The message that "we can't take in everybody" is imperative. At the same time, the decision as to who has a right to asylum needs to be made in Brussels.
We have a strong military deployment in Iraq and Afghanistan. In countries like Syria, we need a diplomatic breakthrough to end the war. In Libya, the country must first of all be stabilized to stop IS. This means supporting the Libyan government, including in terms of security. We don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past in that country. The situation is extremely dangerous and the next days could be decisive.
We cannot treat people with a right to asylum the same way as people from a safe country. They need to be sent back. That is, from our perspective, completely clear. On the other hand, we should scrutinize the now completely outdated principle that only the migrants' first country of arrival should be burdened with their registration as well as with the process of sorting out who has the right to asylum and who needs to be deported.
As long as a certain problem primarily affects a different country, in this case Italy, one might not put it at the very top of one's list of priorities.
We need to move forward, from the common currency to the banking union to a common financial policy and, in the middle-term, to a common foreign and security policy. That will take time, because we need to figure out how to deal with those countries that don't always want a more tightly integrated European Union.
We are not perfect. But we have doubtlessly fulfilled our obligations to the EU to a greater degree than the EU has its obligations to Italy, when it comes to the relocation or repatriation of refugees that are in our country. Italy does its homework better than the rest of Europe. Instead of the 160,000 migrants that were to be distributed across Europe, we are currently at 300.
The problem is, if at all, in the different view of the economy, of economic growth. Growth is too low, even for us. That needs to change: More investments, a stronger role by the European Central Bank. Otherwise, there are no tensions between Italy and Germany. But on this point, compromises must be reached and we will reach them.
We [European countries] probably need to move forward together, each at their own speed. The faster ones, that could be the countries in the euro zone. The others would be those who are interested in the continued development of the common market, but reject the idea of an ever stronger political integration.
It is clear that several countries, in the Balkans for example, need to be considered countries of safe origin. But others like, in my opinion, Eritrea, undoubtedly need to be considered a country of origin with a valid claim to asylum. And with a third group of states, like Nigeria for example, each individual case needs to be evaluated. Then there are also very controversial cases like Afghanistan. In any case, united European action is needed. This argument for Europeanization may sound utopian, but there is no alternative.
And a united Europe will also manage to send hundreds of thousands of migrants, who don't have the right to asylum, back to their homelands. Though that, given the number of flights necessary, would be of a scale reminiscent of the Berlin Airlift.
The route for the refugees currently goes through Greece and the Balkans or through Italy; if there were a crisis in north-eastern Europe, Poland might just as well be affected. In this case we are dealing with mechanisms that we do not control. We need to change that.
But joint pressure from states like Germany, Italy and France could mean a move in this direction. Because something very fundamental is on the line: freedom of movement. I can't think of any common market that could function without it.
But it could be that we, as early as spring, will need to embark on a new policy in order to save one of the cornerstones of European politics: personal freedom of movement.
I'm not particularly optimistic, but I hope that the lack of alternatives will lead to it. I would like to remind you of the fact that before May 2015 there was no overall European agenda on immigration. Nothing, zero. It wasn't until after yet another tragedy in the Mediterranean that, in response to an Italian initiative, (Europe) began thinking about setting policies for the registration of refugees, their distribution or their deportation.
It is ridiculous to believe that Greece might be taking in one million migrants, registering them, then giving refuge to those who have a right to asylum and sending everyone back that does not. Greece is not doing that. We can blame the Greeks for that, but at the same time we should change the Dublin Regulation. When we insist on this unrealistic procedure, it means nothing more than that we are defending Dublin while renouncing Schengen.
Let's put it this way: I am confident that Schengen will continue to be defended. And when it comes to repatriations, we have the same opinion.
There are differences of opinion, especially when it comes to economic and financial policy. But when it comes to foreign and especially immigration policy, we are in agreement. No other countries in Europe are closer to each other in this regard than Italy and Germany.
