The European Parliament and the Council of the EU have begun inter-institutional negotiations to discuss the new European Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) with several differences needing to be resolved, particularly regarding the issue of integrating the principle of solidarity into the fund’s objectives.
On Tuesday, 12 November, Miriam Dalli (S&D, Malta), updated her colleagues on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs about current progress following two trilogues. The first involved a presentation of the Parliament’s priorities, Parliament having adopted its report in February (see EUROPE 12198/4). The report focused particularly on the external dimension, direct funding for local and regional authorities and resources for resettlement of asylum seekers.
Dalli explained that the second trilogue had been given over to the question of integrating the principle of solidarity (defined by Article 80 of the Treaty of Rome) into the fund’s objectives. Dalli reported a difference of views on this issue with the Council of the EU. She argued that Member States, represented by the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU, were not willing to incorporate solidarity into the fund’s objectives, as this would constitute “a backward step" compared to the current fund. Other differences involve separating the legal migration and integration objectives. Dalli reported that the Council of the EU would like to put legal migration and integration in the same objective.
She also explained that the Parliament did not agree with the proposals for a minimum level of funding for each objective. The Council of the EU would, however, like to present its views on these matters, as the Parliament has proposed a separate solidarity objective with a minimum level of expenditure allocated to it. A source told us that the Council of the EU has said this was not included in the Committee's initial proposal and, while the Council of the EU is not in any way opposed to the principle of solidarity, it sees it more as the fund’s general objective and not as a specific objective. The Council of the EU has stressed that only the first set of trilogue meetings has so far taken place.
On Tuesday evening, Tanja Fajon (S&D, Slovenia) also informed her colleagues about the progress of the trilogues dealing with the instrument for financial support for border management and visas. She expressed her frustration that the Parliament does not have a say in the amounts that will be allocated to these funds following agreement between Member States on the next Multiannual Financial Framework. “It's a little insulting”, she said.
Fajon particularly raised the differences of opinion regarding how border management and visa policy are dealt with. She put forward the argument that as the Parliament regards visa policy as being just as important as managing Europe’s borders, at least “20% of the funding” should be spent on it. “The response from Member States has not been positive”, she said. Another meeting is scheduled for next week. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)