Between principles and reality. The principles listed by Jacques Barrot, the vice-president of the European Commission, on the EU's asylum and immigration policy (see this section yesterday) is a framework which appears incontestable, in theory. It is when we move to the practical application of these general orientations that problems, and differences of opinion between the member states, start to rear their head; it isn't always easy to reconcile principles with reality. Here are a few examples.
Mr Barrot said that Malta, a little island of 400,000 inhabitants smack bang in the middle of the route taken by illegal migrants from the African continent, saw numbers of asylum seekers increase by 100% in a year, with 9 applications per thousand head of population, compared to the Community average of 0.5‰. This is untenable. He also pointed out that if it is not brought under control, the massive influx of illegal migrants to Greece could destabilise the democratic functioning in the country, by creating "xenophobic reactions". I am of the opinion, moreover, that the theory of systematically accepting all boats of illegal immigrants because one or two of the people on board may be entitled to asylum is unrealistic: the physical hosting capacity would be exceeded in no time. As for the humanitarian organisations, their efforts to bring situations to light and their actions are highly valuable, but their demands on occasion outstrip the limits of what is possible. The idea that all illegal immigrants from North Africa are automatically granted asylum if they say they are homosexual, simply because no country in the region sufficiently recognizes their rights, is unreasonable. The same applies for the generalised support to the avalanche of asylum applications in France from emigrants originating from Mali or Guinea, stressing the danger that their daughters could be the victims of forcible female circumcision if they were sent back to their country of origin; it turned out that abuses were far from rare. Female circumcision should be stopped in the countries of origin; in the EU, it is considered a crime and punished as such.
Respecting the civilisation of the host country. Without making judgements of other civilisations, it appears fairly obvious that immigrants should respect the laws of the host country, whilst remaining free to do as they please in their private behaviour. Rows for or against women wearing the veil and other issues of dress have, in my opinion, been massively overdone. As regards any other aspects, any debate seems to me to be surplus to requirements; if little girls and little boys go to the swimming pool together in the schools of Brussels, this rule should not be changed because elsewhere, habits are different. These are minor aspects. Yet respect the civilisation of the host country sometimes becomes very much more of an issue (polygamy, for instance). The Netherlands and Denmark were, quite rightly, seen as the most open and welcoming of all the countries of Europe to people from other cultures; due to fanaticism from outside, they have become less so. The murderer who slit the throat of a Dutch journalist for religious reasons had previously been granted Dutch citizenship; today, this citizenship is granted with far greater caution. In Denmark, it was the business of the cartoons and the incredibly violent reactions in a number of Muslim countries which dampened the ardour of the population, even though the authorities tried to calm the situation. Aside from general principles, the attitude of the Europeans is partly determined by the behaviour of the immigrants themselves; this is a cold, hard reality that democracies would do well to take account of.
Autonomous decisions and reciprocity. I believe that we must draw a distinction between the measures which the EU applies or intends to apply on its own initiative and the commitments which it negotiates with third countries. In the former case, Europe must remain faithful to its principles and to recognised international rules, as regards reception of migrants, asylum rights, voting rights. The objective stated by Mr Barrot is for the EU to adopt an "immigration code" guaranteeing legal immigrants a level of rights which is both uniform and comparable to that enjoyed by Community citizens. So far, so good. But official agreements with third countries must be based on reciprocity, be it in matters of civil law, religious rights or others. This is a fundamental issue which has not, to the best of my knowledge, been the subject of any official position.
Towards "reinforced cooperation"? The final aspect I wish to raise is the (fairly realistic) hypothesis that the member states will fail to reach common positions on either of the projects of the European Commission. The Lisbon Treaty will get rid of any blockages in what is currently the "third intergovernmental pillar", allowing the Commission to take direct action against member states which do not observe existing rules, and opening up the possibility for "reinforced cooperation" between such member states as are in favour of joint laws and actions.
To say nothing of the extended powers of the European Parliament, which will make public debate possible. (F.R./transl.fl)