The EU negotiates against the clock the fringes of the Migration and Asylum pact

The institutions of the European Union were trying to close yesterday the agreement on the Migration and Asylum pact, one of the great reforms of this legislature, after three long years since it was proposed with several blockages and lack of progress, until it accelerated in recent years.

Oliver Thansan
Oliver Thansan
19 December 2023 Tuesday 09:26
8 Reads
The EU negotiates against the clock the fringes of the Migration and Asylum pact

The institutions of the European Union were trying to close yesterday the agreement on the Migration and Asylum pact, one of the great reforms of this legislature, after three long years since it was proposed with several blockages and lack of progress, until it accelerated in recent years. months. The aspiration is that it puts an end to the bitter discussions and mistrust between partners and regulates one of the most complex policies, greatly marked by a tightening of asylum conditions.

A few months before the European elections, the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission were trying yesterday to close the last details of the pact. A great proposal of six regulations in total that aims to bring order to the tense immigration policy, where mistrust abounds. Spain, as rotating president of the EU Council, at press time, was cautiously optimistic about agreeing the entire legislative package.

The negotiations have been complicated from the beginning. Especially for the countries, which took months to agree on their position to start negotiating with the European Parliament. One of the issues that has made the negotiations the most difficult in recent days has been the examinations that are carried out at the external borders on people who arrive. After checking fingerprints and data, they must proceed to the asylum application procedure. ; or, if denied, a rapid return to the country of origin. Returns are one of the issues that the pact also focuses on.

According to Brussels, the EU orders some 400,000 people to return to their countries of origin each year, but only 30% do so. A process that aims to “regain trust” between the countries, because all people who enter are examined, sources in the negotiation assure, although the countries want to be very strict, the European Parliament insisted that fundamental rights be ensured at all times.

The regulation is linked to the directive on the asylum procedure, which calls for speeding up the processing of applications. A quick process in which people who have false documents, or who come from countries with an asylum recognition rate of less than 20%, will be denied entry. According to the proposal, the procedures cannot last more than four weeks, and migrants must remain in closed facilities during the process. A regulation highly criticized by NGOs. “In practice it prevents people from being able to request asylum, with rapid deportations,” criticized Stephanie Pope, from Oxfam.

On the other hand, one of the main points is the management of people who are granted asylum. With ad hoc measures until now, this new system should replace the so-called Dublin regulation, which requires a person to request asylum in the first country of arrival, but with the crisis of 2015 and 2016 it proved to be very ineffective, when Frontline countries lamented that they were alone in the face of the arrival of people. The new norm is committed to a principle of shared solidarity, in which all countries must contribute in some way to the management of the arrival of migrants. Countries will be able to host at least 30,000 people a year in total, but will not be obliged. Those who do not want to relocate anyone must contribute 20,000 euros per year per asylum seeker or by sending material and/or equipment to the country of arrival. The pact also covers how to act in the event of a crisis, in the face of a large arrival of asylum seekers, in which solidarity between countries will be requested. Although the European Parliament always requested mandatory reception fees in this case, for the states it was not an option, because it was already proposed in the past and barely worked.