Troubled days

June opened with troubled days for the EU institutions. While suspense is growing about the outcome of the Irish referendum on the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon (12 June), the fishermen of various countries have converged on the European quarter of Brussels and mounted violent demonstrations, protesting against the soaring price of fuel, which they say is making their activity increasingly unprofitable. This protest has been complemented by that of cattle farmers, once again on the warpath in their denunciation of milk quotas. Then came the alarm over the nuclear power station at Krsko (Slovenia), just when the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso and some member states have revived the nuclear option. Meanwhile the main EU institutions are seeking shared solutions on energy and climate change, economic growth, and Union for the Mediterranean. And already the issue of immigration and how to deal with it is high on the agenda.The voice of the European Parliament. On the question of immigration, the European Union has long aimed at defining its own strategy, with a twofold objective. The first is that of favouring the entry and integration of those immigrants from third countries who are in compliance with the legislation of member states, who are able to insert themselves in the European workforce and in European society, and who are willing at the same time to make the professional and demographic contribution that an ageing Europe so badly needs. The second objective is that of security: the movement of population, within the EU or from “beyond its frontier” should not undermine the peace of mind of citizens. The idea of a “European pact for immigration” is particularly close to the heart of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has placed this problem high on the agenda of the approaching six-months French Presidency of the European Council, due to begin on 1st July. Meanwhile the European Parliament is about to debate and vote on a Directive aimed at harmonizing the practices of the 27 on the repatriation of illegal immigrants, whose number is estimated, depending on sources, between 6 and 10 million. The debate on the text, drafted by the German MEP Manfred Weber, is scheduled for 17-18 June: if the document is accepted on its “first reading”, that would smooth the way to the adoption of the EU Directive.Detention and banning. The definition by the European Council of a “global plan to combat illegal immigration and the trafficking of human beings in the European Union” dates to 2002. It was followed up by a Green Paper of the Commission, then by a proposed directive (2005). Voted by a larger majority by the EP’s Commission of Public Liberties in September 2007, the Directive had at first aroused contrasting positions among the governments of member states, who had on the other hand reached agreement at the meeting of COREPER, the committee of permanent representatives (ambassadors) of states to the EU. The document was then endorsed by the Council of Ministers of the Interior (5 June). However, second thoughts on the matter are now being expressed in the various political groups of the European Parliament, in the run up to the approaching debate; these misgivings are added to the firm “no” already expressed by the GUE (United Left), contrary right from the start to the Directive. The controversial points include the excessive duration of detention, which may be prolonged as long as 18 months; the fact that expelled immigrants are banned from the EU for five years; the part of the document regarding “unaccompanied minors”, they too subject to its repressive measures; and the need to ensure legal assistance to migrants. The misgivings of the European Churches. Opposition to the Directive has already been expressed by numerous NGOs and associations involved in providing support to immigrants. Misgivings on the Directive were further expressed by Monsignor Agostino Marchetto, secretary of the Pontifical Council for Migrants, who explained in a briefing on 2 June that clandestine immigrants “ought not to be deprived of personal freedom or subject to a penal measure of detention due to an administrative offence”. The European Churches have since intervened anew in their opposition to what has come to be called the “repatriation directive”. In a joint letter delivered to all MEPs on 30 May, COMECE (Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community), CEC (Conference of European Churches), Caritas Europe and the Commission of the Churches for Migrants, express various doubts, already reported in a letter sent on 8 January to EU leaders (Presidents of the Council, Commission and European Parliament). The signatories recognize the commitment of the EU and the difficulties of reaching an agreement on the question among member states and EP, the two co-legislating arms of the EU. But in view of the vote in the EP, they confirm their opposition to prolonged “administrative detention”. The representatives of the Catholic, Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox Churches are also opposed to the banning of repatriated clandestine immigrants from European territory for five years. With regard to “forced” repatriations (further concerns are raised by possible provisions regarding the underage), the European Churches recommend instead the approach of “voluntary returns”, a measure that is also envisaged in the text of the Directive.