The European Parliament has achieved a notable milestone by approving a comprehensive set of laws aimed at reforming its border and migration policies. The adoption of the Pact on Migration and Asylum follows almost a decade of extensive negotiations and deadlock over migration policy within the European Union (EU), ignited by the tumultuous events of the migration crisis in 2015.
During that pivotal year, approximately a million individuals embarked on perilous journeys across the Mediterranean and Aegean seas in search of refuge within Europe. The influx, primarily comprising refugees and asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East, placed immense strain on several EU member states. Nations like Italy and Greece found themselves grappling with the challenge of accommodating thousands of individuals in makeshift camps, often lacking adequate support for those who had endured arduous journeys.
At the time, the EU’s existing policies, formulated in the late 1990s to restrict asylum seekers from moving freely between member states and lodging multiple asylum applications, proved insufficient to address the unprecedented scale of the crisis. This surge in migration not only overwhelmed certain member states but also exposed deep divisions within the EU regarding responsibility and solidarity.
States unaffected directly by the influx, such as Hungary, either disavowed responsibility or stoked fears of an existential threat to European civilisation, prompting the reintroduction of border controls with neighbouring EU states to stem the flow of migrants seeking passage to countries like Germany or Sweden.
The European Commission tabled the initial proposal for a Pact on Migration and Asylum later in 2015, aiming to provide a comprehensive framework to manage and address migration challenges collectively. However, reaching a consensus on the proposed measures proved to be a protracted and contentious process, only culminating in its recent endorsement following a vote in the European Parliament.
The pact represents a delicate balancing act, seeking to reconcile the divergent interests of member states. Countries serving as initial points of entry for migrants, such as Italy and Greece, have been granted enhanced authority to facilitate the removal of individuals deemed unlikely to qualify for asylum. Meanwhile, other member states have the option to either host migrants themselves or contribute financially to support those who do.
Despite its intent to strike a compromise between the disparate interests of member states, every facet of the pact has been met with controversy. The support for and opposition against the pact have cut across political lines, with centre-right and some centre-left factions backing it, while the Greens and various left-wing MEPs led opposition, almost thwarting certain aspects of the legislative package.
Critics, including human rights organisations and academics, have consistently lambasted the pact, viewing it as undermining the international asylum system and endangering refugees by potentially subjecting them to prolonged detention and unfair asylum processing procedures, in violation of established international norms.
Of particular concern is the provision granting member states leeway to circumvent asylum laws under exceptional circumstances, potentially jeopardising the rights of asylum seekers during periods of heightened need.
The pact also encountered substantial hurdles concerning the proposal for mandatory quotas for the redistribution of asylum seekers across the EU. This proposal aimed to alleviate the burden on frontline states and demonstrate European solidarity in addressing shared challenges. However, states in central and eastern Europe, vehemently opposed to mandatory quotas in 2015, negotiated a compromise allowing them to contribute financially instead, albeit amidst contentious debates over the appropriate financial burden-sharing.
As negotiations dragged on for nearly a decade, the number of migrants traversing routes from southern and southeastern Europe diminished significantly, well below the levels witnessed in 2015. Instead, the EU witnessed a different influx in recent years, with several million Ukrainian refugees fleeing conflict with Russia being accepted and welcomed without necessitating the tools outlined in the new pact.
This shift underscores the evolving nature of the migration discourse within Europe, intricately intertwined with broader political dynamics, including the rise of populist and radical-right ideologies. The prolonged deliberations leading to the adoption of the pact appear to have been driven more by domestic political considerations than a concerted effort to address the needs of those seeking refuge.
In conclusion, while the Pact on Migration and Asylum marks a significant step towards reforming EU migration policy, its passage underscores the enduring complexities and challenges inherent in achieving consensus among member states. As Europe navigates the evolving landscape of migration and asylum, the true test lies in translating legislative frameworks into tangible actions that uphold humanitarian values and ensure the protection of the most vulnerable individuals seeking sanctuary within its borders.
