Category Migration

But who will be more affected?

By Elena Alban.

On the 23rd June 2016, an event marked the history of the United Kingdom and the European Union.

«Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?>> was the question that could change the future of Europe. And it did, even if the referendum that took place in the UK was a consultative one, not legally binding, and whose results were far from being clear and decisive. The “leave” percentage won over the “remain” one just for 3,78% more, as BBC data reported.

A strong difference in the reception of the European Union can be detected in the different age of people voting “remain” or “leave”. According to BBC data, young people seem to trust more the European Union and to see it as an opportunity for their future.  In particular, the Brexit will have substantial implications on students:

1. The automatic direct of the citizens of the EU to enter directly in the UK will be no more granted: there will be the necessity to have the passport;
2. It will be required a visa or a work permit to enter the country;
3. The touristic visa will last only 3 months and for what concerns the working visa, it will be easier to access jobs for skilled workers (researches, doctors, etc…) than for unskilled workers like “pizzaiolo”, barmen, etc…
4. Studying in the UK will become more and more an opportunity destinated to an elite as the cost of education in Great Britain is higher than in Europe and many European citizens will be disadvantaged by the fact that part of the funds used to study there were provided by the EU through the application of different programmes such as the Erasmus +.

With reference to the last point, recent news has shed light on the Erasmus+ programme. On the 30^th of January 2019, the European Commission proposed a set of emergency measures to avoid the interruption of the mobility period of the students of the Erasmus + Programme in the case the UK would leave the EU without an agreement.  According to the European Commission, the regulation should grant that in the day in which the UK will leave the EU, Erasmus + mobility periods should not be interrupted. This rule should be valid for all the activities financed by the Erasmus + (including international activities in countries not part of the programme) that started before the 30^th of March 2019, both for European citizens in the UK and for English citizens in the EU.

And for those who started their mobility period after the 30^th March 2019?

The Commission proposed an emergency cross-sectional regulation based on more restrictive measures and specific conditions as specified in the “Council Regulation on measures concerning the implementation and financing of the general budget of the Union in 2019 in relation to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union”.

The destiny of the Erasmus + programme is not known. It will depend on the will of the UK and the EU to find an agreement and to renegotiate the programme not to deny students an important opportunity as the Erasmus+ is.

However, at the end of the story, what this sad situation leaves us is a strong sense of disappointment.

Besides the will to reach an agreement in order to go on granting students the opportunity to study in the UK, being the mainland of the English language, the international language used all over the world, the Brexit is the result of a losing approach toward the construction of a more united world. Cutting the bridges with the rest of Europe is the sign of the disbelief on the European Union. It could make sense, as the European Union is full of incoherencies and lacks, but it is important to look at all these negative aspects by balancing them with the positive ones. The EU is not perfect and it will never be as such, but it is the best result of international cooperation ever achieved in the course of history. To make it work, the solution is not to get away from it, but to stay in it, to get your country involved, to make your voice be heard. Escaping is never the solution as neither isolation. To get a stronger Union, there is the need for more dialogue and listening at the higher institutional level and, most of all, there is the need of creating a common culture and a common awareness on the principles on which our European society is based and that have granted more than half a century of peace for the first time in Europe. Culture is the key point to building a strong basis to deal with future challenges that mankind will have to face. These new challenges do not always refer only to events caused by human decision (such as wars, conflicts, …), but they will oblige mankind to deal with problems that it is not even able to manage, such as climate change.

The Erasmus+ is one of the best achievements of the EU in reaching an important goal like this: it helps in creating a common culture through the confrontation among different knowledges, through dialogue and mutual understanding, through strengthening links among people of different countries to create a more favourable environment for cooperation and collaboration.

Isolation cut you off the game and, in an interdependent world like ours, it will be worst first of all for UK citizens than for the European ones.

https://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/resultsh

https://www.cer.eu/insights/why-young-people-are-right-fear-brexit

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/higher-fees-for-eu-students-at-english-universities?origin=shp

FAQ sulla Brexit in Erasmus+: un po’ di chiarezza

The refugee status: a distinctive factor that must be understood as such.

By Elena Alban.

“Financial inclusion means that individuals and businesses have access to useful and affordable financial products and services that meet their needs – transactions, payments, savings, credit and insurance – delivered in a responsible and sustainable way.”

World Bank definition.

Financial inclusion plays a vital role in reducing poverty and promote a sustainable economic growth. Access to and use of financial services help people manage their cash flow, become more resilient to shocks and participate in business activities and life-cycle events by investing assets.

Anyway, there are still groups of people that lack even the most basic financial products, for instance a current account or insurance.

Financial inclusion has become an essential element to achieving the goals of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, such as reducing inequality, poverty, gender gap, hunger, getting a decent work and sustaining economic growth.

With reference to Europe, the 2013 Report on good practices on Financial Inclusion provided by the CeSPI gives evidence of the fact that financial inclusion has entered more and more the national agenda’s priorities of States.

The problem that governments must face since the last decade concerns mainly the refugee crisis of 2015, that has produced an unstable environment both at political and economic level.

In order to analyse the relation between migration and financial services, it is necessary to take a look at some fundamental variables affecting the financial needs of migrants. In this context, an important aspect is to look at what kind of migrations States and the financial system have to deal with, taking into consideration the background from where these people come from.

Refugees escaping from conflicts, such as the Syrian ones, have completely different needs than economic immigrants.

Thus, with reference to the refugee status, States must be more strongly committed in implementing not only civil and political rights, but also social and economic rights, given the precarious and difficult situations these people come from.

It is in this framework that financial inclusion takes place. It is a powerful concept to allow people to get access to the financial services and products, that are necessary to provide them with the basis on which to build a kind of economic stability. Moreover, financial inclusion is more and more essential in advanced economies, such as in Europe, where the financial system has already developed and plays a vital role in people’s life.

Several practices have been implemented at the national level. Examples are the housing associations or the Toynbee Hall in UK, the Santander bank action plan and El Plan Nacional de Educaciòn Financiera in Spain, or ADIE in France. Anyway, according to the 2013 Report on good practices on Financial Inclusion provided by the CeSPI, the majority of these practices are based on an universal approach, meaning that they do not concern specific groups of the population, but they are mainly focused only on disadvantaged and vulnerable subjects at risk of social exclusion, given their poverty status, to avoid to use the immigrant category as a distinguishing factor.

The issue here is that the migrant category, in particular the refugee one, is a distinctive factor and it must be concerned like that, as refugees rely on a economic and social basis completely different from that one of citizens or of economic immigrants in the host country.

Even if according to the Geneva Convention of 1951, refugees have to be reserved the same rights as those of immigrants from other countries, when talking about positive obligations of the State, there is the need to create ad hoc financial inclusion policies for the refugee category. Some practices adopted in Germany, such as Investitionsbank Berlin’s program to give microcredits to refugees, have given evidence that this will benefit not only the host advanced European societies, but also the refugees too. Through a stronger cooperation between the normative and the private sector, it is possible to create a more favourable environment for both actors participating in the financial system.

Being poor in a rich country maybe is worst than being poor in a poor one. In advanced economies poor people are left alone, society runs fast and it does not care if you are put of the game. That’s why financial inclusion becomes so important: it is the key to get and achieve the most basic services (such as a salary) to get your rights be respected.

---

[https://www.uncdf.org/financial-inclusion-and-the-sdgs

Buone pratiche di Inclusione Finanziaria: uno sguardo Europea, CeSPI, 2013

Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951

If at the end you feel good for nothing, freedom is just another word.

By Elena Alban.

“It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”

Fredric Jameson

This is a strong statement that, unfortunately, hides some truth.

The Frederic Jameson’s statement is, thus, used by Mark fisher to explain how people feel, when embedded in a system they are not able to manage: they fear losing their jobs, their pensions, … for them it is easier to imagine the end of their lives than the end of capitalism.

In particular, Fisher talks about a sort of capitalism linked to a current of thought that developed in the 80s until today: neoliberalism. Fisher claims that our societies, our liberal democracies have been overcome by the exasperation of that freedom on which capitalism and free trade are based. An exasperation that reduces freedom to the mere rational choice, without taking into consideration other factors affecting human decisions. In this context, the free market is untied by ethic and moral constraints, identifying itself with the romantic ideal of a perfect society, based on a perfect competition, where all people act as efficient and informed entrepreneurs, able to maximize their own interests.

But could this ideal society even remotely reflect the reality?

Of course, not. Neoliberalism is a limited concept, as it takes into consideration only one part of human personality in making decisions, making choices and living everyday life. Indeed, on the other hand, it neglects those aspects of the human being that cannot be foreseen by rationality, that cannot provide certainty, that can fall out of rules, norms, routines, without having necessarily a rational or comprehensive justification. Moreover, it takes for granted that self-interested ways of action are just positive, by realising own’s freedom and by letting it invade others’ spheres of freedom.

It is a concept that cannot be compatible with the democratic one.

In the article “Good For Nothing”, published in “The Occupied Times” in March 2014, there is evidence of it. According to Mark Fisher, powerless, depression, resentment are the outcomes of the neoliberal system. In particular, depression is the illness of our society and it lays on the contradictory idea of what Fisher calls “reflective impotence”: on one hand, the concept of “responsabilization” has been a successful tactic of the ruling class; on the other hand our society teaches us according to the line of thought called “magic voluntarism”. The responsabilization criterium encourages each member of the subordinate class into “feeling that their poverty, lack of opportunities or unemployment is their fault and their fault alone” (Article “Good For Nothing”). “Magic voluntarism” refers to the “dominant ideology and unofficial religion of our contemporary societies”, according to which “it is within every individual’s power to make themselves whatever they want” (Article “Good For Nothing”).

So you find yourself without the sufficient means and tools to change your life (and it is your fault), but you are taught you can do everything, you can choose what you want to be. You are in a jail, you do not have the keys to open the door, but you can open the door, if you want. Depression takes place, when you understand you are not the kind of people who can act to change the system, so let’s say… you feel good for nothing.

Depression is what people suffer when political institutions are not able to counterbalance the economic system.

By starting from the assumption that it’s not man who is made for economics, but it is economics made for man, the liberal economic system in itself is not bad. Anyway, the invisible hand of Adam Smith can work and provide for positive outcomes if all human facets are taking into account. So, where the economic rationality cannot solve the problem, there is the need of the State and politics in intervining and giving solutions to what at least concerns the most basic human rights issues.

We stand for liberal democracies: it means we stand for a free market system, respectful of human life and freedom, mutually limited and balanced by a political one, defending the fundamental rights of mankind, the democratic principles and the rule of law. Liberal democracies are based on the rule of law, not on the rule of money and there are some areas you cannot put a price on and that should be granted for all, such as health and education.

Not only workers, unemployed and retired people are affected by this decadence of the welfare state, but a special focus should also be reserved to young people, in particular students.

Today, a bachelor degree alone is not enough, so people feel obliged to do a master. It is better to be specialised in a particular subject. The more qualifications, experience and skills you have on your CV, the more chances you have in getting a job in your studied subject.

Neoliberalism is always on the run, it does not wait for anyone. You have to be prepared, to enter the system you have to be already taught.

So can a right be bought?

When our most basic rights are deprived of their human inherent nature and become just market goods, at that point it’s hardly surprising if we just feel good for nothing. 

---

M. Fisher, “Capitalism Realism”, John Hunt Publishing, 2009

M. Fisher, “Good For Nothing”. The Occupied Times, 2014

The opening of a new scenario: the first European Union rule of law crisis.

By Elena Alban.

The Article 2 of the European Union Treaty states: “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail”.

Nowadays, democratic values seem to be in danger, even in Europe, where most of the times they have always been taken for granted. At the European Economic and Social Committee Conference on  “Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law – Trends in the EU from a civil society perspective”, held on the 5^th of November 2019, in Brussels, the Group on Fundamental Rights and the Rule of Law (FRRL) reported the perception (and the reality) of a general crisis within European democratic culture.

The Brexit and the rise of populism have been born in an unsatisfactory political and economic environment, that has not been able to provide answers toward the crisis Europe is still facing today.

Indeed, the European Union presents a strong and consistent lack, what is better known as “democratic deficit”.

The term “democratic deficit” is used to put in evidence the inaccessibility perceived by the EU ordinary citizens toward EU institutions and policies, due to their complexity. It reflects the absence of an effective European policy, able to provide appropriate answers to the new challenges of the recent years, such as the migration and refugee crisis and the recessionist economic crisis. Actually, the concept does not refer to the inability of European institutions on reacting to these phenomena, but it better concerns the fact that at EU level, citizens do not feel themselves involved. In this regard, populist movements and separationist movements are born as the expression of feelings of anger and disappointment in relation to a world that seems extraneous toward own’s ordinary life.

It was destined at a political goal, that reached its first real turning point in 2009 with the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, he pointed out the importance to link article 2 of the European Union Treaty with article 7, in order to solve the so-called “Copenhagen dilemma”. Indeed, with reference to article 7 the decision of suspension of some rights, as a consequence of the violation of article 2, is submitted only to the competence of the Council (a political body), as the role of the EU Court of Justice concerns only procedular prescriptions (article 269, Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).

In this context, the “Copenhagen dilemma” is an extremely high important problem EU institutions have to face, when talking about democracy, as it implies consequences for those Member States that do not respect the Treaty of Lisbon.

Thus, here is the problem: as EU governance cannot still be identified as attributable to the one of a State entity, but it is reflected in the form of “no government”, how can EU effectively act in order to prevent such democratic crisis within Member States?

How can EU manage to put in action more sever policies toward the unrespect of the fundamental values, without finding itself submitted to national self-interested policies?

CIVIL SOCIETY is the answer.

If top down actions cannot work, because of the strong power Member States have within the European context, there is the need to change direction. European Union approach needs to be bottom up. Even if all EU policies are integrated to own’s ordinary life through the State, it does not mean that EU institutions should be totally unlinked to citizenship. The key weapon to face such a global crisis of democracy is to look at where democracy effectively lies: to citizens.

Civil society plays a fundamental role, both for the Member States and for the European Union as it is the scenario in which all policies take place. Even if at the institutional level some EU organizations of civil society are already functioning (like the Conference of NGOs), there is evidence of the need to rethink a stronger cooperation, especially in these years of crisis.

A cooperation that can take life in different forms: through promoting a shared European culture, through the education of citizens on the functioning and the values of EU as an international organization, through the building of new bounds with the activity of the Council of Europe (that plays a vital role in the respect of human rights, by providing every year an annual report on the 47 Member States, and so on the 28 EU Member States too), through a collaboration with NGOs to organize more on-spot visits on countries or through the deepening of monitory mechanisms in Member States (such as the one promoted by the FRRL group on the annual rule of law cycle with a final report synthetizing positive and negative developments and trends that, consequently,  shall be discussed within the Parliament and the Council).

The democratic deficit is not a consequence of populist and separationist crisis, it is the cause and the cause does not lie within member states only, but firstly within EU.

https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/news-media/press-releases/eesc-holds-its-first-conference-rule-law-highlighting-importance-all-encompassing-response-breaches-rights-and-values

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/5/the-treaty-of-lisbon

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/democratic_deficit.html

Isn’t it time to change our minds?

By Elena Alban.

On the 24^th and the 25^th October 2019, the 8^th University-Business forum was held at Mont Des Art, in Bruxelles. The Forum brought together policymakers, representatives from higher education, business and other stakeholders to discuss and debate the role of university-business cooperation for innovation and sustainable development. The conferences that took place were focused on the actual need of integrating university training with the activity of firms. Entrepreneurship, sustainability and digitalization have been at the centre of the debates.

It was underlined the importance of creating a strong cooperation between students’ learning and their involvement into the labour and market world. This necessity was supported by the fact that it must be part of the priority agenda of politics, economics and education adopting both different technics of teaching and learning at university and a different approach toward education by entrepreneurs and firms.

During the conferences, it was highlighted the fact that a mutual relationship exists between the market world and the educational one. Firms should invest in higher education and universities in order to promote research and development from which they themselves can benefit. Universities should accept the evolution to which knowledge is subjected nowadays, especially due to the digital revolution of the last decades. We are not talking about a kind of knowledge that lasts for some times (as in the past); we are talking about an ongoing changing knowledge, that develops day by day. It is in this context that universities should adopt an approach more focused on making students become more proactive, more challenging and creative toward the external world, in order to offer to the labour market human capital able to keep up the speed of the technological and digital challenges.

A key-point of the conference was, indeed, the concept of lifelong learning, meaning the fact that due to all these types of evolutions (from the educational to the digital to the environmental ones), learning (at all ages) never ends, neither for firms as for universities.

The university-business cooperation was so included in a broader framework based on sustainable development. Borhene Chakroun, secretiariat of UNESCO, reminded the goals of the 2030 Millennium Agenda, among which poverty and inequality, sustainable development, digitalization, gender equality, health, climate change and education are the main top priorities and he emphasized how important is to create a stronger link between innovation, education and entrepreneurship in order to face these challenges.

Anyway, to put them into action, it is necessary to consider also the type of space in which we are going to act.
All these beautiful projects risk to remain abstract ideas when introduced in the actual neoliberal context that is governing the world today.

We speak of entrepreneurship in a world that does not allow to take risks.

We speak of digitalization skills in a world that runs too fast, in a world that does not allow to the same creators of those skills the time to experience their new inventions, as other innovations are already required. In particular, digitalization is a subtle theme. There is no doubt on the necessity  of supporting technological and digital innovation for what concerns science and the study of the world around us, but we should look also at the other side of the medal: the risk concerns the fact that artificial intelligence could replace not only technical and scientific skills, but also human responsibilities that individuals should have toward the society and toward each other.

We speak of risking and being proactive. As highlighted from the forum panel “Developing an entrepreneurial culture”, firms do not risk, they do not invest on education and on research.

And do you know why?

Because education and research need time, a time that our economic system, aimed at increasing the value of its final production, is not able to conceive.

There is the necessity to change our mind, to adopt a different approach toward education, work, business. We have not to be focused only on the final result of our action, but we need to look also at the way through which we can get the goals, because, as in the words of an Italian writer, “a tree with much foliage and few roots is uprooted at the first gust of wind. In a tree with many roots and few foliage, the sap barely flows. Roots and foliage must grow in equal measure, you have to stay in things and stand on them, so that in this way you can offer shade and shelter, in this way in the right season your tree will cover itself with flowers and fruits.” (Susanna Tamaro, 1994).

https://ec.europa.eu/education/events/8th-university-business-forum_en

https://unric.org/it/agenda-2030

By Diogo T. dos Santos

Last Thursday, April 25, ECEPAA attended the conference “Global Compact for Migration: Controversy and Media” at the Press Club Brussels Europe. The talk was on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration non-legally binding agreement adopted by most UN Member States in December 2018, in Morroco.

However, not every country was in accordance with the objectives of the agreement. Though it had more of a symbolic nature, the five countries that voted against and twelve abstained ones had perhaps something in common.

What is the Global Compact for Migration?

It would have been an inter-governmentally negotiated agreement of non-binding nature to comprehensively and holistically comprehend all fields of international migration. Such an agreement was an opportunity for ameliorating the governance on migration, approaching major issues of the recent circumstances migrates face around the globe.

[…] judgement about ways of securing borders and on the criteria for admitting legal residency or granting citizenship is among the pillars of a country’s sovereignty not subject to international instruments.

The 23 objectives for international migration

The process of mediation between the member states ended up in twenty-three (23) objectives:

1. Collect and utilise accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies
2. Minimise the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin
3. Provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration
4. Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
5. Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
6. Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work
7. Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration
8. Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants
9. Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
10. Prevent, combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration
11. Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
12. Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment and referral
13. Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
14. Enhance consular protection, assistance and cooperation throughout the migration cycle
15. Provide access to basic services for migrants
16. Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion
17. Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration
18. Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications and competences
19. Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries
20. Promote faster, safer and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants
21. Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration
22. Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits
23. Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly and regular migration.

The Ones Against

United States, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, and Israel were the ones against the Global Compact for Migration. Some of them posed their reasons and drew our attention.

The representative of the United States clarified their position by explaining that the goals and objectives of the agreement were “inconsistent and incompatible” with American law and policy, stressing on the idea that judgement about ways of securing borders and the criteria for admitting legal residency or granting citizenship is among the pillars of a country’s sovereignty irrespective of international instruments.

Can these acts be considered nationalist, being taken by populist governments?

Poland, in the same line, affirmed that the Global Compact is not the correct instrument for handling the migration phenomenon, turning out not to serve the best interest of the nation and its people. Polish government, therefore, maintains the sovereign position as for restringing the admission of non-nationals.

To what extent do international decisions affect a country’s sovereignty?

Israel’s prime minister had already instructed their foreign minister that the agreement should not be signed, justifying the act given that they have a committed duty to protect their borders “against illegal infiltrators.”

The Ones Abstained

The ones abstained were Austria, Australia, Algeria, Bulgaria, Chile, Singapore, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Switzerland, Libya, Liechtenstein. Some of them call ECEPAA’s attention given the role they play in Europe in the migration decisions and discussions.

Austria, for instance, affirms that the human right to migrate is not included in their legal order, and that the distinction of a legal or illegal migrant, which was assumed to be “clear” in the country, would be ruined with what the agreement poses.

Italy, more briefly, decided that a postponed discussion had been already scheduled for a parliamentary debate precisely on the Global Compact for Migration. For that reason, therefore, they also abstained from the agreement.

Has it failed, then?

Well, as a matter of fact, it would be nonsensical to assume that such an agreement would have failed with 152 countries voting for it, regardless of its non-binding aspect. It is clear that the international community, as a whole, is inclined to act in accordance with international instruments.

However, some of the countries that were either against or abstained from the Global Compact for Migration have important international and, more specially, European roles. Italy is considered one of the point of access for migrants who come through the Mediterranean Sea. Such an abstentions of theirs might suggest that there is still reluctance to the migration issue. If you add Hungary, Poland, Austria, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Romania to the equation, one is able to view that the division on migration policies reform is still present.

Naturally, ECEPAA attempts to cope with the responsibilities of integrating European citizens through its projects, researches and active work between partners from all over Europe.

WATCH OUR VIDEO

Sources:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/nine-eu-members-stay-away-from-un-migration-pact/
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Migration/Pages/GlobalCompactforMigration.aspx
https://www.lifegate.com/people/news/world-refugee-day-action-against-hunger
https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/ga12113.doc.htm
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-wont-sign-global-migration-pact-netanyahu-announces/

By Diogo T. dos Santos

The topics on nationalism and populism have been posed as crucial to the future of the European politics and also as a reason for division between member states, which has consequences in more specific fields (for instance, that of migration policy reform). The panels focused on potential difficulties to be faced by European governments with regards to migration, security and defense, and the role of media.

As a keynote given by Dr. Richard Sakwa, some very interesting remarks were pointed out, and an overview of the current global context that is related to nationalism and populism was given with some very convenient observations. One of them, for example, was the misuse of the so-called “crisis in Europe” as a reference to what is currently occurring in Europe. As a matter of fact, according to Sakwa, such a crisis is indeed taking place in certain parts of Europe, though the “crisis” is actually for the refugees themselves and other specific regions across the globe.

“[…] the ‘crisis’ is actually for the refugees themselves […]”

Regarding the notions of populism, more specifically, Sakwa mentioned it as being sometimes regarded as an instrument of political renewal (referring to recent “updates” of the political agenda and discussion), as though it were seen as “the authentic voice of democracy,” of the people; whereas it has also, paradoxically, been referred to as “anti-pluralist” and not considering people’s voice as important. As a matter of course, this given notion is that of a general view when confronted with what the world is living nowadays with the rise of many populist and nationalist governments (either left- or right-wing).

How does is affect migration discussions?

The first panel of the conference “Securitisation of the Migrant: At the Border & Beyond” brings particular attention to ECEPAA. It had the participation of Gulwali Passarlay, spokesperson for refugees and asylum seekers, Pia Klemp, human-rights activist, Kumut Imesh*, who has been active in supporting and assisting migrants and is currently living in France as a refugee, and Marianna Karakoulaki, humanitarian reporter.

A very heartbreaking but true information mentioned during that discussions is that about half of the refugees and displaced people in the world are children. It was asserted that migration itself is not a security matter; rather, security talks and decisions are based on “fear” and on the fact that migration might “bother” a specific community. Those factors might be the motives which lead an individual hold a position that is in accordance with a populist and, potentially, nationalist parties’ discourse and propaganda.

Are governments creating policies and environments that foster both its citizens and newcomers to integrate and assimilate each other’s customary practices and beliefs?

Another interesting thing pointed out was that the definition of the word “refugee” is still not well comprehended by the majority. Besides the distorted notion populist candidates give, the media is also the one to blame for communicating a distorted meaning of the term to the public, hence conducting people to imprecise conclusions and incoherent associations. Certain people, then, are not as engaged in the happenings and are easily influenced by populist rhetoric**.

“[…] the media is also the one to blame for communicating a distorted meaning of the term to the public […]”

If there is a struggle or a clash between different cultures, is it not better to approach these issues via intercultural means rather than multicultural ones?

There are questions that should not fade away in face of what history has showed us and of what society is witnessing right now.

Watch our video!

*Kumut Imesh has taken part in a documentary in which he attempts to retrace and retake the same paths he walked through in his journey to Europe. You can watch the documentary for free at: http://revenirfilm.com/

**During the discussion, the speaker referred to “right-wing” politicians. However, as the author of this article and in the light of my own understanding and opinion, I claim that the same influential effect can be noted under any political or ideological orientation.

Sources:
All notes were taken from the presentations and exchange of ideas done at the conference.
https://www.facebook.com/bsisconference/

By Diogo T. dos Santos

About a week ago, ECEPAA attended a conference along with other representatives of other organizations and professionals engaged in the non-profit organizations sector. The discussions consisted of topics from written “Policy Papers*” stemming from internal security matters, asylum and migration policies, to notions on the single market in the European Union.

Though such researchers did not attend the discussion sessions, Andrew Geddes and Martin Ruhs’ paper “Reforming Asylum and Migration Policies in Europe: Attitudes, Realism and Values” was referred to and talked about by other panelists, and it drew particular attention to ECEPAA.

How should EU Member States face the Asylum and Migration Policies issue?

EU Member States find themselves divided by attempting to figure out how to reform and reconstruct European asylum, refugee and migration policies. Although the number of new asylum applications has drastically reduced in the last year—in 2018, about 580,800 first-time asylum seekers were registered, a number considered low comparing with the years of 2015 and 2016 when number struck more than 1,200,000 applications a year—, talks about migration issues are still heated and without a definite solution.

” More Europe and greater solidarity” or “national or trans-national policy responses”?

Part of the Member States holds the position that the solution for such a challenge would be focusing on “more Europe” and “greater solidarity,” which means that a centralized EU asylum system and the sense of solidarity between countries could bring a brighter horizon. Others, however, face EU policy reform as unreachable and are fed up with waiting, hence making them take actions via national or trans-national policy responses.

So… How to approach the problem?

Among diverse policy proposals pouring around at the European Commission, Geddes and Ruhs argue that, in order to facilitate a reform, discussion and agreement should be engaged. Approaching the problem under the light of ideas exchanged in a debate and finally reaching an agreement are more effective because there has to be:

• a better understanding of public attitudes;
• a greater realism;
• a better definition of fundamental values conducting policy reform.

ECEPAA is highlighting the very first fundamental issue, which is understanding attitudes to migration in Europe and its motivations is essential for advancing with policy making. There is need to clarify, for once, that there is no increasing of negative feelings towards EU immigrants in spite of some far-right (as they are usually regarded) political leaders behave as being against immigration. Civil society is certainly not, but some powerful sections of the European population hold power enough to support highly influencing anti-immigration rhetoric. A large portion of Europeans have a more conservative orientation that directs them at favoring tradition, security, and conformity, but that does not mean they are not in accordance or not sympathizing with the distressing situation refugees go through. It only so happens that these citizens correlated chaos and disorder with the migration crisis.

Their standpoint, Geddes and Ruhs’ one, is particularly interesting and considerable given almost all recent new policy proposals had no agreement between EU member states in the course of the last four years. ECEPAA upholds their view on how the asylum and migration policy reform should be approached and undertaken.

Watch our video

Do not forget to share with us your thoughts about this issue!👇

*If you want to take a look at the other panelists’ papers, all works are available at: http://europeangovernanceandpolitics.eui.eu/what-agenda-for-the-next-european-parliament/

Sources:
http://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/61596
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9665546/3-14032019-AP-EN.pdf/eca81dc5-89c7-4a9d-97ad-444b6bd32790