Debate: Externalising asylum applications and making funding to third countries conditional on the implementation of return agreements
Date: WEDNESDAY, 10 MAY 2023
Speaker: Jessika Roswall
Language: EN

And I would like to start my intervention today by repeating one of my previous messages. An effective EU migration policy requires a long-term and comprehensive approach which tackles several related goals, in particular: saving lives, providing international protection to persons who are entitled to it, and effectively returning those who are not; fighting smugglers; ensuring proper management of our external borders; enforcing cooperation with our partner countries, the countries of origin, transit and departure; addressing the root causes to reduce irregular departures; and providing predictable legal pathways. The fact is that we need to address all these factors to remind us of the complexity of the migration challenge and the need to avoid one-sided policies. This is the spirit of the Migration and Asylum Pact, a common long-term solution, where we – the Council and Parliament – must work together. And the clock is ticking. I would now like to turn to the issues of today’s specific debate: external processing of asylum applications. This discussion is not new. In June 2018, in an attempt to eliminate incentives to embark on a dangerous journey, the European Council called on the Council and the Commission to swiftly explore the concept of regional disembarking platforms. The context back then was quite similar to the current situation in the Central Mediterranean, which we have discussed in this House on several occasions. There was a high number of migrant arrivals by sea and, as a terrible consequence, a high number of deaths. The Council explored the option for a system where asylum application would be processed in the territory of neighbouring countries. It must be said, however, that this this possibility did not materialise, as there was no support for relevant third countries. Therefore, the Council has never taken a position on external asylum application, since there has never been a concrete proposal. As a matter of fact, there is no practical experience of such schemes in Europe. While I will refrain from entering into debate on whether externalising asylum applications is compatible with the EU  Instead, let me focus on our comprehensive and operational cooperation with countries of origin and transit through mutual beneficial partnerships that cover all migration routes. We monitor the implementation of the action plans for the Western Balkans and the Central Mediterranean routes, and we expect action plans for the Atlantic, Western and Eastern Mediterranean routes to be presented by the Commission very soon. We wish to reduce the irregular migration flows and increase returns, while taking into account the needs of partners that are not that are not necessarily migration-related. This brings me to the question of making funding to third countries conditional on the implementation of returns agreements. It is clear that returns are one of the weakest elements in our migration management and that we need to enhance our return rates, while obviously ensuring the full respect of international law. Against that background, the European Council in February recalled the importance of a unified, comprehensive and effective EU policy on return and readmission of an integrated approach to reintegration. To that end, it was underlined how important it is to leverage all relevant EU policies, instruments and tools. This includes diplomacy, development aid, trade and visas, as well as opportunities for legal migration. The concept of making EU funding dependent on returns and readmission cooperation is implicit in some of these leverages, like development aid and trade. So far, Member States have agreed on a legal framework allowing for the visa leverage to be implemented in case of unsatisfactory returns and readmission cooperation by third countries. With regard to trade, the new EU generalised scheme of preferences forces trade leverages. This proposal is currently subject to interinstitutional negotiations. We are aware of how complex and even controversial the use of such leverage is. Experience shows that leverages have sometimes had the opposite effect of their original purpose. We are also aware of the gap between the Council’s and Parliament’s views on these issues. Nevertheless, I think that this is a discussion that we must have in an open manner. And in doing so, we must try to answer questions like: what options do we have when countries of origin do not abide by the international obligation to take back their nationals? How can we develop a serious and frank relation with countries of origin if we do not dispose of instruments to promote our interests? But with that, I look forward to hearing your views on these other questions in this difficult, but absolutely necessary, debate.