Koos van Houdt

If there is a place where ’the devil is in the details’, it is in the negotiations on a common European asylum and migration policy. There have been and are fine words about it. But if Greece and Italy are faced with a disproportionate burden, the other Member States will simply look the other way.

On Sunday, the Italian electorate loudly and clearly expressed its disapproval of this. This means that the wrong party, namely the well-intentioned Italian Government, which is working this problem, has been sent home. The other Member States should put their own house in order when they form an opinion on what has happened in recent years with regard to European solidarity in the reception of refugees.
Germany is the least guilty. Angela Merkel spoke the well-known words ‘Wir schaffen daβ’. These words are reflected in the coalition agreement on a carefully worded number that is bound to an annual number of 200,000 migrants seeking help. The least unfavourable interpretation can therefore prevail after the result of the members’ vote within the SPD. In the European Union, we had to wait for the formation of a new German government.
Yet that is only a small part of the truth. For many years, it has not been the Germans who have put the brakes on the formulation of entirely new European legislation on asylum and migration. Member States, especially the Netherlands, tried as much as possible to stick to the old rules of the so-called ‘Dublin II’ regulation. Refugees who apply for asylum within a Member State of the European Union must do so in the country of first reception. In practice, countries such as Greece and Italy were left out in the cold. They lacked sufficient effective help from the other Member States, especially in 2015 with the unexpectedly large influx of new refugees from the Middle East and especially Syria.
On Thursday, the ministers for asylum and migration will meet again in Brussels to discuss this migration policy. The Bulgarian presidency has put a document on the table, calling for continued ‘vigilance’. In 2017, the number of asylum seekers and migrants was “still” higher than in 2014, the year prior to crisis year 2015. We must continue to work on an improved “framework” for the reception of these people.
Great, but the Dutch government also writes the following about this meeting to the House of Representatives: “The discussion paper circulated by the Bulgarian presidency lacks a crucial part of this integrated approach, namely the review of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). As you know, the Presidency has organised a series of high-level consultations to reach an
agreement on the Dublin Regulation, which should lead to a speedy review of the entire CEAS.”
If you look through this official text, you will see that it is still difficult to achieve a redistribution of refugees throughout the European Union. Joint legislation on issues such as admission, the granting of residence permits and reception is desperately needed. That has been said for years. But butter with the fish is not supplied. When it comes down to it, not even by the Netherlands. After all, the European Commission, which described exactly how it should be done in May 2015, should not have done that. He took too much of the initiative.
That is why it sounded hollow when we heard Prime Minister Rutte make a plea for this European Asylum and Migration Policy in Berlin last Friday. A quote: “We urgently need to agree on a new Common European Asylum System. This should be aimed at a better distribution of the responsiblebetween Member States if the inflow increases sharply again, including a swift return of migrants who do not qualify for asylum and a redistribution mechanism. And I can tell you frankly: I am concerned about that last point. The redistribution of refugees across Europe remains a difficult issue, because not all countries are willing to bear their share. To those countries, I say: I understand your concerns, but solidarity is not a one-way street.”
Of course, he was right. But we also remember that the same Rutte referred Juncker to the ophthalmologist because of his European political views. Juncker will now note with quiet disdain that he has Rutte on his side. Ministers should be ashamed on Thursday now that the drafting of the proposed European legislation is not progressing.