On Wednesday 23 September 2020, EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson presented the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum on behalf of the European Commission.
The proposal is intended to replace the Dublin system, which requires asylum claims to be handled in the EU country where the applicant first enters the system.
Ms. Johansson said the proposals: “[strike] the right balance where we show solidarity towards migrants, asylum seekers and between member states, but that we’re also clear that those who are not eligible to stay – they have to be returned.”
Despite this, the EU Home Affairs Commissioner accepts the proposals will not be universally popular, but hopes that member states and their parliaments would recognise they were worth working on, stating:
“To be honest I don’t think I’ll have the chance to have too many ‘hoorays’ when I present my proposal, but I do think I will have acceptance and respect”
The details
The pact has been most strongly pushed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, but would require all 27 EU member states to take part.
Under the plan member states would either agree to take in asylum seekers or take charge of returning those refused asylum, as opposed to under the Dublin agreement in which they could be returned to another member state.
The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum is designed to appease some of the pressure for frontline countries such as Italy and Greece who have beared the brunt of the burden under the current system.
However, it also aims to provide countries such as Hungary and Poland, who have typically refused to take in arrivals in the past, with alternative ways of contributing.
In effect each country has the following options:
- Take in new arrivals, with all countries offered €10,000 per adult to accept people under the plan, endorsed by Angela Merkel.
- “Sponsor” returns – relieving the burden of other member states in ensuring those refused asylum are returned.
- Provide immediate operational support.
In addition, each state would be legally required to contribute their “fair share” – this would be calculated based half on GDP, and half on population size.
Other important elements are: a new compulsory pre-entry screening involving health, identity and security checks; a faster asylum border process involving decisions within 12 weeks and swift returns for failed applicants; and EU task force units — made up of border police, lawyers, translators and other helpers — to support member states when large numbers of displaced people arrive in short periods.
The pact also abandons mandatory refugee quotas, drawing criticism from human rights organisations.
Migration policy and the EU
Migration and the debate surrounding states’ responsibility has long been a contentious issue.
At the crux of the migrant crisis in 2015, there were 1.8 million irregular arrivals – the vast majority of which were refugees – into the EU, mainly via Italy and Greece. Member states were divided over how best to respond.
A 2016 deal with Turkey resulted in Ankara agreeing to allow all persons arriving irregularly to the Greek islands returned to Turkey in exchange for significant cash payment. However, the deal has effectively been terminated with Erdogan reopening routes into the bloc in February 2020.
The Greek islands, such as Lesbos, remain vastly overcrowded and blame for the recent fire in the Moria camp has largely been pinned on the EU’s lack of a coherent migration policy.
Why now?
Germany has long advocated for this pact but plans have been brought forward as a result of the fire on Lesbos.
The tragic scenes at the Moria camp, which left more than 12,500 refugees and migrants homeless, is indicative of the failing EU migration policy. The facility was originally built for 2,200, but the Dublin regulations, coupled with returns and relocations proceeding at a snail’s pace, led many to believe it was just a matter of time before tragedy befell the camp in one form or another. Along this vein, Ylva Johansson said:
“I think it is obvious that Moria is the result, not only, but partly, of the lack of a common European asylum and migration policy.”
The EU hopes that the process will lead to speedier returns for migrants whose asylum claims have been rejected, with greater help for non-EU countries hit by migration. They also believe that it will help to ensure that camps do not become overcrowded in the future, with the burden better shared outside of the Dublin rules.
It must be said though, that the regulations are not actually being abolished, Margaritis Schinas, the vice president and the commissioner for promoting the European way of life, said the pact puts “Dublin to bed”. In reality, it is just being partially annulled through lack of agreement on new provisions.
In some ways, the Dublin criteria is being expanded: People who have family members in another EU country are to be taken there. This could mean that countries in which a lot of refugees live will automatically receive more of them, this may have unintended consequences for Scandinavian countries and Germany.
It also does little to nothing for those that are already in camps or to help those left in the lurch as a result of the Moria fire.
Are the plans any good?
The general consensus is no, with the plans criticised by both human rights groups and governments opposed to taking in migrants.
Journalist Barbara Wesel, writing for DW, said: “Member states reluctant to provide refuge to displaced people can now do as they will. This is a victory for the nationalists”.
Whilst the Hungarian nationalist government has said the EU’s external borders should “remain perfectly sealed along all sections”.
Amnesty International’s EU Advocacy Director, Eve Geddie has also condemned the plans, saying:
“This pact will do nothing to alleviate the suffering of thousands of people stuck in camps on the Greek islands, or in detention centres in Libya. Nor will it provide the needed support to countries where people seeking safety first arrive”
Adding that:
“While the commitment to monitor abuses at the borders is welcome, this does not make up for the fact that the pact makes detention the norm and relies on deterrence, containment in camps and cooperation with abusive governments.”
While the pact makes good on Brussels’ long-term ambition to fast-track decisions at the borders for applicants from countries whose citizens are frequently deemed ineligible, it remains to be seen how this will work in practice. It is highly unlikely such plans will stand up to the inevitable judicial challenges they will be subjected to. It is also important to ask what legal system will be responsible for hearing such cases and whether claimants will have the opportunity to appeal?