The European Parliament’s LIBE committee held several important votes on Tuesday, March 28th, on certain segments of the new Asylum and Migration Pact. The voting went ahead despite procedural objections from two conservative parties who claimed that the final draft wasn’t shown to them far enough in advance, and that the compromise is far closer to the Left’s position than they were hoping for.
Tensions were high at the LIBE committee meeting (on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs), as always when migration is on the agenda. This meeting was especially important, as the committee voted on certain provisions of the Asylum and Migration Pact, the EU’s flagship immigration package, hoped to be finalized before next year’s European election.
Conservatives, however, did not have much say in the matter. The deal was mostly brokered by a left-leaning coalition comprised of the center-right EPP, the socialist S&D, and the liberal Renew, together enjoying a comfortable majority in the committee to do as they please. While the EPP hails the deal as a historic step forward, the ECR and ID believe it only made the original “proposal for an EU asylum and migration pact even worse,” Charlie Weimers, a Swedish parliamentarian for the conservative ECR group told The European Conservative.
Ambiguous reforms
Migrant screening and border control rules largely dominated the provisions on the agenda. Regarding screening, the committee agreed to introduce tighter rules, essentially fast-tracking the processing of asylum seekers, especially those who are likely to ultimately be rejected. According to Fabienne Keller, a Renew MEP and one of the rapporteurs (drafters of the proposal), “persons in need of protection must rapidly access the refugee status, while those who are manifestly not eligible to asylum are to swiftly be returned to a third country.”
While introducing somewhat stricter screening rules, the committee, however, chose to leave the Dublin Regulation largely untouched. As we wrote before, many EU countries have been calling for major reforms of the Dublin system lately, because it allows migrants to freely move about the Schengen area, some even applying for asylum in more than one member state.
The rapporteurs of the file believe that stricter screening rules should be enough to solve the problematic issues within the Dublin Regulation. The new amendment says that more thorough screening “could help discourage secondary movements in the Schengen area,” arguing that the new registration system will make it easier to return migrants under the existing Dublin rules.
However, those who were hoping for a complete overhaul of the Dublin system were let down again. This point perfectly underlines what Pierre-Marie Sève, Director of Institut pour la Justice, said last week at The European Conservative‘s panel discussion on the EU’s legislative agenda in Brussels. Discussing the Commission’s plans regarding the Migration Pact, Sève said:
They [the EU] say they are going to end the Dublin Regulation. That’s what they say. Again, we don’t see how they are going to end it. It’s true; it’s old and may have to be changed, but it won’t change much, from what we have seen so far.”
None the less, at the press conference after the meeting, Tomas Tobé, a Swedish MEP for the European People’s Party (EPP) hailed the reforms as a “historic” step toward a joint migration framework, which is built on a “fair balance between solidarity and responsibility.” To achieve this, he said, the parliament showed its “ability to find common ground,” while all of the political groups had “to make compromises.”
Migrant quotas back on the menu
There was hardly a more controversial aspect of the European migrant crisis a few years ago than the EU’s compulsory migrant redistribution scheme, also known as the quota system, meant for taking the weight off the frontline countries bearing most of the migratory pressure. Due to the V4 (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) countries’ unwavering resistance, as well as half of Europe’s reluctance to actually take the migrants once they signed up, the Commission gradually let the idea of compulsory relocation go, and promised to replace it in the new migration pact with a voluntary alternative.
Yesterday’s deal, however, is a bit more nuanced. It contains an amendment that allows the Commission to revert back to compulsory relocation, specifically in the case when a member state experiences “an exceptional situation of mass influx of third-country nationals.” What is the threshold of this vaguely defined “mass influx” or how are we to measure it, however, simply went unspecified.
In the end, no significant breakthrough happened in terms of border control, and the Commission has even retained its power to force migrant quotas onto the member states, whether they like it or not. “Now the foundation is laid for an undemocratic and expensive redistribution of migrants while the increasing migratory pressure towards Europe remains unaddressed,” Weimers told us after the vote.
Objections “noted”
As Politico noted even before the vote, the provisions were expected to be backed by S&D, EPP, and Renew—predicting that conservative groups ECR and ID would find the provisions unacceptable. Indeed, procedural objections were raised by both parties just before the voting started (on the grounds that they had not received the final compromise draft agenda in time), suggesting that they also knew how the vote would turn out in the end.
Despite the objection, the conservative MEPs were helpless against the will of the majority, which quickly decided the question by raising their hands, thus allowing the agenda to move forward.
“Excuse me, the rules here are not up for debate. Next time we get those things five minutes in advance and we are supposed to vote,” exclaimed German MEP Nicolaus Fest, clearly annoyed by being rolled over by the coalition of S&D-EPP calling all the shots. “It is ridiculous that the majority decides whether we stick to the rules or not.”
“You made your point, it will be noted in the minutes of this meeting,” responded the S&D’s Juan López Aguilar, chairman of the committee. “But I understand that we have scheduled nothing less than five relevant votes. We shouldn’t postpone, we should go through with it, and get it done. That is why we are here.”
What the conservative position really is
The conservative MEPs, however, would not go gently into that good night and concede defeat. After the first round of voting passed, Belgian MEP Tom Vandendriessche took the opportunity to announce that he, along with two others (Charlie Weimers and Patryk Jaki, both from ECR) will be filing a minority position—a non-binding attachment meant to clarify the opinion of those who vote against a provision—on the objectionable screening procedures.
“Ok, sure, sure. You’re entitled to,” said Aguilar, slightly annoyed by the interruption. “You can put it in writing, and it will be noted.”
Responding to The European Conservative’s inquiry, Mr. Weimers sent us the text of the minority position, noting that it will be attached to the committee report tabled for plenary. The text reads:
There is a need to ensure quick identification of those with genuine reasons to apply for international protection and those subject to swift returns. The Commission proposed a tool to this effect—the screening procedure was to introduce a pre-entry process allowing the national authorities at the external border to channel to the appropriate procedure all third-country nationals who have crossed the border in an unauthorised manner.
Unfortunately, the Rapporteur’s draft proposal altered the Commission proposal to such an extent that it no longer fit for purpose. If adopted it would make it almost impossible for Member States to effectively combat illegal migration to the EU.
Therefore, we wholly rejected the Rapporteur’s proposal for the screening procedure and welcomed the initial Commission proposal, assuming modifications to the monitoring mechanism to ensure it is fully compatible with the principles of conferral, subsidiarity and proportionality.
