Interinstitutional negotiations between the Council of the EU and the European Parliament (‘trilogues’) on the recast of the regulation regarding the return of irregular migrants have finally concluded. After four trilogues held over the space of three months, which had ultimately become bogged down over the question of the date of application of the text, a provisional agreement was concluded late on Monday 1 June.
The new regulation is intended to replace an obsolete directive dating from 2008, in a context in which only 28% of return orders are implemented. In March, the European Parliament entered those negotiations on the basis of a very firm mandate, stemming from François-Xavier Bellamy’s ‘counter-report’ (EPP, French) rather than that of the lead rapporteur, Malik Azmani (Renew Europe, Dutch).
A ‘backloading’ strategy. To unlock the final sticking point of the application deadline, the co-legislators agreed that a package of 10 key measures would enter into force from the day after publication of the regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, while the rest of the framework will apply only after a period of one year (see EUROPE 13878/1).
This package includes highly sensitive measures, foremost among them the creation of outsourced return centres or hubs (Article 17). In concrete terms, the EU is now authorised to return irregular migrants to third countries with which a readmission agreement has been concluded. According to our information, although several Member States have begun preparatory work, no concrete project or partnership has yet to be finalised.
The provisional agreement excludes, in principle, unaccompanied minors from these outsourced hubs. For families with minors, however, the texts maintain persistent legal ambiguity as to the exact arrangements for their care, although the best interests of the child (Article 18) are also applicable immediately.
Faced with serious concerns about abuses, the co-legislators insist that respect for fundamental rights (Article 5) constitutes an “absolute red line”. According to our information, the EU already intends to rely on the expertise of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to ensure these arrangements comply on the ground.
Far-right backing remains hard to swallow. Asked on Tuesday morning at a press conference about the de facto alliance forged between the right and the far right to secure adoption of the text, Mr Azmani defended a pragmatic approach: “As rapporteur, I was always inclusive in this parliament that goes from the left to the extreme right, because for me the content is important because it’s necessary and our citizens are waiting for results”, he argued, adding that “I’m glad our colleagues from the right also took responsibility for the substance of the matter”. Pressed again on potential divisions among Renew Europe MEPs, the rapporteur conceded that he would have to “try to convince” his colleagues if he was to hope that his group would line up behind the text in plenary.
That will be a complex undertaking, in view of the reactions already expressed by the centrist group a few months ago, including by its president, Valérie Hayer (see EUROPE 13825/9). The day after the concluding trilogue, Belgian MEP Yvan Verougstraete even immediately announced that he would oppose the text: “Europe is choosing to outsource part of its migration policy, and that is a mistake”, he argued, adding that “we are continuing to create legal grey areas where the safeguards offered by European law risk being weakened”.
For its part, the EPP is elated and proudly claims ideological ownership of the agreement. “For years, Europe sent the worst possible message: ‘even if you had no right to stay, chances were high that nothing would happen’. That era is now ending”, Mr Bellamy welcomed, hailing the extension of detention periods and the end of the automatic suspensive effect of appeals.
Indignation on the left and in civil society. Conversely, the text has prompted unequivocal condemnation on the left of the chamber. Mélissa Camara (Greens/EFA, French) thus denounced a “shameful” agreement which “puts xenophobic ideas and rhetoric into writing at the expense of migrants’ fundamental rights”.
The Left group went so far as to describe it as a “regulation dictated by the heirs of Nazism to deport people”, arguing that “collaborating with the far right means abandoning the very essence of the creation of the European Union”. Its shadow rapporteur, Estrella Galán (Spanish), described the legislation as “one of the cruellest of the entire legislative term”.
A concern shared by civil society: Julie Lejeune, Director of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE, an NGO alliance), strongly regretted that the co-legislators had chosen to move forward with one of the “most punitive and dangerous migration instruments in recent EU history”, driven by “Member States’ obsession with return numbers rather than a proper consideration for effective migration governance”.
The provisional agreement must still pass the formal confirmation stages. According to our information, the text will be submitted for examination by the permanent representatives of the Member States (Coreper) as early as next week. The vote within the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE), meanwhile, is expected at the end of June, before formal approval in plenary session. (Original version in French by Justine Manaud)