Steve Peers

Much like fans of Fantasy Football, European Union politics enthusiasts can engage in a similar thought experiment: envisioning the potential impact of different candidates for Commission President if they were elected.

It’s important to remember that the European Council’s willingness to nominate the candidate from the leading political party after the May 25th elections remains uncertain. Additionally, the European Parliament’s reaction to a nomination they disagree with is unclear, despite having the power to elect the President. However, this new selection process has prompted candidates to disclose their policies, allowing for comparison.

This analysis will focus on summarizing and comparing the candidates’ stances on immigration policy. Note that some European parties, including the ECR (British Conservatives) and EFD (UKIP), haven’t named candidates, so their policies won’t be included here.

Martin Schultz

Martin Schultz, the Party of European Socialists candidate, recently revealed his immigration policy, emphasizing these key points: saving migrant lives, creating a unified approach, promoting positive migration management, upholding loyalty and solidarity, establishing a rule-based framework, and developing a long-term strategy.

He argues that nations like Malta and certain non-EU countries bear a disproportionate burden regarding EU-bound migration, necessitating a “European response.” This includes: harmonizing national efforts, enhancing communication with North African partners on surveillance, providing legal immunity to ship captains, ensuring respect for fundamental rights and non-refoulement, and advocating for a stronger Commission stance on external border control and weakness assessment.

Schultz points out the wide disparity in asylum recognition rates and the legal complexities the Dublin system for asylum-seeker allocation creates. He proposes solutions such as increased resettlement (transferring refugees directly from countries near their origin), enhanced “relocation” within the EU, piloting joint application processing, improving refugee integration, and strengthening the European Asylum Support Office to “monitor the quality and consistency of asylum decisions.” Additionally, he supports the concept of temporary protection during mass influxes of persecuted individuals and advocates for stronger EU relationships with non-EU nations to encourage reforms that address the root causes of migration.

For migration in general, he envisions a well-structured system, particularly highlighting the significance of skills-based migration, migrant integration, attracting students and researchers, and leveraging visa policies to boost tourism.

Jean-Claude Juncker

The European People’s Party candidate, Jean-Claude Juncker, has a five-point plan for migration: swift implementation of the Common European Asylum System legislation to minimize discrepancies in recognition rates across Member States; increased authority for the European Asylum Support Office regarding risk assessments and specialized training for national administrations; EU assistance in tackling the root causes of migration within origin countries; addressing legal migration to curb irregular migration and demographic issues, particularly by revisiting the “Blue Card” system for highly-skilled workers; and enhancing EU border security by strengthening Frontex (the EU’s border agency) and enforcing penalties for human traffickers.

Alexis Tsipras

Alexis Tsipras, the European Left party candidate, outlined some immigration policy positions in his candidacy acceptance declaration. He advocates for supporting origin countries, rescuing migrants at sea, establishing reception centers, and revising the EU framework, specifically by amending the Dublin rules for asylum-seeker responsibility allocation.

Ska Keller and Jose Bove

While the Green Party candidates for Commission President don’t have a readily available immigration policy document, Ska Keller’s YouTube video offers some insight. She criticizes the Dublin system’s impact on human rights and its uneven burden on smaller countries, advocating for fairer asylum processes, humanitarian visas for potential refugees, and legal avenues for economic migrants.

Guy Verhofstadt

The Liberal party candidate, Guy Verhofstadt, briefly addresses migration in his “Plan for Europe,” emphasizing the importance of burden-sharing and managing legal migration.

Comparing the policies

The Socialist and EPP positions share common ground, including supporting cooperation with origin countries, proposing legal migration plans, and aiming to reduce discrepancies in refugee recognition rates by empowering the European Asylum Support Office. However, there are subtle differences: Juncker wants the office more involved in risk assessment and training, while Schultz favors a stronger role in monitoring EU law implementation. Notably, Juncker emphasizes implementing EU asylum law broadly. Additionally, Schultz proposes further policies for sharing asylum burdens through resettlement, relocation, temporary protection, and joint processing. It seems neither candidate explicitly advocates for amending the Dublin system.

Regarding legal migration, Juncker is more specific, urging a review of highly-skilled worker admission rules, while Schultz offers a broader list of goals with fewer specifics.

Juncker prioritizes external border control, especially through Frontex and trafficking penalties, while Schultz focuses on legal protection for ship captains, Commission oversight, and upholding fundamental rights.

The Green and European Left candidates both call for overhauling the Dublin system. Additionally, the Green candidate proposes humanitarian visas to provide safe EU access and, like Schultz, suggests expanding legal migration options without specifics.

Verhofstadt’s immigration policy is too concise for meaningful comparison or assessment.

Assessing the policies

There’s a clear difference between the implicit stance of the two major parties’ candidates on the Dublin system and the direct criticism from the Green and Left candidates. While scrapping or significantly reforming the system seems reasonable, it’s politically unrealistic given the lack of majority support within Member States and likely within the European Parliament.

Assuming the Dublin system remains, what can be done to mitigate its issues? Between the two major candidates, Juncker’s proposals for a stronger European Asylum Support Office might not significantly address the problems. However, his emphasis on timely and correct implementation of the second-phase Common European Asylum System, particularly a new Commission policy focused on aggressive infringement proceedings against non-compliant Member States, could be impactful.

Schultz’s policies aim to ease the system’s burden indirectly through increased relocation, joint processing, and resettlement. However, he provides limited specifics and only promises to “test” joint processing. He doesn’t explicitly mention a legal framework for transferring protection, which is necessary for relocating refugees between Member States. Nonetheless, actively pursuing these policies could potentially alleviate some of the system’s strain.

Ska Keller’s proposal to utilize humanitarian visas more extensively could be a viable solution. She rightly points out that this option already exists.

Combining these suggestions to address the Dublin system’s shortcomings could be more effective than implementing them individually.

The major parties’ candidates’ willingness to engage with third countries is positive if it focuses solely on improving their economies and human rights. However, involving them in controlling EU borders raises concerns, given the questionable human rights records of many such states.

Regarding legal migration, proposals are already under discussion to revise EU rules for admitting students and researchers and to modify visa policies for attracting tourists. Schultz’s stance aligns with these existing legislative efforts. Juncker’s idea of reforming EU rules for highly-skilled migrants is logical but may have a limited impact on reducing irregular migration.

Finally, concerning irregular migration, Juncker emphasizes increased control, Schultz stresses Commission evaluation, and the remaining candidates prioritize saving lives. While Schultz acknowledges the importance of human rights, he doesn’t explicitly connect it to the Commission’s evaluation role. While there are commendable instances of Member States saving numerous lives at sea, there are also alarming cases of migrant pushbacks and mistreatment at borders. The Commission’s inadequate response to such incidents might embolden Member States to act with impunity.

Conclusions

This election marks the first time comparing and evaluating candidates’ policy platforms before the European Parliament elections. This signifies a shift from 2009 when Barroso presented his platform only after being nominated and a significant departure from earlier practices. Analyzing candidates’ stances and their engagement in debates, campaigns, and public Q&A sessions on immigration and other policies highlights the potential of this new nomination system to enhance the European Union’s democratic processes.

Whether this debate resonates with the public remains uncertain. It’s also unclear if the European Council will accept the process’s outcome. However, even if they don’t (and the Parliament accepts a “backroom deal”), the policy development and debate process could influence the Parliament in securing policy commitments from the next Commission and Home Affairs Commissioner on these critical issues.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 3, chapter 26