The Economic and Political Costs of EU’s Migration Paranoia

European Union’s Trade and Development Scheme Jeopardized by Migration Paranoia

The Issue

The European Union’s (EU) external policies are being threatened by European governments’ obsession with curbing immigration. The Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP), which grants trade preferences to low- and middle-income countries for poverty reduction and sustainable development, is the next policy to be affected. The EU Council and Commission are attempting to include an immigration component in the regulation, allowing them to withdraw trade benefits from countries that do not cooperate on the return and readmission of their nationals deemed to be illegally present in the EU. However, the European Parliament vehemently opposes this provision, as do human rights groups.

The Argument

The GSP fosters human rights progress, job creation, and environmental disaster reduction, contributing to tackling several “root causes” of migration. Additionally, the trade scheme can serve as leverage to urge beneficiaries to address shortcomings in their human and labor rights and environmental conditions. But the EU Council’s attempt to link migration to trade benefits jeopardizes the continuation and expansion of the scheme.

Moreover, it is appalling how the EU could even consider pushing such an unpalatable proposal to countries from the “Global South,” especially amid growing geopolitical competition with China and others. While the scheme plays an important and at times vital role for several developing economies in Central, South, and South-East Asian countries, GSP-related trade with African countries is negligible. Further restrictions could make it completely unappealing to them.

The Implications

The EU Council’s fixation on curbing immigration will have economic and political costs. Firstly, the GSP promotes poverty reduction and sustainable development, which, in turn, addresses migration‘s root causes. Secondly, if beneficiaries perceive the link between immigration and trade benefits as unfair, it will breed resentment and potentially harm political relationships.

As the European Parliament has already opposed this regulation, there is a need for the EU Council to show that its actions are not driven by paranoia. It is high time to secure the adoption of a GSP that serves sustainable development goals without any immigration component.

The Advice

The EU should focus on addressing the root causes of migration, such as poverty, corruption, and environmental degradation, rather than doubling down on curbing immigration. By leveraging trade and development policies, the EU can promote sustainable economic growth and development in low- and middle-income countries, which will address migration‘s underlying causes.

Therefore, the EU Council and Commission should listen to the European Parliament’s advice to remove the immigration component in the GSP regulation. Doing so will uphold the GSP’s objectives and safeguard the continuation and expansion of the trade scheme, which would benefit all parties.