The Czech Presidency of the EU Council’s ideas, presented on Tuesday 4 October, to advance the solidarity mechanism of the ‘Pact on Migration and Asylum’ and implement the Roadmap signed with the European Parliament, were welcomed with interest within the Parliament, with some observers seeing this as the beginning of a rapprochement of positions.
These ideas, which will be discussed by the EU interior ministers on 14 October, include some sort of legislative exchange with the European Parliament to start trilogue negotiations on ‘Eurodac’ and ‘Migrant Screening’.
On 4 October, the Presidency sounded out Member States in the SCIFA group (Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum) on the possibility of validating two texts from the former 2016 ‘asylum package’ that were the subject of institutional agreements in 2018, but never validated: the regulations on qualifications (to be able to apply for asylum) and on the European resettlement framework.
The EU Council is said to agree, without reopening negotiations, on formally validating these agreements and would also agree that the final adoption of the package will only take place at the end of the process.
Contacted by EUROPE, German MEP Birgit Sippel (S&D), the European Parliament rapporteur for the ‘Migrant Screening’ regulation, recalled that the Pact’s proposals “have many logical links and cross-references and therefore need to be assessed and finalised together”.
On 4 October, Member States did not explicitly agree with the European Parliament on this ‘mini-package', but signalled to the Presidency that it should continue to work towards it, according to one source.
However, the so-called Med5 countries (Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Malta and Spain) have reiterated that they will only implement the ‘Eurodac’ and ‘Screening’ regulations once progress has been made on solidarity.
The Presidency’s reflections are in any case worth the European Parliament’s attention, says a parliamentary source, especially as the ideas launched for the solidarity mechanism, via an annual solidarity pool for all migratory crisis situations, “go in the same direction as the work in the European Parliament”.
The fact that Prague no longer mentions return partnerships, a concept that does not have enough support in the EU Council to be an alternative to relocation, is also close to the direction taken by the Parliament.
There are also a number of interesting avenues for ‘flexible responsibility’, which would give Member States more room for manoeuvre.
The possibility of additional solidarity, for example by agreeing to limit the return of so-called ‘Dubliners’ to a country that is responsible under European law but under pressure, is also considered interesting.
Prague to continue reflection
At the level of the Member States, the SCIFA discussion has in any case not yet resulted in a ‘mandate’ for the Czech Presidency to bring forward new formulations of the RAMM Regulation as early as 14 October, another source said.
However, several trends are reported to have emerged. While the so-called Visegrád countries (Hungary, Slovakia and Poland) have reiterated their opposition to compulsory relocations, the possibility of a minimum percentage or number of relocations to be implemented annually from the frontline countries under pressure would remain on the table. However, no figures were given on Tuesday.
Countries that have so far been opposed to compulsory relocation are also said to have a different approach, such as Latvia and Lithuania. France and Germany are also reportedly no longer so keen on too much flexibility in terms of solidarity, refusing to have to take on all the relocations requested by the front-line countries on their own.
With regard to the concept of flexible responsibility, some ideas were put forward, including the idea of a reversal of responsibility in situations of crisis or migratory pressure as an alternative to relocation.
This is the approach advocated by Greece and Cyprus, which are campaigning for a permanent reversal of responsibility in situations of disproportionate migratory pressure. In this way, these countries would not have to take back asylum seekers who have arrived in other countries that are not competent. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)