New rules, old frictions. The Migration and Asylum Pact to the test of solidarity between Member States

Brussels –
Twist and turn as you might, you always end up back here.

To Dublin, to secondary movements, to mistrust between Member States, to a promised but always conditional solidarity. Eight months away from the deadline for the implementation of the Migration and Asylum Policy Pact, the interior ministers of the 27 met in Luxembourg to take stock, but also to make progress on the radical proposals on returns put on the table by the European Commission in the last period. 

First of all, the pact and the shaky equation between responsibility and solidarity that governs it. The European Commission should have presented in these days some crucial documents to set in motion that compulsory solidarity mechanism, which will require all 27 to guarantee—based on their GDP and population—relocations of migrants, financial contributions or support to third countries. 

Anneleen Van Bossuyt, Minister for Asylum and Migration of Belgium, outlined a position that, with appropriate nuances, represents that of all small and medium-sized Member States affected only by secondary movements of migrants. “For us, it is important that the Commission recognises that Belgium already has a disproportionate burden,” she said on her arrival in Luxembourg, pointing out that the federal government has decided that it will contribute to the solidarity mechanism only with “financial means, because our reception centres are full.” Van Bossuyt made it clear that Belgium is ready to pay “on condition that everyone else also takes responsibility.” A warning to the countries of first arrival: “Solidarity and responsibility go hand in hand; every country must apply the Dublin rules.” 

Her Swedish counterpart, Johan Forssell, reiterated this concept: “We believe in this model, but without Dublin there can be no solidarity,” he said, claiming the fact that Sweden “has taken in so many asylum seekers over the last ten years” despite being “only a medium-sized country with 11 million inhabitants.” Everyone looks at their own backyard and considers the importance of the immigration debate in their national policy: The Polish interior minister, Marcin Kierwiński, assured that “for many years there will be no talk of any relocation involving Poland.” As already stated by the pro-European premier Donald Tusk, Warsaw wants to be “exempt from these mechanisms” and “will never accept solutions that could be potentially dangerous” for its citizens.

Not only that. The Polish minister said he expected “support from all EU countries” for the costs of protecting the Union’s eastern border. According to the ministers present in Luxembourg, all capitals are facing such migratory pressure that they cannot help others. No one wants to hear about relocations. The Spanish minister, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, finally says that for Madrid “it’s all the same,” both relocations and the financing “of irregular migration projects and the promotion of regular flows” are fine. 

That is why the European Commission preferred to postpone the presentation of the mechanism, with current snapshots of the situation in the member states. “We’re still in the consultation phase, that’s why we didn’t present it today,” commented Home Affairs Commissioner Magnus Brunner briefly on the sidelines of the proceedings, emphasising the “cooperation and readiness among the member states to implement this reform.” 

The situation does not change much regarding another file on the agenda, namely the proposed return regulation, and in particular the European Return Warrant, which would allow mutual recognition of return orders between member states. Initially voluntary, the Commission’s plan is to make mutual recognition mandatory by 2027. Here too, states are divided between countries of first arrival and those most affected by secondary movements. For Spain, the mutual validity of return orders should be mandatory as soon as possible. For Belgium, “it is important to avoid that countries with a high burden due to secondary movements become victims of this mutual recognition.” 

The Belgian minister said: “It is easy to impose an obligation to leave the territory, but if people then move to another country, like Belgium, we would be obliged to carry out the actual returns.” Stockholm is also “very sceptical” about a model “that could increase bureaucracy.” 

The Danish EU Council Presidency is determined to reach a negotiating mandate on the return regulation by December, including a green light for the controversial return hubs project. Brunner said he was optimistic, although “there are still some details to be ironed out in order to find a compromise.” The eternal division between countries of first and second arrival has to be overcome.