On Monday, the Greek Government announced its remarkable plans to construct a fence along its border with Turkey in order to curb illegal immigration into the EU, a move the European Commission has denounced as ‘pointless’.

Each year, thousands of illegal immigrants cross the border between Greece and Turkey in an attempt to enter the EU. Once inside, they can move freely around those countries that are part of the Schengen Agreement as there are no visa requirements or border checks between these countries. An average of 245 individuals a day cross over the border and it is estimated that up to 90% of all of the EU’s illegal immigrants have travelled through Greece into the EU. In January this year, 2,800 migrants attempted the crossing between the two countries in the Evros region in eastern Greece, yet this is not even half of the numbers that attempt the migration in the peak months of the summer when upwards of 6,000 people can cross through to Europe from the Middle East. 2011 saw an increase in immigration over the Greek-Turkish border of 17% on the 2010 figures, with over 55,000 attempts detected. Immigration across this particular border is clearly a formidable issue.

So what is the Greek Government’s answer to the problem? A four metre high, six metre long, razor wire fence on the border between the villages of Kastanies and Nea Vyssa in the Evros region. The Evros is a river that forms the major part of the 125 mile border between the two countries, and the fence is designed to block a dry land gap in the border. The fence will also be equipped with a network of night-vision CCTV cameras that will be linked up to a local police command centre. This simplistic solution may appear ingenious, but when the cost of the construction of the fence and its potential effectiveness is considered, one has to question whether this really is the right solution to the problem.

The estimated cost of the project is over €3 million (£2.5 million). With talks currently underway in the EU on a further Greek bailout, the question that springs to mind is how Greece is financing this fence when they are teetering on the edge of defaulting on their enormous debts and have implemented many strict austerity measures. The European Commission has refused to finance the construction – a spokesperson for Home Affairs Commissioner Cecilia Malmström confirmed that Greece had applied for the Commission to co-finance the project but that the Commissioner had declined to do so as she deemed the measure ‘pointless’. The EU has continually funded border control measures for Greece, amounting to €215 million between 2007 and 2010, and a further €90 million has been earmarked for the purpose in 2012, along with a continued supply of border guards and patrols from the Frontex agency.

Earlier this week, protestors in the area of the proposed fence condemned the Government’s decision to spend its limited money in this way and questioned the potential success of the fence in halting the flow of migrants. Greek Public Order Minister Christos Papoutsis warned “traffickers should know that this route will be closed to them … their life is about to get much harder”. The crossing is hardly an easy feat without the fence: in May 2011 immigrant smugglers opened fire on border guards in the Evros region and three potential immigrants lost their lives to hypothermia in January this year whilst attempting the crossing. I am sure that these people don’t see their passage as void of obstacles and are therefore unlikely to be deterred by one section of wire fencing which spans less than 5% of the whole length of the border.

Whilst it is impossible to predict whether the fence will have the desired effect of deterring illegal immigrants from entering the EU, I think it is reasonable to speculate that one very expensive fence is not the best use of limited Greek funds at this time. As the attempted crossings from Africa so sadly illustrate every year, there are thousands of migrants prepared to risk their lives to try and gain access to the EU – over 50,000 illegal immigrants from Africa undertake the perilous journey to the Italian island of Lampedusa each year, and many don’t survive. I doubt that a short length of wire fencing will be enough to significantly reduce the numbers of immigrants attempting the Greece-Turkey border crossing. Wire cutters anyone?

Title: Citizenship in America and Europe: Beyond the Nation-State?
Author: Michael S. Greve and Michael Zoller
Publish Date: 2009
Publisher / Edition: AEI Press, 2009

The collapse of the Soviet Union transformed the political landscape of the West no less profoundly than it did that east of the former Iron Curtain. Long moribund but virulent nationalisms were quickly aroused in the Balkans, as were equally intense tribal rivalries in several of the Soviet Union’s former client states in sub-Saharan Africa. Ensuing civil war and violent conflict led a large exodus of refugees from these troubled regions to seek asylum in the West, along with many economic migrants, whose numbers were swollen by the large international population flows that attended the sudden global expansion of capitalism also triggered by the Soviet Union’s collapse. In Europe’s case, foreign immigration was further augmented by the opportunity the Soviet Union’s collapse presented Germany to reunify and many of the Soviet Union’s former satellite states in East Europe to join the European Union.

Read the rest at the Library of Law and Liberty blog

A political stalemate has emerged in Brussels between the UK Conservative Party and one of its more outspoken members, Roger Helmer MEP, over the succession of the latter’s seat in the European Parliament (EP).

Last week, Roger Helmer announced his decision to postpone his resignation until questions regarding his successor have been answered by the Conservative Party in the UK. Helmer wants the matter cleared up before formally resigning; the Conservative Party denies there is anything to clarify until there is officially a vacancy in the EP, i.e. after Helmer has submitted his resignation.

Helmer’s dilemma is this: according to convention, a vacant seat is filled by the next eligible candidate on the list of the party of the resigning member from the previous election; essentially, the person who is next in line on the list. There are no hard and fast rules on this, but the Rules of Procedure do state that the Member State of the departing member will be invited to fill the empty seat without delay. In the case of the East Midlands Conservative Party list from the last EP elections held in 2009, the next in line for Helmer’s seat should be Rupert Matthews, a writer, historian and political activist who was third on the list behind elected candidates Helmer and Emma McClarkin MEP. However, Matthews has subsequently been dropped from the list, and Conservative HQ have reportedly suggested that he would have to be re-selected (a process of application and interviews) in order to take the vacant EP seat – a suggestion which does not seem to be explicitly supported in any party rules.

Many commentators deem this proposal from the Conservative Party entirely unnecessary and even manipulative of the democratic system. Around one million voters approved the Conservative Party East Midlands list in the 2009 EP elections, a list that was compiled following an extensive procedure of hustings and votes back in 2008. Regardless of what has occurred since the election, at that time the voters expressed their wish for Matthews to succeed Helmer or McClarkin in the EP on the event of their resignation. Why, then, is the Conservative Party proposing to act against the democratic will of the UK’s citizens?

Opponents of the Conservative Party’s attitude maintain that there are ulterior motives for the suggested re-selection process and Matthews will be unsuccessful, leaving the Party leaders free to appoint someone of their choice. The reason for the reluctance of the Party to confirm Matthews has been hotly debated over the course of the week. Some say Matthews’ credentials have been brought into question after his company published a book on political correctness with an image of a golliwog on the front cover, and he has himself written on the subject of the paranormal – he apparently leads a course entitled ‘Understanding our Paranormal Universe’ at the International Metaphysical University – and the Conservative Party does not want a controversial or ‘wacky’ representative in Brussels. Others say that the Party are aiming to instead return a woman to the seat in order to redress the unbalanced gender representation of Conservatives in the EP. Alternatively, the Party may be concerned that Matthews is too similar to his predecessor who has openly spoken out against the Conservative Party and has cited its policy on the EU as a key reason for his desire to resign. Following recent accusations of the Conservative Party leadership being significantly more in favour of European integration than they suggest, it may be that Conservative HQ is rather uncomfortable at the thought of another strong-willed EU sceptic taking Helmer’s seat.

How this stalemate will be resolved one can only speculate, but it seems to me that there are three potential outcomes. In reiterating his assurance that he will not submit his formal resignation until the Party’s position is clear, Helmer has issued a warning: “if I am obliged to stay in place until 2014, I shall feel no further sense of obligation or responsibility to the Party.” Number one, therefore, is that the Party will not clarify their position; Helmer will not resign but will leave the Conservative Party. Number two is that the Conservative Party will confirm their support for the succession of Matthews and Helmer will resign for Matthews to take his place. Third, and most concerning, is that Helmer will resign to be replaced by a representative appointed undemocratically by the Conservative Party leadership and who will promise to dutifully support their policy. Regardless of party politics, rules or conventions, the people of the East Midlands have the right to a democratically mandated representative in Europe until 2014, at which point they, and only they, will have the opportunity to elect whomever they wish to stand up for their views.

Last Tuesday (17 January) German MEP Martin Schulz became the new President of the European Parliament (EP). He may have won a majority at the mid-term presidential election but his election is certainly not without controversy.

Schulz, of the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) party group in the EP, was elected with 387 votes out of the 699 cast – an absolute majority of 336 was required in the secret ballot to win election. However, his election was not exactly decided just by Tuesday’s vote, but in an arrangement made behind closed doors back in 2009. The two largest party groups in the EP, the European People’s Party (EPP) and the S&D made a pact to share the five year parliamentary presidential term, with a right-wing EPP President for the first two and a half years, in the form of the EPP’s Polish MEP Jerzy Buzek, and a left-wing S&D candidate taking over for the latter two and a half years. It was at this point in time that Schulz was proposed as Buzek’s potential successor.

Given this history, some might think it rather ill-thought out that  Schulz  should chose his acceptance speech to underline his commitment to improving democracy in the EP and to reducing the number of ‘backroom deals’ made by the powerful leaders of the party groups! Perhaps even hypocritical, as that is how his election came about. The pact between the two groupings has been heavily criticised by the smaller party groups which felt that they had no chance of effectively competing with Schulz. Nevertheless, Schulz’s election was contended by two MEPs, Nirj Deva of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group, who came second with 142 votes, and Diana Wallis of the Liberal group, who came third with 141 votes, and who has subsequently resigned her seat in the Parliament.

The character of the new President has also come under question, with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso warning of Schulz’s “strong personality”, and Green MEP Rebecca Harris telling Schulz: “the harsher sides of you … have sometimes made it very difficult to work with you”. UKIP MEP Nigel Farage described the new President as “snarling, angry and unable to control his temper” and “anti-British to his fingertips”.  It has been reported that Schulz has clashed with other European politicians, perhaps most notably in 2003 when then Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi suggested Schulz was well suited to playing a Nazi concentration camp guard in a film. In addition, British MEP Godfrey Bloom was expelled from the parliamentary chamber in 2010 for calling Schulz an “undemocratic fascist”.

Not only is Schulz’s character in stark contrast to that of Buzek, he also intends to undertake the role in a different manner. Buzek engaged wholeheartedly in the ceremonious and representative aspects of the role whilst maintaining a rather low political profile, whereas Schulz has declared his intention to bring politics back to the role of President. He has also vowed to improve the EP’s position in EU legislating, particularly in reference to negotiations on the Euro in which the EP is especially marginalised.

The election of a socialist to the role of EP President marks the end of two and a half years of centre-right control over the EU’s institutions, with the top three posts all previously held by conservatives. The contrasting depictions of Schulz and Buzek also indicate a potentially significant shift in the character of the EP. With the next elections to the EP set for 2014, Schulz has two and a half years in which to make his mark on his new role, and only time will tell in exactly what direction this controversial individual will take the EP and to what extent he will achieve his aims.

Read the rest of this article on The Commentator here

There is suggestion that Hungary’s position in the European Union may no longer be tenable after the coming into force of the new Hungarian Constitution, or Fundamental Law, on 1 January. This controversial constitution has been heavily criticised for being overly right-wing and eroding the democracy so precious to Hungary since the fall of communism in the country in 1989. The contradiction between some of the provisions of the new constitution and those democratic values inherent in the treaties of the EU has led to the claim from a former US Ambassador to Budapest, that Hungary “won’t be tolerated if it no longer counts as a democracy”.

Earlier this week, tens of thousands of protestors took to the streets in protest against the constitution and its accompanying laws, accusing Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, of the ruling Fidesz party, of dictatorship and labelling him ‘the Viktator’. Orbán’s party was elected in 2010 with a two thirds (68 per cent) majority in the Hungarian parliament which enables it to pass any legislative moves or constitutional amendments it wishes. Whilst Orbán claims that the constitution is long overdue, and marks the completion of the country’s transition from communism to democracy, member of the Hungarian parliament Tibor Szanyi has labelled Hungary the “darkest place in Europe” following its implementation.

The provisions of the constitution that have come under scrutiny include: the explicit reference to Christianity as fundamental to the nationhood of Hungary, and the recognition of just 14 religious groups compared to the previous 300; the definition of marriage as the union of man and woman, excluding reference to family in the form of cohabiting or same-sex couples or single parents, and the declaration of human life as beginning at the point of conception and requiring protection from that moment, which has sparked concerns of a forthcoming ban on abortion. Changes to the electoral system are also thought to endanger the potential of the Hungarian opposition to replace the Fidesz party in government in future elections.

The concerning contents of the constitution follow a string of other power-grabbing laws passed by the government, including curtailing the freedom of the media, and curbing the independence of the Hungarian judiciary and central bank. The latter measure has placed the central bank under the control of the government, a move that was declared by European Commission President José Manual Barroso to be in contradiction of EU law and was requested by him on two separate occasions to be rethought. Nevertheless, Orbán proceeded with the act which places in question the potential for Hungary to progress into the final stages of EMU and adopt the Euro. Further doubts are raised about this due to the new constitution declaring that the only legal tender in Hungary shall be the current national currency, the Forint, and therefore should it prove difficult for the constitution to be amended in the future it may well be impossible for Hungary to adopt the Euro, as it is obliged to do under its accession treaty. It has to be questioned how a country which has expressed such disregard for the EU’s institutions and its membership agreements can maintain a comfortable position within the EU.

Based on the contents of the constitution and the attitudes of Hungary’s leaders, concerns about Hungary pursuing a different direction to the rest of Eastern Europe and possessing the potential to return to its communist past do not appear unfounded. As the leader of the liberal faction of the European Parliament proclaimed on the adoption of the constitution by the Hungarian parliament in April last year, the constitution resembles “a Trojan horse for a more authoritarian political system in Hungary based on the perpetuation of one party rule”.

Whether or not this is an accurate claim is yet to be seen, but for now it is certain that the Hungarian government has thrown the spotlight upon its country as one on whose political direction the EU should keep a close eye.