quarta-feira, 29 de janeiro de 2025

Bundestag on migration debate.

 


https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jan/29/europe-live-germany-parliament-merz-european-union-afd-news-updates?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-679a333d8f08d7cb6f2ffbd1#block-679a333d8f08d7cb6f2ffbd1

 

1h ago

16.27 CET

'We have a massive problem with crime by foreigners,' Merz says, calling for urgent action

Responding to Scholz, opposition leader and favourite to be the next chancellor Friedrich Merz said that if the words of sympathy and condolences in the Bundestag are to be meaningful, they need “effective decisions to be taken.”

 

“In Germany we have a massive problem of crime committed by foreigners, particularly among asylum seekers,” he said.

 

In his comments, Merz sought to draw a clear distinction between asylum seekers and “people with migration background,” who he said “would not be right to mention in the same sentence as criminal asylum seekers.”

 

He rejected Scholz’s complaints about the state of law, by mockingly saying “you are not the highest notary of the republic; you are the federal chancellor.”

 

“If the laws are not sufficient, then you must make suggestions for changing the laws, and not explain what the existing laws cannot do,” he said.

 

Merz warned that “the entire European immigration and asylum system has become dysfunctional,” and the attacks in Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg made him determined to “really make every attempt” to change the situation.

 

“How many more people have to be murdered? How many more children have to fall victims to such acts of violence before you believe that this is a threat to public safety and order?,” he asked.

 

He argued the situation justified to use of extraordinary powers under EU treaties for “the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.”

 

He said that if his proposals get majority support, partially due to votes from the far-right AfD, that would make him “extremely uncomfortable,” but insisted this was necessary to deal with violence.

 

He told parliament that the sight of “cheering and grinning AfD MPs will be unbearable” but maintained that “a correct decision does not become wrong just because the wrong people agree, it remains right”.

 

He said he was no longer prepared to allow other parties to dictate what proposals and with whose support can be passed.

 

3h ago

15.02 CET

Scholz's speech in Bundestag on migration - snap analysis

Kate Connolly

Berlin correspondent

 

Listing Aschaffenburg as the latest in a string of attacks by migrants – in Mannheim, Solingen, Magdeburg and Aschaffenburg – Scholz said he understood the shock and consternation that people felt, as well as vexation over the fact that “once again”, the attack had been “carried out by someone who shouldn’t have been here,” a reference to the fact that in several cases, the perpetrators had been due to be deported, but this had not happened.

 

“I understand anyone who says: ‘I’ve had enough,’ said Scholz, adding: “I too am enraged”.

 

But he went on to say that all four of the attacks “could have been avoided” under existing laws which had been tightened under the Scholz government, if they had been properly and swiftly implemented by the authorities in the various states in which the attacks took place, all of which are governed by the CDU/CSU.

 

Scholz said under his government many more deportations had taken place, including a planeload of Afghans, convicted of crimes in Germany, stating that Germany was “the only country in Europe which has been able to deport criminals to Afghanistan. It’s damned hard to do with a Taliban government but we managed it.”

 

He urged Merz not to fall into the trap of depending on the AfD for support to push through his motions to tighten Germany’s migration policy, citing in particular a letter written by the leaders of Germany’s Protestant and Catholic churches, warning that the party was departing from the ‘Christian’ in its name by supporting the motions.

 

He also warned of developments in neighbouring Austria, where the conservatives there have, he said, broken pre-election promises not to work with the far-right FPÖ, the Austrian equivalent of the AfD, but was now on the verge of entering a coalition with it.

 

3h ago

14.58 CET

German debate on migration and border controls - explainer

Kate Connolly

What is happening in the Bundestag this afternoon?

The conservative CDU/CSU alliance, under the leadership of Friedrich Merz, who according to opinion polls is the favourite to become Germany’s chancellor following elections on February 23, has submitted two motions which, if passed, could result in a 180 degree switch in Germany’s migration policy, and could have a ripple effect across Europe.

 

The sense of urgency around the issues, which have been dominating the political landscape for some time, and reflect the wider debate across Europe, are due to events last week in the city of Aschaffenburg in which a two year old girl and a 41 year old man were murdered when an Afghan migrant lunged at them in a park with a kitchen knife. The 28 year old who is in police custody had been due for deportation. He had also been receiving help for a psychological condition.

 

The circumstances around the attack – and the fact that it is the latest in a series of attacks involving migrants who were known to authorities – have prompted accusations of state failure on many levels, with plenty of people in positions of authority insisting it could have been prevented.

 

The motions put forward by Merz call for the rejection of all illegal migrants and asylum seekers, wherever they have come from, on all of Germany’s nine borders with its neighbours. The motions would also seek to broaden the powers of the security authorities to ease the process of rejection and deportation.

 

Scholz’s SPD/Greens minority government has refused to back the proposals, saying that it too has a raft of reform proposals on which the CDU/CSU has refused to engage at all, despite Scholz’s appeal for cooperation so that they could be pushed through before the election.

 

It’s important to note that Merz’s proposals would not put the government of Olaf Scholz’s SPDs and Greens under obligation to act on them. But if the conservatives’ motions got majority support in the Bundestag it would greatly escalate tensions between the CDU and Scholz’s government and would give Merz the upper hand in terms of trying to push the motion into law, the process of which could start as early as Friday.

 

The real drama around today’s debate though is about who Merz will get support from. If as it has signalled, the far-right populist AfD lends him their support, opponents of the CDU/CSU leader say he will have effectively broken the so-called ‘firewall’ – on which he has said he will stake his political fate – the promise, along with other mainstream parties, that he will never work with the AfD.

 

A poll shows that 66% of Germans support Merz’s plan.

 

If his motion is successful, what then?

The CDU/CSU could get a wafer-thin majority with the help of the pro-business FDP, and the AfD, which said yesterday it was planning to vote in favour of the motions. The backing of the left-wing conservative BSW, which had not yet publicly made up its mind by this morning whether it would support Merz, would also be needed.

 

If he loses, this will be a humiliating defeat for Merz.

 

The Bundesrat or Upper House’s backing would be required to approve the law. The earliest date for a next sitting of that house would be 14 February, nine days ahead of the general election. However, they are not likely to approve it because the CDU/CSU does not have a majority there.

 

But, once the election has taken place on 23 February, the political landscape could look decidedly different.

 

The CDU/CSU would have effectively laid the ground for the law and would be potentially in a position to adopt the law with a new coalition partner. This is not unlikely to be the SPD, as a junior partner in a grand coalition.

 

In which case it is expected that in order to make it more palatable for the SPD, the law could be watered down in parts. Seeing as a large number of SPD voters are in general in favour of tightening the law, the SPD might find its hand is forced so that it too will end up supporting an asylum stop.

Sem comentários: