In their year and a half in government, the Greens have already made a number of compromises. Now, with the tightening of the EU asylum rules, there is another one. That upsets some.
After the federal government’s approval of the planned tightening of European asylum rules, heated discussions are emerging among the Greens. No sooner had the EU interior ministers sealed the unification of their states in Luxembourg with applause than the dual leadership of the Green party and parliamentary group spoke up, each with two different assessments.
After the Greens, as part of the traffic light government with SPD and FDP, approved the difficult European compromise, some of the management staff publicly distanced themselves from it – a remarkable process.
what was decided
The asylum procedures in the EU are to be significantly tightened in view of the problems with illegal migration. A sufficiently large majority of ministers in Luxembourg voted in favor of comprehensive reform plans.
In particular, a much tougher treatment of migrants with no prospects of staying is planned. In the future, people arriving from countries that are considered safe should come to strictly controlled reception facilities under conditions similar to detention after crossing the border. There, it would normally be checked within twelve weeks whether the applicant has a chance of asylum. If not, it should be sent back immediately.
In the negotiations, the federal government had emphatically advocated that families with children be exempted from the so-called border procedures. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck (both Green) also spoke in this spirit. In order to make the breakthrough possible, however, they ultimately had to accept that this could be possible. The decision was “very difficult for her as Foreign Minister, as a Green and also personally,” she wrote in a letter to the Greens parliamentary group. She still thinks the agreement is right because it will improve the status quo for many refugees. The letter, previously reported by “Bild”, was available to the German Press Agency.
Faeser promises further exceptions
After the decision, Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) said that the federal government, together with Portugal, Ireland and Luxembourg, would continue to advocate exceptions. It is also conceivable that the EU Parliament will push through changes. It has a say in the reform and will negotiate the project with representatives of the EU states in the coming months.
Solidarity with burdened Member States
In addition, the plans decided on Thursday also provide for more solidarity with the heavily burdened member states at the EU’s external borders. In the future, it should no longer be voluntary, but mandatory. Countries that do not want to take in refugees would be forced to pay compensation. Countries like Hungary therefore voted against the plan.
According to the Commissioner responsible, Ylva Johansson, rejected asylum seekers can in principle also be deported to non-EU countries in the future. The only requirement should be that they have a connection to this country.
The polyphonic Greens
After the obviously painful decision, leading Greens tried to communicate together, albeit not uniformly. Co-leader Omid Nouripour spoke out on Thursday with a series of tweets in which he weighed up the pros and cons, with the result: “Overall, I come to the conclusion that today’s approval is a necessary step, to move forward together in Europe.”
The form of the results of the meeting of interior ministers on the EU asylum reform still had to be strictly negotiated. “This is a matter of design that we still have to talk very, very hard about within the European Union,” he said today on Deutschlandfunk. “We have always pushed that families are completely exempted, that vulnerable groups are not included in these border procedures. That has not been achieved,” he said.
Fellow party leader Ricarda Lang expressed similar differences, but with the result that “Germany should not have agreed to the proposal for the CEAS reform in the council today.” But she also wrote: “It’s a damn difficult decision that nobody made easy. That’s why I have respect for everyone who, in the overall assessment, came to a different decision than I did.” GEAS stands for Common European Asylum System. The faction leaders Britta Haßelmann (for) and Katharina Dröge (against) thought it was similar to the leaders of the party.
Massive criticism also came from the European Parliament members of the Greens. “The EU member states have lost their moral compass,” complained the spokesman for the German Greens in the European Parliament, Rasmus Andresen. “It is shameful that the German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser, with the approval of the traffic light coalition, also agreed to this proposal.”
The group leader in the European Parliament, Terry Reintke, complained: “The Council’s position contradicts European values such as fundamental rights and respect for the rule of law.” The parliamentary group rejects the decision of the council.
Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Vice Chancellor Habeck defended the compromise, citing the need for agreement in Europe. “I have great respect for those who come to other ratings for humanitarian reasons,” Habeck told the German Press Agency. “I hope they also see that there are reasons to recognize this result.” A hope that not only he expressed that evening. In the first few statements, approval came from representatives of the Realo wing, rejection from the left-wing Greens.
Baerbock defends compromise
During her visit to Colombia on Thursday, Baerbock canceled part of her program in order to advertise the compromise in video switching in the party and parliamentary group. Shortly after the agreement, she made her line publicly clear from Cali. “To be honest, if we as the federal government could have decided on the reform on our own, then it would look different,” she said. “But honesty also means that anyone who thinks this compromise is unacceptable will accept that no one will be distributed in the future.”
In plain language: If the external border countries Italy and Greece had been outvoted in Luxembourg and not included in the compromise, the desired triad of registration, distribution and border procedures would hardly have worked anyway. The willingness of Rome or Athens to participate in the registration would then have been close to zero – and the whole concept would have failed.
In her statement, Baerbock had already made it drastically clear what government responsibility means for her in the balancing act: If Germany had voted against the compromise with Poland and Hungary, for example, “a joint European asylum policy based on solidarity would be dead for years.” All those who wanted to raise national walls in Europe anyway would have a free ticket. “This compromise was also necessary in order to preserve our Europe without controls at the internal borders,” she added.
Green youth amazed
The leadership duo of the youth organization Green Youth, Timon Dzienus and Sarah-Lee Heinrich, said they were downright shocked. Dzienus wrote about the compromise on Twitter: “This is inhumane and I will not accept it like this”. Heinrich wrote: “I am stunned. Foreclosure does not ensure that fewer people flee. It means that more people suffer.” Almost 500 Greens had recently warned of the asylum plans in a letter to top representatives of their party.
Source: Stern
I have been working in the news industry for over 6 years, first as a reporter and now as an editor. I have covered politics extensively, and my work has appeared in major newspapers and online news outlets around the world. In addition to my writing, I also contribute regularly to 24 Hours World.
