By Angelica Hellemann
Bubbling mood among the Greens because of the EU asylum decision!
And Annalena Baerbock (42, Greens) tries to calm her own party with an apology. BILD learned: A few hours after the European interior ministers had agreed on a stricter asylum law with central camps on the EU’s external border, the foreign minister sent a five-page letter of apology to all Green party friends.
In it, Baerbock justifies in a pleading tone why the federal government – and thus the Green Ministers – agreed to the asylum agreement. It was “personally very difficult” for her to say yes.
For Baerbock, the mandatory border procedures are “the bitter part” of the new EU refugee policy. She writes: “The compromise that has now been reached is by no means easy. Part of being honest is that if we as the federal government could have decided on the reform on our own, then it would look different.”
The Foreign Minister excuses the approval of the asylum reform as follows: The compromise would help refugees from Syria and Afghanistan because they would no longer be stuck in the bad camps on the Greek islands (eg Moria). They would now be distributed to EU countries.
EU wants per year 30,000 refugees distribute
Baerbock: “A no or an abstention by Germany would have meant that children would remain stuck at the external border despite the high prospect of staying.” But: The EU compromise only mentions the number of 30,000 refugees who should be distributed at least every year. For comparison: Last year, 880,000 migrants applied for asylum in the EU.
The federal government prevented the worst tightening and achieved that as few refugees as possible had to go to the camps on the EU’s external borders. Baerbock: “These border procedures do not apply to refugees with a high protection rate – i.e. Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis!”
And: If too many refugees arrive in Italy or Greece, nobody goes to the camp anymore! Baerbock: “Thus, 30,000 spaces must be kept ready for border procedures at all times. If these capacities or an annual maximum of 60,000 in the first year (later up to 120,000) are exceeded, then the border procedures will be suspended altogether.”
Baerbock also tries to explain to her party friends why families with children have to go to the camps. The government had “fought hard” to keep the “freedom restrictions on families” as low as possible. “It is more than bitter that there was no majority for our tough demand to completely exempt families.”
Now she wants to spare as many parents and children as possible from the border camp through detailed regulations: for example, schooling is compulsory. If this cannot be guaranteed in the border camp, the family does not have to go to the camp.
A number of EU states would have wanted to send refugees who had crossed safe third countries on their way to Europe back there. The government prevented this and thus ensured that refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq continue to have “access to asylum in Europe”. Refugees can now only be sent back to third countries if they “have family ties or previous professional stays there”.
The asylum compromise has a lot of explosive power for the Greens. Baerbock writes: “I know that many of you are struggling with this decision.” In order to appease her party friends, she lists a green cabinet of horrors: Without the asylum compromise, there was a risk of more isolation, more fences and even barriers on the Rhine and Oder again.
Can these words from your foreign minister really calm down the bubbling of the Greens? Totally open.