Hungary and Poland tarnish the Granada Declaration and force emigration to be left out | EUROtoday

Decisions can be made by certified majority, reforms can be promoted in opposition to the will of some capitals, however the battle over the immigration problem has solely simply begun. That is the message that the governments of Granada transmitted this Friday Hungary and Poland, breaking apart the second day of conferences of continental leaders and vetoing the unique and full textual content of the long-awaited Declaration during which a lot hope, and a lot effort, had been positioned by Spain. The refusal of each states made the settlement inconceivable, so the doc had to be torn aside. On the one hand, the Declaration at 27 with the remainder of the points, and on the different a weak assertion from the president of the European Council, Charles Michel just for immigration points.

“The declaration has been adopted, and it is a very important point to continue the work in the coming weeks to identify the strategic needs of the Union,” stated the Belgian politician at the finish of the session. “The Summit has been a success. The name of Granada will be forever linked to the future of Europe, to the deepening of the European project. “Today is the starting of the debate on the strategic agenda,” Pedro Sánchez agreed. “The effort has been value it.”

That the issue was going to be the central issue became clear at the end of last week and confirmed the day before. The initial objective was to talk about the future, about enlargement, about the answer that the EU will give in December to the question of whether Ukraine and Moldova are ready to start their accession negotiations, of strategic autonomy. How to maintain aid to Ukraine now that the US is beginning to doubt and some of the partners, from Hungary to Slovakia and from Poland to Romania, are multiplying their reservations, problems or open opposition. But instead, the central issue was that of migration. The Italian introduced it to the agenda Giorgia Meloni, who asked Pedro Sánchez and Michel in writing to reserve time for him, something not initially planned. And he put it back in the drawer, and irritating the Spanish Government, on Thursday, organizing a parallel meeting in which the prime ministers or presidents of Holland, the United Kingdom, France or Albania ended up participating, in addition to the president of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

But since that was not enough, the blockade came this Friday, when Warsaw and Budapest refused to accept the language proposed by the Spanish editors in the migration section. Viktor Orban and Mateusz Morawieki They came to our country wanting a fight, talking about the “EU dictatorship”, about an alleged attempt to impose a pact on them to fill their streets with “unlawful immigrants, riots and violence.” Or saying, without any taboo or institutional respect, that they were “legally violated” when the Council’s position on the fifth regulation of the Migration Pact, which deals with crisis management, was approved on Wednesday by a qualified majority and with their vote against. .

“I’m the Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland. I’m answerable for the safety of Poland and its residents. Therefore, as a accountable politician, I formally reject the complete paragraph of the conclusions of the summit on migration. “Poland is and will continue to be safe under the PiS government,” Morawiecki celebrated at the conclusion of one more act of the everlasting electoral marketing campaign. The place is at stake and the technique is to unfold worry, denounce Brussels and affiliate Donald Tusk with the establishments. (he was president of the European Council) and with the Migration Pact.

The dispute was lengthy on the margins, between ambassadors and Sherpas. The leaders left it for lunch, hoping that the technicians may iron out the bulk of the variations, however it was not sufficient. And in the closing look, Sánchez, Michel and Von der Leyen tiptoed round, avoiding as a lot as doable any point out of friction.

The choices had been a number of. That the variations would be overcome and the unique textual content would transfer ahead. That the Declaration died fully. That any paragraph or point out of migration be eradicated. Or the formulation that lately has change into Plan B, a manner of presenting unhealthy information, a veto, a failure, into one thing much less unhealthy.

It wasn’t the solely delicate level. The excessive consultant for Foreign Policy, Josep Borell, He additionally took the alternative to settle scores along with his boss, Ursula von der Leyen. The Spaniard, who as well as to his place as head of neighborhood diplomacy is vice chairman of the Commission, charged with what two sources describe as “unusual harshness” in opposition to the German, on account of the Memorandum of Understanding signed by her with the authorities of Tunisia. to scale back flows. This settlement is controversial for a lot of causes, because it entails giving cash to a corrupt chief in alternate for slicing off ship departures. It means closing our eyes to violations of rights and political persecutions. But additionally, and that appears to be what bothers the governments the most, as a result of Von der Leyen made the determination with out relying on the governments

Borrell, who a couple of weeks in the past despatched a harsh letter to the accountable commissioner, the Neighborhood Commissioner, attacked Von der Leyen’s determination at the assembly. “The agreements must be approved by the Council before being signed. Consulting the ambassadors is neither sufficient nor the correct procedure. The rulings of the CJEU are clear,” he stated. reproach as defined by a European supply.

A STRATEGIC ROADMAP

The Granada Declaration seeks or sought to be one thing comparable to a philosophical roadmap, to provoke a debate or improve it, on many subjects. Including the so-called strategic autonomy, which Spain insists on calling “open” and which France advocates closing a bit of extra. The dialogue about its definition, scope and implications may be very full of life, and the 27 usually are not clear about the route.

The change in format in the Declaration has no authorized relevance. They usually are not conclusions of a proper European Council, there was nothing to ‘approve’, nor particular directions to be given to the ministers or the Commission formally. But it has symbolic, political relevance. It displays how it’s more and more tough to obtain unity on essential points, which in flip multiplies questions on the operation of a European Union with 30 or 36 members, all with the capability to block or veto when they’re dissatisfied.