EUSSR: Police State (Europol) And Theft of Our Sovereignty ( Asylum Policy)

Posted By Anders On April 22, 2008 @ 23:47 In English, Euromed | 1 Comment

EU Apr. 18, 2008: " [1] Europol will become an EU agency in 2010. The Member States are acknowledging the importance of Europol's role as a key contributor to the European project and placing it on equal footing with the other European institutions. The extension of Europol's mandate to cover all serious forms of cross-border crime represents an undeniable advance in boosting police cooperation in Europe ... The improvements resulting from Europol's new legal framework, in terms of organisational flexibility and effectiveness, will go hand in hand with closer involvement of the European Parliament…"[2] Behind it is the [3] embezzlement-convicted EU Commissioner, Jacques Barrot!!

The following is an abstract from [4] Open Europe´s in depth analysis of the EU Constitutional Reform Treaty: “A guide to the constitutional treaty February 2008” Second Edition and give the background for EU Commissioner Jacques Barrot´s wish for a [5] European Asylum Support Office
As will appear the assurances by our politicians that the Reform Treaty does not mean loss of sovereignty  is  not true.

While it is true that the right of movement and residence of family members of Union citizens is not explicitly referred to by the Treaty, the right does flow from the right to preserve family unity, which is intrinsically connected to the right to the protection of family life, a fundamental right forming part of the common Constitutional traditions of the member states, which are protected by Community law and ncorporated in the [6] Charter of Fundamental Rights.”
I.e.: Any time an immigrant is granted citizenship the right to reunion with a numerous family automatically ensues.

[7] Asylum burden sharing : "Intra-EU resettlement is an important way to pursue"
Commission green paper: Article 80 TFEU (formally Article III-268 of the original Constitution) requires that any new asylum policies should be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing. This paves the way for what the Commission calls “corrective” burden sharing. This would mean physically transferring successful asylum seekers from one member state to another or sharing out the financial burden. The Commission is already talking about producing legislative proposals for burden sharing later in the year, once the treaty has been ratified.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said the EU took in 38,286 [8] Iraqis in 2007, compared to 19,375 in 2006.

The UK Government warned that
“The United Kingdom is concerned that there would be a much greater number of preliminary rulings in asylum and immigration cases in particular, which the Court of Justice is not equipped to manage, if it was open to any court or tribunal to refer a case.”
It could become, if we are not careful, an asylum court where large numbers of cases are sent up to it by NGOs referring, pressurising tribunals to make references and it would only require 70-100 cases a year for that to really change the nature of the docket.”

No veto against Asylum burden sharing
Article 79 [63A] TFEU of the new treaty allows the Council to decide by majority vote on the “definition of the rights of third-country nationals residing legally in a Member State, including the conditions governing the freedom of movement and of residence in other Member States.” 

From the British Refugee Council’s perspective the process of harmonisation has been a relentless downward spiral to the lowest common denominator.
Polls show that 83 percent of voters think that decisions on asylum should be made by the UK Government, while only 12 percent support making such decisions at the European level.

EU migration policy background
From minimum standards to harmonisation
The revised EU Constitution would commit the EU to press ahead with the second phase of the asylum and immigration systems.
The cross-party Commons Scrutiny Committee warned: “Some of the Commission's proposals for the next five-year justice and home affairs work programme affect policies which are at the core of national sovereignty.

Phase one
At the European Council in Tampere, October 1999, EU heads of government agreed to “work towards establishing a Common European Asylum System”. The system was to be built in two phases. The first phase is now nearly complete, and the Constitution sets out the framework for the second phase.

January 2000: The European Refugee Fund. The first European Refugee Fund was set up from 1 January 2000 to run to 31 December 2004. It is funded out of the EU’s annual budget, following an initial 216m euro sum for implementing the Decision. The Fund is intended to support Member States’ actions relating to reception conditions, integration, and repatriation. A new fund has been agreed to cover the period 2005-2010.

January 2003: The Reception Directive, which sets minimum standards for the conditions of asylum faced by applicants. The directive means that applicants are guaranteed the right to work if their application takes more than six months to process.

• February 2003: the “Dublin 2” agreement, which sets out a system to determine which country should deal with an asylum claim.

March 2004: The Definition of a Refugee Directive, which sets out minimum criteria to be assessed as an asylum seeker, and more minimum standards for those who gain asylum. Following the grant of refugee status, a refugee must be granted a renewable residence permit of at least 3 years. The directive specifies that member states must facilitate travel for refugees and those granted subsidiary protection, and must allow refugees access to the labour market immediately after they have been granted refugee status. Refugees are to receive equal rights to nationals of the Member State in education, accommodation, social welfare and health care.

And thereupon they are granted citzenship, while preserving their  belonging to the Muslim world Umma and trying to introduce it into our Parliaments - like Asmaa Habdol-Amid here left.

November 2004: The Asylum Procedures Directive. The Directive was agreed by ministers, but without its key element. Ministers put off trying to agree a “white list” of "safe countries of origin" as a number of member states – in particular Sweden - lodged objections to some countries proposed for the list on the grounds of their human rights records. This decision was controversial. The UNHCR attacked the plan, saying that it had “serious concerns” and the directive would “give rise to a real danger of breaches, in practice, of international law and standards.”

The next steps – moving beyond minimum standards
The first round of EU asylum and immigration legislation has been controversial enough. But the proposals now being tabled by the Commission move beyond the minimum standards approach which the UK Government has endorsed, and signal moves towards what is intended to eventually become a single system. However, it still plans to press ahead with moves to give the EU more power in this area.

Towards a common asylum policy
The Constitutional Treaty will also drive forward the process of full scale harmonisation of member states’ asylum systems. The extent of the Commission’s ambition in asylum policy can be seen in a communication it issued in February 2006 which calls for “the establishment of a fully harmonised EU system”. By 2010 ( when the Euromediterranean Common Market comes into power) the Commission aims to have adopted a raft of measures which will establish a common asylum procedure, a uniform status for those granted asylum or subsidiary protection, standardised Country of Origin

Information, and a single European Support Office which would oversee all common asylum issues.
The Commission now plans to amend the Reception Conditions Directive . The reforms envisaged would constitute a major change, harmonising material reception conditions, access to employment, health care, free movement rights and identification and care of vulnerable persons.
These are particularly sensitive issues for the UK, which opposes giving asylum seekers the right to work, as it believes that this encourages false claims.

                                                                                  [9] Free Muslim immigration to Europe

Towards a common immigration policy
The abolition of the national veto over legal migration is one of the most significant moves in the revised Constitutional Treaty, particularly given the Commission’s ambitions in this field.
The Constitution would give the EU a new power to determine “the rights of third-country nationals residing legally in a Member State”, a duty to pass laws aimed at integrating migrants and an expressrequirement that the EU create a “common immigration policy”.

Commissioner Franco Frattini is also lobbying for the power to begin to negotiate immigration quotas with non-EU countries on behalf of member states.
A separate EU “Green Card” residence permit aimed at attracting highly skilled migrants – which would allow the migrant to work anywhere in Europe once issued by the member state of entry as well as allowing for multiple stays of several years; an EU-level “independent assessment” to decide who would be allowed entry; a harmonised system for entry of seasonal workers
The Commission is also planning measures aimed at integrating migrant communities into the EU which would include “information packages for newly arrived economic immigrants, as well as language and civic orientation courses aimed at ensuring that immigrants understand, respect and benefit from common European and national values. Education, training and cultural initiatives will continue to support integration processes.”
Comment: This is about the so-called [10] blue cards - 20 million workers and their families are to be attracted to the EU from non-EU countries into the EU - and to stay there!!! Whereby you cause a brain drainage to these countries - to make them still poorer - as vigorously [11] dissuaded by the UN!

As well as proposing measures on ‘legal’ migration the EU is also attempting to harmonise member states’ approach to tackling irregular or illegal immigration.

In July 2006 the Commission released a communication aimed at drawing up a “comprehensive EU approach to combat illegal immigration”. It stressed that “Solidarity, mutual trust and shared responsibility between Member States is a key requirement in an area without internal borders, which poses a particular burden with respect to pressure from illegal immigration on Member States who control an external border.” This has included the funding of joint sea and air patrols – particularly in the Mediterranean, organised by the EU’s External Borders Agency.
A directive aiming to create harmonised standards for returning illegal immigrants is being discussed by EU ministers at the moment. If passed it would lay down common rules concerning return, use of coercive measures, temporary custody and re-entry. Under the Constitution the EU would also gain competence to begin negotiating deportation and repatriation agreements on behalf of member states.

The Commission is also pushing for the creation of harmonised EU wide criminal offences and penalties for the employers of illegal migrants. This has been particularly controversial as many member states do not believe that the EU has competence to set criminal sanctions for areas such as migration. 

The Charter’s impact on asylum and immigration
Several articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights will also have an impact on immigration and asylum cases.
Article 4
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 15
3. Nationals of third countries who are authorised to work in the territories of the Member States are entitled to working conditions equivalent to those of citizens of the Union.
Article 18
The right to asylum shall be guaranteed with due respect for the rules of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the New York Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Article 19
1. Collective expulsions are prohibited.
2. No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This although the Reform treaty reintroduces death penalty.
Comment:  This seems hypocriticla considering the fact that the [12] EU itself re-introduces death penalty with the Reform treaty.
Article 21
1.Any discrimination based on any ground such as nationality, sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.
2. Freedom of movement and residence may be granted, in accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community, nationals of third countries legally resident in the territory of a Member State. ([13] 6th  Euromediterranean Foreign Minister Congress, Naples, Dec. 2-3, 2003)
Article 47
1. Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.

Comment: All these rules make it practically impossible to get rid of persons who have ask for permission to stay in the EU - even with the intention of subverting our societies by violent means. Once they are her they are certain  to be lavishly entertained by the European slave caste. We even invite them to come inside!
The EU stands for these absurdities - and uses them as the ground to increase its power.

Article printed from Euro-med:

URL to article:

URLs in this post:
[1] Europol will become an EU agency in 2010:

[2] Behind it:

[3] embezzlement-convicted:
[4] Open Europe´s:
[5] European Asylum Support Office:

[6] Charter of Fundamental Rights:
[7] Asylum burden sharing ::
[8] Iraqis in 2007:,,30200-1309776,00.html
[9] Free Muslim immigration:
[10] blue cards:

[11] dissuaded by the UN!:
[12] EU itself re-introduces death penalty:
[13] 6th  Euromediterranean Foreign Minister Congress, Naples, Dec. 2-3, 2003: