Agreement on immigration and asylum reform is fading away, as is the informal meeting between the permanent representatives of the 27 on the sidelines of the Internal Affairs Council in Luxembourg he would have succeeded in breaking the impasse. So much so that, according to the sources of the press agencies present, the Swedish Presidency of the European Council will draw up a new compromise text in order to defuse the situation and reach an agreement, even if this could mean not having the Council’s approval receives Pact on Immigration and Asylum until the end of the legislature in 2024. What is causing everyone, or almost everyone, to be at odds is the issue of solidarity between EU countries on refugee redistribution, which continues to burn and some positions still seem irreconcilable. So much so that in the event of an agreement, the possibility of a qualified majority solution, involving the approval of at least 15 countries representing at least 65% of the Union’s population, has already been considered. But for now, at least, even that way out seems obsolete. The Swedish Presidency’s proposal envisaged “binding solidarity” and the distribution of migrants among the different EU countries, which remain free to choose to contribute to the first entry countries in the form of tools to control migration flows or financial assistance According to the proposal, it is 20,000 euros for each migrant who refuses to take them in.
They were primarily in the minority on that front Poland And Hungary at the top, who had already spoken out against the proposal. Poland started a fresh start today, defining the hypothetical financial contributions as “unacceptable sanctions”. But it’s not just about the countries of the so-called Visegrad bloc. Others had contested the amount of the contribution and asked for a reduction in the contribution. But not even Italy, which along with Spain, Greece, Malta and Cyprus had called for mandatory migrant relocation, welcomed the solution, preferring to reach a different compromise that would relieve first-time arrivals of responsibility for migrants entering their borders releases. By taking a position that was certainly not conducive to the deal, the Italian government wanted to express a position that was “not against” but called for further negotiations to start soon. Countries like France and Germany have a completely different opinion. The German Minister of the Interior Nancy Faser He reiterated that he wanted to reach an agreement and not accept any new demands. While the French Gerald Darmanin he spoke of a “compromise that can work”. The Italian Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosimet the German colleague at a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Council, coinciding with the meeting between Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and the German Chancellor in Rome Olaf Scholzwho recalled that Germany had recently granted asylum to “one million Ukrainian citizens and another 240,000 people from other countries”.
Italy’s decision today was one of the most anticipated. But Piantedose’s position was anything but clear. “I don’t want to take a clearly opposing position, but we have to imagine the possibility of further negotiations on some points,” Piantedosi said at the Internal Affairs Council’s round table this morning. Italy, according to the statements reported by Ansa, wants to take a position of “Responsibility” in reference to the possible agreement on the issue of migration, which, however, must also be demonstrated to “Italian and European citizens” for a reform that would otherwise “certainly To Fail in reality”. In short: Italy in all probability does not want to claim paternity of a trial he will not see us as winners, particularly on the front line of solidarity between EU countries on the relocation of refugees, whose commitment had already been ruled out by the rotating Swedish Union presidency as well as most of Rome’s demands in recent months. Piantedosi had already raised his hand in recent days, arguing that the government “still isn’t focusing on resettlement,” in the spirit of all those who have campaigned for Europe to do its part over the past few years. Rather, Italy is asking for support with the “external dimension” of Europe, those agreements with countries of origin and transit with which the government wants to solve the basic problem.
Contrary to demands from Germany, which is urging the deal to be finalized without further requests, Piantedosi brought some of these up on the table Italian requests Changes to the text, such as “flexibility in relation to the safe third country principle” and jurisdiction in cases SAR (Search and Rescue) – which would replace the current Dublin mechanism – which should be limited to “12 months” rather than two years. But especially the so-called connection principle, to which the same minister said at the end of the day: “We find that there is an objection on this point that remains crucial and we will have difficulties if we do not find another form of compromise”. the possibility of deportation to third countries and not about the country of origin. “This would allow the EU to raise its profile while respecting human rights and international law,” explained Piantedosi, thanking “the mediations and progress made on other points of the text”. The minister’s statements during the day were much more skeptical, especially regarding the implementation of financial compensation for the missed moves, which at least will not displease the Polish Minister of the Interior, Bartosz Grodecki“Pragmatically and politically, this mechanism is unacceptable for us,” he said, referring to the 20,000 euros, “and is in no way accepted or permitted in our country, which is already home to a million refugees from Ukraine.” Italy is grasping the issue “So far, voluntary solidarity has not worked,” said Piantedosi again. “In view of the dramatic increase in the flow of refugees in the central Mediterranean, the redistribution of migrants to other European countries has been less.”of 1500 people‘, which is well below the albeit limited commitments made and is a symptom of the ‘failure’ of the principle of solidarity.
So the optimism that seemed to have prevailed that morning was useless. “France pays a high price for secondary movements, but we will do our part not only in financing but also in relocations. But there must be resettlement and at the moment there is a lack of solidarity with the southern states. The compromise found is not perfect, but it can work,” he said Gerald Darmanin, Interior Minister of France. Deutsche Faeser is even more direct: “We have to come to an agreement today.” We succeeded when Putin attacked Ukraine, it wasn’t easy when the eastern countries were flooded with refugees. But please, let’s not put any new demands on the table, let’s find a compromise, please: I ask everyone to unite, because if we don’t succeed, the Schengen area is in danger.” A wish expressed in the same hours in Rome was voiced again by Chancellor Scholz, who, in joint statements with Prime Minister Meloni, blessed the actions of Italy and the European Commission for cooperation with the countries of North Africa and reaffirmed the need to extend this cooperation “to all countries of transit and origin”. Optimism too from Spain: “I am sure that today we will find an agreement. After years of discussions, the time has come and if we do not find it, we will all lose,” said the minister Fernando Grande Marlaska Gomez. And he added: “Our goal was to find a good balance between solidarity and responsibility, and we are very close to this balance.” Finally, the words of the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs were, and it could not be otherwise, also optimistic Ylva Johansson: “It has been almost three years since the presentation of my proposal, it has been a marathon, now we still have 100 meters to go, we are close to an agreement: I expect that the Member States will manage these few meters”. And again: “It is important to emphasize that the agreement is not a game between losers and winners, a zero-sum game: if we act together we are very strong, if instead we disagree we are all losers because nobody is.” can “manage the migration alone”.