This blog post examines the complex relationship between the Visegrad Four countries and the European Union, focusing on the causes of the conflict and the positions of each country.
In 1991, the Czech Republic, Slovakia (before the separation), Poland, and Hungary formed the Visegrad Group with the aim of joining the European Union. In 2004, these four countries joined the European Union, achieving their initial goal, and have since expressed their intention to follow the EU’s direction. However, with the exception of Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland still use their own currencies and have not joined the Eurozone.
Recently, there have been frequent conflicts between the European Union and the Visegrad Group of Four (V4). In this article, we will look at the background of the conflicts that have occurred between them and the pros and cons of the situation.
The European refugee crisis refers to the crisis that occurred in 2015 due to the rapid increase in refugees and immigrants heading to the European continent. In November of the same year, the European Union Refugee Agency stated that 52% of the refugees were from Syria, 19% from Afghanistan, and 6% from Iraq. The term “European refugee crisis” began to be widely used after the sinking of the refugee ship in April 2015. As the acceptance of refugees increased, conflicts between countries in Europe also intensified.
The background to this situation is the Schengen Treaty and the Dublin Treaty, which are in force within the European Union. The Schengen Treaty is a treaty that requires European countries to use a common immigration control policy to minimize border controls and ensure free movement between member states. The Dublin Convention is a treaty signed by 12 countries, including Belgium, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Greece, at the 1990 Dublin Conference. The principle of the Convention is that refugees must apply for asylum in the first country they enter and that the country must process their application. This is to prevent so-called “asylum shopping.”
In this situation, the Visegrad Four countries have implemented a “zero refugee policy,” saying that decisions on the composition of their people are a matter of the sovereignty of each member state. In other words, they are in a position to accept not a single refugee. The European Union, on the other hand, insisted that this is a law and a moral obligation that must be observed without exception, and the conflict between the two sides intensified. In the end, the European Commission warned the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland that it would impose sanctions, mentioning penalties such as fines, but the V4 countries are still holding a firm stance.
Western European countries (Germany, France, the UK, etc.) are generally positive about refugee acceptance policies. First, from a macroeconomic perspective, the influx of refugees can help solve the problems of declining fertility and aging, and can help make up for the labor shortage. According to a simulation by the European Commission, the influx of refugees is estimated to contribute to the growth of GDP in the EU as a whole.
From a humanitarian perspective, accepting refugees is considered a conscience of democratic Europe and an obligation under international law. There are arguments that helping those who have lost their homes due to civil wars is the duty of humanity and a developed country. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in particular, represents this position, stating that “we accept refugees to reflect on Germany’s past history.”
On the diplomatic front, Germany’s leading role in this issue is interpreted as a strategy to increase its voice and international status within the EU. And since the Schengen Treaty is a symbol of European integration, there are concerns that the move to tighten border controls could shake the foundation of the treaty and threaten the European integration system itself.
On the other hand, Eastern European countries such as the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary are taking a negative stance. They are relatively dependent on the EU budget and believe that accepting refugees is an excessive burden on their own economies. With the sense of deprivation in Eastern Europe and the still slow economic recovery, a large influx of refugees could lower real wages and reduce overall income levels. In addition, the argument that refugee welfare is ultimately funded by taxes and that it is difficult to even spend money on the country’s own citizens is gaining traction, as it is unreasonable to take care of refugees as well.
Another important factor is that many governments oppose the acceptance of refugees. In the Czech Republic, the anti-refugee party ANO won the general election, and it is expected that the conflict with the European Union will intensify.
Religious reasons are also cited. While most Eastern European countries have a clear religious identity, such as Catholicism, 74% of Syrian refugees are Muslim, raising concerns that cultural and religious clashes are inevitable. In fact, some refugees have been reported to engage in terrorism or crime due to extremism. For example, in France in July 2016, a priest who was conducting mass in a church was killed by an IS follower, and in 2015, 12 Christians were reportedly thrown into the sea from a refugee ship.
The V4 countries argue that it is excessive to see the dismantling of the Schengen Agreement as border controls are only a temporary response. They argue that such measures may pose a threat to the EU’s economic recovery, but border controls due to the refugee issue are inevitable. They also emphasize that the occurrence of crimes and terrorism related to refugees has accumulated ‘refugee fatigue’ throughout European society, and in response to this, not only terrorism by ‘lone wolves’ but also hate crimes against refugees are frequently occurring.
After the Brexit in the UK, discussions on the withdrawal from the EU have emerged in the Czech Republic as well. Coupled with the international refugee crisis, the EU’s refugee quota system has provoked anti-EU sentiment in the Czech Republic. In particular, the victory of the ANO party in the general election has brought back to the spotlight the past remarks of the party leader, Andrej Babiš, regarding the withdrawal from the EU.
Those who are in favor of leaving the EU complain that Germany is hogging all the economic benefits within the EU. They are also concerned that the pressure to join the Eurozone will increase the cost of living and economic burden. The Czech Republic maintains its own monetary system and has partially secured economic autonomy by abolishing the fixed exchange rate system in April 2017 and switching to a floating exchange rate system. There is also an opinion that the country’s credit rating has also risen, and that it can reduce its dependence on the EU.
On the other hand, the opponents emphasize that the Czech Republic’s share of trade with the EU is too high, and that it is in a favorable position to attract foreign investment thanks to its membership in the EU. If the country leaves the EU, there is a great deal of concern that trade procedures will become more complicated and it will be difficult to attract investment, which will have a negative impact on the country’s economy as a whole. There is also an analysis that the Czech Republic receives the fifth-largest amount of funds from the EU, which are used for social welfare in general, so it will not be easy to give up these benefits due to the withdrawal.
In conclusion, we have examined the conflict between the European Union and the Visegrad Four countries over the European refugee policy and the possibility of the Czech Republic’s withdrawal from the EU. The European Union is demanding the acceptance of refugees, citing humanitarian and legal obligations, but the Visegrad Four countries are strongly opposed to accepting refugees for economic, cultural, and religious reasons. In the case of the Czech Republic, there is a conflict between the possibility of operating an independent economy and the economic influence of the EU, and it is not possible to rule out the possibility of another country leaving following Brexit. Even within the European Union, the interests of each country remain sharply opposed.
