EU leaders are expected to have another lively discussion on migration, on Thursday 9 February, which could prove to be the most complex topic of the EU summit.
At the request of countries such as Austria and the Netherlands last December, they will take stock of the increase in irregular arrivals of migrants at the EU’s external borders, secondary movements between Member States, but also ways to better control the borders, with the question of financing ‘fences’ from the EU budget to stop migrants yet to come up in the debate.
The “subject is complex, because it arises regularly, and yet there is no crisis on the scale of 2016”, says a European diplomat from the outset. “We must avoid discussions that are too divisive and not give the impression that immigration is only a problem“, stressed another source, while the EU needs legal labour migration in particular.
Nor should walls be built that divide Member States, the source added. According to several diplomats, however, the EU’s position on these ‘fences’ is not likely to change.
The European budget already makes it possible to support stationary infrastructure for the protection of European borders and the Commission has always indicated that all support is possible “outside these walls”, a diplomat said.
The EU27 might therefore only agree on the principle of new financing for infrastructure, as stipulated in a last draft of conclusions dated 6 February, without further details, which could however also satisfy the countries wishing to read in the possibility of walls.
The discussion on migration remains sensitive by nature, as “the Member States are in different situations”, geographically in particular, but “there are also different political angles and these interests have to be combined”.
Some countries are thus expected to insist on compliance with the Dublin rules to combat secondary movements of asylum seekers between Member States; others will insist on tightening visa policy with the leverage of trade policy against reluctant countries on returns and readmissions. For Italy, the problem is still elsewhere, between calls for solidarity from Member States and the management of rescue operations at sea by NGOs.
The EU27 is expected, in principle, to not dwell too much on the internal part and the Pact on Migration and Asylum, the objective being to let the co-legislators move forward on the different legislative texts.
The most controversial discussions on Thursday will therefore focus on operational measures at the external borders as well as on visas, with several countries wanting to avoid an “entirely negative logic”, which would consist of raising the price of visas or using development aid policy as a retaliatory measure.
Several countries will thus insist on the need to build new partnerships with third countries and on solutions that third countries can also advocate for their population. It is also necessary to agree on solutions that still respect international law, added one of our sources.
But some people think that the language used in the conclusions is too weak, says another diplomat. “Some Baltic countries, Malta or Denmark are calling for stronger measures. If you read between the lines, they don’t just want fences, some of them advocate the British solution of Rwanda. And they also call for legal changes”.
Letter from the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties
The Chairman of the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D, Spanish), has written to the Commission to question the Italian decree on the rescue of migrants at sea by NGOs.
Revealed by Politico and seen by EUROPE, the letter expresses “the deep concerns of the LIBE Committee regarding the decree law signed by the Italian President on 2 January 2023”, which introduces another set of rules against civilian search and rescue vessels (SARs).
“We are concerned that this decree could have a significant impact on the right to life enshrined in the Charter of fundamental rights, as civilian rescue ships are now being required to immediately head to an assigned Italian port after each rescue, while other people could be at distress at sea”.
Furthermore, “the assignment of distant ports like the port of Ancona or Ravenna to SAR vessels has put the life of people who have just been rescued and are in an extremely vulnerable situation at further risk. We believe that these measures seem not to be in line with the international obligations to assist people in distress and to disembark persons as soon as possible to a place of safety without undue delay”.
In addition, the obligation to collect data on board rescue vessels on the intention to apply for asylum does not seem to be in line with the Asylum Procedures Directive, says the head of LIBE.
Link to the letter: https://aeur.eu/f/599 (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic with the editorial staff)