Will the Council take a decisive new step forward towards reform of the European asylum system and future management of migration crises? There was room for doubt at the General Affairs Council on Tuesday 13 December, during which EU ministers broadly agreed on the relatively "consensual" conclusions – but with some wanting a deadline for the reform of the Dublin regulation on asylum.
Although the EU's interior ministers did not really make any progress on 9 December as regards the concept of effective solidarity, nor give much support to flexibility in the measures for responding to future migration crises (EUROPE 11686), the European affairs ministers did not seem to clear the way forward either. Several member states, such as Italy, Germany and Sweden, even reminded all the member states of their responsibility and expressed a desire for slightly more ambitious conclusions. Italy thus considered that the "areas of convergence" between the member states mentioned by the draft conclusions on the subject of migration were not really true, and thought, by contrast, that this convergence did not exist and that there is still a situation in which some member states are disadvantaged by their geography.
Italy reiterated that solidarity on asylum and migration was not an option but an obligation, a source stated, and the country reiterated that this solidarity must be translated into efforts to relocate asylum seekers – with this needing to be considered a condition of Dublin reform.
Germany would also like more ambitious conclusions and to move towards substantial reform of the asylum system. The German secretary of state, Michael Roth, said that there are currently 600 people arriving per day – even in winter. In his view, the conclusions do not reflect reality. As for Greece, there are currently problems with Turkey, which is not reportedly responding to readmission requests, the same source stated. When contacted by EUROPE, the country's permanent representation to the EU did not respond to a request for confirmation of this. Greece has also seen a recent increase in migrant arrivals.
Like the Germans, the Swedish also wanted this reform of the asylum system, and especially of the Dublin regulation, to be finalised by the end of March 2017. The question of the timetable could possibly be open for debate by European leaders, however.
On the level of external migration, most delegations hailed the targeted partnerships that have thus far been started with five countries (Mali, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Niger and Senegal) and called for one to be started with Egypt. Other delegations, such as Hungary, also wanted targeted partnerships for countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
The draft conclusions of 12 December in fact merely state, on the level of the internal dimension of migration, that the effective application of the principles of responsibility and solidarity remains a shared objective. These draft conclusions add that the efforts made over recent months to review the common European asylum system have shown areas of convergence, and on the basis of this work, the Council is asked to continue the process with the objective of broadening consensus on European asylum policy during the next Presidency.
On the external level, the European leaders should perhaps delay a little longer on the EU-Turkey agreement of 18 March, on which they would like full and non-discriminatory application, as mentioned in the 12 December draft conclusions. The European leaders are also expected to underline the importance of targeted partnerships, but the conclusions of 12 December do not mention the possibility of opening one with Egypt. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)