The European Union is closer to closing a chapter in its recent history. The Parliament approved the Migration and Asylum Pact yesterday after a long and complex legislative process, in which some laws were approved with adjusted results that brought suspense until the last minute.
Almost nine years after the refugee crisis, which poisoned the relations between the countries, while fueling the rise of the extreme right, the migration pact is practically a reality, pending ratification by the e stats, predictably, at the end of the month. The process has been arduous for legislators: since the Commission proposed the pact, it has been on the verge of derailment several times, with various blockages, especially between the states, but it accelerated at the end of last year with a principle agreement of the European institutions (Council, Parliament and).
In the Eurochamber, a large part of MEPs assume that the pact is not perfect, but there is also the perception that the current status quo was much worse. “Some issues are difficult to swallow (…) but if Europe is not able to act on a European scale, chaos will only be encouraged”, said the German Gabriele Bischoff hours before the vote.
The new agreement, which consists of nine regulations, tightens the conditions for migrants entering EU territory, with very strict controls, in which they will be fingerprinted from the moment they arrive, including minors from 6 years old, including facial images The aim is for applications to be processed much more quickly, during which people with false documents or who come from countries with asylum recognition rates below 20% will be directly refused entry. While their requests are being processed, these people will have to be in closed facilities and thus favor their return in case they are denied refugee status.
The agreement also establishes a principle of mandatory solidarity by which all countries will have to contribute in one way or another to the management of the arrival of migrants. The member states will have to share a certain number of people. At least 30,000 people a year will resettle among the Twenty-seven, but they will not be obliged to do so. Countries that refuse can contribute 20,000 euros a year per asylum seeker or by sending material and equipment to the country of arrival.
It will also react in the same way in case of a large unexpected arrival. Despite the fact that the Eurochamber has always asked for mandatory reception quotas in the event of a crisis, it has never been an option for the states.
Now the last procedure will be missing, that of the states. Despite the fact that the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, defended the agreement, not all countries are in agreement. The Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, has already announced that he will not implement the agreement (the country already voted against it, when the far-right PiS ruled). “We will find ways to protect Poland from the relocation mechanism”, he assured with reference to the measure that obliges to share the reception of refugees.
Tusk, who was president of the European Council between 2015 and 2019, has always opposed quotas. Two months before the elections to the European Parliament, in which the issue of migration has become a toxic debate in his country, Tusk wants to maintain the same hard line. Despite requests from the European People’s Party, MEPs from the Polish party maintained their rejection yesterday. Once it enters into force, it will have to apply it, but if it refuses, Brussels can open an infringement procedure in the country and, ultimately, end up before European justice.
In the last days before the vote, the negotiations between the parties have been an anthill of meetings and proposals. Although there was a principle of agreement, no one wanted to give the green light for granted. For various reasons, the pact has been criticized by the extreme right, the group of The Greens and the Left. Precisely, some of the latter applauded the activists who broke into the chamber shouting “the pact kills, vote no”, until they were forced to leave.
It is not an agreement that excites anyone, but the fear of the extreme right was also prioritized in the vote. With polls on the rise in the next election, the main groups feared that, if he failed, the income he could take would be much greater.
