from the Strasbourg correspondent – There is now an agreement, but also controversy. The European Parliament and the EU Council are ready to start inter-institutional negotiations, but many do not like the policy on immigration and the management of asylum seekers. The Socialists (S&D), the Greens, and the radical left (The Left) do not like it and try to challenge the vote with an objection to the negotiation mandates on the regulations concerning returns, the list of EU safe countries of origin, and the criteria for determining when a non-EU country can be considered a “safe third country.”
The obstruction attempt went nowhere since there was an agreement at the start; it seemed difficult for the House to defeat it. In the end, both objections were rejected (the first with 396 votes in favour, 202 against, and 56 abstentions, the second with 384 yes, 237 no, 31 abstentions), and the inter-institutional negotiation can indeed start.
However, by forcing the House to debate, the initiators of the initiative – Cecilia Strada (S&D), Tieneke Strik (Greens), and Damien Carême (The Left) – imposed on the EPP to come out in the open. As Strada remarked before the debate, it is on immigration that one can see how deeply “the far-right agenda has entered the workings of the Parliament.” She pointed out that “most countries considered safe are not so.” In the House, she reiterated her criticism: “The compromise texts on safe countries of origin and safe third countries are shameful and hypocritical. Voting for resolutions, condemning violations of human rights, and the rule of law in Turkey, Serbia, and Tunisia, and then claiming that those countries are safe is hypocritical.” She then launched a head-on attack on the Populars, asking, “I have a question for the EPP: if you swore two years ago not to work with the extreme right, why are you drafting laws with them?“
Stop blaming us; we were asked to change the rules,” retorts an irritated Lena Dupont (EPP), backed by conservatives, sovereigntists, and Eurosceptics. “The idea of safe third countries means people can be sent back to where they came from, and it implies fast‑track processing of applications,” stresses Fabrice Leggeri (PfE). “The instrument protects Europe,” cuts in Alessandro Ciriani (ECR). “We need real borders,” echoes Ewa Zajaczkowska-Hernik (ESN), arguing that the proposal helps in that regard, sealing the bond between the EPP and the far‑right.
“The compromise is very dangerous,” denounces Strik, for the Greens. “Asylum seekers risk a short-lived process, with EU states transferring the responsibility for taking care of asylum seekers to other countries, without any guarantees.” Then the lunge: “Declaring Tunisia and Egypt safe is a Christmas present to repression.” Carême (The Left) was even more blunt: “This is Weber’s Christmas present to Meloni, to allow her to apply the Italy-Albania agreement that otherwise would not be implemented.” Carême spoke before the vote, during a press conference called to explain that “we decided to contest this text to denounce the alliance between the EPP and the extreme right.” Ilaria Salis takes the floor in the Chamber on behalf of the group, or at least tries to, because as her name is announced, whistles and boos erupt. A noise that forced the vice-president of the European Parliament, Pina Picierno, to call everyone to order: “This is not a circus; these things are not tolerated.”
The show eventually came to an end, but the alliance between the EPP and the extreme right grew stronger. This time, even the Liberals ditched the Populars. “We oppose this text, a text that does not improve our asylum system,” criticizes Fabienne Keller (RE). The Ursula majority, the real one, is no more. The Ursula majority is another one.
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
