According to the principle of subsidiarity, the EU “intervenes only if, and to the extent that, the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States.” When it comes to migration, it is clear that after thirty years, the union is far from being in the best position to achieve these objectives—quite the contrary. There’s no point in pretending otherwise: European policy on this matter is a fiasco and has now become an existential issue upon which the fate of the EU may well depend.
Let’s be honest, the Solingen tragedy—a knife attack carried out by Issa al Hasan at a festival on August 23rd, 2024—which led to the closure of the German borders, or the murder of the French student, Philippine, by an illegal migrant, are unfortunately not turning points but “just” the umpteenth jolts of an erratic and suicidal cooperation that is dragging an entire continent down. Since the union began managing migration flows, how many makeshift boats have crossed the Mediterranean to Lampedusa, the Greek islands, or the Canary Islands? How many terrorist attacks or crimes have been committed in Europe by illegal migrants? How many fake refugees have milked the Geneva Convention to fraudulently enter and remain in Europe? How many trafficking victims have been exploited? and how many deportation orders have been ignored? We’ve lost count. On the contrary, European leaders seem to be fatalistic about these realities, while citizens sound the alarm whenever they have the chance to express their anger at the polls. It’s an untenable schizophrenia, of which the European Migration Pact will be nothing more than the epilogue to a predictable failure.
Of course, not everything should be discarded: Europe can pride itself on having set up useful databases such as Eurodac, VIS, and SYS. The Schengen zone remains an achievement to which the majority of Europeans remain attached, and a number of European funds support national action in good times and bad. But apart from that the record is pitiful: the asylum system is a disaster—a source of tension between states and a boon for smugglers. Family reunification policies are bewilderingly lax; border control is completely hampered by an obsession with distorted human rights; the policy of returning illegal immigrants is a vast deception; and the Frontex agency has been subverted into a body which, instead of helping states control borders, monitors them while they do so.
That leaves us with the question of who to blame for this catastrophe. A Parliament that legislates by and for NGOs, completely out of touch with European public opinion? A Commission that disregards sovereign matters and whose pro-migration bias is increasingly evident? Member states that shirk their responsibilities by delegating them to Europe? A dogmatic Court of Justice obsessed with individual rights and relentlessly promoting the erosion of national competences? All these questions lead to the same conclusion: in blatant violation of the principle of subsidiarity, the EU is simply unable to carry out an effective migration policy that aligns with the expectations of European citizens.
A nationalization of migration policy is now inevitable and, fortunately, has begun to show up on political agendas. The Netherlands has officially requested it. Hungary—which, in an appalling ruling by the Court, was recently fined a record €200 million, accompanied by a daily penalty of €1 million—has followed suit. Bruno Retailleau, the new French minister of the interior, has also announced his desire to break free from the disastrous ‘return’ directive, which ironically allows for the opposite of what it advocates. Even Donald Tusk, von der Leyen’s close ally, just announced he will temporarily suspend the right to seek asylum in Poland! These countries are making this urgent request with a very specific model in mind: Denmark, which, while being a full member of the Schengen zone, is not subject to the European asylum and migration system. The famous ‘opt-out’ obtained after their “no” to Maastricht is now envied and demanded by other countries.
The Commission hastily responded with a refusal, citing the need to reform the Treaties in order to achieve this. This argument is legally debatable, as other avenues could be explored (the addition of a protocol, the revocation or amendment of certain directives and regulations), but in any case, the process of amending the Treaties has already been initiated by the European Parliament. Thus, an opportunity looms on the horizon to bring to the table the crucial issue of re-nationalizing certain European policies. But while member states wait for this long and laborious reform, it is imperative to find other solutions without delay. In light of the scale of the migratory disaster, the least the EU could do is to grant an opt-out to the states that wish to regain their competencies in this area, starting with border control and asylum.
There is nothing revolutionary about this proposal. It’s called variable-geometry (multi-speed) Europe, and it’s as old as European integration itself. Given the current circumstances, this compromise might very well be its only lifeline. It’s time to acknowledge that when the union fails, the states must take back the reins. Whatever some may say, the European Union is not a one-way street. This is what subsidiarity is all about, and it is spelled out in black and white in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. Have a look; it’s worth rereading, especially ahead of the crucial European Council of October 2024.
