On Wednesday 17 July, MEPs gathered in Parliament's plenary session expressed, not surprisingly, widely divergent positions on how to deal with asylum seeker flows and landings in the Mediterranean Sea.
The debate began with the intervention of the Finnish Minister for European Affairs, Tytti Tuppurainen.
While concerned about the humanitarian situation in the Mediterranean Sea and the number of deaths that is still too high, she mentioned figures from the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (formerly Frontex) showing a decrease in flows and mortality this year.
At the political level, the Finnish Minister recalled that, in the absence of definitive solutions on asylum and migration, the former Romanian Presidency of the Council of the EU had established the first guidelines for temporary landing regimes for asylum seekers based on a voluntary approach by States (see EUROPE 12274/1). “There are now temporary measures that will remain in place until there are definitive solutions as part of a reform of sustainable and humane asylum policy”, she said.
As the negotiations on the asylum package and its seven texts (Dublin Regulations, asylum procedures, Eurodac, resettlement, qualification and reception conditions directives and the new European Asylum Agency) were dragging on in the EU Council (see EUROPE 12271/5), she stated that the Finnish Presidency would ensure the follow-up of the work undertaken by Bucharest. Nevertheless, Helsinki “will undoubtedly see how to unblock the situation” in order to find “balanced and humane solutions”, she added.
This was followed by a statement by the Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid, Christos Stylianides, who recalled the obligations under international law regarding rescue at sea, but stressed that while he insisted on destroying the activity of smugglers and traffickers, he hoped that “no form of genuine assistance” would be criminalised.
Discussions on the EU asylum system must, in his view, continue to be a priority and lead to “shared responsibility”. Finally, he wished to focus on measures to address the causes of migration, including through assistance to African countries.
Not surprisingly, the traditional political divisions on the migration issue have resurfaced in this debate. Erik Marquardt (Greens/EFA, Germany) referred to the “shame” of the EU's inaction on drownings in the Mediterranean Sea. “The dignity of the human being is unconditional”, he said. And for Miguel Urbán Crespo (GUE/NGL, Spain), the EU and Member States must choose between “protecting life or continuing to be complicit in death and making the Mediterranean a common grave”. “Saving life can never be a crime, an offence”, he added.
In contrast to these views, Harald Vilimsky (ID, Austria) stated that the actions of NGOs rescuing people at sea were “political” and not humanitarian and violated the law. For her part, Nicola Procaccini (ECR, Italy) wants to “stop taxi networks” that undermine the “dignity and peace of the nations” of the EU.
Earlier, Jeroen Lenears (EPP, the Netherlands) said that “saving lives is a legal and moral obligation”, while stressing the need to focus on the return of migrants in illegal situations. Miriam Dalli (S&D, Malta), spoke of a “humanitarian emergency” requiring action based on four main priorities: ending deaths at sea and continuing rescue missions, ending trafficking and smuggling of human beings, supporting the most vulnerable countries, and creating safe and legal immigration routes.
Finally, Sophie in 't Veld (RE, the Netherlands), recalling that “migration has existed since the beginning of humanity”, urged the EU Council to adopt the asylum package. (Original version in French by Lucas Tripoteau)