Pages

Welcome, 77 artists, 40 different points of Attica welcomes you by singing Erotokritos an epic romance written at 1713 by Vitsentzos Kornaros

Showing posts with label european court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label european court. Show all posts

Friday, June 22, 2012

The European fiscal treaty is an enemy to democracy | Sahra Wagenknecht

Because no elected government would stand a chance of revoking this policy, I will vote against the ratification

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel has been key in deciding the course of the European crisis policy. The fiscal treaty and the European stability mechanism (ESM) are an attempt to dictate this policy indefinitely to the countries in Europe. This strategy, however, ignores two fundamental facts. First, it was only after the worldwide financial crisis in 2008 that the state debts started rising. They did so because of a global recession and the bank rescue packages. It is not true that European countries had been living beyond their means. Second, Merkel's crisis policy ignores the fact that high spending cuts have a negative impact on economic growth.

At worst, this kind of policy leads to a recession. In Greece this policy has been carried to extremes. In recent years the Greek economy has slumped by 20%. This usually happens only in wartime. Youth unemployment in Greece, like in Spain, now runs as high as 50%. The result is a steep decline in tax revenues which leads to a mounting increase of the Greek state debt despite all spending cuts. This policy, in the meantime, has driven the entire eurozone into a recession. The EU commission predicts negative growth for 2012.

Enforcing the fiscal treaty in a situation like this would coerce the whole of Europe into budget cuts for decades and by so doing would permanently strangle economic growth. No country in the eurozone – with the exception of Finland and Estonia – would have fulfilled the criteria of the fiscal treaty in 2011. This means that 98% of the economy and the population in the eurozone would have been subjected to quasi-automatic budget cuts in 2012, with Brussels controlling their enforcement. The fiscal treaty is an enemy to democracy because no elected government would stand a chance of revoking this policy that has been dictated. The international treaty does not allow for unilateral termination. Infringements would lead to court proceedings before the European court and eventually to penalty payments for the country in question. The fiscal treaty is a scandalous deprivation of the will of the population.

It is odd that it is Germany of all governments that is the driving force behind this madness. After all, it was Germany that at the beginning of the 1930s experienced first-hand how a policy of that kind led our country at first and then the entire world into the catastrophe. A policy lacking all solidarity is also incomprehensible because it is German capital which by means of an aggressive export policy has profited way above average from the common currency ever since it came into force. This is why it is particularly important that Merkel is reminded of her destructive role at every possible occasion. Many by now regard the developments in Europe as a danger for the world economy. The statements of the heads of government at the G20 summit showed this clearly. It is even worse, of course, that this policy divides Europe and destroys the future of the people.

In order to break the vicious circle it is necessary to stop the fiscal treaty and the policy of budget cuts coming along with it. Otherwise all decisions to add growth impulses can only be regarded as fig leaves. Sound public finances cannot be brought about by a fiscal treaty that strangles economic growth and tax revenues. State budgets can only be restored by increasing state income by means of a strict redistribution of wealth. High mounting debts and unevenly spread wealth are two sides of the same problem. It can be resolved by adequately taxing millionaires and high profits. With the fiscal treaty, an alternative policy cannot be enforced for a long time to come, because the treaty explicitly states that budget consolidation through spending cuts is paramount.

This is the reason I am going to vote against the ratification of the fiscal treaty and the permanent rescue scheme in the German Bundestag, together with my parliamentary group Die Linke (The Left). Should the bill pass, which unfortunately is likely because the other opposition parties in the German parliament have yielded their position, we are going to take legal action and file suit against the treaties before the German constitutional court.

• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.guardian.co.uk

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

European countries must join forces to solve the asylum crisis | Paul Haydon

Too many refugees fleeing their own country end up in inhumane detention centres in Europe. We should all take responsibility

Today marks World Refugee Day, which aims to raise awareness of the plight of the 42.5 million people worldwide who remain forcibly displaced due to conflict and political persecution. The UNHCR's Global Trends report, released earlier this week, shows how during 2011 major conflicts in Ivory Coast, Libya, Somalia and Sudan caused several major refugee crises, forcing more than 800,000 people into neighbouring countries, the highest in more than a decade, and internally displacing a further 3.5 million within the borders of their own countries.

Yet with world leaders focusing on the fate of the eurozone, the plight of the world's most vulnerable people is in danger of being overlooked. As well as working together to solve our economic troubles, it is vital that we help the millions of men, women, and children who have been forced from their homes and had their lives thrown into a state of fear and uncertainty.

The EU plans to reach an agreement over a common European asylum system by the end of this year, aiming to strengthen common standards on asylum, establish greater solidarity between member states, and ensure fair and decent treatment of refugees.

However, countries on the EU's periphery continue to shoulder the brunt of refugee flows relative to their capacity, burdening the already strained living conditions in immigration reception and detention centres. Malta provides a case in point. During 2011 Malta received more asylum requests per capita than any other EU country, with 4,500 applications per million inhabitants, 10 times more than the UK. Meanwhile, in one single incident last month 600 migrants were rescued and hosted by the Maltese government. Taking the tiny island's population into account, that is the equivalent of 90,000 refugees arriving in the UK in one day.

It is therefore no great surprise that conditions in Malta's detention centres, where asylum seekers must wait for their application to be processed for periods of up to 18 months, have been described as "unhealthy, unsuitable and dangerous".

Cash-stricken Greece must also manage a disproportionate amount of Europe's migrant flows. In 2010, 90% of all irregular entries to Europe took place along the Turkish-Greek border, whereas 57,000 attempted entries were recorded last year. The upcoming completion of a six-mile razor wire wall along the border may stem the number of irregular migrants arriving, but will only provide a temporary solution as it will simply serve to divert migratory flows.

In the meantime, the growing population of undocumented migrants in Greece, which is now thought to stand at 400,000, is fuelling xenophobic sentiment and racism, as the rise of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn party shows. Meanwhile, the growth in asylum requests is causing a humanitarian crisis, as the creaking asylum system suffers under budget cuts and migrants continue to suffer appalling conditions in detention centres.

The European Commission has criticised Greece's poor treatment of asylum seekers, and has pledged €90m to help Greece with its migration management, although it refused to contribute to the €5m fence at the Greek-Turkish border which it has called "pointless". In addition, the Dublin II regulation, which allows EU member states to transfer asylum requests to the country of first entry, has recently been called into question, with the European court of justice ruling that asylum seekers may not be transferred to a member state where they risk being subjected to "inhuman treatment".

Since then many "Dublin" returns to Greece have been temporarily suspended, as EU members realise it is not realistic to transfer yet more asylum requests to a country already struggling to cope with its refugees.

However, despite the drive for greater solidarity and common European standards, wide disparities continue – as shown by the vast differences in the recognition of asylum claims. For Afghan asylum seekers, recognition rates ranged from 73% in Sweden to 11% in Greece, with the UK somewhere in between with 32%. Meanwhile, the acceptance rate for Iraqis varies from between 0 and 81%. There are fears that with economic and political pressures growing, we may increasingly see a regulatory race to the bottom, with countries attempting to make their asylum policies more restrictive than their neighbours in a form of "burden shifting".

This sort of unco-operative approach also threatens the freedom of movement that underpins the single market and brings significant economic benefits to European countries, including the UK. For example, when the Italian government last year issued Tunisian migrants with temporary residence permits and tacitly encouraged them to go to France, the French government responded by temporarily blocking trains from Italy. While just last week the European Council agreed to give national governments more freedom to impose border controls within the Schengen zone, excluding the European parliament from co-legislating in this area and potentially threatening labour mobility.

Ultimately though, it is refugees themselves who stand to suffer most from the lack of co-operation between European countries and the shrinking of asylum space. While conditions in detention centres continue to deteriorate in the EU's peripheral states, increasing numbers of asylum seekers are arriving, fleeing regional conflicts such as the ongoing brutal civil wars in Syria or Somalia, only to find themselves living in inhumane living conditions and in fear of racist attacks.

To give these people the fair and dignified treatment they deserve, there needs to be more financial solidarity to allow countries such as Malta and Greece to manage their refugee populations adequately. Moreover, there needs to be an independent EU body to oversee the processing of asylum applications, to prevent divergences and allow a fair process for all. More controversially, a system of internal redistribution of asylum seekers, as exists between the different states in Germany, could enable a more even distribution of responsibility for Europe's refugee flows.

Finally, a common European asylum system can only truly be common if the UK, Ireland and Denmark fully partake, and stop opting out of many of the directives regarding asylum policy simply because they are not part of the Schengen zone. Only by working together can we hope to overcome the complex issues asylum poses, and assume our responsibility to give international protection to those who need it. As the UN secretary Ban Ki-moon recently commented, refugees leave because they have no choice. We, on the other hand, do.

• Follow Comment is free on Twitter @commentisfree


guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds





READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.guardian.co.uk