Loading Text-to-Speech…
BRUSSELS – RESPONSE. It took almost two years of political “transition” before her biggest reform was implemented European Union for the immigration policy of, ten years after the biggest refugee crisis, in 2015. The new Pact on Migration and Asylum officially entered into force yesterday, June 12, and includes a controversial “package” of ten pieces of legislation, which were needed years of negotiations to be completed to ensure – for the first time – a single policy across the ‘bloc’, while coming into force at a critical political juncture, ahead of an electoral cycle culminating in 2027 in France, Poland, Italy and Spain.
When the former vice-president of the Commission and “architect” of the pact Margaritis Schinas trying to explain his “philosophy”, he likened it to a three-story house. On the ground floor was the “external dimension” of immigration: agreements with third countries, cooperation with countries of origin and transit, and efforts to limit migration flowsbefore they reach Europe. On the first floor, external border protection, checks, registration and the new asylum procedures. And in the last one, the solidarity between the member states – the effort, that is, the “front line” countries Greece and Italy not to bear the burden of management alone.
Shortcomings
Despite the two-year transition period, several countries are still adapting their legislation, completing infrastructure and upgrading their information systems. At the same time, rights organizations and several MEPs express concerns that the new border procedures may lead to greater use of structures at external borders. “This is the starting point, not the end of the journey”, emphasizes, however, the commissioner of Internal Affairs and Immigration Magnus Brunerwhile at the same time admitting that June 12 is just a signal of the “start” of the implementation and not of full readiness. “Will everything work perfectly from day one? Of course not,” he says.
A critical “test” will be the full operation of the upgraded Eurodac, the new European biometric recording system. The Commission finds that the system is not yet in its final stage of readiness.
In any case, the liberal MEP Fabien Kellerrapporteur of the Asylum and Immigration Management Regulation, defends the core of the new system. “The purpose of Eurodac and the screening process is to know who is entering the EU”, pointed to “K”. Socialist MEP Birgit Sippel warns that “it is possible that the operational implementation of the new system will reveal some weaknesses in the coming months.”
The Greek interest
The one that was difficult from the start was the top floor of the European house: solidarity. For her Greeceafter all, the main question does not only concern the readiness of the new system, but mainly what changes in practice. For a decade, Athens has been calling for joint management of external borders, joint procedures and burden-sharing. In theory, the pact offers all three: it introduces a mandatory pre-selection process at the border, creates a single registration system and establishes a permanent “solidarity mechanism” for the first time.
OR Greece is already included, along with Italy, Spain and Cyprusto the first beneficiaries of the so-called “solidarity tank”. Essentially, however, the dispositions of the majority of member states are to “translate” solidarity into financial contributions and administrative facilities, rather than relocations. That is why Greece and Italy chose to sign in the first phase bilateral agreements with Germany, the Netherlands and Belgiumcountries where secondary flows are recorded.
For the Austrian commissioner, however, the choice of bilateral agreements is not a sign of ineffectiveness of the “solidarity mechanism”.
On her part, Lena Dipontrapporteur of the European People’s Party for the border asylum procedure, considers that this is exactly one of the key innovations. “Solidarity is not only limited to relocations”, underline in the “K”“also means operational, financial and practical support”.
On the contrary, Sippel believes that “we should ensure that solidarity is evenly distributed between financial contributions and relocations”.
Elections in the member states
And while the pact has only just begun to be implemented, its political future will be decided in an increasingly volatile European environment. Polls bear the head of the National Rally Jordan Bardellain a strong position ahead of the 2027 French presidential election, while the far-right AfD appears poised to win the Saxony-Anhalt regional election in September.
“The electoral contests will inevitably change the composition of the European Council”, observes the liberal Fabien Kellerexpressing the hope that by then the new system will be “in full and effective implementation”.
THE Magnus Bruner he avoids political predictions and notes that “our job is to take back control. This is not a matter of Right or Left. This is about policy making and putting our European house in order. This is the point.”
Test the flow reduction and reliable returns
As the Union “inaugurates” the top floor of the Pact, the political debate in Brussels has already returned to the ground floor: returns, agreements with third countries and the management of migration flows before they reach the border. This is exactly where several European officials see the real “test” of the new immigration policy.
“A reliable migration policy presupposes reliable returns”, she emphasizes Lena Dipont. Today only one in five people who take a decision to return actually leave the EU. “A return decision must lead to a real return. Otherwise, the system loses its credibility.”
The Italian MEP of the group of European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) moves in the same “line” Alessandro Ciriani. “Europe must protect those who really have the right to international protection, but also return those who do not have the right to stay”, supports in “K”.
In this context, the discussion on the so-called “return nodes” is included. Its recent adoption of the new Return Regulation created for the first time a legal basis for their operation, allowing under conditions the transfer of rejected asylum seekers to third countries, pending their return to their countries of origin.
OR Commissionhowever, is not going to undertake either the cost or the finding of countries for the controversial “hubs”. THE Magnus Bruner made it clear, after all, that the “mission” of the Commission was simply to ensure the legal framework. From then on, as he said, the exploitation of the new “possibilities” belongs exclusively to the member states.
“Alliance of Five”
Although the recent idiosyncratic “alliance” of five member states –Greece, Germany, Holland, Denmark and Austria– “presses” to promote the model, it remains unclear which third countries are willing to host them.
However, already competent sources report that the discussions of the “5” are dominated by African countries such as Ghana, Senegal, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Ugandabut also of Asia as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. “The goal is to have no structures near European borders,” they emphasize.
However, the Martin Hoffman from the International Center for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) explains to “K” that European governments primarily invest in the deterrent message sent by the “hubs”. Opinions in the European Parliament are divided, as for Dipont the hubs can be an additional “tool”. “They are not a panacea,” he admits, “but they can help ensure that return decisions are implemented.”
THE Ciriani – who belongs to the party of Georgia Meloni – recalls that “Italy was the first country to support this approach” with a related agreement with Albania, “a model that is currently at the center of the discussion in Brussels”.
On the contrary, the Shipel openly questions their effectiveness, as he does not consider that they will be a solution to the problem of low return rates, while increasing the EU’s dependence on from third countries and authoritarian regimes.
