contents
The resignation of the Frontex director provided new fuel for the voting “arena” to finance the border agency. The debate focused on human rights and Switzerland’s security.
“Frontex kills people,” said Saeed Farkhondeh, a member of the referendum committee against the expansion of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, in the “Arena” on Friday evening. What is meant by this is the illegal, often violent rejection of refugees at the external borders of Europe, for example in the Aegean or in the Balkans. The EU border agency is accused of having accepted these so-called pushbacks from the national authorities.
In the program, the guests discussed emotionally about the proposal, which the voters will decide on May 15th.
The supporters in the “Arena” fear exclusion from Schengen/Dublin and thus even more precarious conditions at the borders, the opponents appeal to conscience not to give “an agency using violence” even more money and call for the adoption of the EU regulation again to reconsider.
Switzerland has been involved in Frontex since 2011. For years, the Border and Coast Guard has treated people like objects, Farkhondeh said. He himself spent six years of his life in a return center in Switzerland. The additional money that Switzerland now wants to use to expand the agency would be better invested in lifeboats, hospitals and doctors: “We have to find a better solution so that people can come to Europe safely and not be sent back by force.”
Frontex is not an organization to prevent things, but an organization that creates order.
Federal Councilor Ueli Maurer admitted that the border protection agency had made mistakes. But he also said: “The system works.” The resignation of Frontex director Fabrice Leggeri on Friday just shows that the organization is capable of acting. “The consequences have been drawn.”
SP calls for different domestic implementation
Maurer takes the position that more money for Frontex means less violence: “Frontex is not a prevention organization, but an organization that creates order at the borders.” With the expansion, more resources would be created and more fundamental rights officers deployed so that people were treated correctly.
Maurer emphasized that the bill was in the interests of legal security in Switzerland, but also to protect refugees at the borders.
We are dissatisfied with the way Parliament implemented the EU regulation.
Money alone is not enough to improve the situation, said SP National Councilor Min Li Marti: “Unfortunately, Frontex has become an instrument of defense that systematically violates human rights and tries to cover it up.” The SP is not in favor of exiting Schengen and does not fundamentally reject Frontex.
“We are dissatisfied with how Parliament implemented the EU regulation,” said Marti. There is plenty of room for maneuver domestically. Parliament must improve. That is possible, because the Schengen/Dublin Agreement does not simply fall away after a no. There were 90 days to reach an agreement with the EU Joint Committee.
Broken relations with the EU
That was a “fundamental misjudgment of European policy,” objected GLP National Councilor Tiana Angelina Moser. The relationship between Switzerland and the EU was broken after the negotiations on the framework agreement were broken off. If the Frontex proposal is rejected, the country stands “once again as a beneficiary of Europe” without doing anything itself.
The Schengen/Dublin Agreement must not be jeopardized. Freedom of movement in the Schengen area also means that you have to secure the external borders: “Like all other countries, we should take responsibility here and make a proportionate contribution.”