On the subject of migration, the speech by the President of the Commission laid emphasis on the closeness of a global agreement on the pact previously referred to and the necessary fight against people smugglers, the perpetrators of a ‘callous and criminal business’. It seems apposite to point out that the only reason there are people smugglers in the first place is that so many thousands of people want to be smuggled.
The most surprising part was the self-congratulation over the partnership concluded with Tunisia on 16 July (see EUROPE 13224/3), despite all the criticism this has come in for, and the intentions expressed of working on similar agreements with other countries. The memorandum of understanding others a broad range of areas, but the principal objective was to reduce the numbers of migrants entering nearby Italy. Verbally and publicly, the Commission undertook to pay out more than 100 million euros immediately, to help the Tunisian authorities to stop departures to the EU and to send sub-Saharan migrants present on Tunisian soil ‘back home’.
The EU’s negotiating team was made up of the President of the Commission, the leader of the Italian government, Giorgia Meloni, and, less obviously, the outgoing Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte, whose government ironically fell over migration challenges. Neither the European Parliament nor the Presidency-in-exercise of the Council were represented.
It did not take long for members of the European Parliament to express their indignation at this curious team, a gift to a dictator and, in particular, the high risks that human rights would go unheeded. On this subject, the Council of Europe called for guarantees as long ago as 18 July (see EUROPE 13225/33). Debates were still underway at the Parliament on 31 August (see EUROPE 13240/5) and on the eve of the state of the union speech (see EUROPE 13248/7). At the end of August, moreover, more than half of the member states voiced criticisms of the negotiating procedure and reservations were expressed by the former Commission number two, Frans Timmermans (EUROPE 13235/3).
On the very day of the state of the union speech, Tunisia refused to allow a delegation of the committee on foreign affairs of the European Parliament onto its territory (see EUROPE 13250/15). Finally, on 15 September, the European ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly, wrote to Ursula von der Leyen asking whether an impact assessment on human rights had been carried out in advance of the agreement. The services of the Commission informed our editorial team that no transfers of funds have yet been unblocked in the framework of his partnership (see EUROPE 13251/16).
On Sunday 17 September, travelling to the island of Lampedusa, 130 km off the coast of Tunisia, accompanied by Ms Meloni and other figures, Ursula von der Leyen must have wondered privately whether the beleaguered partnership has any future or, indeed, point. The delegation was heckled by locals upon its arrival; meanwhile, migrants continued to be transferred to Sicily and elsewhere. Another example of the current state of the union… The Commission President immediately announced a rescue plan for Italy (see EUROPE 13252/7).
In any event, the ‘von der Leyen’ Commission will go down in history as an example of European voluntarism and swift, pertinent adaptation to tragic circumstances.
The Presidency called upon her audience to ‘answer history’s call’ by rightly reiterating her ceaseless support to Ukraine and rightly calling for new, duly identified states to be welcomed into the fold. She accepts the need to rethink the internal organisation of the Union. What else she has to say about this in the coming months will be highly anticipated. We will then have a bit more clarity over the kind of support is looking for.
An imaginative reflection on the future institutional architecture in a further enlarged European Union is still at square one, in the Commission, the Council and in the capitals. If it were not, we would know.
Renaud Denuit