-track asylum procedure, just like asylum seekers going through a normal asylum procedure. under this procedure, more than half of irregular arrivals would have had to go through a border procedure under detention conditions in 2017 and 2018 because they came from countries with a recognition rate defined as low. In 2019, by contrast, more people in need of protection arrived from countries with higher recognition rates.

Detention of asylum seekers to be extended

With its proposal, the Commission wants to send a signal of deterrence. In order to do so, it accepts that the protection of refugees and their human dignity will be undermined. It wants to drastically triple the detention period from the current 4 weeks for border procedures to 12 weeks in the future. Only if the asylum procedure cannot be completed in this time will the asylum seekers be placed in normal refugee accommodation.

Those who are rejected are also to be deported directly from the border camps without being allowed to set foot on European soil. If this is not possible by 12 weeks after the end of the asylum procedure, they are to be transferred to detention centres for deportation. The crucial question, namely how the dovetailing of asylum and deportation procedures is to lead to an increase in the deportation rate, remains unanswered, as does the question of how the Commission intends to ensure that the Member States carry out asylum procedures more efficiently than before. The Commission is creating new camps with the border procedures. But it has no answer as to how a second Moria is to be prevented.

Dublin and refugee distribution: overcrowded camps remain

The EU Commission had declared the Dublin system dead - and yet wants to retain it as a core element of the European asylum system with the pact. What changes with the pact is above all the title. Dublin is now called "Migration Management". The Dublin system is a system of shifting responsibility to member states at the EU's southern external borders. The member state in which ae refugeesUnder the Dublin system, the first person to set foot on European soil is responsible for asylum procedures and accommodation. Instead of finally replacing the system of shifting responsibility with a system of fair sharing of responsibility for those seeking protection in Europe, the Commission wants to cement it with the pact.

In future, member states will have to wait much longer than the current 18 months for ane Asylum seekersn be responsible. The right of other member states to send back refugees who have irregularly moved on to another member state only expires three years after they have been recognised as refugees. The Commission also wants to make it easier for member states to send back asylum seekers who have moved on. Asylum seekers themselves should not receive any support and accommodation if they move on irregularly. One of the few positive aspects in the Commission proposal is the extension of family reunification to
Siblings.

Deportation sponsorships instead of solutions – Southern EU countries continue to be left in the lurch

The Commission's proposal increases the responsibility of southern EU countries such as Greece, Malta, Italy or Spain - without offering them sufficient solidarity. The system of flexible solidarity proposed by the Commission is complex. It amounts to giving member states a whole range of fallback options to avoid having to take in refugees. Solidarity will be obligatory in case of "high migratory pressure", but not the reception of refugees. Member states can, under the Commission's proposal, instead:

– Provide capacity building – such as through the provision of fingerprint scanners for the registration of arrivals.

– provide operational support to these countries – for example by deploying border guardsor asylum expertinside

– by cooperating with third countries, influence the arrival of fewer protection seekers, or

– through so-called return partnerships or also deportation sponsorships – for example by helping Greece to obtain travel documents from the third country to which deportation is to take place, or by ensuring that the country agrees to the return. Only if the person cannot be removed even after eight months does the Member State have to take him or her in.

If the camps are overcrowded, the Commission can insist that member states take in refugees. But even then member states can resort to repatriation partnerships. With this proposal the Commission is going a long way towards accommodating countries like Hungary or Poland, which have boycotted any redistribution up to now - and is accepting that the European asylum system will fail once more. In many cases deportations can't be carried out because the third country in question won't cooperate. The European border protection agency Frontex already has the task of helping member states with deportations. It is completely unclear how return partnerships are supposed to additionally contribute to reducing obstacles to deportation.

The Commission's proposal will not prevent another Moria. The camps at the external borders will remain overcrowded because member states can take in people as they see fit and repatriation partnerships will only lead to more people without the right to stay being sent back in the fewest cases. The losers of the Commission's proposal are the countries at the EU's southern external borders. The profiteers are member states like Germany or Sweden. Because of the tightening of the Dublin rules they can count on being able to shift more of the responsibility for refugees who have moved to their country irregularly to countries like Greece.

The crisis mechanism

In its position on the last Dublin reform in 2018, the European Parliament had called for a fair distribution of asylum seekers from the outset. This is now only found in the Commission's proposal for a crisis mechanism. Once the Commission sets the mechanism in motion, member states will be obliged to take in asylum seekers, recognised refugees and people without the right to stay. Unlike in situations of "high migratory pressure", this also applies to admission directly from border camps.

At the same time, however, border procedures are being drastically extended to all those seeking protection who come from a country with a protection quota of less than 75 percent. Detention in border camps is being prolonged, as is the detention of people without the right to stay. This can lead to people without a prospect of staying being detained at the borders for more than a year. The Commission's proposal also provides for refugees who are manifestly in need of protection to be granted temporary protection status without an asylum assessment. It is unlikely that this proposal will find a political majority in the Council. It's not just countries like Hungary that won't want to accept the Commission deciding when the crisis mechanism is triggered and they are obliged to take people in from the border.

What does the pact mean for Germany?

The Commission's proposal will also lead to more asylum seekers being detained in Germany. Refugees who have bypassed registration at the external border and made their way to Germany will also have to undergo a preliminary examination here - under the same detention-like conditions as at the external borders. The pact proposal also does not rule out the possibility that countries like Germany will drastically expand their special procedures. Germany has already introduced accelerated procedures in "special reception facilities" with the 2016 Asylum Package II. So far, they apply mainly to asylum seekers from safe countries of origin, such as the Balkan countries, and have so far only been carried out at two locations, in Manching/Ingolstadt and Bamberg.

With the pact as proposed by the Commission, the federal government could drastically tighten the conditions in the "special reception facilities" and turn them into closed facilities like those at the external borders. It would have the option of detaining protection seekers who arrive in Germany irregularly from a country with a protection quota of less than 20 percent under the same detention-like conditions as in border procedures.

– So far, asylum seekers in Manching and Bamberg have to live in the camps and are not allowed to leave the district, but they are not locked up.

– The drastic expansion of de facto safe countries of origin to all countries with a protection quota of less than 20 per cent would affect considerably more asylum seekers than before.

– The time limit for fast-track asylum procedures is currently one week and could be extended to 12 weeks under the pact.

The Commission's proposals from 2016 on the accommodation of asylum seekers and on asylum procedures, which are now also to be adopted with the pact, already amount to a significant tightening. The new proposals threaten to further undermine refugee protection.

Rescue at sea will not be strengthened

As part of the pact, the Commission has published two non-binding recommendations on the criminalisation of NGOs and on sea rescue. However, this does not strengthen the rescue of refugees. The Commission recommends that member states should not criminalise sea rescue NGOs for saving human lives. At the same time, however, sea rescue NGOs should be held to a higher standard.

The Commission wants closer cooperation between coastal states and flag states such as Germany, under whose flag NGO ships rescue people in the Mediterranean. They should ensure that safety at sea is increased and that "relevant rules on migration management" are observed, for example against people smuggling. The Commission's recommendation is thus along the same lines as the German government.

It had already increased the security requirements for NGO rescue ships a few months ago, thus taking smaller NGO ships out of circulation. According to the Commission's proposal, refugees rescued from distress at sea will in future be treated in the same way as asylum seekers at land borders: they will have to undergo a preliminary examination under detention-like conditions and remain at the border during the asylum procedure
if they come from a country with a recognition rate of less than 20 per cent.

As long as they are in the border camp, they will not be redistributed to other Member States. The solidarity-based distribution of rescued persons to other member states is supposed to work in a similar way as in the case of high "migration pressure". Member states do not have to take in rescued persons, but can instead also take on deportation partnerships or send border guards.

Floating illegal reception centres in Malta – My question to the Commission

Erik Marquardt on 18 August 2020

Here you can find my question to the Commission on the floating illegal detention centres in Malta. You can download it here on the homepage of the European Parliament in all 24 official languages of the European Union. In its answer, the Commission states that it expects Malta and other member states to comply with European fundamental rights and international obligations on sea rescue. However, the Commission does not declare itself competent to do anything concrete about it.

My request

After Malta closed its ports to people rescued at sea, more than 400 people fleeing war-torn Libya were detained aboard government-chartered vessels just outside Maltese territorial waters. They had no access to asylum procedures and no contact with monitoring bodies, journalists or lawyers. They were not informed of how long they were detained or why. Under political pressure, the Maltese government finally allowed the people to go ashore after weeks on board.

It is to be welcomed that the Commission has rejected Malta's request to fund the floating reception centres and has instead offered to support the transfer of these people to other Member States. However, I would like to ask the Commission the following questions:

1. whether the Commission considers that a lack of solidarity in the EU exempts Malta from the obligation to comply with EU law?

2. what the Commission will do to ensure that these serious violations of EU asylum law and fundamental rights by Malta do not go unpunished?

3. what measures the Commission will take to ensure that Malta grants access to the asylum procedures provided for in EU law and that the practice of detention at sea is not repeated?

The following is the reply from Ylva Johansson on behalf of the Commission

The Commission recognises the specific situation of Malta; in particular the additional pressures on its already stretched reception system due to an increased influx of refugees and the COVID 19 pandemic. At the same time, the Commission has reiterated that it expects all Member States to comply with their obligations in the field of fundamental rights, to respect the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and all relevant EU and international law, and to take coordinated action to prevent the loss of life at sea, together with all actors involved, including the relevant EU agencies.

The conduct of search and rescue operations is the responsibility of the Member States. The Commission is not competent to coordinate search and rescue operations or to indicate disembarkation points.

The Commission has repeatedly called for persons on board to be disembarked and for those wishing to apply for international protection to be given access to the asylum procedure.

The Commission will continue to do its utmost to provide financial and operational support to those Member States most affected by migratory flows. As part of these measures, it encourages Member States to participate in voluntary relocations as a concrete sign of solidarity with the Member States of disembarkation. The Commission has also held technical meetings to help reduce the pressure on the Maltese reception system by speeding up and coordinating procedures for voluntary relocation and return.

The Commission is currently finalising its reflections on how best to take into account the specificities of search and rescue operations in the new Pact on Migration and Asylum.

Even in Corona times, the EU must rescue and take in people in distress at sea

Erik Marquardt on 11 June 2020

The Covid 19 pandemic led to the closure of the EU's external borders and was used as an excuse by Malta and Italy to close their ports to rescue ships. A boat carrying 55 people was ordered by the Maltese Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC) in April to be returned to Libya. Twelve people died of thirst or drowned in the process. Already in February 2020 appeared a Expert opinion of the Heinrich Böll Foundationwhich stated that it is clearly illegal to bring people to Libya.

Prof. Dr. Anuscheh Farahat and Prof. Dr. Nora Markard have now published an update of the study entitled. Closed Ports, Dubious Partners Published. The results were presented in a webinar, where I also spoke and which you can watch under this Link finds.

Since March 2019, neither EU nor national search and rescue vessels have been deployed to prevent further deaths in the Mediterranean. Non-governmental organisations trying to fill this gap, are increasingly criminalised and prosecuted.

Libya is not a safe haven

The update to the study shows why EU states are not exempt from their duty to rescue people in distress at sea and provide them with a safe haven, even in times of pandemic. Covid-19 must not be used as an excuse for allowing people to drown in the Mediterranean. Libya continues not to be a safe haven and returns to Libya, as instructed by Malta, continue to violate existing law.

As the cases of the Alan Kurdi and the Aita Mari show, a quarantine of two weeks for the survivors is quite sufficient to protect the public health of the population of Malta.

Unfortunately, the German government has not put any pressure on Malta to stop this illegal procedure. On the contrary, the Ministry of the Interior has sent a letter to the sea rescue organisations and asked them to stop their activities. In an interview with Tilo Jung, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas even justified Malta closing its ports and also asked them to refrain from sea rescue operations (Video: from 17.38 minute).

The argument that it is unfortunately not possible to save people in the Mediterranean because they could end up in difficult corona situations afterwards is absurd. The pandemic is unfortunately also being used by the German government to try by all means to stop sea rescue so that fewer refugees reach Europe alive.

Andreas Scheuer amends ordinance to make sea rescue more difficult

Erik Marquardt on 9 June 2020

For several years now, European states have been trying to strengthen human rights observation and to make sea rescue at the EU's external borders more difficult and to criminalise it. Germany has now also issued further rules that could spell the end for the missions of some aid organisations. The model for this approach seems to be the Netherlands where similar reasons were used last year to obstruct sea rescue operations.

The change in law followed a lengthy legal battle. After the Federal Ministry of Transport fixed the observation vessel "Mare Liberum" in April 2019, the association sued and was upheld by the Hamburg Higher Administrative Court in September 2019, so that the ship could continue to operate.

With a current regulation, Transport Minister Andreas Scheuer is specifically making humanitarian aid at Europe's external borders more difficult. The German government has been pursuing this goal for some time, but has so far been defeated in court. Now the transport ministry is creating a new legal basis for itself in order to be able to legally detain ships because they cannot meet the new security requirements.

Security concerns are only a pretext

New excuses are always being sought to prevent humanitarian aid at Europe's external borders. Meanwhile legislators are arguing with the safety of people on the water in order to prevent sea rescues. That such arguments are being used in the face of thousands of deaths in the Mediterranean is more than cynical.

The German government is obviously trying to prevent the observation of the human rights situation in the Mediterranean. In speeches, it continues to emphasise the relevance of human rights and sea rescue, but away from the public eye it then does the opposite. Anyone who acts in this way gambles away the credibility of politics.

Preventing sea rescue, firing on those seeking protection, undignified and life-threatening conditions in European refugee camps: when one looks at Europe's external borders and the actions of European states, one unfortunately wonders when the EU member states will have to declare moral insolvency.

You can find more information on the Homepage of Mare Liberum. Details and legal assessments on the amendment of the Ship Safety Regulation, can be found at here.

Our proposal for a fair and efficient asylum system in Europe

Erik Marquardt on 28 May 2020

With this paper we, the Greens/EFA Group in the European Parliament, present our proposal for the future Common European Asylum System.

We believe this is necessary because we in Europe are currently not treating refugees with the dignity they deserve.

The Greek islands must not continue to be misused for a hotspot system that inevitably leads to a humanitarian disaster. Nor must people have to spend years there before a decision is made on their asylum application. Instead, we need fast, fair and orderly procedures at the EU's external borders.

This is how we envisage a common European asylum system based on solidarity:

Refugees will be common and open centres registered and also pass through security checks. Asylum applications are processed in a common European database registered and processed.

Shortly after their arrival asylum seekers are interviewed in order to identify specific needs and to determine and to determine the host Member State. The personal connections and The preferences of asylum seekers should be taken into account in the distribution process.

An EU Agency for Asylum is responsible for the final decision on the distribution to other other Member States and the management of the distribution mechanism.

The distribution of asylum seekers should no longer be based on the principle of first entry, whereby the state in which people first set foot on European soil is always responsible for asylum procedures. This system has failed.

Voluntary and compulsory solidarity

In order to distribute asylum seekers fairly, we would instead like to see a create a two-tier system with positive incentives to strengthen solidarity.

The first stage is based on voluntary solidarity. It is based on the willingness of cities and regions to take in refugees. In Germany alone more than 150 cities, towns and municipalities have declared themselves safe havens. The EU should further promote such willingness to take in refugees by assuming the costs.

The second stage is based on binding solidarity by all EU Member States: If voluntary admission reaches its limits, member states will create new reception places or make a financial contribution to the total cost of admission. If this is not sufficient either, the EU Commission will solve the problem with a yellow card a warning system and takes further action if necessary.

Those who do not want to help must pay

The Commission shall ensure, through a transparent monitoring mechanism, that all Member States comply with the rules of the Common European Asylum System and that asylum seekers everywhere are provided with decent conditions in accordance with common minimum standards.

We need an asylum system that rewards and encourages solidarity, not punishes it. The times when states are ashamed of helping people in need must be over. European values will be abolished if it continues to be worthwhile for EU members to refuse to show any solidarity.Those who want to help must be supported. Those who don't want to help should pay for it.