FT: EU aikoo siirtää vastuuta pakolaisten vastaanottamisesta pohjoisille maille

[Valli]

Tähän ei kyllä saa ikinä suostua. Toivottavasti tämä muutos vaatii yksimielisen päätöksen koska itäeuroopan maat tulevat varmasti torppaamaan tämän.

Euroopan unioni aikoo luopua säännöstä, jonka mukaan ensimmäinen maa, johon pakolainen saapuu, on velvollinen käsittelemään turvapaikkahakemuksen, kertoo Financial Times.

Säännön muutos "mullistaisi unionin maahanmuuttopolitiikan", FT arvioi. Se siirtäisi maahanmuuton aiheuttamaan taakkaa unionin eteläiseltä reunalta vauraammille pohjoisille maille, lehti kirjoittaa.

Nykyinen malli on käytännössä epäonnistunut, koska Kreikan ja Italian kaltaiset maat eivät ole onnistuneet käsittelemään niihin saapunutta yli miljoonan pakolaisen virtaa. Viime vuonna Saksa salli satojen tuhansien turvapaikanhakijoiden tulla maahan ilman, että heitä vaadittiin palaamaan ensimmäiseen EU-maahan, johon he tulivat.

FT:n lähteiden mukaan EU-komissio on tullut johtopäätökseen, että sääntö on "vanhentunut" ja "epäreilu", ja siitä luopumista tullaan esittämään maaliskuussa.

Sääntö voisi pakottaa pohjoisia EU-maita ottamaan vastaan lisää pakolaisia, koska heitä olisi vaikeampi palauttaa naapurimaihin.

Säännön muuttaminen voi olla vaikeaa sekä poliittisesti että teknisesti, FT huomauttaa. Neuvottelut uusista säännöistä jatkuvat ainakin maaliskuuhun, lehti arvioi. Uudet pakolaisten vastaanoton kriteerit voivat pohjautua esimerkiksi kansantuotteeseen ja väestön kokoon.

http://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/ft-eu-aikoo-siirtaa-vastuuta-pakolaisten-vastaanottamisesta-pohjoisille-maille-6246303

[sozaburon paluu]

Ja Suomen hallituksen kantaa asiaan ei varmaan tarvi hirveästi arvailla 

[Randy]

Olihan tämä odotettavissa koko ajan, että paska valuu lopulta suuremmilta osin niihin maihin, joissa on korkea sosiaaliturva ja sinnehän sitten lopulta jäävät (lopulta vieden kyseiset maat konkurssin partaalle). Onnea vaan Suomi ja kiitos Orpo ja kumppanit. Tämähän oli kai jokin luonnon laki, johon ei voinut vaikuttaa, koska kansainväliset sopimukset, ihmisoikeudet jne.

En olisi kyllä koskaan uskonut, että Suomi ja sen "hyvinvointivaltio" tullaan lopulta tuhoamaan ihan vaan kävelemällä naureskellen sisään pääosin arabien toimesta, omien poliitikkojen hurratessa vieressä. Hienosti hoidettu.

[Lalli Kirvesniemi]

Odotan mielenkiinnolla Soinin ulostuloa tämän suhteen. PS:n tarun loppu jos tämä menee läpi.

[Pakkanen]

Mitäs vastuuta Schengenin etelärajan maat ovat tähän asti ottaneet?

- ei rajavalvontaa
- ei taikaseinää

Ainoa etuus minkä etelärajan valtiot matuille tarjoavat, on helppo pääsy Schengen -alueelle ja pohjoisten valtioiden etuuksien ääreen.

Pelkkiä läpikulkumaita.

Jos nykyinen järjestelmä on epäreilu, niin se on sitä Pohjoisille valtioille.

[Late]

Koko Dublin-sääntö on ollut kuollut jo hyvän aikaa, joten eipä sen poistaminen virallisesti juuri yllätä.
Se kyllä vähän yllättää että edelleen kehdataan väittää Dublinin aiheuttavan Italialle ja Kreikalle valtavan taakan. Eiväthän ne tätä sääntöä ole pitkään aikaan, jos koskaan, noudattaneet.

Toivottavasti tämä muutos vaatii yksimielisen päätöksen koska itäeuroopan maat tulevat varmasti torppaamaan tämän.

Tuskin torppaavat. Ei sinne kukaan halua jäädä. Korkeintaan tarjoavat "pakolaisille" kyydin seuraavan maan rajalle. Pohjoismaihin, Saksaan, Britanniaan ym. nämä "pakolaiset" matkalla ovat.

[Renesanssimies]

Alkuperäiset FT:n artikkelit suunnitelluista EU-tason muutoksista



January 19, 2016 6:57 pm

EU to shift refugee burden to northern states

Duncan Robinson in Brussels

Brussels is to scrap rules that make the first country a refugee enters responsible for any asylum claim, revolutionising the bloc's migration policy and shifting the burden from its southern flank to its wealthier northern members.

The "first-country" requirement is the linchpin of the EU refugee system. But it has become politically toxic for EU leaders as Germany and other states criticise frontier countries such as Greece and Italy for failing to register and shelter the 1.1m people that have poured into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa.

The policy essentially broke down last year, when Germany waived its right to send hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers back to other EU member states, but exhorted its reluctant partners to shoulder more responsibility.

The European Commission has concluded the rule — which is part of the Dublin regulation — is "outdated" and "unfair", and will be scrapped in a proposal to be unveiled in March, according to officials briefed on its contents.

The move could oblige some EU members such as Britain to take in many more refugees, since it would become harder to send them back to neighbouring countries. It could also increase the pressure on EU members to back a formal quota system and common asylum rights and procedures to spread the burden across the union.

European Council president Donald Tusk on Tuesday warned that the EU had "no more than two months to get things under control" or face "grave consequences".

Changing the rules on who is responsible for refugees when they arrive would mark a victory for Italian prime minister Matteo Renzi, who has repeatedly argued that the law is unfair and that other member states should do more to help with the refugee crisis.

Replacing the "first country of entry" principle is likely to prove technically and politically tricky. Countries in northern Europe such as the UK are net beneficiaries from the status quo, able to transfer asylum-seekers back to other EU states quickly. Although the UK has an opt-out on EU migration policy, it has opted into the Dublin rules for this reason.

In practice, the current rules have broken down. Last autumn, German chancellor Angela Merkel controversially waived the country's right to return Syrian refugees to the first country of entry, generating both praise and opprobrium from her peers — before reversing course and triggering months of chaotic border openings and closures across Europe.

Transfers to Greece have been effectively banned since 2011 after the European Court of Human Rights declared that the country's asylum system was unfit for purpose even before the recent influx.

Although the Dublin rules provide for intra-European deportation, in reality few of these transfers are actually carried out. In 2013, for example, only 16,000 of 76,000 requested transfers were actually completed.

Discussions on what should succeed the current rules will not be finished until at least March, according to officials familiar with the situation.

Potential replacements include a permanent relocation scheme, which would see asylum seekers in the EU divided among member states based on certain criteria, such as GDP and population size.
Relying on relocation is likely to prove difficult to sell to member states, who have been reluctant to implement a much smaller scheme to share out 160,000 people across the EU. So far, only 322 have been moved.



January 19, 2016 7:24 pm

How the EU plans to overhaul 'Dublin Regulation' on asylum claims

Duncan Robinson in Brussels

Brussels is set to do away with rules making the first country in which a refugee arrives responsible for any asylum claim, in a major shake up of its refugee system.

The plan will be set out in March, when the European Commission unveils its reforms of the so-called Dublin Regulation rules on asylum. But what is Dublin, how did the system get into this mess and how will Brussels fix it?

*What is the 'Dublin Regulation'?
Put simply, the Dublin Regulation — or to give it its snappier official title, Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — decides which nation is responsible for processing a refugee's asylum claim.

While it takes into account issues such as family ties and health, the main rule is clear: the first country of entry is, in general, supposed to deal with the claim.

The idea behind the rule was that responsibility would be decided quickly so that asylum seekers did not end up stuck in a game of bureaucratic ping pong between two member states.

*How does it work?
If an asylum seeker turns up in, say, the Netherlands, Dutch officials are allowed to check to see if he or she has been registered elsewhere in the EU. If it turns out that the asylum seeker had their fingerprints taken in, say, Spain, the Dutch authorities could issue a "transfer" request asking Madrid to receive and handle the asylum application. Madrid could argue against accepting the claim but if there were clear evidence, such as fingerprints, it would be legally bound to do so.

*What went wrong with Dublin during the refugee crisis?
A few things. First, the sheer number of arrivals concentrated in just one or two countries overwhelmed the system. Some 850,000 people poured into Greece during 2015 alone, with nearly another 200,000 arriving in Italy. Dublin was not devised with these kind of numbers in mind.

Second, Germany stopped using it. When Angela Merkel, the chancellor, opened her arms to refugees she did so via Dublin, forfeiting Germany's right to send hundreds of thousands of Syrians who flowed into the country back to Italy or Greece.

*Was it just the crisis that hit Dublin?
No, it was already broken. Migrants knew about the rules and were unwilling to be fingerprinted by Italian or Greek authorities, as it reduced their chances of being able to remain in other preferred destination countries.
This attitude was matched by Italian and Greek officials, who often had little desire to force migrants to register as it increased the chances of their becoming an Italian or Greek responsibility — according to peeved officials in northern countries at least.

On top of this, member states did not bother to see through most transfers even after requesting them because deporting someone is time consuming and expensive. As a result, only 16,000 of 76,000 transfer requests were carried during 2013, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

*So how will Dublin change?
Other than the demise of the "first country of entry" principle, no one knows yet. The commission has said that it will outline the changes to Dublin in March, alongside a package of other migration reforms. Until then, all options are on the table.

Officials have discussed basing the new Dublin on a relocation quota — the floundering plan to share out 160,000 asylum seekers from Italy and Greece among the rest of the EU. Member states have provided Member states have provided places for only 4,237 asylum seekers so far, while barely 300 have actually been moved.

Last week Dimitris Avramopolous, European commissioner for migration, hinted before a committee of MEPs that there would be more "solidarity" among member states, signalling the end to a few countries at the edge of Europe bearing the legal responsibility.

*Will it work?
During the refugee crisis the EU has come up with a series of policies that worked well on paper but flopped in practice, notably the relocation mechanism. A renewed push on this policy would be the first step towards a properly federal asylum policy and would undoubtedly prove controversial with national capitals. But with arrivals in Greece showing no signs of slowing, Europe's leaders may have little choice.

[MacGyver]

Odotan mielenkiinnolla Soinin ulostuloa tämän suhteen. PS:n tarun loppu jos tämä menee läpi.

Ei mitään ulostuloa. Tullut jo selväksi että Soini ei ulkoministerin paikkaansa riskeeraa. Timo on nyt paikassa johon aina haaveillut "Äiti katso, nyt minä olen ulkoministeri". Vielä saa yli kolme vuotta nauttia asemastaan, se on ihan sama mitä sen jälkeen tai missä kunnossa Suomi on.

[Roope]

Alkuperäiset FT:n artikkelit suunnitelluista EU-tason muutoksista

Replacing the "first country of entry" principle is likely to prove technically and politically tricky. Countries in northern Europe such as the UK are net beneficiaries from the status quo, able to transfer asylum-seekers back to other EU states quickly.

Turvapaikanhakijamäärät ovat olleet suurimmat pohjoisissa maissa (Ruotsi, Suomi, Saksa), kun taas Etelä-Euroopan rajavaltiot eivät ole turvapaikanhakijamäärissä kärjessä sen enempää absoluuttisin kuin asukaslukuun suhteutetuissa määrissä. Ne ovat sopimusten vastaisesti lähinnä kauttakulkumaita, siinä missä pohjoisen valtiot joutuvat ottamaan tulijat elätettäviksi vuosikymmeniksi.

*How does it work?
If an asylum seeker turns up in, say, the Netherlands, Dutch officials are allowed to check to see if he or she has been registered elsewhere in the EU. If it turns out that the asylum seeker had their fingerprints taken in, say, Spain, the Dutch authorities could issue a "transfer" request asking Madrid to receive and handle the asylum application. Madrid could argue against accepting the claim but if there were clear evidence, such as fingerprints, it would be legally bound to do so.

Olennainen kohta tuossa onkin rekisteröiminen. Muun muassa mainittu Espanja tunnetusti välttää rekisteröimästä maan läpi kulkevia laittomia siirtolaisia, jotka hakevat turvapaikkaa muualta Euroopasta.

*What went wrong with Dublin during the refugee crisis?
A few things. First, the sheer number of arrivals concentrated in just one or two countries overwhelmed the system. Some 850,000 people poured into Greece during 2015 alone, with nearly another 200,000 arriving in Italy. Dublin was not devised with these kind of numbers in mind.

Kreikka ja Italia vähät välittivät rekisteröimisvelvollisuudesta aiemminkaan. Tulijamäärä kasvoi juuri siksi, että maiden tiedettiin entuudestaan kannustavan läpikulkuun rekisteröinnin sijaan.

Tulijamäärä saadaan laskuun pakottamalla ulkorajavaltiot pysäyttämään kaikki alueelleen tulevat laittomat siirtolaiset ja huolehtimaan heistä. Dublin-sopimuksen purkaminen sen sijaan kasvattaa tulijoiden määrää, kun syvemmälle EU-alueelle pääsee entistä riskittömämmin ja vaivattomammin.

Second, Germany stopped using it. When Angela Merkel, the chancellor, opened her arms to refugees she did so via Dublin, forfeiting Germany's right to send hundreds of thousands of Syrians who flowed into the country back to Italy or Greece.

Merkel ei päättänyt "avata syliään", vaan kyseessä oli julkisuuteen levinnyt väärinkäsitys Saksan maahanmuuttoviraston sisäisestä ohjeesta, jonka mukaan syyrialaisten Dublin-hakemuksiin ei kannata uhrata aikaa. Saksa ei muutenkaan ollut palauttanut turvapaikanhakijoita Kreikkaan, ja Italiankin suhteen oli olemassa rajoituksia ja vaikeuksia, joten Dublin-byrokratiasta otettiin resursseja muuhun toimintaan. Ohje tulkittiin mediassa väärin, Merkel meni möläyttämään, ja loppu on historiaa.

*Was it just the crisis that hit Dublin?
No, it was already broken. Migrants knew about the rules and were unwilling to be fingerprinted by Italian or Greek authorities, as it reduced their chances of being able to remain in other preferred destination countries.
This attitude was matched by Italian and Greek officials, who often had little desire to force migrants to register as it increased the chances of their becoming an Italian or Greek responsibility — according to peeved officials in northern countries at least.

Juuri näin.