Candidates for Commission President: comparing and assessing their immigration policy proposals

Steve Peers

Football fans have long enjoyed playing the game of Fantasy Football, in which they imagine what might happen if a particular grouping of players actually formed a team. Equally, for the time being, aficionados of European Union politics can play Fantasy Commission President, in which they imagine what might happen if any of the particular candidates for Commission President nominated by the European political party groupings got the job.

Of course, as discussed earlier on this blog, it remains to be seen whether, after the elections finish on May 25^th, the European Council would be willing to nominate the candidate of the political party which gets the most seats for President, and what the European Parliament (which has the power to ‘elect’ the President, based on the European Council’s nomination) would do if it doesn’t. For the time being, though, this attempt at a new process for selecting the Commission President has resulted in the candidates announcing some of their policies, which allows us to compare those policies.

To that end, this post first summarises the candidates’ positions on immigration policy, and then compares and assesses those policies. It should be recalled that some European parties have not named a candidate for Commission President (the ECR group including the British Conservatives, and the EFD group including UKIP), so therefore for those parties there are no candidate’s policies to assess here.

Martin Schultz

Yesterday, Martin Schultz, the candidate of the Party of European Socialists, announced his immigration policy. The main points of the policy are: saving the lives of migrants; developing a common policy; positive migration management; applying the principle of loyalty and solidarity; developing a rule-based system; and setting out a long-term vision.

In particular, he believes that countries like Malta, as well as some third countries, bear a disproportionate share of the burden as regards migration towards the European Union, and so ‘a European response is needed’. This involves: coordinating national actions; communication with North African partners about surveillance; exempting ship-masters from prosecution; respect for fundamental rights and non-refoulement; and a strong Commission position as regards evaluation and weaknesses at external borders.

As regards asylum, recognition rates differ widely, and the Dublin system for allocation of asylum-seekers is confusing courts. To address this, he wants to increase resettlement (ie bringing refugees directly from states near their country of origin), take the ‘relocation’ of the persons involved within the EU ‘to the next level’, test the joint processing of applications, increase the integration of refugees and improve the capacity of the European Asylum Support Office, to ‘monitor the quality and consistency of asylum decisions’. He will also keep the idea of temporary protection, a special system to deal with a mass influx of persons fleeing persecution, on the table. The EU should develop relationships with third countries focussed upon encouraging reforms, so as to reduce the desire to migrate in the first place.

As for migration, he wants a well-organised system, mentioning in particular the importance of skills, migrant integration, and attracting university students and researchers.  He also wants to use visa policy to encourage tourism.

Jean-Claude Juncker

The candidate nominated by the European People’s Party has set out a five-pointplan on migration. First, he wants to implement the Common European Asylum System legislation without delay, in order to reduce the wide gap in recognition rates between Member States. Second, he wants to increase the powers of the European Asylum Support Office, as regards risk assessments and tailored training for national administrations. Third, he wants the EU to help address the root causes of migration, in the countries of origin. Fourth, to reduce irregular migration and address demographic problems, he wants to address legal migration, in particular by re-examining the ‘Blue Card’ rules on highly-skilled migration. Finally, he wants to secure the EU’s borders, by boosting Frontex (the EU’s border agency) and applying EU rules on punishing traffickers of persons.

Alexis Tsipras

The candidate of the European Left party set out some immigration policy positions in his declaration of acceptance of his candidacy. He also wants to support countries of origin, to rescue migrants on the open sea, to create reception centres, and to rethink the EU framework, in particular changing the Dublin rules on allocation of responsibility for asylum-seekers.

Ska Keller and Jose Bove

There is no immigration policy position paper as such for the Green Party candidates for Commission President (or at least, none that can easily be found on the Internet). However, an indication of their policy can be found in Ska Keller’s YouTube video. She also criticises the EU’s Dublin system because of its impact on human rights and burden-sharing for small countries, and calls for fairer asylum procedures, the issue of humanitarian visas to would-be refugees and legal access for economic migrants.

Guy Verhofstadt

Finally, the Liberal party candidate only briefly mentions migration policy in his Plan for Europe (note: this is a difficult document to download, and it mostly consists of diagrams). The single paragraph on this issue mentions the importance of burden-sharing and managing legal migration.

Comparing the policies

Interestingly, the Socialist and EPP positions have much in common. Both support cooperation with countries of origin, suggest a plan for legal migration, and wish to reduce the gaps in refugee recognition rates by strengthening the European Asylum Support Office. But there are nuances between them: Juncker wants the office to be more involved in risk assessments and tailored training, while Schultz wants it to monitor Member States’ implementation of EU law. However, Juncker does refer to the importance of implementation of EU asylum law generally. Schultz has further policies relating to sharing asylum burdens, as regards resettlement, relocation, temporary protection and joint processing. It might be deduced that neither candidate is calling for amending the Dublin rules on allocation of responsibility for asylum-seekers.

As for legal migration, Juncker is more specific, calling for review of the specific rules on admission of highly-skilled workers, while Schultz sets out a longer list of objectives but without offering as much detail.

Juncker lays greater stress on controlling external borders, in particular as regards strengthening Frontex and prosecuting traffickers, while Schultz stresses exempting ship captains from prosecution, Commission supervision and respect for fundamental rights.

The Green and European Left candidates’ positions have in common a demand for an overhaul of the EU’s Dublin system. For its part, the Green candidate specifically mentions the issue of humanitarian visas as a possible solution to the problem of safe access to the European Union, and (like Martin Schultz) suggests that there should be more avenues for legal migration, without setting out further details.

Unfortunately, the Verhofstadt policy on immigration is too brief to compare it meaningfully with the others, or to assess it.

Assessing the policies

There is a clear divide between the two bigger parties’ candidates’ implicit positions on the Dublin system of allocating asylum-seekers, and the explicit attack on that system by the Green and Left candidates. While there is certainly much to be said for scrapping the Dublin system entirely or profoundly reforming it, this solution is probably not politically realistic as there is a significant majority of Member States against it, and there would probably not be a majority in favour in the European Parliament either.

So if we are stuck with the Dublin system, what can be done to alleviate the problems arising from its operation? As between the two big parties’ candidates, Juncker’s specific suggestions for a bigger role for the European Asylum Support Office would not do much to alleviate those problems. However, his greater focus on ensuring timely and correct implementation of the second-phase Common European Asylum System might well have that effect – if, by that, he means a new Commission policy devoted to bringing infringement actions more aggressively against Member States.

Schultz’s policies would alleviate the problems with the system via the indirect route of greater relocation, joint processing and resettlement. However, he does not offer many details of such policies, and notably he is only promising to ‘test’ joint processing. As regards relocation of refugees between Member States, it is necessary to have a legal framework for transfer of protection, but he does not mention this expressly. But on the whole, if these policies are pursued vigorously, they might alleviate the effect of the system somewhat.

So would the suggestion to make greater use of the issue of humanitarian visas, as suggested by Ska Keller. She is right to say that this is an existing possibility; in fact, this possibility was discussed previously on this blog.  

Of course, the various suggestions to alleviate the effect of the Dublin system could be combined with each other. If so, the total impact would surely be greater than if only one of the candidates’ suggestions were adopted.

The bigger parties’ candidates’ willingness to engage with third countries is fine if it concerns solely issues such as improvements in their economy and levels of human rights protection. It would be more problematic if it involved third States as remote controllers of EU borders, as long as many of the States in question have questionable human rights records.

As for legal migration, there are already proposals under discussion to amend the EU rules on admission of students and researchers, and to amend EU visa policy to encourage more tourists. So in that respect Schultz is simply supporting legislation that has already been proposed. Juncker’s idea of reforming EU rules to admit more highly-skilled migrants makes sense, but that is likely to have only a modest impact in reducing the numbers who might be inclined to come to the EU by irregular (‘illegal’) means.

Finally, as regards irregular migration, it is striking that Juncker lays more stress on increasing control, Schultz lays more stress on Commission evaluation and the other two candidates lay more stress on saving lives. While Schultz also mentions the importance of human rights in this context, he does not link that with the Commission’s evaluation role. On this point, while there are many good examples of Member States saving hundreds of lives at sea, there are also some bad examples of push-backs or other appalling treatment of migrants at borders. The Commission’s failure to respond to the latter cases has likely given Member States the idea that they can act with impunity.

Conclusions

This is the first time that the policy platforms of individual candidates for Commission President could be compared and assessed before citizens cast a vote for the European Parliament. In 2009, Barroso only produced a policy platform after he was nominated for the job by the European Council – and even that was a development compared to previous practice. The possibility to produce such an analysis, and for the candidates to debate, campaign on and answer public questions regarding immigration (and other) policies, shows the capacity of this new system of advance nominations to improve the democratic functioning of the European Union.

It is, of course, doubtful whether much of this debate has resonated with the general public. And as noted at the outset, it remains to be seen whether the European Council will accept the result of the process at the end of the day. But even if it does not (and the European Parliament accedes to a ‘backroom deal’ on appointment of the Commission President), the process of developing and debating policy might still be relevant when it comes to the Parliament obtaining policy commitments from the next Commission and the next Home Affairs Commissioner on these important issues.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 3, chapter 26

Democracy and its discontents: Should the results of the European Parliament elections determine the next President of the European Commission?

Steve Peers

It is highly unlikely that the next President of the European Commission will be decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).  Law sets the framework in which elections take place, but usually does not directly impact upon the outcome - although there are important exceptional cases to the contrary, such as the American election of 2000.

The election of the Commission President in 2014 is also an exceptional case, at  least to the extent that the rules have changed and their interpretation is contested. Previously the President was appointed by the European Council, after approval of its preferred nominee by the European Parliament. The new rules, which were introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon and are now being applied for the first time, now specify that the President is 'elected' by the European Parliament, on the basis of a nomination by the European Council, 'taking account of' the results of the election to the European Parliament.

At first glance, the rules have not really changed, given that the European Council anyway has assumed since 1999 that the Commission President had to come from the same political background as the largest party in the European Parliament. However, the majority of European political parties take the view that the Treaty amendments mean that they should nominate their preferred candidate for the job of Commission President before the elections, and that the candidate preferred by the party winning the most seats should be the next Commission President.

They take this view not only because of the change in the rules, but also because of the more fundamental political consideration that enhancing the link between the election to the Parliament and the Commission President selection would enhance the democratic legitimacy of the EU. Voters would be selecting the EU executive in the same way that the votes in national parliamentary elections select the executive in Member States with parliamentary systems.

However, this interpretation is not uncontested. The ECR party (technically the AECR party, in the election), which includes the British Conservatives, will not name a candidate, since it objects in principle to the link between elections to the European Parliament and the selection of the Commission President, and is running wholly national campaigns instead. The EFD party, which includes the UK Independence Party, will not name a candidate either. Moreover, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, does not accept any automatic link between the. EP elections and the nomination of the Commission President. Finally, the UK Labour party doesn't support the candidate chosen by the Party of European Socialists as its nominee for Commission President, although it nevertheless agrees in principle to the idea of the parties nominating such candidates.

The ECR party objects to the idea of the European Parliament elections deciding the Commission President on grounds of democraticy legitimacy, because it believes that there is no public demand for the move and that the principal method of legitimacy of EU policies should be via the mans of national governments. A detailed critique of the idea, by Heather Grabbe and Stephan Lehne for the Centre for European Reform, also objects to the proposal on a number of grounds.

Post-election scenarios

It's always risky to guess the results of a political  process, but it's necessary in this case because the idea of a 'partisan' Commission President can't be judged without making certain assumptions about what will happen at the time of the next appointment. The Grabbe/Lehner paper suggests three scenarios: (a) the EP wins the argument and the largest party's candidate is proposed by the European Council without demur; (b) a deadlock between the European Parliament and European Council results over the appointment; and (c) a backroom deal is done. They were writing in October 2013, when (c) seemed more probable; in the meantime, the European People's Party looks less likely (as they had assumed) to win the largest number of seats, and is going ahead with its plan to nominate a candidate.

However, there could still be a messy deadlock. Whichever party wins the most seats in the European Parliament in the May elections will not hold a majority of the seats, due to the application of proportional representation voting as required by the EU Treaties. So for it to vote down the preferred nominee of the European Council, it will need the support of some other parties. Equally it will need the support of some other parties for its preferred candidate for President to be elected - assuming that the European Council puts that name forward in the first place. If the European Council fails to put that name forward, there could indeed be a deadlock.

Having said that, it should be recalled that the European Parliament has always sought to enhance its role in the appointment of the Commission. It began to hold hearings for nominees to the Commission even before it gained a decisive role in its appointment. And when the last two Commissions were appointed, it found a way to reject individual nominees, even though the Treaties don't provide for this. It might therefore be expected that if it comes to it, a majority of MEPs would veto any candidate for Commission President who is not the nominee of the largest party, and that the European Council will recognise reality accordingly. In effect, when it comes to appointment of the Commission President, the European Council would become the equivalent of a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth II.

Is the 'election' of the Commission President via the European Parliament elections a good idea?

Just because it seems to be increasingly likely to happen, does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea. Let's look first of all at one set of arguments advanced by Grabbe/Lehne, concerning its potential effect on the effectiveness of the Commission. First of all, they argue that a 'partisan' Commission President could not do his or her job effectively, given the number of Commission tasks which require objective assessment, namely economic governance, state aids, competition, human rights and infringement actions. Secondly, they argue that a President elected via the EP elections might not be a leading political figure, and would be less able to work closely with national governments. Thirdly, he or she would be beholden to the EP, and therefore his or her initiatives would be blocked by the Council, resulting in the legislative gridlock familiar to Americans. Fourthly, given that the other Commissioners are chosen by the Member States, it is possible that the President comes from one party and the majority of Commissioners will come from the opposing political background.

The second set of arguments concern the legitimacy and democratic credentials of the notion. Here the Grabbe/Lehne argument overlaps with the ECR's explanation of its position. Both argue that the EP is remote from its constituents, and that enhancing the link with the selection of the Commission President will not change this, given that the candidates will not have wide recognition.

These are all valid arguments in principle, so let's examine them one by one. First of all, it should not be forgotten that many of the Commission's more technical tasks have been transferred to EU agencies, and that its main task remains the proposal of legislation. There are obviously political choices to be made about which legislation is proposed by the Commission, and about the content of Commission measures implementing it. State aid and competition decisions are anyway subject to objective rules and can be challenged in the courts, and the Commission's infringement actions have to be made out in court. It would be a good idea, if the Commission President were 'partisan', to establish mechanisms to ensure that the less political aspects of its decision-making are separate from its political choices. But this is not impossible: see, for instance, the separation of the European Central Bank's functions as regards (politically accountable) banking supervision from its role as an independent central bank. Anyway, the Grabbe/Lehner argument forgets that since 1999, the Commission President has already been chosen from the party which won the most seats in the EP - without any sign of contamination of the Commission's more technical tasks.

Secondly, while it seems likely that the next Commission President will not be a former Prime Minister (unlike the last three Presidents). However, this is not a guarantee of effectiveness: the most effective Presidents (Hallstein and Delors) had not been Prime Ministers, whle the least effective President (Santer) had been. This line of argument assumes that neither the Member States nor the Commission President will make any effort to work effectively with the other, but this seems unlikely. The history of the EU shows a continuing attempt to reach a broad consensus between institutions. Similarly, as regards the third argument, any Commission President is bound to know that his or her initiatives have to obtain the support of a least a qualified majority in the Council.

The fourth argument (the partisan mix of the Commission) is perhaps the strongest point. To draw an analogy, it is difficult enough for the British Conservative party to accept that it has to govern with a minority of Liberal Democrats in the cabinet. So how could a government work if David Cameron were Prime Minister, with a majority of cabinet members from the Labour party?

The answer is that the EU institutions also seek broad consensus within them. In fact, due to the different makeup of the different governments of the Member States, the Commissioners have always had a broad mix of political backgrounds. Also, the Grabbe/Lehner thesis overlooks the Treaty provisions which seek to reinforce the influence of the Commission President: the requirement of all Commissioners to work under his guidance and her ability to sack individual Commissioners. The added legitimacy of indirect election of the President would only reinforce this. Plus, as noted above, the Commission President will need the support of several political parties to be elected anyway. Finally, a more radical answer to this critique is that the EP should go further, expecting the political parties to nominate an entire team of Commissioners which would constitute the next Commission. So far, of course, this step has not been taken.

As for the argument about political legitimacy, the poll which the ECR commissioned to justify its decision not to run a candidate was very interesting. While large numbers of voters were critical of the EU's legitimacy, and were not familiar with the names of the candidates for Commission President, the bigger percentage of respondents agreed that they were 'happy' with the idea of the vote for the EP elections determining who would become Commission President, because this would make the EU more democratic. This was particularly pronounced in Poland, where the poll of Poles (I couldn't resist) indicated that 50% supported the idea, while only 19% were opposed. The idea was also supported in France, Italy and Spain, but opposed in Germany and the UK - which makes the British Conservative position (and perhaps also the UK Labour Party's contortions) understandable.  In any event, the poll suggests that many of those who think the EU lacks legitimacy would be 'happy' with the idea of enhancing that legitimacy by means of the indirect election of the Commission President. And how many people had heard of Barroso, in February 2004? Or Obama, in January 2008?

This is ultimately the decisive argument in favour of indirect election - the need to attempt to forge a greater democratic link between EU citizens and the Union. The idea certainly has its flaws, but for the reasons set out above, the existing EU institutional system can adjust to accommodate it. Those flaws are outweighed by the advantages of seizing the opportunity to take a significant step towards democratising the EU, and giving the voters an opportunity, however indirect, to (in Weiler's terms) 'throw the rascals out'. Nor does it mean that the EU necessarily becomes more centralised. In my view, the debate on the future of the EU could only have benefited from (for instance) John Major setting out the ECR's case across Europe for a less centralised, less regulated EU focussing on free trade.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 3

Should EU citizens who move retain the right to vote in their Member State of origin?

Steve Peers

The European Commission has recently produced a communication and a recommendation on the loss of EU citizens' right to vote when they move between Member States. According to the Commission, while Member States' national identity entails the right to decide who makes up a national electorate, Member States must consider whether their policies of disenfranchisement lead to a loss of the right to political participation. Many such citizens retain an interest in the politics of their country of origin, it is no longer difficult to keep in touch with political developments at home, and there is an ongoing trend toward allowing expatriates to retain their voting rights.

Five Member States disenfranchise their citizens who move abroad. Denmark, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus disenfranchise their citizens if they leave the country between 6 months and 2 years, while the UK disenfranchises its citizens after 15 years abroad. The European Court of Human Rights has recently upheld the British restrictions as compatible with the right to free elections, as set out in the First Protocol to the ECHR (Shindler v UK, 2013). Moreover, those who move to another Member State do not obtain the right to vote there in general elections (except in the UK, for Irish and Commonwealth citizens). They only have the right to vote (pursuant to EU law) in local and European Parliament elections.

The Commission believes that this disenfranchisement is: out of keeping with the premise of EU citizenship (ie, adding to national citizenship rights, not taking them away); could lead to complications regarding the exercise of free movement rights; and leads to a gap in political participation. In particular, the Commission points out that while all EU citizens resident in the EU qualifying to vote have the opportunity to vote for the European Parliament, those who move and are disenfranchised cannot influence the composition of the Council.  (One could add that they cannot influence the make-up of the European Council either).

Two possible options for solving this problem are rejected: obtaining the host State's citizenship would be at odds with the transnational and complex nature of EU citizenship, and mutual recognition of voting rights.

Therefore the Commission suggests a number of short-term solutions within the EU framework. In particular, Member States should allow citizens to remain enfranchised if they move between Member States, at least if they express an interest in doing so. And in the longer term, the idea of enfranchisement in the host country (including for regional elections) should be further encouraged.

These principles and suggestions (except for the longer-term ideas) are then set out in the preamble and main text of the Commission Recommendation. 

Comments

The Commission hints that Member States' disenfranchisement policies might infringe EU free movement and citizenship law. While the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU in this area can be hard to predict (I did not expect either of the Rottmann or Ruiz Zambrano rulings, for instance), at first sight it appears that this interpretation cannot be correct.  The Treaties lay out the rights of EU citizens, including the right to vote and stand for election in another Member State's local elections, or in voting for the European Parliament. Then Article 25 TFEU sets out the possibility for adding new rights for EU citizens, subject to a unanimous vote in the Council and national ratification.  The obvious implication is that further political rights for EU citizens are subject to the adoption of such further measures by the Council.

Would it be a good idea to adopt such a measure? While political citizenship is obviously a key element of citizenship as traditionally defined, and the particular context of the EU suggests that voting rights should not be lost due to exercising free movement rights, and as regards the make-up of the Council (as co-legislator), it does not necessarily follow that those rights should be retained in the country of origin. It seems more sensible that they be transferred to the country of residence, given that the citizen has voting rights for the European Parliament there, along with local voting rights. Moreover, the main thrust of EU citizenship for those who move between Member States is about their equal treatment and integration into the host State, not the retention of links with their home State. EU citizens who have moved between Member States have the right to return to their home State without being prejudiced by their time away: but it is a different matter to say that they should be treated as if they had never left while they are still abroad. While it is true to say (as the Commission does) that expatriates retain some interest in taxation decisions in their country of origin, they are nonetheless likely to be paying most or all of their taxes in their host State.

Having said that, Member States obviously prefer retaining voting rights for their own citizens who move away, instead of extending them to foreigners who move to that country. The Commission's suggestion is therefore going with the flow, rather than spitting in the wind. So it has more chance of being successful than the more logical alternative.

Oddly, the Commission only briefly mentions the issue of regional elections, and does not mention referendums at all. On the first point, it would make even less sense to allow expatriates to continue voting in such elections, since those elections are more inherently territorial. On the second point (and there are of course regional and local referendums too), both expatriates and the citizens of other EU Member States who have exercised free movement rights have an obvious special interest in voting in national referendums on EU Treaty amendments, and (possibly soon in the UK) on whether the relevant Member State should remain part of the EU. One might expect that British expatriates living in other EU Member States, and citizens of other Member States living in the UK, would be particularly likely to vote to stay in the EU. Indeed, perhaps their votes could swing a close election - although there will always be some turkeys who vote for Christmas.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 13