Mr. Avramopolous Goes To Brussels: Thoughts On The Ep Hearing Of The Novel Migration Commissioner
November 27, 2018
Edit
Steve Peers
During his marathon three-hour hearing today inward the European Parliament, the designated Commissioner for migration as well as domicile affairs, Dimitris Avramopolous, repeatedly stated his adherence to liberal principles. He strongly supported the continuation of the Schengen system, a liberal approach to asylum as well as legal migration, as well as liberty of drive for European Union citizens. What was lacking was farther exceptional on how his principles would live on set into practice, as well as how the unlike aspects of European Union policy inward this expanse gibe together.
Let’s accept legal migration first. The would-be Commissioner supported non simply a revision of the existing Blue Card rules on highly-skilled migration, but too a to a greater extent than comprehensive overhaul of European Union rules on legal migration. Indeed, he explicitly supported an European Union organization for legal migration resembling the liberal regimes of Canada as well as Australia.
Yet he did non hand a timetable for suggesting reforms inward this area, fifty-fifty though the Commission has lately produced a study on the problems amongst the implementation of the Blue Card system, as well as the potential reforms of this organization tin easily live on identified. (For an representative of what an European Union immigration code mightiness await like, reckon my Statewatch analysis on this issue).
He stated repeatedly that he believed that to a greater extent than liberal rules on legal migration would aid to solve the occupation of migrants’ loss of life en road to the EU, as well as cut back irregular migration to a greater extent than generally. But it’s hard to believe that Member U.S. of A. would hand legal status to all of these would-be migrants. It should live on recalled that, inward accordance amongst Article 79(5) TFEU, Member U.S. of A. inward whatever lawsuit retain competence to determine on the numbers of economical migrants coming from 3rd countries.
As for asylum law, he appeared to believe that the implementation of the mo stage of the Common European Asylum System (in July 2015), every bit good every bit European Union legislation on legal migration, would live on sufficient to secure usual recognition for refugee decisions inward the EU. But the existing European Union rules simply let refugees as well as persons amongst subsidiary protection to motion betwixt Member U.S. of A. in 1 lawsuit they cause got qualified every bit long-term residents. To hit this, they cause got to reside legally inward a Member State for at to the lowest degree v years, as well as encounter other atmospheric condition every bit well. If they hit as well as then motion betwixt Member States, their protection status does non inward fact locomote amongst them (except if they are moving betwixt the modest number of U.S. of A. which cause got ratified a Council of Europe Convention on this issue).
These express possibilities for persons amongst international protection to motion betwixt Member U.S. of A. hit non come upwardly anywhere close to satisfying the principles of ‘solidarity, solidarity as well as solidarity’ which he referred to every bit regards European Union asylum law. Further solidarity could simply live on assured past times redistributing to a greater extent than persons amongst international protection, every bit good every bit asylum-seekers, betwixt Member States. On the latter point, he did at to the lowest degree hope to review the EU’s problematic Dublin organization on the responsibleness for asylum-seekers. However, every bit amongst the final review, it volition for sure examine hard to convince richer Member U.S. of A. to alter the responsibleness rules.
Mr. Avramopolous opposed the notion of a ‘Fortress Europe’, objecting to ‘push-backs’ at the external borders as well as distancing himself from a debate built at the Greek/Turkish edge past times a authorities which he was a government minister in. Although he supported a review of the mandate of Frontex, the EU’s edge agency, obviously to include search as well as rescue issues, he did non advise whatever concrete measures to supervise Member States’ operational activities at the external borders inward the absence of Frontex coordination.
He did back upwardly the thought of humanitarian visas to ensure that protection-seekers could teach inward the European Union without having to undertake dangerous journeys. But his specific proposal to this goal was rather utopian. His thought to appoint staff inward European Union delegations inward 3rd countries to consider asylum applications is attractive inward principle, but would live on hard to implement inward practice. In fellowship to set the programme into effect, it would live on necessary both to reconceive the nature of the EU’s external delegations, as well as to hand European Union bodies, rather than the Member U.S. of A. alone, a business office inward taking decisions concerning visas as well as asylum inward private cases.
The easier course, which could live on implemented directly without such additional legal as well as political complications, would live on to render explicitly inward European Union legislation for an obligation for Member U.S. of A. to number humanitarian visas to asylum-seekers inward their external consulates. Arguably, the EU’s electrical flow visa code already implicitly contains such an obligation. The negotiations on the electrical flow proposal to revise the visa code offering an chance to laid out this dominion explicitly inward European Union law.
Overall, then, the would-be Commissioner cannot live on faulted on his commitment to the basic principles which would underlie a liberal immigration policy for the EU. But his agreement of the practical details as well as the overall coherence of the policy is clearly a run inward progress.
Barnard & Peers: chapter 25, chapter 26