Review of safe third countries frightens socialists, greens, and the left. Tarquinio (PD): “A very dangerous step”

Brussels – Certainly not an uprising, but a clear indication that, when the EU Parliament will give its opinion on the
controversial changes to the application of the safe third country concept proposed by the European Commission, there will be at least three groups ready to do battle. Maybe four. In a question tabled by Marco Tarquinio (PD/S&D), 37 socialist, green, and left-wing MEPs—and one liberal—have asked the EU executive to clarify how transfers of asylum seekers to countries with which they have no link can be compatible with international law.

Tarquinio stressed that the proposed revision submitted on 20 May and envisaged by the Pact on Migration and Asylum “represents a very dangerous step,” because, as stated in the text of the parliamentary question, “the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly clarified that a transfer to a third country respects the European Convention on Human Rights only if the applicant has a significant link with that country and if effective and accessible procedural guarantees are guaranteed.” But the removal of the link criterion and the abolition of the automatic suspensive effect of appeals go in the opposite direction.

The 38 MEPs press the Commission and ask how it will “ensure that such a broad interpretation of the safe third country concept will not lead to a systematic externalisation of asylum responsibilities, which is contrary to the spirit of the Common European Asylum System and within the EU.” In addition to Tarquinio, the signatories include 13 other Italians: Nicola Zingaretti, Cecilia Strada, Brando Benifei, Alessandro Zan, Giorgio Gori, Sandro Ruotolo, Alessandra Moretti (PD), Pasquale Tridico, Gaetano Pedullà (5 Star Movement), Leoluca Orlando, Benedetta Scuderi, Cristina Guarda, and Ilaria Salis (AVS). 

The distortion of the safe third country concept—which according to the European Commission is nothing more than “a targeted amendment of an already existing provision in EU law” and in any case “accompanied by solid guarantees”—passed somewhat quietly: it was not presented at a press conference, nor did the competent European Commissioner, Austrian Magnus Brunner, speak about it. So much so that, except for the harsh criticism from the European Left Group, which called the proposal a ‘mass deportation plan‘, the Socialists and Democrats, as well as the Greens (who had supported Ursula von der Leyen’s confirmation and approved the College of Commissioners), remained silent.

Tarquinio’s words, nevertheless, are a clear indication. “Unfortunately, the objective of this Commission and many European governments is clear: to stigmatise and externalise immigration, while delegitimising the European and international courts that protect fundamental rights,” attacked the Dem MEP and member of the Socialist Group.

At the EU Council, the flexibilities proposed by the Commission to transfer refugees to third countries are unlikely to meet with resistance. In the EU Parliament, the numbers speak for themselves: Socialists, Greens and Left are not enough to guarantee the approval of substantial changes to the text. Not even with the addition of the Renew Liberals (French Fabienne Keller signed the question), who, moreover, have different sensitivities depending on their country of origin. A part of the People’s Party should take a stand against the securitarian stranglehold and the outsourcing of international protection. Among the 38 signatories, however, there are no Populars.