Don’t dismiss the 4am EU deal on migration
HOW many lasting decisions in life are made at four o’clock in the morning? That was the very late hour when bleary-eyed EU leaders concluded their latest attempt to solve the migration problem that has so destabilised Europe, and made the decisive contribution to Brexit. Indeed, the whole plan has within hours already been dismissed as a fig leaf to hide the deep divisions between European nations, and within them.
Its principal purpose is clearly to save the skin of the German Chancellor who, long in office and reaping the consequences of her decision to welcome a million migrants to her country three years ago, faces defenestration at the hands of Bavarian conservatives. At the heart of the 4am deal is the idea that individual EU states on the frontline will try to restrict the free movement of asylum-seekers into Europe’s hinterland (i.e. Germany); and other EU states (i.e. Germany) will help resettle genuine refugees so that the likes of Italy and Greece don’t bear all the burden. The problem is that it’s all voluntary.
No one expects the new Italian populist government to do anything other than point new migrants towards the road to Munich. No one expects anyone to lift the load off Italy and Greece by agreeing to house substantially more refugees — the domestic populist pressures all European governments face make that impossible. So is the agreement worthless?
No. It’s very far from solving the problem but it does contain the elements that must surely form part of any enduring solution. Migration is a huge challenge that confronts developed countries, and it won’t go away. The population of Africa, and many parts of Asia, is rapidly growing. While those continents are becoming richer, the disparity with incomes in Europe and North America is stark. Social media and ubiquitous access to mobile phones mean families seeking a better life can see it is available — and access smugglers who will help them reach it.
Brutal police states in Libya and Syria that used to block the travel routes have collapsed — and because the West was not prepared to intervene to end their civil wars, millions in those countries have done what all of us would do in that situation, and fled the violence. Meanwhile, fears in Western countries of the cultural change that mass migration brings fuels a populist backlash — while at the same time their legal systems honour the commitment to providing refuge and protecting the persecuted that is at the core of a civilised society.
These are hugely powerful, complex and contradictory forces. Voting for Brexit, and shouting from the sidelines that the problem needs to be sorted, isn’t going to solve it; nor, as the large numbers of non-EU migrants still coming to the UK show us — and the recent memory of the encampments at Calais reminds us — can we cut ourselves off. The solution lies in working collectively among European states on a common approach — even after we leave the EU — and helping those on the frontline like Italy and Greece handle the pressures. We need to accept that these migrants want to come to London, not Lesbos or Lucca.
It involves permanent big financial commitments to North African and Middle Eastern states to help process migrants before they reach Europe. It means a strong, well-policed southern European coastline — rather than thinking our own coastline will shield us from the world. It requires us to redraft Western asylum rules, so we maintain immigration rules by returning undocumented economic migrants to third countries that are not at war but are not perfect liberal democracies — otherwise we risk losing popular support for helping those fleeing persecution. Almost all these elements are in this morning’s deal. Instead of dismissing it, let’s try to make it work.