The Orbanisation Of Eu Asylum Law: The Latest Eu Asylum Proposals

Steve Peers

There receive got been a number of European Union proposals to bargain with the perceived ‘refugee crisis’ inwards Europe over the lastly year. The latest batch, issued this week, are perhaps the most pregnant to date. They work 3 related issues: visas (notably a short-term Schengen visa waiver for Turkish nationals); Schengen (partly suspending the opened upwards borders rules for half dozen months); as well as asylum (changing the Dublin scheme on responsibleness for asylum seekers, as well as creating a novel European Union asylum agency). Further proposals on legal migration as well as other European Union asylum laws are coming inwards the months ahead.

Essentially, these proposals amount to the ‘Orbanisation’ of European Union asylum law. They re-create as well as entrench across the European Union the fundamental elements of the Hungarian government’s policy, which was initially criticized: refusing essentially all asylum-seekers at the external border as well as treating them every bit harshly every bit possible so every bit to maintain the Schengen opened upwards borders system. 

Background

The surge inwards the number of refugees as well as migrants coming into the European Union since 2014 led initially to a discordant reply from Member States, with Federal Republic of Federal Republic of Germany as well as Sweden initially welcoming the arrivals as well as Republic of Hungary trying to halt them. Last September, inwards a bid to modestly assist the ‘frontline’ border states of Hellenic Republic as well as Italia with the large numbers of asylum-seekers, the European Union adopted 2 Decisions on ‘relocation’ (discussed here), inwards regulation taking upwards to 160,000 asylum-seekers off those countries’ hands as well as distributing them alongside other Member States. However, this ‘Plan A’ was ineffective, every bit some Member US refused to cooperate (even launching legal action) as well as the balance relocated very few people.

So ‘Plan B’ was developed: an EU/Turkey bargain whereby Turkey either prevented the large number of refugees on its territory from leaving, or readmitted them dorsum from the European Union if they did hit European Union territory (which inwards exercise unremarkably agency the Greek islands). To implement this, Hellenic Republic agreed to care for Turkey every bit a ‘safe 3rd country’ or a ‘first province of asylum’ nether European Union asylum law, with the termination that claims were treated every bit inadmissible. As discussed before on this blog, this is a highly dubious interpretation of the law. To receive Turkey to cooperate, the European Union agreed to pass coin on the welfare of Syrian refugees inwards Turkey, as well as to drib the short-term visa requirement for Turkish citizens to see the European Union countries inwards the Schengen system. (It also agreed to opened upwards 1 to a greater extent than ‘negotiating chapter’ relating to Turkish accession to the EU, but this is a trivial concession: alone 1 of these 35 chapters has been agreed to date, inwards eleven years of accession negotiations).

In the meantime, many Member US became concerned nearly the numbers of migrants as well as refugees reaching their territories, as well as so resumed checks on the previously opened upwards borders betwixt Schengen states. However, nether the relevant Schengen rules dating from 2013 (on which, view my thinktank study on the Schengen scheme here), the authorization to do this volition shortly expire, unless the European Union every bit a whole agrees to suspend the Schengen scheme for 1 or to a greater extent than periods of half dozen months. This prospect has been mooted since Dec 2015 (as discussed inwards special here).

So this week’s proposals aim to implement as well as entrench these policy developments: waiving the visa requirement for Turkey; allowing a express suspension of Schengen; as well as amending the Dublin scheme to reverberate the EU/Turkey agreement, to deter asylum-seekers from moving betwixt Member US (allowing Schengen to live fully reinstated) as well as to contain a novel version of the failing relocation rules.  All of these measures are related, but I volition examine each of them inwards turn. 

Visas

There are 3 separate proposals to ameliorate the European Union visa list. All of them demand to live agreed past times the European Parliament, every bit good every bit a qualified bulk of participating Member US inwards the European Union Council.  The proposals, if adopted, would non apply to the U.K. as well as Ireland, which receive got their ain laws on visa requirements (or waivers) for non-EU countries, due to an opt-out from the EU’s visa laws. That opt-out forms business office of those countries’ overall opt-out from the Schengen system, which allows the U.K. to cheque people at its borders as well as pass upwards entry to non-EU citizens based (mostly) on U.K. law. It is so dishonest to suggest that the proposals would Pb to an increased migrant influx into the UK. Indeed the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union would non alter the rules at all every bit regards non-EU citizens seeking to larn into the U.K. from (the ease of) the European Union – other than the little minority who apply for asylum or who are household unit of measurement members of European Union citizens.

These proposals would, inwards turn: a) waive visa requirements for earlier proposal, nonetheless nether discussion) that human rights inwards Turkey are so good protected every bit to class Turkey every bit a ‘safe province of origin’ for asylum purposes.

The proposal to reimpose visa requirements to a greater extent than easily is implicitly linked to the Turkish visa waiver proposal, although inwards fact it could apply to whatever State on the visa waiver listing (the ‘white list’). The electrical flow rules, dating from 2013, allow ‘emergency’ reimposition of a visa requirement past times the European Union Commission for a six-month period, renewable for some other half dozen months if the Commission proposes to ameliorate the law to brand this permanent. This temporary Commission conclusion tin privy live blocked past times Member States, but does non demand the approving of the European Parliament. The grounds for it are ‘sudden as well as substantial’ increases inwards irregular migration, rejected asylum applications or rejected readmission applications from the province concerned.

There are some farther details of these rules inwards the preamble to the 2013 law.  A ‘substantial’ increment is an increment inwards a higher seat 50%, as well as a depression charge per unit of measurement of recognition of asylum applications constitutes 3% or 4%, although inwards either the Commission could take away to exercise a dissimilar number.  Reimposition of visas is non automatic: at that topographic point is a diplomatic stage during which the Commission talks to the officials of the other province as well as warns them to take away activeness inwards lite of the impending threat.  The Commission volition alone advise reimposition if it is non satisfied with the outcome of these talks. So far it has non done so.

Basically the novel proposal would arrive easier to reimpose visas inwards several ways. First of all, it would no longer live an ‘emergency’ or ‘last resort’ decision, as well as the increases inwards irregular migration, rejected asylum applications or rejected readmission applications would no longer receive got to live ‘sudden’. Secondly, the reference catamenia for examining the increased irregular migration, etc would no longer live over half dozen months, but over 2 months. Third, the increment inwards asylum applications would no longer receive got to Pb to ‘specific pressure’ on asylum systems; so at that topographic point would demand non live a large absolute number of asylum applicants from the province concerned, exactly a large relative increase inwards the number of applications.

Fourth, the rejected readmission applications would relate non alone to citizens of the province concerned, but also to citizens of other countries who transited through that State’s territory. This is apparently aimed at enforcing the fundamental characteristic of the EU/Turkey plan: the readmission of refugees to Turkey. Fifth, the possibility of triggering reimposition of visas every bit compared to the catamenia before the visa requirement was dropped would forthwith apply indefinitely, as well as would no longer expire after 7 years. The immediate impact of this alter would live on Western Balkans countries, where (apart from Kosovo) the European Union waived visa requirements inwards 2009 as well as 2010. Sixth, the Commission tin privy trigger the clause, non exactly Member States. It could deed on the same grounds plus an additional Earth of failure to apply a readmission bargain with the European Union every bit a whole.

Again, the terminal dot aims at enforcing the EU/Turkey refugee deal. If Turkey does halt readmitting refugees, the European Union tin privy swiftly react past times reimposing visa requirements. This plant both ways, of course: if the European Union threatens to reimpose visas on Turkish citizens on some other ground, such every bit an increment inwards Turkish citizens overstaying without authorization, so Turkey volition probable pass upwards to take away dorsum refugees. Indeed, every bit discussed above, Turkey is threatening to do this if the European Union does non waive the visa requirements inwards the showtime seat – which accounts for the EU’s haste on this point.

Finally, a side number (relating alone to Turkey) is worth discussing. The EU/Turkey association understanding has a Protocol, signed inwards 1970, that sets a standstill on the costless displace of services as well as liberty of establishment. That agency the European Union as well as its Member US can’t brand the rules on these issues stricter than they were when the Protocol was signed. The CJEU has also ruled that if the rules are made more liberal than when the Protocol was signed, they can’t live made less liberal after that dot without violating the standstill (Toprak as well as Oguz). While the standstill dominion doesn’t apply to tourist visas (Demirkan), it does apply to visas for short-term economical activity (Soysal). 

So would the standstill dominion inwards the association understanding forbid the European Union from reimposing visas for economical activity past times Turkish citizens? In its instance law (see most of late Genc, discussed here), the CJEU has said that the standstill dominion tin privy live overridden on populace involvement grounds. So far the instance law on this dot has concerned integration of household unit of measurement members, although it could also live argued that the objective of preventing irregular migration is also a valid Earth to override the standstill. In fact, the CJEU has been asked whether migration command objectives tin privy override it, inwards the pending instance of Tekdemir. However, this instance won’t live decided until good after June (when Turkey wants the visa waiver inwards place); as well as similar the before cases, it concerns legal migration. 

Schengen

The thought of suspending Schengen for upwards to 2 years was originally mooted dorsum inwards Dec – every bit I discussed inwards special at the time. The mechanics of the process, every bit I detailed there, receive got been grinding away for some time. Now nosotros receive got nearly reached the terminal stage: a Commission here) laid out, it volition also shortly advise novel laws to ameliorate the existing laws on qualification (definition) of refugees as well as people needing subsidiary protection status, asylum procedures, as well as reception conditions for asylum-seekers. In effect, this volition amount to a 3rd stage of the Common European Asylum System.

Currently, the U.K. as well as Republic of Ireland receive got opted inwards to the European Union laws regarding Dublin, Eurodac as well as EASO. They opted out of the second-phase asylum Directives, but are covered past times the first-phase Directives (except Republic of Ireland never opted inwards to the first-phase reception weather condition Directive). Kingdom of Denmark as well as the Schengen associates (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland as well as Liechtenstein) participate inwards these laws on the ground of treaties with the EU. It would live upwards to the U.K. as well as Republic of Ireland to create upwards one's heed whether to participate inwards the novel proposals; if not, the electrical flow Regulations proceed to apply. If they opt out of the discussions on the proposals, they could nonetheless opt inwards later on after adoption of the legislation, if they honor that the terminal termination is to a greater extent than to their liking than they had feared at the outset. Kingdom of Denmark as well as the Schengen associates could pass upwards to participate, but inwards that instance their treaties with the European Union volition automatically terminate.

In the trial of Brexit, the U.K. would no longer live dependent area to whatever of the European Union asylum laws it is forthwith participating in, unless the European Union as well as the U.K. negotiate an understanding to that effect. It should live noted that the European Union has inwards exercise alone e'er been willing to extend the Dublin rules to non-EU US if those US are also Schengen associates. (Indeed inwards some cases, the Dublin as well as Schengen association treaties receive got been negotiated every bit a package).

The European Union Asylum Agency

I volition start with the to the lowest degree contentious of the novel proposals.

Currently, EASO has a number of practical cooperation tasks. In particular, it must: ‘organise, promote as well as coordinate’ the central of information as well as seat as well as puddle goodness practice, every bit good every bit activities relating to country-of-origin information (ie, information nearly weather condition inwards asylum seekers’ countries of origin), including gathering as well as analysis of that information as well as drafting reports on that information; assist with the voluntary transfer of persons granted international protection status inside the EU; back upwards preparation for national administrations as well as courts, including the evolution of an European Union asylum curriculum; as well as coordinate as well as central information on the functioning of European Union external asylum measures. For Member US nether ‘particular pressure’, the Office must assemble information concerning possible emergency measures, ready an early on warning scheme to alarm Member US to volume influxes of asylum seekers, aid such Member US to analyse asylum applications as well as flora reception conditions, as well as ready ‘asylum teams’.

For its contribution to the implementation of the Common European Asylum System, the Office gathers information on national authorities’ application of European Union asylum law, every bit good every bit national legislation as well as instance law on asylum issues. It also draws upwards an annual study on the province of affairs regarding asylum inwards the EU. At the asking of the Commission, the Office may depict upwards ‘technical documents on the implementation of the asylum instruments of the Union, including guidelines as well as operating manuals.’ The Office tin privy also deploy ‘asylum back upwards teams’ on the territory of a requesting Member State, inwards social club to supply ‘in special expertise inwards relation to interpreting services, information on countries of beginning as well as knowledge of the treatment as well as direction of asylum cases’.

How would the European Union Asylum Agency live different? As with the parallel proposal for a European Border Guard (discussed here), the Agency would non supersede national administrations, but play a bigger role coordinating them.  The master copy changes are: an obligation to central information with the Agency; a stronger role inwards analysis of the province of affairs of countries of origin, including advice on alleged ‘safe countries of origin’; the evolution of guidance on applying European Union asylum law; monitoring of the Common European Asylum System, including the capacity of Member US to apply it; as well as increased operational as well as technical assistance for Member States. An indication of the bigger role for the Agency every bit compared to EASO volition live the planned increment inwards staff – from nearly 150 to or so 500.

Eurodac

The electrical flow Regulation requires Member US to take away the fingerprints of all asylum-seekers as well as irregular border crossers over 14 years old. This information is so stored inwards the Eurodac reckoner system. Every asylum-seeker’s fingerprints are compared with those already inwards the system, to view if he or she has either applied for asylum already or crossed the border irregularly. This is taken every bit prove every bit regards which Member State is responsible for the asylum application nether the Dublin rules.

Eurodac tin privy also live used for other purposes. In 2013, the Eurodac law was revised to give constabulary forces as well as the European Union constabulary agency, Europol, express access to the fingerprint information for the purposes of criminal investigations. Member US may take away to cheque the fingerprints of an irregular migrant against the system, for the purposes of identification, without storing that data.

The proposed novel Regulation would brand some fundamental changes to these rules. First of all, it would significantly enlarge the amount of personal information that volition live taken as well as stored. Member US volition receive got to take away information on children from the historic catamenia of half dozen (rather than fourteen), as well as facial images every bit good every bit fingerprints. Eurodac volition also forthwith shop information on the names, nationalities, seat as well as appointment of birth, locomote document information. For asylum-seekers, it volition shop the European Union asylum application number (see the Dublin IV proposal), every bit good every bit information on the allocated Member State nether the Dublin rules, for the showtime time. For irregular border crossers as well as irregular migrants, it volition shop the appointment of the removal from the territory.

There volition no longer live an alternative simply to cheque information on irregular migrants; rather Member US volition live obliged to take away as well as shop this information. While the rules on constabulary as well as Europol access to Eurodac information volition non live changed every bit such (although the Commission volition review those rules soon), at that topographic point volition live to a greater extent than personal information for them to access: they volition live able to larn facial ikon information, as well as to a greater extent than individuals volition receive got their personal information recorded inwards Eurodac inwards the showtime place.

Secondly, it volition live possible for fingerprint information to live taken non alone past times national officials, but also (as regards asylum-seekers as well as irregular border crossers) past times the novel European Union Border Guard as well as European Union Asylum agencies. Thirdly, piece asylum-seekers’ information volition nonetheless live retained for x years, information on irregular border crossers volition forthwith live retained for v years – upwards from xviii months at present. Data on irregular migrants volition also live retained for v years. The information volition live marked if a Member State gives a residence permit to an irregular migrant. Finally, Eurodac information volition forthwith live made available to 3rd countries for the purposes of return, on for certain conditions, including a refusal to expose if the someone who has applied for asylum. But the non-EU province mightiness estimate that the someone has applied for asylum; inwards fact the EU’s procedures Directive requires that province to live informed of this inwards some cases.

The Commission justifies these changes past times the demand to strengthen the EU’s render policy every bit regards irregular migrants, as well as to maintain runway of them if they brand movements across the EU. It believes that taking fingerprints as well as photos of immature children is justified for kid protection reasons. Collecting personal information on facial images is justified because some persons pass upwards to receive got their fingerprints taken.

This proposal apparently raises huge information protection issues, as well as it volition live of import to view what concerns are raised past times national information protection authorities, every bit good every bit the EU’s Data Protection Supervisor. The arguments nearly kid security should live independently assessed past times kid protection experts. It is conceivable that taking facial images would avoid the demand to insist upon taking fingerprints coercively, but it’s non clear why the Commission believes that storing information on names, birthdates et al is justified. The exercise of Eurodac to underpin European Union render policy obviates much demand to exercise or expand the Schengen Information System (which currently contains information on non-EU citizens who are meant to live refused entry) for similar purposes, as well as raises the interrogation of whether at that topographic point demand to live 2 dissimilar databases addressing the same issue. The selection betwixt the 2 databases is peculiarly pregnant for the UK, since it volition receive got access to the Eurodac returns information (if it opts inwards to the novel proposal), but doesn’t receive got access to the immigration alerts inwards the Schengen Information System, as well as indeed can’t receive got access to those alerts unless (rather improbably) it fully joins Schengen. (However, the U.K. does receive got access to the criminal law alerts inwards the Schengen Information System, such every bit alerts on suspected terrorists: view my farther give-and-take here. It could lose that access after Brexit, every bit I hash out here).

Dublin IV

As noted at the outset, the amendments to the Dublin Regulation essentially aim to entrench the EU/Turkey bargain as well as to salve Schengen past times deterring secondary movements of asylum-seekers, piece also making a fresh essay to flora relocation rules. To attain each of these objectives, the Commission proposes an extreme solution which is belike legally and/or politically unfeasible.

Let’s examine each chemical cistron inwards turn. In social club to entrench the EU/Turkey bargain (and perhaps hereafter heinous deals with countries similar Libya), the proposal transforms a electrical flow dominion which gives Member US an option to apply to province that a non-EU province is a ‘safe 3rd country’ for an asylum applicant inwards accordance with the asylum procedures Directive, rather than post the applicant to some other Member State or consider the application after a transfer from some other Member State nether the Dublin rules. The CJEU of late took a permissive view of this provision (Mirza). In seat of this option, at that topographic point would live an obligation to assess the inadmissibility of an application on ‘safe 3rd country’ or ‘first province of asylum’ grounds before applying whatever of the rules on responsibleness for applications. This confirms the electrical flow exercise every bit regards asylum-seekers coming from Turkey to Greece, which aims to render every bit many of them every bit possible to Hellenic Republic despite the dubious designation of Turkey every bit a ‘safe’ province for asylum-seekers.

This doesn’t affair much inwards cases where Hellenic Republic would anyway live responsible for considering the application nether the Dublin rules, because it was the showtime province where the applicants entered. (Moreover, due to recent closure of the Greece/Macedonia border as well as other controls as well as fences on internal as well as external Schengen borders, it’s forthwith really hard to leave of absence Hellenic Republic fifty-fifty for those asylum-seekers non inwards detention). But opposite to pop belief, that is non the alone Earth for assigning responsibleness nether the Dublin rules. There’s also an obligation to convey household unit of measurement members together, where 1 of the household unit of measurement members has status every bit a refugee or asylum-seeker or otherwise has legal residence inwards some other Member State.

The Mirza judgment did non address whether these household unit of measurement rules take away priority over the ‘safe 3rd country’ option, but the Dublin IV proposal is clear.  If a instance is inadmissible on the dubious ‘safe 3rd country’ or ‘first province of asylum’ rules, so the Member State inwards interrogation is responsible, regardless of the household unit of measurement or humanitarian clauses inwards the Regulation. It’s arguable that this is a breach of the correct to household unit of measurement life laid out inwards the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. But it’s for certain that this alter completely undercuts the broadening of the Definition of ‘family member’ contained inwards the Regulation – extending it to embrace siblings as well as families formed after leaving the province of beginning (while Syrians were living inwards Turkey, for instance). Those changes so amount to a legal ‘Potemkin village’ – a cynical façade intending to mislead a naive onlooker.

It mightiness live argued that household unit of measurement members should non live encouraged to pay smugglers as well as take away dangerous routes to hit their loved ones who are already inwards the EU. Fair plenty – but inwards that case, the European Union should take away steps to ensure their prophylactic passage (note that the EU’s household unit of measurement reunion Directive requires Member US to acknowledge household unit of measurement members of refugees). There’s zip inwards this week’s batch of proposals to do that. The EU’s informal arrangements with Turkey do supply for ‘nuclear family’ members every bit 1 category of Syrian refugees to resettle. But these arrangements are non binding as well as (at fourth dimension of writing) non fifty-fifty officially published (see this entry inwards the Council register of documents). They alone apply to the ‘nuclear’ family, as well as alone for Syrians.

Next: the essay to deter secondary movements of asylum-seekers, inwards social club to reinstate the Schengen system. Most notably, at that topographic point volition live punishments for asylum-seekers who do non remain inwards the responsible Member State. In that instance the asylum physical care for volition live accelerated, as well as they volition lose all benefits (health, education, welfare as well as accommodation) except for emergency wellness care. (However, the grounds for detention of asylum-seekers inwards the Dublin Regulation volition non alter – though the hereafter proposal to ameliorate the reception weather condition Directive mightiness seek to ameliorate the detention rules at that topographic point instead.) This volition overturn the CJEU ruling inwards CIMADE as well as GISTI, which was based on the correct to dignity inwards the European Union Charter. Let’s position it plainly: asylum-seekers who flout the Dublin rules volition live left to starve inwards the streets – fifty-fifty children, torture victims as well as other vulnerable people. And fast-tracking their asylum application implicitly aims at refouling them to their province of origin, with alone express suspensive outcome of whatever appeal to the courts.

The violations of the Charter don’t halt there. According to the CJEU instance law on the electrical flow Regulation, unaccompanied minors tin privy displace to some other Member State as well as apply there. This ruling (MA) is also based on the Charter (rights of the child), but the Commission wants to overturn that likewise – inwards the physical care for trashing its ain proposal dating from 2014. Again, whatever essay to struggle that this aims to protect children past times deterring them from moving is undercut past times the prioritisation of inadmissibility rules over household unit of measurement reunion rules (even for unaccompanied children), every bit good every bit the failure to insert rules to ensure that the Dublin household unit of measurement rules are really applied (such every bit the recent U.K. ruling on a requirement for deoxyribonucleic acid tests). If the European Union as well as its Member US tending so much nearly asylum-seeking children, why receive got they detained so many inwards Hellenic Republic inwards pitiful conditions, as well as shrugged every bit so many suffered inwards northern Hellenic Republic – shirking the legal obligations which they accepted to relocate them?

Furthermore, the proposal limits both the noun as well as procedural remedies for applicants. They volition alone live able to challenge a conclusion on the responsible Member State on the grounds that the asylum scheme has broken down, or that they should live with their household unit of measurement member. This overturns the thought inwards the pending cases of Karim as well as Ghezelbash (although it is possible that the Court volition non follow this opinion). Also, they volition alone receive got 7 days to appeal: this risks a breach of the Charter correct to an effective remedy, given that inwards the Diouf instance the CJEU found that a 14-day fourth dimension to appeal was acceptable.

The proposal doesn’t alone aim to restrain asylum-seekers inwards social club to ensure that Dublin plant effectively; it volition also restrain Member US to the same end. The essentially unlimited discretionary ‘sovereignty’ as well as ‘humanitarian’ clauses volition live amended to severely bound the circumstances inwards which a Member State tin privy examine an application that is non its responsibility. If Angela Merkel (improbably) wanted to repeat her open-door policy of summertime 2015 inwards future, the proposal would brand that illegal. Various deadlines for Member US to deed would live speeded upwards (although Member US receive got said before that this is impractical). Conversely, other rules which bound Member States’ obligations volition live dropped: at that topographic point volition live longer periods of responsibleness after issuing a visa or residence permit, as well as responsibleness for those who cross a border without authorisation, or who abscond or who leave of absence the European Union as well as so come upwards back, volition live endless.

This brings us to the relocation rules. These volition live triggered 1 time a Member State is responsible for to a greater extent than than 50% of the asylum applications which objective criteria (based on income as well as population) bespeak that it ‘should’ live responsible for. In other words, if Hellenic Republic ‘should’ live responsible for 50,00 asylum applications nether those criteria, other Member US would live obliged to relocate asylum-seekers from Hellenic Republic 1 time it was responsible for 75,000 applications. But Member US can't relocate asylum seekers whose applications are inadmissible nether the novel rules discussed above, so this may receive got footling impact on Hellenic Republic anyway. Indeed, if the EU/Turkey bargain breaks down, the combination of these rules would inwards regulation position Hellenic Republic inwards a worse seat than it is currently. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 novel emergency relocation Decision would receive got to derogate from the Dublin rules again.

Then the proposal becomes genuinely surreal. The Commission suggests that Member US may opt out of relocating asylum-seekers, but they volition receive got to pay €250,000 per asylum-seeker if they wishing to do this. This is a fantasy on top of a fantasy. Member US receive got already shown that they are unwilling to apply the relocation Decisions of lastly September, or to adopt the proposal to ameliorate the Dublin rules to this destination that was tabled at that time. The thought of fiscal contributions inwards seat of accepting individuals, whatever its merits, is perceived to live a ‘fine’ as well as was already rejected past times Member US lastly year. That thought volition non of a abrupt appear to a greater extent than attractive to Member US past times doubling downward on it, as well as suggesting a contribution laid at an apparently absurd as well as disproportionate level, which the Commission does non fifty-fifty essay to justify.

So why did the Commission outpouring the shark here? Perhaps someone inwards the Commission lost a bet. Or perhaps this is a legislative homage to the Belgian surrealist tradition of Magritte, et al. More seriously, it mightiness live intended every bit a negotiating position. But such a ridiculous seat volition exactly backfire: it’s every bit if direction started the latest pay talks with the unions past times arguing that the workers should start paying the company for the privilege of working there. Or perhaps it’s a subtle way of addressing Greece’s debt problems: rejecting the relocation of a mere 10,000 asylum-seekers from Hellenic Republic would transfer €2.5 billion to the Greek treasury – where it would ease briefly on its route to Germany. 

I receive got some other theory, good known to followers of British politics. Maybe the €250,000/person proposal is the Commission’s equivalent of ‘throwing a dead truthful cat on the table’. The phrase is borrowed – similar the EU’s electrical flow asylum policy – from Australia. It agency that if the political conversation is peculiarly damaging to a for certain politician, an ally of that politico of a abrupt does or says something outrageous. Everyone volition start talking nearly that outrageous thing, exactly every bit they would live talking nearly the unfortunate feline; which agency that no-one is talking nearly the original number whatever more.  In this case, it agency that everyone is talking nearly the €250,000 – as well as no-one is talking nearly the suspension of Schengen, or of the families who would live split upwards up, or the people who would live made hungry as well as homeless, past times the Commission’s Dublin IV proposal.

Conclusion

The Commission’s proposals are non a done deal, of course. Some Member US as well as Members of the European Parliament receive got misgiving nearly a visa waiver for Turkey, on migration command or human rights grounds. MEPs fought for years for many of the provisions inwards the Dublin III Regulation (on household unit of measurement members as well as unaccompanied minors inwards particular) which the Commission forthwith seeks to overturn. As I pointed out above, some of the proposed changes to the Dublin rules are highly vulnerable to challenge inwards the CJEU, if adopted. The carmine herring of a €250,000 sanction is already floating on the surface of the pond. And the whole EU/Turkey bargain mightiness anyway live overturned at the whim of Turkish President Erdogan – the alone politico whose ego makes Donald Trump’s expression little past times comparison. Nevertheless, European Union asylum policy is already becoming to a greater extent than Orbanised inwards practice, as well as I would expression at to the lowest degree some elements of the farther Orbanisation proposed past times the Commission to live adopted.

For over twenty-five years now, the European Union as well as its Member US receive got been attempting to larn the Dublin scheme to work. The continued abject failures of those attempts to larn this squealer to wing never seem to deter the side past times side essay to launch its aviation career.  With this week’s proposals, the Commission is inwards outcome trying to larn the pitiful fauna airborne past times sticking a rocket upwards its backside. It mightiness live best to stand upwards back.

Barnard & Peers: chapter 26

JHA4: chapter I:3, chapter I:4, chapter I:5, chapter I:7

Photo credit: JapanTimes.co.jp

Share this post