The solution to this refugee crisis? A revised EU treaty

(…)“What will never work, in my view, is the solution proposed by Angela Merkel and the European Commission: a system of quotas, centrally determined in Brussels and imposed on the nations of the EU. Such a solution is bound to be arbitrary – the figures bandied about in Berlin take no account of population density or mobility – but most importantly it is profoundly undemocratic.

Unless the EU can agree on a much more flexible system, allowing countries to control their borders and fix their criteria for asylum, welfare and work, I predict that this chaos will result in social unrest and a political upheaval that could see Marine Le Pen replace Merkel as Europe’s most powerful woman.”(…)

Daniel Johnson is editor of Standpoint

The solution to this refugee crisis? A revised EU treaty

Daniel Johnson / Sunday 6 September 2015 00.04 BST / PÚBLICO

The principle of free movement with the EU was conceived in a different world. We need a new agreement that fits the times we are living in

ll rational considerations are jettisoned in the prevailing emotional atmosphere. British policy hitherto has been based on the principle that it is better to help refugees from Syria and elsewhere on the spot, rather than encouraging an exodus by granting asylum to large numbers over here. That policy still has much to be said for it. Now, though, Britain will apparently take thousands of refugees directly from their camps. This obviates the need for a perilous journey at the mercy of people-traffickers and the elements, but also creates a new “pull factor” for migrants.

The problem for Cameron, however, is that public opinion in Britain is not ready to accept hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers, even if such an influx were desirable. As long as immigration is running at record levels of between 300,000 and 400,000 a year, with the majority remaining in the crowded south-east and public services already struggling to cope, public attitudes won’t change. Once people realise that their children are competing for school places with the new arrivals, or queues in hospitals get longer and pressure grows on housing, they will blame refugees just as, fairly or unfairly, they blame other immigrants now. Unlike Germany, a larger country with a rapidly ageing and shrinking population, Britain is living through a baby boom and has no shortage of young people.

What is the solution? The European migration system – Schengen, Dublin and the rest of the regulatory apparatus – is evidently broken beyond repair. The choice is stark. Either we turn the EU into a fortress, while still allowing free movement within its borders, or we allow each country to reach its own accommodation, taking into account economic prosperity, public acceptance and, of course, geography.

Some countries – Italy, Greece, Hungary – are overwhelmed simply because they happen to be en route to the refugees’ preferred destinations. Others are resistant because they are too poor or lacking in cultural diversity. Richer countries can afford to be more “compassionate”, but such toleration may evaporate if, as in the UK, sheer numbers undermine the social solidarity necessary to underpin a welfare state.

What will never work, in my view, is the solution proposed by Angela Merkel and the European Commission: a system of quotas, centrally determined in Brussels and imposed on the nations of the EU. Such a solution is bound to be arbitrary – the figures bandied about in Berlin take no account of population density or mobility – but most importantly it is profoundly undemocratic.

Unless the EU can agree on a much more flexible system, allowing countries to control their borders and fix their criteria for asylum, welfare and work, I predict that this chaos will result in social unrest and a political upheaval that could see Marine Le Pen replace Merkel as Europe’s most powerful woman.

The principle of free movement within the EU was conceived in a different world, when the EU was a smaller, more homogenous customs union, rather than the sprawling, porous patchwork it has become. It would be better to acknowledge that the facts have changed and negotiate a new treaty that fits the times we are living in.

It goes without saying that Merkel, Hollande and even Cameron are so wedded to the status quo that they are most unlikely to rise to the challenge of the migration crisis. In that case, though, Brexit will become more likely – and with it, the possibility that the EU as we have known it will disintegrate.

There is nothing inevitable about this scenario. But the failure of European statesmanship so far has been very striking. Unless our leaders can be persuaded to lead, rather than improvising from day to day, we shall not only fail the unfortunate victims whose suffering we watch helplessly on our screens – we shall also find ourselves thrown into a political maelstrom that can only end in tears.

Daniel Johnson is editor of Standpoint