THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Reforming Europe in a time of war

The shortfall of the European migratory and asylum policy 53 any possible signs of trafficking, European-level coor- dination of the support for Moldova, coordination with contacts from international partners (USA, UK, Canada), addressing the security threats derived from the war in Ukraine and providing States with sufficient economic and material resources. Finally, it should be mentioned that as well as private economic support emerging to respond to the consequences of this crisis, several lines of European financing have been set up for this purpose such as CARE (Cohesion Funds). Spain’s response to the application of the Council’s decision on TPD, regarding people who might access temporary protection, included persons displaced from Ukraine from 24 February onwards and Ukrainian res- idents who were in Spain when the conflict broke out and have not been able to return. Furthermore, both cases include Ukrainian nationals living in Ukraine and nationals of third countries living in Ukraine (with a valid legal residence permit: permanent or student), with their families, who cannot return to their country of origin, and Ukrainians who were already living in Spain although illegally. In addition to this procedure to access the documen- tation, state and regional authorities are coordinating to respond to the flows of arrivals. Some primary reception and primary welcome centres for Ukrainians, CREADE, have been opened in Madrid and Alicante. These cen- tres perform the initial reception and orientation process, emergency housing is provided; care and documenta- tion; and they are derived to reception resources. The CREADEs have registered 72,566 people , up to 15th July. Furthermore, the reception network has been extended from 9,000 places to around 21,000 places. Regarding the arrivals: although it is difficult to quantify this figure, it is estimated that 130,160 persons have arrived from Ukraine (130,071 of these people already have tempo- rary protection). The immediate response and the measures adopted contrast with the situation in 2015 when each country chose to act in their own interests, even with unilater- al measures such as closing their national borders. In their summits, the European Council and the EU Council demonstrated this separation, difference in policies, lack of coordination and disagreement. The victims of this disagreement, the lack of joint response from the 28 states at that time, were the refugees. On 13 May 2015, the European Migration Agenda was adopted, which in- volved two packages of measures at the end of May and in early September. Its proposals included relocation of asylum-seekers from Greece and Italy and resettlement of refugees from third countries. Greece became an enor- mous refugee camp, with immediate and unprecedented consequences in the recent history of Europe. Back then, CEAR activated the Temporary Protection Directive to award temporary protection in the case of massive affluence of displaced persons and as a way of encouraging a balanced effort among the Member States. However, there was no qualified majority in the Council to be able to come to an agreement, and they only agreed on relocation of asylum seekers from Greece and Italy, with a poor degree of compliance from most states and refusal from the Visegrád group of countries and resettlement of refugees from third countries. The Johansson Commission highlighted the convic- tion and unity of all states on this occasion, considering it a challenge to receive more than one million people who might have left Ukraine in these first few days, although it alleged that the EU was “in a better position than in 2015 and decisions were made in record time.” Consequently, CEAR wonders how many deaths might have been avoided in the Mediterranean and how much suffering, damage, suicide and desperation might have been spared in those terrible ‘camps of shame’ on Greek islands such as Lesbos. Today, we are proud to see how the focus of the European Union response to people fleeing Ukraine matches its foundational values, although we still feel impotent and indignant when we see that, unfortu- nately, the same treatment is still not being given to others in very similar circumstances. Consequently, now is the time to assess the recep- tion and protection experience offered to people fleeing