Chapter 3. Issues Contributing to Euroscepticism
3.1 Immigration
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3.1 Immigration
Many eurosceptic political leaders have called for their nations to withdraw from the Schengen area, an area that they believe has been the cause of many problems, including the current European refugee situation. There were two main factors that contributed to the increase in criticism of the free movement of people in the EU. The first factor was the rise of immigration within the EU in order to find better paid jobs in other member states, while the second factor was the 2011 European migrant crisis. These two cases represent completely different motivations based on which people decided to emigrate to other countries. Nevertheless, immigration is deeply related to the idea of the Schengen area and when it intensifies, it becomes a tool used by eurosceptic politicians to win over the peoples' votes.
The first aforementioned issue primarily concerns Western European member states that provide opportunities to Central and Eastern Europeans to earn more money than they could possibly make in their home countries. As a result, many Polish, Hungarian and other Europeans who joined Schengen area in 2007 have chosen Sweden, Norway, UK, the Netherlands, and Germany as their new destinations to find well-paid jobs. Oftentimes, working abroad means paying taxes to and adopting the cultural practices of the state in which they currently reside. As a result, a majority of the migrant workers are entitled to the same social benefits as the local people.
The primary criticism of eurosceptic politicians concerns those immigrants that take advantage of their national systems and exploit their social funds, as well as the number of people that emigrate in order to find well-paid jobs. Eurosceptic parties have expressed their disapproval toward Schengen area, which they claim makes it difficult for their own citizens to work in their own countries because all of the jobs have already been procured by foreigners. In reality, while it has been confirmed that some Central and Eastern Europeans take advantage of national systems and social funds, there is only an insignificant percentage of foreign workers who exploit government
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
welfare. The majority of immigrants actually do pay taxes and contribute to the society in which they are currently living. Moreover, many eurosceptic political parties accuse foreign workers of taking every possible job opportunity at the expense of the local people. In reality, most locals do not apply for these jobs because of their low salaries and lack of opportunities for future career growth. Many employers admit that they prefer to hire cheap labor from Central or Eastern Europe simply because they are well-qualified, hardworking, and skillful workers. Unfortunately, some people still remain uninformed about the reality of the situation and openly express their disapproval toward immigration policy, thus making them potential eurosceptic party voters.
The aftermath of the 2011 Libyan and Syrian Civil Wars (2011 – present) has been devastating for the European continent. Military intervention in Libya, led by NATO forces succeeded in abolishing Muammar Gaddafi's dictatorship and appointing a new, temporary government. This event can be characterized by a sarcastic saying concerning international security and defense - “Be nice to America, or we'll bring democracy to your country.” The establishment of democracy in a country previously ruled by a ruthless dictator is always welcomed by the international society. However, when a country or alliance decides to enact a military intervention and institute a new democratic government, it must be certain that state is prepared for a new political system that will last for many years. Unfortunately, this was not the case for Libya. The withdrawal of the NATO coalition led to yet another Libyan Civil War that has continued to the present. The Syrian case is quite similar but there was no military intervention because of UN disapproval, one of the main factors being Russia's alliance with the Syrian regime. These two major civil wars resulted in an extreme influx of refugees from those regions into the EU. Needless to say, once the possibility of illegal emigration proved highly successful, many people from African countries decided to leave their home and try to reach the EU borders. Most refugees decided to take the sea route to reach Europe on overwhelmingly overloaded ferries. Several migrant vessel incidents that resulted in an estimated 4000 deaths have already been reported.24 In
24 NBC News, “Sea of Death: Many Migrants Drown Trying to Reach Italy,” (April 2015).
‧
November 2014, the European Commission under Italian control decided to begin Operation Triton to prevent the escalation of illegal emigration. The entire mission is now being extended for 2015-2016 with a budget of €120 million.25
Table 3.2 Asylum applicants (including first time asylum applicants), Q1 2014 – Q1 2015
Country Asylum applicants
Those refugees who are lucky enough to endure the journey to reach the European continent often choose well developed EU countries as their final destinations. Because of the Dublin Regulation signed in 2013 the EU member states are obliged to receive and then examine the asylum seekers who pursue international protection. This regulation states that the “common policy on asylum, including a Common European Asylum System (CEAS), is a constituent part of the European Union’s objective of progressively establishing an area of freedom, security and justice open to those who, forced by circumstances, legitimately seek protection in the Union.”.26 Problems arises when the number of refugees seeking asylum in EU countries exceeds the number that they can accept. In response, the European Commission submitted a proposal to alter the immigration quotas for all EU member states.
However, this solution was highly criticized by some member states, especially the Visegrad group.
Consequently, Poland and Slovakia announced that they would only accept Christian emigrants, and Hungary decided to build a fence along its border with Serbia.
25 EurActiv, “NGOs: Migration summit fell short of expectations,” (April 2015).
26 Official Journal of the European Union, “Regulations (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013,” (June 2013).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The clear demand for the rapid implementation of a common EU migration and asylum policy, to be confirmed in a vote in the European parliament, would be wholly unacceptable to a United Kingdom that already has levels of immigration that are too high, and as Isis have previously threatened, could lead to half a million Islamic extremists coming to our countries and posing a direct threat to our civilisation.
27Nigel Farage (UKIP)
For eurosceptic political parties, the migrant crisis served as a confirmation of their ideology, which describes the Schengen area as a defective creation. Eurosceptic leaders declined to accept refugees because their countries were already dealing with problems regarding job-seeking emigrants (the UK, the Netherlands, and France), they had limited financial resources (Italy, Hungary, and Greece), or they simply did not want to grant the asylum for people who claimed Islam as their religion (Poland and Slovakia).
Surprisingly, these leaders have plenty of supporters among the EU member states concerning the issue of non-EU immigration. In the end, the resettlement plan was accepted by the EU while only four countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia) voted against it, and one – Finland, abstained.
However, the European Commission was prepared to deal with this criticism. What happened later made the immigration crisis even more difficult to solve, simply because of the increasing number of Europeans opposed to the EU's current refugee policy undermined their overall national security.
On the evening of 13 November 2015, the whole world was shocked by the events that took place in Paris. Nine perpetrators, all affiliated with ISIS, conducted terrorist attacks in six different locations in the French capital, which resulted in a total of 130 fatalities. The international community condemned the actors responsible for this act of terror and promised further actions aimed at the fight against ISIS. As it was revealed later, seven of the perpetrators were holding EU passports (five French and two Belgian) and were of Arabic origin. Another two terrorists crossed the EU borders along with thousands of refugees from Syria. This revelation attracted global attention and raised concerns about the overall national security of EU member states during the migrant crisis. In the face of the Paris attacks, Francois Hollande 27 Rowena Mason, “Nigel Farage: EU response to migrant boat crisis would bring jihadis to UK,” The Guardian, (2015).
‧
declared a state of emergency in France and restored border controls in order to minimize the likelihood of future attacks by ISIS supporters. Eurosceptic Marine Le Pen criticized the actions of the French president, proclaiming that “without borders, neither protection nor security are possible”.28 The leader of the National Front had repeatedly emphasized that Schengen area had no reasonable chance for success and the terrorist attacks in Paris served as perfect support for her statement. Many European governments realized that the number of refugees crossing their borders was indeed too high for them to manage.
Before the Paris attacks, Germany was the first country to restore passport controls, largely focusing on the German-Austrian border. Following this event, Austria followed suit with another neighboring country – Slovenia.29 At the same time, Sweden gave special attention to people coming across Öresund Bridge from Denmark by checking their identity documents.30 Undeniably, actions taken by member states' governments to restore temporary border controls were based on the obligation to secure their citizens against the influx of potential terrorists into their countries. In accordance with the Schengen agreement, these kinds of security methods are approved by the European Commission, but only for a short period of time. In other circumstances, such measures would undermine the effectiveness of the Shengen area itself.
The events of November 2015 had a tremendous effect on French regional elections on the 6th and 13th of December 2015. Needless to say, the main focus of the various political campaign turned out to be national security. The Eurosceptic National Front could not have imagined a better time to attack one of the EU's greatest achievements – the Schengen agreement, and to increase their popularity in France. Their campaign was characterized by anti-Islamic, anti-immigration, and anti-EU slogans, which day by day gained growing popularity, especially in rural areas. On December 6, the National Front shocked the whole European community by securing yet another victory at the national level, receiving 27.73% of the votes. The Union for a Popular Movement, led by Nicolas Sarkozy finished in second place (26.65%) and the Socialists came in third (23.12%).31 These results precisely show how the EU's refugee policy in member states contributes to making eurosceptic parties stronger in the national-level elections. However, 28 Anton Troianovski and Marcus Walker, “Paris Terror Attacks Transform Debate Over Europe’s Migration Crisis,”
The Wall Street Journal, (November 2015).
29 Jeanette Minns and Matthew Karnitschnig, “Austria suspends Schengen,” Politico, (January 2016).
30 David Crouch, “Swedish border controls hit Øresund bridge commuters as well as refugees,” The Guardian, (January 2016).
31 The Ministry of the Interior (France).
‧
what happened in the second round could be described as a crucial victory over euroscepticism in France.
The Socialist party of Francois Hollande decided to withdraw their candidates in two provinces to increase chances of the Republicans securing the vote and prevent the National Front from taking control of the region. The results of the second round proved very disappointing for Marine Le Pen when it was revealed that of the 17 regions, the National Front did not win in any of them.
Another event that tremendously augmented popularity of eurosceptic parties took place during the 2015 New Year's Eve celebrations in Germany. Around 1500 sexual assaults were reported to the police in major cities like Cologne, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Dortmund, etc. According to the police reports, most of the assailants were of Arab origin, including several who came to Germany as refugees. Many European parties started to perceive Merkel's immigration policy as highly ineffective and her position as a new
“iron-lady” was sharply undermined at both the international and national level. This event created yet another opportunity for eurosceptic political parties to attack refugees, who the party considered to be threats to their host societies.
Table 3.3 The 2014 European Parliament and the 2015 regional elections results in France
2014 European Parliament election
2015 Regional elections*
National Front 24.86% 27.73%
Union for a Popular Movement 20.8% 26.65%
Socialist Party + Radical Party of the Left 13.98% 23.12%**
Democratic Movement + Union of Democrats and
Independents 9.94% ---***
Source: Ministry of the Interior
* Results from the first round
** Socialist Party
*** Democratic Movement and Union of Democrats and Independents did not decide to run as a coalition during 2015 Regional election.
‧
Table 3.4 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in Germany
2014 European Parliament election
Opinion poll (31 Jan 2016)
Christian Democratic Union + Christian Social Union 35.36% 34.9%Social Democratic Party 27.27% 24.0%
Alliance '90/The Greens 10.7% 9.8%
Alternative for Germany 7.04% 11.2%
Source: German government and Sonntagsfrage-aktuell.de
Table 3.5 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in Hungary
2014 European
Table 3.6 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in the Netherlands
2014 European
People's Party for Freedom and Democracy 12.0% 16.5%
Source: Parool.nl and Ipsos
Table 3.7 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in Poland
2014 European
Parliament election Opinion poll (14 Jan 2016)
Civic Platform 32.13% 14.0%
Law and Justice 31.78% 30.0%
Democratic Left Alliance – Labor Union 9.44% 5.0%
Congress of the New Right 7.15% 4.0%
Nowoczesna ---* 27.0%
Source: PKW and MillwardBrown
* Nowoczesna did not participate in 2014 European Parliament election
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Table 3.8 The 2014 European Parliament election results and political party opinion poll in the United Kingdom
2014 European Parliament election
Opinion poll (3-4 Feb 2016)
UK Independence Party 26.60% 18.0%
Labour Party 24.43% 29.0%
Conservative Party 23.05% 39.0%
Green Party of England and Wales 6.91% 3.0%
Source: BBC News and YouGov/The Times
According to the data collected, it can be concluded that since the 2014 European Parliament election, the prevalence of euroscepticism has not decreased. The tables above provide information from member states that are either opposed to or deeply involved in the EU's current refugee policy (France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland and United Kingdom) with regard to political party support during the 2014 Europen Parliament election and at the beginning of 2016. Largely due to the events in 2015 and the lack of any effective solutions from the EU, hard eurosceptic political parties, such as the National Front, Alternative for Germany, Jobbik and Party for Freedom gained a lot of support, especially because of their anti-immigration campaigns. Considering the soft eurosceptic parties, it can be observed that Fidesz retained its position at the national level, the Conservative Party increased in popularity in the UK, and Law and Justice won the Polish parliamentary election in 2015.
In past three years, the European Commission has not only had to deal with the increase of popularity in eurosceptic parties in the Western part of Europe, but has also had to recon with the stance of the so-called Visegrad Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia). At present, Hungary and Poland are ruled by soft eurosceptic parties – Fidesz and Law and Justice respectively, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia by Socialists. Surprisingly, all of them share the same stance toward the EU's immigration policy, which requires them to accept enough refugees
‧
meet the quotas imposed by the EU.32 33 Their common view emphasizes the remarkable fact that a single party does not have to be eurosceptic to promote policy goals represented by such political parties such as the National Front, the Party of Freedom, or the United Kingdom Independence Party. Understanding their position toward the EU's refugee's policy requires to comprehend the post-communist reality which makes euroscepticism in Central Europe different from its Western counterparts. Since 2014, the Visegrad Group has achieved remarkable development growth and society knows that it would not be possible without entering the EU. By gaining access to the Schengen area, Western European countries were able to open their doors to acquire cheap labor from Central Europe as they had done before.34 They started their immigration policies because they needed to, not because they were forced to accept refugee quotas. Visegrad Group member states had never before had such an experience, hence their current opposition to the EU's immigration policy. They do not perceive relocation as a solution to reducing or stopping the influx of refugees.
Instead, they want to convince their European counterparts that allocating financial aid and money to reinforcing external borders is better than granting asylum to each person who enters the Schengen area.35 The Visegrad group's position in the EU, which was stronger after the 2015 Polish Parliamentary elections, would undeniably make the group more influential than it had been before.
Lastly, the role of the Visegrad group in achieving binding agreements based on negotiations is essential in the EU. If the group expresses its opinion too aggressively, as it has previously, then engaging in a debate to reach a compromise on the refugee policy might turn out to be a failure.
Czech, Hungarian, Polish and Slovakian Prime Ministers are refusing to accept refugees quotas because there is a public disagreement surrounding this issue within their respective countries. This
32 On 22 September 2015, three out of four member states of Visegrad Group (Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia) voted against refugees quotas imposed by the EU. Initially, Poland was expected to follow its Central European partners but ongoing parliamentary campaign forced Polish Prime Minister – Ewa Kopacz to accept this deal in order to attract voters with liberal views.
33 Ian Traynor and Patrick Kingsley, “EU governments push through divisive deal to share 120,000 refugees,” The Guardian, (September 2015).
34 French government opened their labour market from workers from Northwest Africa, the UK for Indians, Germany for Turkish people, etc.
35 Radko Hokovský, “How migrants brought Central Europe together,” Politico, (February 2016).
‧
particular example demonstrates how complex negotiations based on two-level games can be. In the case of current Visegrad group's present conservative stance, the European Commission must put in more effort in order to reach a binding agreement at the international level.
Nowadays, both the Shengen agreement and the Dublin Regulation are under constant criticism by eurosceptic political parties. Hard eurosceptic parties accuse the European Commission of being unable to protect their own citizens from the influx of “dangerous” refugees, and as a result are decreasing national security. On the other hand, soft euroscepticism emphasizes that member states should not be obligated to accept asylum seekers in the number imposed by the EU.
Moreover, countries such as Greece, Italy or Hungary are strongly opposed to one point of the Dublin Regulation, which states that “(...) the first Member State with which the application was lodged, the determining Member State shall become the Member State responsible,36” and puts pressure on them to protect human rights and help immigrants. The problem of EU's immigration policy is deteriorating every day, which makes it more difficult and complex to solve. Before the Paris terrorist attacks and the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, Angela Merkel appeared to have everything under control. Merkel did not expect that her open refugee policy would encourage more asylum seekers to cross the EU's borders and choose Germany as their final destination. As a result, the German government had to close its border with Austria, send some refugees back to their home countries, and most importantly deal with national security threats that had increased significantly since the 31st of December. Moreover, lacking a proper solution, the EU renewed its dialogue with Turkey and offered €3bn in aid, visa-free travel to EU countries, and the prospect of revitalised EU membership talks.37 This political move shows how desperate the EU is to put an end to the European migrant crisis, while simultaneously ignoring human rights violations
Moreover, countries such as Greece, Italy or Hungary are strongly opposed to one point of the Dublin Regulation, which states that “(...) the first Member State with which the application was lodged, the determining Member State shall become the Member State responsible,36” and puts pressure on them to protect human rights and help immigrants. The problem of EU's immigration policy is deteriorating every day, which makes it more difficult and complex to solve. Before the Paris terrorist attacks and the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany, Angela Merkel appeared to have everything under control. Merkel did not expect that her open refugee policy would encourage more asylum seekers to cross the EU's borders and choose Germany as their final destination. As a result, the German government had to close its border with Austria, send some refugees back to their home countries, and most importantly deal with national security threats that had increased significantly since the 31st of December. Moreover, lacking a proper solution, the EU renewed its dialogue with Turkey and offered €3bn in aid, visa-free travel to EU countries, and the prospect of revitalised EU membership talks.37 This political move shows how desperate the EU is to put an end to the European migrant crisis, while simultaneously ignoring human rights violations