Migration

Priorities of the New European Commission and the Interests of Poland Team Europe’s Assessments and Conclusions Priorities of the New European Commission and the Interests of Poland Team Europe’s Assessments and Conclusions Priorities of the New European Commission and the Interests of Poland Team Europe’s Assessments and Conclusions Edited by Jan Barcz Zbigniew Czachór European Commission Representation in Poland Warsaw 2019 This publication is available in electronic format at: www.publications.europa.eu/pl Cover design Agnieszka Miłaszewicz Print preparation, printing, and binding ELIPSA Publishing House Original language version submitted for composition on 24 October 2019 Submitted for printing on 31 October 2019 This publication is free of charge. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use that may be made of the following information. The information and views set out in this publication are those of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the EU. © The European Union, 2019. Re-use is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Re-use of Commission›s documents is regulated under Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330 of 14.12.2011, p. 39). Distorting the original meaning or message of this document is not allowed. The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the re-use of this publication. The European Commission Representation in Poland ul. Jasna 14/16a 00-041 Warsaw phone no. +48 22 556 89 89 Fax: +48 22 556 89 98 e-mail: ec-poland@ec.europa.eu The European Commission Regional Representation ul. Widok 10 50-052 Wrocław phone no. +48 71 324 09 09 Fax: +48 71 344 17 08 e-mail: ec-wroclaw@ec.europa.eu ec.europa.eu/polska /komisjaeuropejska /EUinPL Print ISBN 978-92-76-11589-2 doi: 10.2775/176981 JJ-01-19-760-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-76-11588-5 doi: 10.2775/28103 JJ-01-19-760-EN-N In memory of Bogusław Stanisławski (1930–2019) Bogusław, our dear Team Europe friend passed away on 12 September 2019. He was a quiet and modest man of respected authority, a witness to history. Throughout his life he showed how to be a citizen of the World, a European, but also a sincere Polish patriot. After the war, he embarked on a ship to Egypt and travelled across Western Europe. He could see the devastating consequences of the war, but also the chance for building a peaceful world. An expert in English language and literature, officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, member of the UN observer mission in Vietnam, promoter of the Polish culture in London and on the Balkans, negotiator for the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, he promoted the idea of human rights in the then divided Europe. A member of “Solidarność” and Jacek Kuroń election committee, co-founder and president of the Polish branch of Amnesty International, human rights activist at an international forum. A true friend of young people. For his merits, President Bronisław Komorowski awarded Bogusław Stanisławski with the Commander’s Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta in 2011. After 2015, having found that the values that he had fought for his entire life are now at stake in Poland, Bogusław became an active participant in protests, demonstrations, and actions aimed at protecting human rights and the rule of law. In his moving “Political Testament”, proclaimed during his last lecture at the Academy of Finest Arts in August 2019, he addressed young people with a call: “Reject Indifference”. We will miss him very much. Contents List of acronyms ................................................................................................................ 8 Biographical Notes on the Authors ................................................................................. 10 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 14 Introduction 1. A New Beginning. The EU after the Elections to the European Parliament Marek Prawda ............................................................................................................ 2. New Mythology for Europe 3. Marcin Napiórkowski ................................................................................................ Poland after the 2019 Elections Lena Kolarska-Bobińska ........................................................................................... 17 22 29 Part I: Climate Protection Chapter 1.1. Problems Related to Climate Change (Energy Policy, the Environment) Jan Truszczyński ................................................................................................................. 34 Part II: Social Market Economy in the EU Chapter 2.1. Crucial Issues of the EU Internal Market Artur Nowak-Far ................................................................................................................ Chapter 2.2. Social Policy Maria Ewa Szatlach ........................................................................................................... Chapter 2.3. International Tax Avoidance – Challenge for Poland and the European Union Dominik J. Gajewski .......................................................................................................... Chapter 2.4. Agriculture and Rural Development Justyna Miecznikowska ...................................................................................................... 40 45 50 54 Part III: The Eurozone Chapter 3.1. Condition of the Eurozone, Chances of Reforms Maciej Krzak ....................................................................................................................... Chapter 3.2. Impact of the Election Results on Poland’s Stance on Accession to the Eurozone Marian Noga....................................................................................................................... 60 64 Part IV: Digital Era in the EU Chapter 4.1. EU Digital Market and Cyber Security Jarosław Greser .................................................................................................................. 68 Part V: The Rule of Law, Migration Chapter 5.1. Rule of Law Jan Barcz, Ewelina Cała-Wacinkiewicz ............................................................................. Chapter 5.2. Migration Marta Pachocka, Aleksandra Szczerba-Zawada............................................................... Chapter 5.3. Populism, National Identity, and Nationalism Joanna Orzechowska-Wacławska, Marcin Szewczyk ........................................................ 74 79 85 Part VI: The European Union in International Relations Chapter 6.1. Brexit Grzegorz Gil ........................................................................................................................ Chapter 6.2. Position on Problems Related to the Development of the EU Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) Beata Przybylska-Maszner .................................................................................................. Chapter 6.3. Relations with Eastern Europe, Eastern Partnership Beata Piskorska .................................................................................................................. 91 96 101 Part VII: The Voice of Young Citizens in the EU Chapter 7.1. Youth: Discovering a Political Purpose of Poland’s Membership in the EU Elżbieta Skotnicka-Illasiewicz............................................................................................ 107 Part VIII: Poland in the European Union following the Parliamentary Elections of 13 October 2019 Chapter 8.1. Poland’s Policy on EU following the Elections Zbigniew Czachór, Joanna Dyduch ................................................................................... Chapter 8.2. Impact of Parliamentary Elections on Poland’s Status in the European Union Piotr Maciej Kaczyński ....................................................................................................... Chapter 8.3. Budget Negotiations Jan Truszczyński ................................................................................................................. Chapter 8.4. The Three Sees Initiative as an Alternative Geopolitical Project to the EU Krzysztof Krysieniel ............................................................................................................. Chapter 8.5. Role of the Visegrád Group in the European Union Tomasz Kubin ..................................................................................................................... Chapter 8.6. Poland’s Relations with Germany Justyna Miecznikowska ...................................................................................................... Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................... 113 117 121 126 131 135 140 Chapter 5.2. Migration Marta Pachocka, Aleksandra Szczerba-Zawada 5.2.1. State of the problem Recent years have seen a growing interest in international migrations and migration policy in the EU and its Member States, in particular following what is referred to as the migration and refugee crisis in Europe. This has resulted partly from the intensification of migration processes in the EU and its neighbourhood (mainly in the south), and partly from a wider media coverage and politicisation of the issue of migration, refugees, and international protection as well as integration of third country nationals in the host countries. The fact is that migration in the EU and its neighbourhood has changed significantly, both in terms of scale and nature, as has the reaction of the governments and societies of particular Member States. In 2015, more than one million migrants reached Europe by sea or by land through the Mediterranean routes (data of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees – UNHCR). In the same year, Frontex recorded 1.8 million detections of illegal border crossings between the border crossing points (BCPS) of the EU external borders. In 2015–2016, 1.3 million applications for international protection were submitted annually by third country nationals in the EU (data of the Eurostat and the European Asylum Support Office – EASO). The EU responded to the changing migration dynamics by putting forward a proposal for a new migration management strategy which was presented in May 2015 in the Communication from the European Commission “The European Agenda on Migration”. The agenda provided for launching a response system in an emergency situation in accordance with Article 78 (3) of the TFEU1. In this context, the relocation was intended as a temporary, emergency distribution scheme for persons in clear need of international protection (third country nationals and stateless persons) from the particularly affected EU Member States to other countries in order to ensure a fair and balanced participation of all members. In September 2015, the Council adopted two decisions (2015/1523 and 2015/1601) concerning provisional relocation as a scheme to be implemented until September 2017 with regard to persons in need of international protection from Italy and Greece. 1 “In the event of one or more Member States being confronted by an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State(s) concerned. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament”. 80 Marta Pachocka, Aleksandra Szczerba-Zawada The maximum number of persons to be relocated to other Member States was 160,000. Ultimately, according to the Progress Report on the Implementation of the European Agenda on Migration of March 2019, over 34,000 people had been effectively relocated. 5.2.2. The Concept of Migration Policy in the Stance of the Polish Government (PiS) in 2015–2019 Back in September 2015, the government of the Civic Platform voted in favour of the adoption of both decisions of the Council on the temporary relocation mechanism. It should be noted that Poland’s position was different from that of other countries of the Visegrád Group which expressed their objection to the second decision of the Council assuming the relocation of additional 120,000 forced migrants. After the parliamentary elections of autumn 2015 won by Law and Justice (PiS), the new government became critical towards the temporary relocation system from Greece and Italy. Poland withdrew, despite the fact that the Court of Justice of the EU in its judgement in joined cases C-643/15 and C-647/15 reaffirmed the validity of the Council Decision 2015/1601,thus becoming one of the three Member States that did not participate in the mechanism in 2015–2017. As a consequence, the European Commission brought an action to the Court against Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary in 2017. Poland was also critical of the idea of a pilot voluntary relocation scheme proposed in September 2019 by Italy, France, Germany, and Malta with the support of the Commission and Finland’s Presidency in view of the difficult situation of migrants making their way to Europe across the Mediterranean Sea and rescued at sea, as expressed at the meeting of the ministers of internal affairs in Luxembourg on 8 October 2019. The strong anti-migrant and anti-refugee political narrative at the peak of the migration crisis calmed down in 2018–2019 to the point that hardly any migration issues were raised in the campaign before the parliamentary elections in 2019. Of the groupings elected to the new parliament, only Confederation Liberty and Independence (“Konfederacja Wolność i Niepodległość”) and Law and Justice (“Prawo i Sprawiedliwość”, “PiS”), i.e. political forces regarded as right-wing, included migration in their electoral agendas. In the case of PiS, this issue was raised in the context of the previous actions of this party (and the government it formed) aimed at changing the EU’s approach to the relocation of asylum seekers (redirection of the EU migration policy towards voluntary participation) which was depicted as detrimental to the Polish raison d’état. The year 2015 was of key importance to migration management as well as the development and implementation of migration policy in Poland – not so much due to the migration crisis in Europe, which was not directly experienced in Poland, but rather due to the electoral victory of PiS. The newly established government withdrew from the participation in the temporary relocation scheme, annulled the strategic document adopted by the Council of Ministers in 2012 “Polish Migration Policy – Current State of Play and Proposed Actions” and, at the same time, engaged in closer cooperation Chapter 5.2. Migration 81 with Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia within the Visegrád Group in order to develop and present a joint stance on the European policy on migration, asylum, and borders (this mainly concerned the objection to the relocation mechanism). As of October 2019, despite previous announcements, the government had not adopted a new strategic document regarding Polish migration policy. On the other hand, in June 2019 a draft document titled “Poland’s Migration Policy” was made public, but has not been officially published on government websites. This document was heavily criticised by representatives of various communities, including academia (commented in public by both individual researchers and bodies such as the Committee on Migration Research of the Polish Academy of Sciences – KBnM PAN) and non-governmental organisations (e.g. the Association for Legal Intervention – SIP) and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights – HFHR). In its position, KBnM PAN recommended that the draft should be rejected altogether and works started from scratch, pointing out that the published version of the document had not been subjected to open and transparent public consultations with key stakeholders and experts in migration, scientists, representatives of non-governmental organisations and local governments, and that its content had not been based on scientific evidence thus leading to numerous errors and perpetuation of stereotypes and prejudices. The document is focused on the prospect of Poland being endangered by migration and the need to shift the future migration policy towards a broadly understood security, with migrants being instrumentally regarded as foreign labour force. In the opinion of the HFHR, some passages of the document raised concerns as to their compliance with the EU law and international law. What is more, the proposed approach, which the Foundation found to have a xenophobic tone, may result in the violation of fundamental freedoms and human rights. As at mid-October 2019, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration (MSWiA) has not made public any outline of a strategic document regarding Polish migration policy. Unfortunately, it is uncertain to what extent the newly formed government, following the last parliamentary elections, will use the draft document from June 2019 or whether it will take into account the critical comments. 5.2.3. Perspectives following the 2019 Parliamentary Elections The support received by the currently ruling party (PiS) in the last elections will allow it to form a new government on its own, which means that it will implement its migration policy in accordance with the vision depicted in the election agenda. In that agenda, PiS clearly emphasised that all EU decisions, and in particular those concerning migration policy, would be assessed in view of the interest of Poland and Polish raison d’état. hence the disapproval of the decision to receive thousands of migrants imposed on the Member States by the European Union due to the migration crisis. In light of the PiS election agenda, the key to solve the migration pressure on Europe is to continue humanitarian aid to populations of the war- and poverty-stricken regions 82 Marta Pachocka, Aleksandra Szczerba-Zawada in Africa and Asia. In this perspective, it can be assumed that the government formed by PiS will maintain the overall direction of the migration policy: to give a tacit consent for labour and student migration from Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine, because it is in the interest of the Polish higher education, labour market, and economy, while being reluctant to receiving migrants applying for asylum (the practice described, among others, by national NGOs and Polish Ombudsman concerning difficulties in accessing the asylum procedure at border crossings at the eastern border of Poland, e.g. the crossing of Brześć-Terespol; a high ratio of refusals in the international protection proceedings in Poland, etc.). The asylum law may also be restricted. 2019 will also mark the elections to the European Parliament and the next term of office of the Commission. The new President of the European Commission – Ursula von der Leyen – in her agenda for Europe entitled “A Union that strives for more”, which constitutes political guidelines for the EC’s work in 2019–2024, addressed four main issues related to migration management at the EU level. These include: ensuring strong external borders of the EU with the support of an enhanced European Border and Coast Guard Agency, modernisation of the Common European Asylum System including a re-launch of the Dublin reform, return to a fully functioning Schengen Area, and a stronger cooperation with third countries, whether as origin or transit countries. She also emphasised the need to develop a more sustainable approach to search and rescue actions at sea and move from case-by-case solutions to a more permanent response. Von der Leyen’s agenda is, essentially, a follow-up of the actions proposed by her predecessor Jean-Claude Juncker and the proposals included in the EC Communication of May 2015, taking into account the new conditions and already developed solutions. In the recent years, works on the Frontex reform has been (relatively) successfully initiated with a purpose to achieve a more effective management of EU external borders. Poland seems to support the above measures at the EU level as its eastern borders with Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine are at the same time the external borders of the EU. It is also in the interest of Poland to have a well-functioning Schengen Area due to the economic benefits it delivers. The Polish government insists that all actions should be taken outside the EU borders in order to prevent the inflow of new migrants (in particular irregular and forced migrants) and support third country nationals in their origin or transit countries. In this respect, the EU may rely on Poland’s support. The situation of the asylum policy of the EU, which came to a standstill in 2016, is different. Despite the fact that the EC has submitted a package of seven legislative proposals, including those pertaining to the Dublin Regulation, the Member States have not yet managed to reach a compromise and reform their policies in this regard. It should be expected that Poland’s objection to any form of relocation will continue to apply, which may hinder the reformation of the asylum policy. In this context, it would be recommended to revive the legislative process. A practical dimension should be given to the principle of solidarity, which is a basic principle focused on designing and implementing policies concerning border control, asylum, and migration in accordance with Article 80 of the TFEU. Chapter 5.2. Migration 83 5.2.4. Conclusions 1) The winning party PiS will form a new government on its own and will be able to implement the migration policy in line with its own vision, and is likely to resume work on a strategic document in this regard. 2) It will be in the interest of the new government to support EU actions aimed at strengthening its external borders and developing cooperation with third countries in terms of migration as well as development and humanitarian aid, as this will allow to counteract the inflow of migrants to the EU and seal the borders and, thus, improve the situation within the Schengen Area. 3) The asylum policy will remain to be a contentious issue between the EU and Poland due to the government’s objection to the relocation mechanism and divergent approaches to the understanding of the principle of solidarity. Documents • • • • • Decision of the Council (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece, OJ L 239z of 15.9.2015 Decision of the Council (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece, OJ L 248 of 24.9.2015 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The European Agenda on Migration, Brussels, 13.05.2015. Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person, OJ C 180 of 29.6.2013. CJEU Judgement of 6 September 2017 on Slovak Republic and Hungary v Council of the European Union, C-643/15, EU:C:2017:631. Recommended References • • • 25 Lectures on Migration, edited by M. Lesińska, M. Okólski, Warsaw 2018. Borawska-Kędzierska E., Strąk K., Border Management, Visa, Asylum, and Migration Policies, Warsaw 2011. Pachocka M., Looking beyond the current migration and refugee crises in Europe: a common policy of the EU and the outlook for the future – in search of solutions, (in:) European Commission: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, Migrations: Jean Monnet Seminar 2016, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg 2017, p. 73–84. 84 • • • Marta Pachocka, Aleksandra Szczerba-Zawada Pachocka M., Understanding the Visegrád Group states’ response to the migrant and refugee crises 2014+ in the European Union, “Yearbook of Polish European Studies” 2016, vol. 19, p. 101–132. Szulecka M., Border Management and Migration Controls in Poland, “Global Migration: Consequences and Responses – RESPOND Working Papers Series”, August 2019, http://www.crs. uu.se/respond/working-paper-series/ Szulecka M., Pachocka M., Sobczak-Szelc K., Poland – Country Report: Legal and Policy Framework of Migration Governance, “Global Migration: Consequences and Responses – RESPOND Working Papers Series”, September 2018, http://www.crs.uu.se/respond/working-paper-series/