With Brexit now cemented after the British elections
last month, we are starting to taste the first consequences of the populist and
Euro-skeptic policies and governments we all chose to adopt since the economic
crisis, from the newer EU members to the old.
The sad thing is that we resolved to those choices
when our pockets were hurt, however we disturbingly opted to vent our anger and
frustration once again towards migrants and in addition, to turn against our
greatest political achievement of the past decades; the EU.
Admittedly, it is hard to have all countries of Europe
agree on something. They have different economies, mentalities, cultures and
historical “baggage”, that even though they strive for the same thing, they
squabble.
Take immigration for example. One would have thought,
that while having established freedom of movement and a market economy which
every political elite on the continent reveres and defends, immigration
especially within the EU would not have caused such ripples.
Our economic model needs immigrants, so unless we
chose to radically change it and alter our social template, we must accept that
immigration is here to stay. We cannot have the welfare benefits we enjoy,
without someone working and paying for them.
Of course, there must be a distinction between
migrants and refugees, the second causing such a terror in Europe lately, that
people would happily prefer to give up their freedoms and privileges as EU
nationals, in order to keep them out.
Not that the arrival of so many people outside or
Europe in such a short time, does not pose serious challenges and problems, or
it is only our problem to tackle. But for most, it is the least we can do until
their countries are livable again.
With the people escaping from war torn regions, come
naturally economic migrants and others who see our continent as a land of
promise and opportunity, just as many of our ancestors saw other continents in
the past.
They are the ones that are most unwanted.
Understandably, native Europeans fear the drastic change that a large number of
new comers bring, especially when politicians fail to explain to them the
conditions these people live and work in, the benefits they bring and of
course, how many enter but also are repatriated or deported.
With a single market and freedom of movement long
established, Europe should by now have its common immigration policy and unity,
when dealing with such crises and challenges. However, the EU is comprised by
states with a very different view on citizenship, nationality and immigration
laws, that have formed through very different paths in history.
The Western part, had for centuries colonized other
continents, resulting in vast, multi-ethnic and multi-religious empires. To
them, citizenship and national identity is more tolerant of multiculturalism,
because their elites had to convince their subjects that they share a common
identity, in order to justify their rule over such a mosaic of peoples.
In addition, they enjoyed economic growth and wealth
far earlier, thus they experienced immigration into their countries since the
‘50s in some cases; enough time to develop a new sense of ethnic identity and
citizenship, or at least get used to migrants.
Contrary to them, many Eastern and Central new EU
member states have a more nation-oriented sense of citizenship, as they were
not as exposed to multiculturalism for as long as their western piers. So, when
they were faced with such societal alterations such as inward immigration and
dealing with refugees, understandably there was fear and skepticism.
Something that local populists exploited and used the failures
of Western Europe as an example, in order to help promote their xenophobic
agenda. Because yes, even after so many decades of experiencing inward
migration, the western European states haven’t in all cases achieved to manage
immigration properly.
In a discussion with a Belgian national last year, we
ended up talking about the state in the city of Brussels, in which large parts
have turned into immigrant ghettos, an image that often is used by populists as
an example of “what is to come”, if other countries fall under the
“islamisation” of Europe.
He explained some of the grave mistakes that the
Belgian government has made, when out of guilt for their actions in their
African colonies in the past, in combination with their need of labor force
due to their nation’s industrialization, they have decided to attract many
immigrants from their former colonies like Congo to live and work in Belgium.
With them, others followed from countries like Morocco
and the Belgians loosened their immigration laws in order to facilitate the
enrichment of their country’s labor force, plus to compensate many from their
former colonies.
When their economy and industries changed and they
clearly did not need as many immigrants, the establishment found it hard to
touch the sensitive matter of immigration, out of complex and guilt, or simply
out fear of being branded racists.
As Brussels is divided in different districts and
jurisdictions and Belgium itself in two major language-based authorities, the
immigration issue soon became a matter that was passed on from one authority to
the other like a hot potato. In the end nobody took responsibility for it, so
any efforts for integrating or controlling the number entering the country was
left to run by old laws and an outdated approach.
Thus, we have today not just Brussels, but many other
western European capitals and large cities, faced with the same problem and
that is something that others use as an example to refuse to open their borders
to refugees; breaking the ranks with their European partners and exposing the
EU’s inability to promote solidarity among its members on such issue.
In the western part of Europe too, immigration has
become a hot topic, one of the main reasons-or excuses- for Brexit, the rise of
the far Right in France, populist government in Italy, terrorism in Norway in
the face of Anders Breivik.
These incidents simply express Europe’s identity
crisis, but also the failures of our governments which are the real cause of
the problem and not immigration itself or the free movement.
Although everyone benefits from them, in dire times it
is easier to blame Eastern European workers for unemployment and the loss of jobs,
even though in recent years, large numbers are returning to their economically
booming homelands.
Under the current social and economic model we
adopted, non-EU immigrants are necessary to maintain our social security,
growth and investments. Yet we are finding hard to integrate them and once we
do not have jobs for them anymore, out of guilt and complex we do not encourage
them to return to their home countries or seek new opportunities to other EU
member states.
They are forced to live in poverty-stricken ghettos,
with less opportunities than the rest and naturally, wherever there is poverty
and exclusion, come institutionalization and radicalization. The native
population is confused, as they fear they are losing their identity and control
over their communities and societies.
In addition, when their governments fail to secure
them jobs, they become desperate or angry and rightly so. However, they also
often oppose necessary reforms, in order to maintain benefits and privileges
that are not in sync with the modern reality.
Thus, consequently and out of desperation they want to
return to what they know best: the nation state that raised them comfortably. European
countries have shown two trends when dealing with the refugee crisis, some like
Sweden and Germany accepted many people in, while others like Hungary are
trying hard to keep as many out.
It remains to be seen how well the first two countries
can integrate their new arrivals on their own and not conduct the mistakes of Belgium,
or for how long Hungary can have the tolerance of their European partners.
Europe needs strong leadership right now and an EU
that will convince its members to agree to a common immigration policy, that will
heal these divisions and soothe the mistakes conducted by the national
governments in the past.
A policy that will complement the freedom of movement
and allow people from within, but also outside the EU, to be able to contribute
with their knowledge and expertise, move freely in the block and enrich their own
skills.
We could decide on the educational background of the
immigrants we would like to attract, just like Canada and Australia are doing. Perhaps
we could even open immigration centers in the regions of the migrants’ origin,
instead of allowing them to enter illegally in Europe.
The list of what we could do to streamline Europe’s
immigration policy is endless, however all is blocked by national governments who
wish to maintain control over this issue; but in most cases it is them who are failing.
Sharing responsibility and resources, could be the
solution and the answer to the immigration question, which has become so
prominent in our continent recently. Yet we are a long way in accepting this
reality and thus, we prolong the problem with a negative impact on everyone
individually, but above all the future of European unity and integration.
