Turkey - Deal or No Deal

[SpringingIntoAction]

The latest offer from Turkey is:

Turkey takes back a non-Syrian migrant who has crossed into Greece and 'replaces' him/her by sending Greece a Syrian refugee, on a one-for-one basis

Plus

The EU pays 6 billion Euros to Turkey

Plus

The EU agrees to permit Turks to travel visa-free within the EU from June 2016 (instead of previously agreed 1 Oct 2016)

Plus

Turkey's full EU membership is fast-tracked.

So, does the EU accept Turkey's deal or say 'No Deal'?

[AMouseLivedinaWindMill]

cote

I have already asked for my link to be moved, it was posted on the wrong thread.

[CoteDAzur]

No worries, AMouse. With so many xenophobic threads running on MN at the moment, one can get easily confused between them and post her xenophobic fearmongering link on the wrong one

[SpringingIntoAction]

"Turkey only recognises the rights of EU citizens under the convention, not those of returning migrants"

What does that sentence even mean? "Only recognises the rights of EU citizens under the convention" - what utter nonsense.

It means that Turkey is not a full signatory to the Geneva Convention and its only legal obligations under that treaty are to EU citizens.

It means that Turkey has no obligations to treat non-EU refuges in Turkey according to the conventions standards, so would have no obligation to treat any migrants returned to Turkey from Syria iaw with the Convention. It means the EU is on very dodgy ground trying to force the migrants from the Greek islands to a country that does not offer them full protection under international law.



Do you mean Turkey would be free to bomb a non-European city in military conflict because those civilians are not European?

Silly - although Turkey has already bombed Kurdish villages in Syria without a lot of international outcry.


Or kill off Iraqi prisoners of war, since they are not European? hmm

Yes, it could. It probably killed a few of its own Turkish population when it bombed Kurdish villages.

*What that website is trying to talk about is that Turkey signed Geneva Convention's 1967 Protocol on the Legal Status of Refugees with "geographical limitations". As a result, it gives refugee status to Europeans only and offers temporary asylum to others.

That is what you want, isn't it? That Syrians remain in Turkey until hostilities cease and then go back home. That is the definition of temporary asylum. *

What I want is proper, well-equipped UN protected refugee camps with full protection under the Geneva Convention, close to Syria to facilitate the Syrians return to Syria post-war. I don't care if these camps are in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, wherever.

What seems to be the problem?

[SpringingIntoAction]

I am watching the Daily Politics on which the question is being asked 'How are the Greek authorities going to round up the migrants and forcibly transport them to Turkey where they can be traded for Syrian refugees? How will Greece force an unwilling migrant onto the transport to take them to Turkey, a country that has big human rights deficits. What will the world's press make of it?'

Two MEPs sat in the studio and more or less said that if that's what Merkel has agreed, they have no problem with it.

Think about it, two UK MEPs condoning the forcible transportation of refugees against their will. Germany tried that once before in the last century. It didn't go well that time.

Is that what the EU has come to? Because if it has, I want no part of it.

[CoteDAzur]

"It means that Turkey is not a full signatory to the Geneva Convention and its only legal obligations under that treaty are to EU citizens."

That is wrong.

You need to stop spreading disinformation. I realise this is a detailed topic and you are not terribly informed on it, but you can at least read the Geneva Convention to find out what it covers and realise that Turkey's "geographical restriction" clause applies only to the amendment on refugees that was introduced over a decade after Turkey signed the Geneva Convention.

"would have no obligation to treat any migrants returned to Turkey from Syria iaw with the Convention"

It means Turkey will not give refugee status to these Syrians, but they will still be safe from harm. It will give them temporary asylum, meaning they will be expected to go back to Syria once hostilities cease which you said you wanted to happen.

"It means the EU is on very dodgy ground trying to force the migrants from the Greek islands to a country that does not offer them full protection under international law."

That's not what it means at all. The difference between temporary asylum and refugee status is duration, not protection or its lack thereof.

"It probably killed a few of its own Turkish population when it bombed Kurdish villages."

Yes, probably did. Terrorism makes countries do cruel and unusual things. You know, like UK's treatment of Irish people back in the day of IRA or more recent invasion of Iraq on false pretences that lead to the deaths of over 100,000 civilians (and counting).

[SpringingIntoAction]

CoteDAzur

This article is helpful in explaining why Turkey cannot fulfil the obligations placed on it by its patchy application of the Geneva Convention:

euobserver.com/migration/132649

6But Turkey's "geographical limitation" in the convention means only European nationals can be granted full refugee status.^ This is the nub of the matter.

Those who wish migrants to be returned to Turkey see it as a safe country while others consider it to be a violation of law, which will require a change of law to achieve legally.

If Turkey is actually this beacon of humanitarian rights that you seem to think it is, why exactly are we even considering taking Syrian refugees from Turkey. Why are the non-Syrian refugees trying to escape this wonderful humanitarian Turkey in the first place?

Set aside the legalities or otherwise, and consider the humanitarian and moral conduct of this proposal, as well as the simple practicalities.

Every refugee/migrant has to have their case examined separately - it is against the law to apply a blanket test and then move to mass deportation. That case examination has to happen for each migrant in Greece and each refugee in Syria. It will take months.

I cannot imagine the migrants who have reached Greece returning willingly to Turkey. How will they be persuaded to embark on transport to Turkey. will they be forcibly removed? how will that play out on our TV screens in the run-up to the EU referendum, or will there be a Press black out. Do we want to be part of an EU that forcibly and summarily deports people to a country with a poor human rights record?

What will the EU do with all the Syrian refuges it has obtained as part of this swap? There are few EU countries that have said they will take them. Will they be swapping one hopeless situation in Turkey for another hopeless situation in bankrupt Greece.

The deal is unworkable. The EU commissioned report told them it was Merkel has gone well 'off-piste' in personally negotiating this deal without the agreement of the EU.

[CoteDAzur]

"But Turkey's "geographical limitation" in the convention means only European nationals can be granted full refugee status.^ This is the nub of the matter."

I'm glad you finally got that. Brava. I've been telling you exactly this in my last couple of posts.

Full refugee status means they become Turkish citizens and remain there forever and so do their (numerous children), their children's children etc.

Turkey is offering them temporary asylum, which means they will get exactly the same protection but will have to pack up and go back to Syria once fighting is over.

If you don't like that, ship them all over to the UK. (But of course you don't want to do that. Why carry the burden when you can just twiddle your thumbs and whine about those who do?)

[SpringingIntoAction]

If you don't like that, ship them all over to the UK. (But of course you don't want to do that. Why carry the burden when you can just twiddle your thumbs and whine about those who do?)

Firstly, don't presume to know what I do or don't want. You don't .

Secondly, please try to understand that the framework of international law is something that all countries must adhere to even if they'd prefer, as the EU seems to, to want to ship the migrants elsewhere.

I have tried to example just how unworkable this proposed EU / Turkey deal actually is.

*Full refugee status means they become Turkish citizens and remain there forever and so do their (numerous children), their children's children etc.

Turkey is offering them temporary asylum, which means they will get exactly the same protection but will have to pack up and go back to Syria once fighting is over. *

Bingo! That's exactly why Turkey is not safe country.

1. Turkey cannot offer these asylum seekers full refugee status as it does not offer full refugee status to non-EU citizens AND Turkey is unable to provide a durable solution, which is one of the criteria a country must fulfil to be deemed a safe country for asylum seekers. Turkey, as you rightly said offer only temporary asylum. What if their country of origin is never safe to return to? That's why the country of asylum must be able to offer a durable solution. That is why the EU is swapping their non-Syrian refugees for Syrian ones - because it has a duty to provide a durable solution if necessary, i.e. permanent resettlement, something Turkey cannot as Turkey is not signed up to the necessary international convention that would allow it to be seen as a 'safe country'.
   
   
2. What the EU is planning to send to Turkey are non-Syrian migrants, some of whom will qualify as refugees and some of which will be unable to fulfil the criteria so will be in effect economic migrants. The EU must make that distinction in each case.
   
   
3. Again, thinking in purely practical terms, Turkey will then have two distinct groups of people that it must deal with a) asylum seekers and b) economic migrants.
   
   
4. What will Turkey them do with these economic migrants that have no claim to asylum? Deport them? Why doesn't the EU deport the economic migrants straight back to their safe country of origin as they are permitted to do under international law, once the EU has determined that group has no right to asylum in the EU nor would have in Turkey?
   
   Why carry the burden when you can just twiddle your thumbs and whine about those who do?)
   
   I shall just ignore ^^

[DawnMumsnet]

Hi all, we're moving this thread over to our In The News topic at the OP's request so that it doesn't disappear.

Many thanks to all who've contributed so far.

[MariscallRoad]

No Deal.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/13/turkey-associate-membership-eu A rapturous day for misogyny if the EU embraces Turkey

[SpringingIntoAction]

Sky news saying a deal has been reached with Turkey and could come into force from this Sunday

[Izlet]

Late to this thread but I do agree to a certain extent with Cote. I do a lot of business with Turkey, travel there frequently and have Turkish friends and colleagues. Firstly, Turkey is not the ME, up to Erdogan's advent it was a relatively progressive, secular democracy. When Ataturk created the modern Turkish Republic he separated religion from state and introduced the Latin alphabet (among other things) in order to separate it from its Ottoman legacy and its Arab neighbours and bring it up to the level of European States. In fact, had there been an EU 95 years ago he'd probably have been invited to join .

The problem here is Erdogan. We cannot accept Turkey as part of the EU as long as he and his Islamist supported, backward looking and freedom suppressing party remain in power. I don't think there is any disagreement there.

I do think however we should be sending financial aid. Turkey is bearing the brunt of this crisis and many people are seeing their livelihoods disappear. The Aegean coast has effectively lost its tourism, as have many other parts of the country, crime has increased, and the only people getting rich from this crisis are the various mafias who are running the people smuggling. The EU should channel the cash into properly equipped refugee camps near the borders, it would certainly cost less than the money spent in several EU countries housing and schooling the huge migrant influx, you certainly get more aid per € in a cheaper, non western country like Turkey. The people smugglers need to be stopped and the refugees should be prevented from venturing elsewhere unless specifically invited by a European host country. The word needs to get around that if you leave the camp to make your way illegally you forfeit your right to any type of resettlement elsewhere. That should also stop the North African chancers flying to Istanbul and piggy-backing the genuine refugees. Turkey needs to promise to enforce this and actually do so, otherwise the money will stop. At the moment Erdogan is just playing games, trying to see how far he can go. The EU should be very firm and concede very little, after all, the situation can hardly get much worse than it is right now.

On the subject of visa free travel, I live in another EU country and there has been visa free travel to and from Turkey for years, yet we haven't seen a huge influx of Turks, unless for a romantic weekend .

[Izlet]

Add message | Report | Message poster SpringingIntoAction Fri 18-Mar-16 14:02:11
Sky news saying a deal has been reached with Turkey and could come into force from this Sunday

Let's hope that Angela hasn't been too conciliatory, or even not conciliatory at all. I hope the hardliners have managed to put a lot of brakes and conditions in the deal.

[MariscallRoad]

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/18/eu-strikes-deal-with-turkey-to-send-back-refugees-from-greece 'Cyprus vowed to block any plan to restart Turkey’s EU membership talks over the decades-long dispute about the divided island. As a result, the European side would only agree to restart membership talks on one policy “chapter”, on budget, not the five Ankara had demanded.'

[MariscallRoad]

I find different wordings in the news
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/94314ec0-eca7-11e5-9fca-fb0f946fd1f0.html#axzz43GsWe13k The EU and Turkey have agreed a deal that would see nearly all migrants systematically turned back from Greek islands as soon as this Sunday.

[Behooven]

Thread has probably moved on, but no deal from me too

[Moreshabbythanchic]

I cant see how this is going to work, not many of them will go willingly. I am very worried that it has been agreed to fast track Turkeys entry to the EU.

[AgainstTheGlock]

No deal from me.

Izlet - I agree with 95% of your post - Ataturk set the country on a positive trajectory and my Turkish friends are secular, living in Istanbul, short-skirt wearing (the women at least) who enjoy fine food, culture, travel and anything else the rest of us like. Why would they have wanted to leave Istanbul until Ergodan came along? (Since he has 1 of my friends has emigrated to Melbourne and two of his brothers are looking to escape...). The problem is that 5-10% (possibly more) of the population of e.g., eastern Anatolia who will look to Western Europe as the land of milk & honey (and bill payments) and descend en masse as other poor, directionless europeans before them have done so.

I have a fucking rage against Ergodan. Turkey was very much beloved to me - I moved to Istanbul when I was 20 and felt safer walking the streets there (not Fatih granted) than I do on many modern day British cities.

[gastropod]

"...fast-track Turkey’s EU membership"

I don't think this is part of the deal, at least from what I've read. Politico always has good, detailed coverage of EU topics.

Reopening accession talks doesn't mean much. More than one EU member state (Cyprus and, historically, France, for a start) are opposed to Turkey's joining the EU. Turkey as a member of the EU is a long, long, long way off. In fact, I don't believe it will ever happen.

[Moreshabbythanchic]

I hope not gastropod, it will be the end of Europe if it does.

[SpringingIntoAction]

Sky News saying that the 'deal' comes into force at midnight Sunday. All new migrants arriving in Greece after that date will be screened and if found to be an asylum seeker will be allowed to stay in the EU but if they fail the test for asylum the will be returned to Turkey

I don't understand why we are returned failed asylum seekers to Turkey - why not straight back to their home countries?


How on earth do they think they will be able to remove somebody back to Turkey when that person may have invested their life savings just to get to Greecec- they will not return willingly

Expect hundreds of boats over this weekend as the people sumugglersvtfy to use this chance weekend to get as many migrants into Greece as they can, I expect the camera crews will be kept well away


It supposes that when we swap with Turkey, a migrant for an asylum seeker, that asylum seeker will be settled somewhere in the EU, but progress in that situation day has been dismal with only 900 accepted by EU countries

It doesn't say what happens to those who have already arrived (estimated 47,000) already in Greece

It does not deal with Libya -> Italy migration. 2,000 migrants picked up off Libya yesterday, estimates are that 450,000 are currently poised to come and just waiting for good weather


The who UN needs to re-evaluate its policy on refugees/migrants as the current legislation is outdated and never foresaw mass economic migration

[MariscallRoad]

www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-turkey-davutoglu-idUSKCN0WK0QQ The text is not quite clear to me.

[MariscallRoad]

Any way we in the UK are not part of this deal.

[SpringingIntoAction]

Any way we in the UK are not part of this deal.

You're wrong.

The deal is between the EU, of which the UK is a member state, and Turkey. We are therefore automatically 'part of the deal'.

We are part of the EU that will be paying 6 billion Euros to Turkey - some of that money, approx 500,000 Euro is coming from us.

The EU could be accepting thousands of Syrians each week under this 'swap' deal. Where do you think these people will all go? They won't all be going to Germany. Merkel is desperate to get them redistributed throughout the EU. So far, out of the million plus that have arrived a grand total of 936 have been resettled by the EU. As Greece fills up with migrants we will come under increasing pressure to take more Syrians.

And even if the UK sits back and refuses to accept any more of these Syrians, these migrants will, if the stay in the UK, eventually be eligible for EU citizenship, which automatically gives them the right to come to live in the UK.

As I have mentioned before, we may also be required to accept some Syrian asylum seekers that may have existing family in the UK.

So yes, it does affect us and the sooner we wake up and realise that, the better.

[MariscallRoad]

SpringingIntoAction We are not part of the Schengen zone. Border controls of the Schengen zone do not apply to us in UK. Cameron made on 17th March statements UK has a different refugee policy and will stay as is. UK has some opt outs.

It is correct we will be paying approx 500,000 Euro - I had pointed that out in some thread. My family and myself we are taxpayers so we will be paying.

Good to ask where all these people who will be sent from Turkey to EU will go. I dont know. It is not clear to me.

You are right to point out the sheer numbers arriving every day in Greece. If you wish to see the UN data on arrivals on the Greek Islands it is here data.unhcr.org/mediterranean/country.php?id=83 you find there were 144,000 to the 18 March. There are interesting graphs there and profiling migrants by sex, origin, education etc. Have a look on the files It is worth. I dont know if the agreement will be successfull. I dont know if the other States have or will accept quotas.

A brief of the agreement is here blogs.wsj.com/briefly/2016/03/19/the-eu-turkey-migrants-deal-at-a-glance/