Can the new refugee relocation system work? Perils in the Dublin logic and flawed reception conditions in the EU. CEPS Policy Brief No. 332, October 2015 Thursday, 1 October 2015

This Policy Brief argues that the newly adopted EU temporary relocation (quota) system constitutes a welcome yet timid step forward in addressing a number of central controversies of the current refugee debate in Europe. Two main challenges affect the effective operability of the new EU relocation model. First, EU member states’ asylum systems show profound (on-the-ground) weaknesses in reception conditions and judicial/administrative capacities. These prevent a fair and humane processing of asylum applications. EU states are not implementing the common standards enshrined in the EU reception conditions Directive 2013/33. Second, the new relocation system constitutes a move away from the much-criticised Dublin system, but it is still anchored to its premises. The Dublin system is driven by an unfair and unsustainable rule according to which the first EU state of entry is responsible for assessing asylum applications. It does not properly consider the personal, private and family circumstances or the preferences of asylum-seekers. Policy Recommendations In order to respond to these challenges, the Policy Brief offers the following policy recommendations: The EU should strengthen and better enforce member states’ reception capacities, abolish the current Dublin system rule of allocation of responsibility and expand the new relocation distribution criteria to include in the assessment (as far as possible) asylum-seekers’ preferences and personal/family links to EU member states. EU member countries should give priority to boosting their current and forward-looking administrative and judicial capacities to deal and welcome asylum applications. The EU should establish a permanent common European border and asylum service focused on ensuring the highest standards through stable operational support, institutional solidarity across all EU external borders and the practical implementation of new distribution relocation criteria.

Europe must act! The refugee crisis in the eyes of young people. EPC FutureLab, 12 October 2015

This compendium collects a number of articles from FutureLab participants on the current refugee crisis in Europe, providing a series of unique perspectives from all over Europe.

A Common Refugee Integration Fund. EPC Commentary, 15 October 2015

The refugee crisis will be dominating discussions at the EU Summit. Cooperating with third countries, especially Turkey; border controls, hotspots, relocation and returns will all feature. These discussions reflect that the EU is in crisis response mode, attempting to deal with the sheer scale of the current flows and the rapidly evolving situation, as well as internal divisions.

Europe’s reactive and protective muddling through: the results of a summit in fire fighting mode. EPC Post-Summit Analysis, 19 October 2015

The EU’s October summit was dominated by one issue; the migration and refugee crisis, with EU leaders intent on putting on a public display of unity after weeks of bitter arguments, and concentrating on fire-fighting and immediate measures to tackle the most pressing reasons for, and impacts of, the crisis. Longer-term measures to address some of the root causes of increased migratory flows, support for the integration of newly arrived refugees or the introduction of new channels of legal migration, were not discussed. The Summit also spent little time on two issues that had originally been expected to be a key part of the agenda: the forthcoming British referendum on EU membership, where irritation with the slow pace of talks and British vagueness about its demands were in evidence; and the governance of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), where EU leaders missed another opportunity for a thorough debate about future perspectives on the basis of the ‘Five Presidents’ Report’.

The October 2015 European Council and migration: no news, good news? EPC Commentary, 19 October 2015

The October European Council meeting took place after an unprecedented sequence of actions, with the Luxembourgish Presidency, the European Commission and the Council adopting and proposing a series of legislative and operational measures (including inter alia relocation decisions, the establishment of “hotspots”, increasing funds, the modification of the Dublin rules and the adoption of safe country of origins lists) to address the refugee crisis. Some of these measures were on the European Council agenda, such as the future of the Dublin system, the role of “hotspots” and the strengthening of the external borders. However, the meeting did not go as planned, with some items being dropped off the agenda and replaced by other ones.

Seeing the bigger picture: The refugee crisis and the link to CFSP. EPC Commentary, 16 November 2015

The EU’s current approach in dealing with the refugee crisis is not working. Closing borders is certainly not addressing the challenge. The United Nations (UN) recorded more than 218,000 arrivals to Europe in the month of October, almost as many as during the whole of 2014. There is no way of managing these flows – and the crisis itself – if we do not concentrate on the bigger picture.

Rethinking Migration Distribution in the EU: Shall we start with the facts? CEPS Essay 23/22 January 2016

Sound policy-making about migration –how to distribute responsibility for asylum seekers, how to deal with the issue of secondary movement (when asylum seekers move from one state to another within the EU) and whether migrants are welcome or not – needs to be based on solid evidence. On 16 November 2015, EUROSTAT published comprehensive statistics on the issue of first-residence permits by member states. This CEPS Essay closely examines these data and reports some surprising findings, some of which vary considerably from the impression promoted by the European media.

How to reconcile the EU border paradox? The concurrence of refugee reception and deterrence. IES Policy Brief 2015/4, November 2015

The refugee crisis that unfolded in Europe in the summer of 2015 questions the effectiveness of European border and refugee policies. The breakdown of the Dublin and Schengen rules due to chaotic situations at the borders in the Balkans marks a critical juncture for the EU. We consider this breakdown as a consequence of a long-lasting co-operation crisis among EU Member States. The most recent Council decision responds to this co-operation crisis (Council Decision 12098/15). This Policy Brief analyses EU policy and politics and argues that plans for refugee relocation and reception centres as well as the use of qualified majority voting in the Council can unfold a dynamic that helps to solve the co-operation crisis. However, underlying the problems of co-operation and effectiveness is the EU’s border paradox: while EU border policy works towards refugee deterrence, EU asylum policy aims at refugee protection. The EU’s approach in regulating borders and asylum can be understood in terms of ‘organised hypocrisy’ (Brunsson, 1993). Reconciling the paradox calls for overcoming such hypocrisy.

Irregular Migration, Trafficking and Smuggling of Human Beings: Policy Dilemmas in the EU. CEPS Paperback, 22 February 2016

The expert contributors to this edited volume, representing a multidisciplinary selection of academics, examine the treatment of irregular migration, human trafficking and smuggling in EU law and policy. The various chapters explore the policy dilemmas encountered in efforts to criminalise irregular migration and humanitarian assistance to irregular immigrants. The book aims to provide academic input to informed policy-making in the next phase of the European Agenda on Migration. In his Foreword, Matthias Ruete, Director General of DG Home Affairs of the European Commission, writes: “This initiative aims to stimulate evidence-based policy-making and to bring fresh thinking to develop more effective policies. The European Commission welcomes the valuable contribution of this initiative to help close the wide gap in our knowledge about the smuggling of migrants, and especially the functioning of smuggling networks.”

EU-Turkey plan for handling refugees is fraught with legal and procedural challenges. CEPS Commentary, 10 March 2016

EU-Turkey relations in the scope of the ongoing refugee crisis were at the heart of the European Council meeting of 7 March 2016. Among the set of initiatives proposed, the following two have attracted the most attention: First, for every Syrian readmitted by Turkey from the Greek islands, another Syrian from Turkey would be resettled in an EU member state. This has come to be known as the ‘one for one’ resettlement approach. Second, all new irregular migrants and asylum-seekers crossing from Turkey to the Greek islands would be returned to Turkey without offering any guarantee of protection.

EU-Turkey Summit on the refugee crisis Law and (dis)order? EPC Commentary, 21 March 2016

After many meetings and long hours of negotiations, the overwhelming feeling when a deal between the EU and Turkey was struck, was one of “mission accomplished”! Faced with an unprecedented crisis and forced to appease increasingly hostile public opinions back home, EU leaders had only one objective in mind: reducing the number of migrants arriving in the EU so that order can return in the framework of EU rules. However, a closer look at the Summit Conclusions and the EU-Turkey statement leaves a bitter taste, according to Yves Pascouau. In this Commentary, he questions the feasibility of the final EU-Turkey deal, saying that it creates more problems than it solves: besides the obvious legal and practical issues, it is far from certain which member states will be willing to do their part, or whether or not the EU can come up with a strategic vision on human mobility for the future.

Elements of a complex but still incomplete puzzle: an assessment of the EU(-Turkey) summit. CEPS Post-Summit Analysis, 21 March 2016

The March 2016 EU Summit was yet another attempt to make progress on managing the EU’s migration/refugee crisis. In this post-summit analysis, Janis A. Emmanouilidis argues that the EU-Turkey deal, which foresees a return of migrants from Greece to Turkey and a direct resettlement of Syrians from Turkey to the EU on the grounds of a ‘1-for-1’ scheme, is a key and necessary element in a very complex puzzle trying to stop ‘irregular routes’ of migration. The ultimate success of this agreement is by no means certain, but it has the chance to reduce the number of people arriving at the shores of Europe. However, this would neither settle the crisis nor will it provide an adequate response to those in need of international protection. The ‘humanitarian imperative’ requires that the EU-Turkey deal is complemented by a much more ambitious direct resettlement scheme and other long-term measures as part of a comprehensive plan aiming to balance ‘solidarity and security’ in an effort to sustainably overcome the crisis.

Facilitating Mobility and Fostering Diversity: Getting EU Migration Governance to Respect the Human Rights of Migrants. CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe No. 92/May 2016

Migration towards Europe has surged over the past few years, overwhelming government authorities at the national and EU levels, and fuelling a xenophobic, nationalist, populist discourse linking migrants to security threats. Despite positive advances in the courts and worthy national initiatives (such as Italy’s Operation Mare Nostrum), the EU’s governance of migration and borders has had disastrous effects on the human rights of migrants. These effects stem from the criminalisation of migrants, which pushes them towards more precarious migration routes, the widespread use of administrative detention and the processing of asylum claims under the Dublin system, and now the EU–Turkey agreement. Yet, this paper finds that with the right political leadership, the EU could adopt different policies in order to develop and implement a human rights-based approach to migration that would seek to reconcile security concerns with the human rights of migrants. Such an approach would enable member states to fully reap the rewards of a stable, cohesive, long-term migration plan that facilitates and governs mobility rather than restricts it at immense cost to the EU, the member states and individual migrants.

EU visa-liberalisation for Turks: just around the corner? EPC Commentary, 3 May 2016

At the 18 March EU-Turkey Migration Summit EU leaders pledged to lift visa requirements for Turkish citizens travelling to the Schengen zone by the end of June 2016 if Ankara met the required 72 benchmarks. On 4 May the European Commission will decide whether or not Turkey has done enough. The stakes are high because Turkey has threatened to cancel the readmission agreement, which is central to the success of the migration deal, if the EU fails to deliver.

EU Budgetary Responses to the ‘Refugee Crisis’: Reconfiguring the Funding Landscape. CEPS Paper Liberty and Security in Europe No. 93/May 2016

This paper analyses the EU budgetary responses to the ‘refugee crisis’ in Europe. The European Commission has proposed several changes to the EU budget as well as the establishment of new funding instruments. The paper explores what the announced funding consists of, what role it plays in policy-making and what issues it generates. Throughout these budgetary responses the search for flexibility has been dominant, motivated by the need to respond more swiftly to humanitarian and operational needs. In addition, the paper argues that beyond implementation or management, the role of funding is also symbolic and communicative. In light of limited competences that are difficult to exercise, funding represents a powerful tool enabling the Commission to shape policy-making in times of crisis. At the same time, the dominant search for flexibility also challenges established funding rules and procedures. It has furthermore led to reduced space for democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament. More profoundly, EU funding for cooperation with third countries to prevent the inflow of refugees and asylum seekers has monetised questions over the responsibility for these individuals. As the EU–Turkey agreement shows, this has created a self-imposed dependence on third countries, with the risk of potentially insatiable demands for EU funding. This paper questions the proportionality and rule of law compliance of allocating funding for the implementation of this agreement. Moreover, it proposes that the Commission take steps to practically safeguard the humanitarian aid principles in the management structures of the new funding instruments, and it stresses the need for more scrutiny of the reconfigured funding landscape by the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors.