Back from Brussels

Again in the train, but this time going back home, after the two day visit to the European Parliament. Worth to write a post about, since the Kleurrijk Platform invested some time thinking about the migration standpoints that were discussed, or at least mentioned, in one of the sessions that we had.

But before making those points, let's mention that visiting the european parliament is an interesting experience. Walking to the corridors of the parliamentary buildings brings very strongly the contradictions that tear apart all of us that are, in one way or another, eurofiles. On one side is the excitement of sharing space and time with people that not only doesn't need to be convinced of the values of european collaboration, but with people that is working daily in such a project. And at the other side, seeing the real way in which the parliament discusses, the declarative speeches that in the end do not mean a lot, or the throngs of persons convincing each other of their small changes in the line seventythree form the document ninety-four, remind us sharply that europa remains a bureaucratic monster. Not to mention the circus of moving a whole parliament in between two cities, but also to check the condescending tone that functionaries, or civil servants, actually, use to explain to us, plain citizens, the inner working of the beast. It's true, compromise is the unique way forward in a multinational project. But assuming that the need of compromise is enough to dismiss the concerns of europeans on the creation of a superstate, or the disappearance of national identities (not founded fears, in my opinion, but acutely present) is the same mistake that lead dutch politicians to the failure of the constitution referendum.

But Ok, faced with the two faces, I choose for one of them. It's almost a cliché for a groenlinkser, but anyway, let's say it once again: the experiment europa keeps on being a beacon in a world controlled by the disputes in between the chavez, bushes and ammadineyas of this world. The building of a democratic europa, as Rebecca Harms reminded us in very simple (and perhaps because of that more convincing) words, keeps on being the relevant challenge of our generation.

But OK. Enough campaign. The central issue that we wanted to discuss with Kathalijne and Co is the criticism that we have on the newest forms that migration policy is taken inside the european greens. Kathalijne, the right woman at the right place, has been leading the discussion inside the European Green Party, proposing the study of schemes of circular migration as central issue for the greens. The criticism that arise in the Kleurrijk Platform is on three grounds. IN first place is difficult to imagine that such ideas will succeed in the practice, after having failed in the years fifty. The core idea of circular migration is that people can come to europe, stay for a while, and come back to wherever they come from. But the experience of europe is precisely that people come, and stay. So we still do not hear an answer to the question: why these ideas will work now? What is new components they have? The other two concerns hat we have, in my own opinion, are easier to address. In principle having temporary migrants implies that deportation will show her ugly face again. In second place, temporal migrants might not have access to all the social security that precisely makes europa a special place.

Now, we did not hear clear answers to these concerns, so I suppose that the discussion is still alive. As a matter of fact we were invited to a seminar on migration in which the green fractie will discuss her position to occur the 16 of april. Then we will, again, see how further can we get the greens to argue for a more open europa.