The EU Crisis Regulation is taking center stage as the key element in finalizing the deal on the eagerly awaited Migration and Asylum Pact. Initiated in 2020, the Pact includes five subsidiary laws and regulations. Among these is the EU Crisis Regulation, intended to establish mechanisms for responding to exceptional migration crises, guiding action when the inflow of people exceeds the system’s capacity. The stance of the member states on the other four laws was finalized in July, and their stance on the Crisis Regulation only in October.
European Parliament (EP) President Ursula von der Leyen lauds the political agreement as “a real game changer that allows us to advance negotiations with the European Parliament and the Council of the EU,” confident that they can fulfill the Pact before the mandate’s end.
Given the lengthy policy-making process within the European Union, the process ahead remains intricate and consuming. The two negotiating groups, one representing the EU Parliament and the other composed of interior ministers from all 27 member countries, must first reach an agreement internally. Only then may they begin cross-negotiations.
While the significance of the EU Crisis Regulation in this process is hardly overlooked, certain countries view it as the only viable means to finalize the larger, five-part pact. Damian Boeselager, a Member of the European Parliament and leader of the Volt party, is among those recognizing the potential dangers and benefits of the Regulation. He highlights that it can be disastrous in terms of human rights while also serving as an essential tool for aiding people.
Boeselager explains the negotiation challenges, noting the diverging positions between the European Parliament and the interior ministers. He credits the increasing trend of right-wing and conservative politics in governments for this growing rift. Interior ministers from various states aim to enforce stricter control over migrants, favoring methods like detention camps or forced relocation over integration efforts.
These harsh strategies would only complicate asylum-seekers’ lives further and fail to reduce migrant numbers. Authorities have been warned against this approach as it only heightens reluctance among individuals to interact with authorities. This interaction gap would lead to an increase in the population of undocumented illegal migrants, among other issues. The potential for human rights abuses in refugee camps also escalates with the text allowing for detention.
Instead, Boeselager advocates for maximizing local-level integration. Points he’s successfully integrated in the EU Parliamentary group’s stance include using prima facie recognition (written applications over interviews) and financial support for local authorities, dramatically affected by migrant integration. Compulsory relocation and solidarity are crucial to prevent countries from avoiding their responsibility to accept migrants.
Throughout 2022, 23 EU countries and associated nations agreed to support Member States under pressure by pledging to relocate some asylum seekers and through financial contributions. With successful relocations of over 1,000 asylum seekers taking place by early 2023 from five countries including Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, and Spain, the process shows viable outcomes.
In October, a new round of negotiations between EP representatives and interior ministers on the Crisis Regulation kicked off. The negotiations must conclude by December to allow for a European Parliament vote before April. If the agreement doesn’t reach conclusion by then, the Migration and Asylum Pact could still be adopted without the Regulation, albeit in a different form. The same is true for the other four laws in the pact, which are currently undergoing meticulous, word-by-word negotiations.
With the positions of the sides being very far apart, the final version of the Migration and Asylum Pact remains uncertain.
For the complete story, read more at Jurist.org.