Does France need Change?

Dear followers

To the question asked by Judy Dempsey from Carnegie Europe, my answer regarding Europe and Laïcité is:

Whatever the result on May 7, one thing is certain: the French presidential election will be a game changer for Europe. Far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon and extreme-right contender Marine Le Pen have in common (aside from their pro-Russian stance) that they want to reform current French policies outside the EU treaties. Center-right hopeful François Fillon wants a renewed Europe of nations. Those approaches augur a dangerous protectionist and nationalist change.

Given Britain’s vote to leave the EU and the current political crisis in Europe, this is not the type of change France needs. Instead, the country should reform inside and together with the EU, by committing strongly to the Franco-German relationship and investing in new initiatives that will secure a renewed political consensus in the union.

Societal change is also deeply needed regarding laïcité, one of the key pillars of the French republic. French secularism will remain sustainable as long as it sticks to its tolerance principle and avoids entrenchment. It should not become a nationalist principle that polarizes society and excludes others, but instead should adapt dynamically and enter the era of postsecularism heralded by German sociologist Jürgen Habermas. That is a change being called for by the Socialist candidate Benoît Hamon and, with some nuances, by the front-runner, centrist Emmanuel Macron.

Please read the full publications and other experts’ contributions on Strategic Europe

Advertisements

The Arab uprisings 6 years on- event report and video

Dear colleagues,

Following the event that took place on 9th march 2017 at QMUL on The Arab uprisings, 6 years on: rethinking EU’s role, please find here the report of the event in case you missed it.

Or watch the video roundtable here

Best Regards

Sarah

The new European Border and Coast Guard: much ado about nothing?

Dear Followers,

I post below a commentary written for the Netherlands Institute for International Relations on 01/11/2016 discussing  whether the recently created European Border and Coast Guard is going to change anything.

Comments welcome!

The new European Border and Coast Guard: much ado about nothing?

p032587002402-933965
source: European Commission
The velocity with which the Council and the European Parliament agreed on the extension of the Frontex mandate should be a sign of political willingness on the part of European leaders. The new entity became operational on 6 October, less than a year since it was tabled in December 2015 by the European Commission. The European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG) agency can boast extended financial and human resources when compared to its predecessor, Frontex. These changes are, however, not commensurate with the task facing the EU in the coming years: that migration is going to be the new normal.

A European Border Guard Unit

What’s new under the sun? Drawing from an old dream of creating a European Border Guard Unit, which predates the creation of Frontex, this new entity can deploy 1,500 experts as a rapid reserve pool of border guards and technical equipment within three days. Frontex staff is almost double and should reach 1,000 permanent staff by 2020, and work more closely with the European Fisheries Control Agency and the European Maritime Safety Agency in order to perform coastguard surveillance. It will also have a stronger mandate to work in third countries, notably through the organisation of joint operations on a third country’s territory and strengthening co-operation on return with third countries (Official Journal of the European Union, 2016). Its budget should increase from 91.2M Euro in 2014 to 281.3M Euro in 2017, which is certainly remarkable.

Deficiencies

The impact and efficiency of EBCG could nonetheless be lessened by a number of deficiencies. Member states remain the gatekeepers, as they retain executive enforcement powers for operational border management at the EU’s external borders, thus limiting the innovative potential of the new unit. This shared competence is, however, not matched by shared accountability, in particular when it comes to the incident reporting mechanism in the event of fundamental rights breaches during an operation. Criminal proceedings are, indeed, still regulated by EU member states’ legislation. This might be problematic where the judicial system of an EU member state does not offer an effective remedy to address human rights violations, as outlined by several European NGOs. In addition, a fundamental rights officer will be in charge of processing the complaint from a person who considers him or herself to have been the subject of a breach of his or her fundamental rights due to actions of the EBCG. Yet legal experts have cautioned about the lack of independence of such officers, who would be part of the EBCG staff. Another novelty is that in case of the failure of an EU member state to control migratory fluxes, a procedure is foreseen in the Council of the EU to plan to intervene in that country. If that country does not co-operate, then other EU member states will be able to re-establish their internal border controls, thus impacting upon the freedom of movement within Schengen. This measure specifically caters for the lack of capacity faced by the Greek authorities and other member states located on the Western Balkan route. Allowing other EU member states to close their borders would only block migrants in that country, sometimes at the expense of their rights and living conditions.

A drop in the ocean – please read of the rest of the article here

Migration and Refugee Governance in the Mediterranean: Europe and International Organisations at a Crossroads

The death of Aylan, a 3-year-old boy on a Turkish beach, prompted European leaders and public opinions to acknowledge that Europe is the deadliest migration destination in the world. In spite of this disturbing truth, there is little agreement on an EU solution to the Syrian refugee crisis. In September 2015, the EU Interior Ministers struggled to agree over the relocation of 120,000 refugees through a common compulsory mechanism, as Eastern European countries oppose the idea of “sharing the burden.” Progress regarding other solutions such as a European rescue at-sea-mission, the delivery of humanitarian visas or the opening of legal means of migration have also met strong member state resistance. If Europe is not up to the task, can international organisations (IOs), often critical of European states for their inaction, impulse change? What influence do IOs have on EU and Mediterranean migration and refugee policies? This paper investigates how IOs have been trying to frame an alternative debate and the challenges they meet in promoting transregional governance.

Paper produced within the framework of the New-Med Research Network, October 2015. – See more at: http://www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/migration-and-refugee-governance-mediterranean#sthash.ofDBbMi7.dpuf

Table of Contents:

Introduction 1. An EU-driven and risk-averse migration and refugee governance 2. Mediterranean partners and state-driven regional initiatives 3. UNHCR and IOM: framing an alternative debate on refugees and migration in the Mediterranean 4. IOs’ challenges regarding shaping and influencing EU and Mediterranean policies 5. Frontex and IOs: an example of good practice? 6. Future prospects and recommendations for IOs.

iaiwp1542 FINALE

logo IAI New Med research

%d bloggers like this: