Migration to dominate EU summit as calls for offshoring grow louder

Migration is set to dominate a summit of European Union leaders as calls for offshoring asylum procedures and speedier deportations grow increasingly louder, despite stern warnings from NGOs that the approach would endanger fundamental rights.

The meeting, scheduled to begin on Thursday morning in Brussels, will also touch upon Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the crisis in the Middle East, the situation in Georgia, Moldova and Venezuela, and efforts to boost the EU’s competitiveness.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected to make an in-person appearance.

But none of these items will receive the same degree of attention as migration, an explosive subject where some leaders see their very political survival at stake.

The conversation has significantly hardened since the bloc completed in May a comprehensive overhaul of its asylum rulebook, capping off almost four years of arduous negotiations that critics believed would never succeed.

Despite the milestone, which Brussels hailed as “historic,” a growing number of governments have come forward demanding more action to stop irregular border crossings and curb asylum claims, which reached 1,129,000 last year.

The debate has turned to “innovative solutions,” with a heavy focus on deportations.

For years, the EU has struggled to send back asylum seekers whose applications for international protection have been denied. The problem involves legislation (different approaches to carrying out deportations), administration (return orders are not recognised between member states), law enforcement (authorities lose sight of the migrants) and diplomacy (countries of origin refuse to take back their nationals).

The complex landscape has left the bloc with a sluggish rate for successful deportations, between 20% and 30%, a number that capitals desperately want to ramp up.

One idea that has gone from niche to mainstream is the establishment of so-called “return hubs” outside the EU territory. Under the untested plan, countries would transfer migrants whose asylum applications have been denied to these external centres and make them wait there until the deportation process is completed.

The project was pitched in May by a coalition of 15 member states in a joint letter and has gradually acquired a larger group of supporters, even if nobody has yet dared to provide specific elements, such as a potential location for these facilities.

“Minds are changing,” said a senior diplomat, cautioning that “what we have now (on the table) is extremely vague. I’m not aware of any detailed plans or blueprints.”

The letter floated other proposals for offshoring migration policy, including rescuing migrants in high waters and taking them to a non-EU country where their asylum claims would be processed. This logic underpins the Italy-Albania protocol, which is already operational. Tirana, though, has warned the treatment is “exclusive” to Rome.

Fresh demands came last week when another group of 17 European countries called for a “paradigm shift” on deportations where governments “must be empowered.”

“People without the right to stay must be held accountable. A new legal basis must clearly define their obligations and duties,” the coalition said in a document seen by Euronews. “Non-cooperation must have consequences and be sanctioned.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Seizing the momentum, Ursula von der Leyen offered her most explicit endorsement of “return hubs” to date. In a ten-point letter to EU leaders, she promised a new approach to deportations using visa and trade policies as leverage to convince reluctant countries to accept their citizens. She also spoke about revising the rules to allow the detention and expulsion of those considered a threat to public order.

“The EU’s migration policy can only be sustainable if those who do not have the right to stay in the EU are effectively returned,” the European Commission president wrote.

Clash of titans

But while these joint documents demonstrate a greater convergence among leaders (something unthinkable some years ago), disagreements on migration remain entrenched and the summit’s conclusions could be left with a blank chapter.

Spain’s left-wing government has indicated its opposition to “return hubs,” arguing the project would run counter to human rights, entail huge costs and fail to address the root causes of the problem, as the migrants hosted in the hubs might never be accepted by their home countries and be left in perpetual limbo under the EU’s responsibility.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Spain expresses its position against (returns hubs),” the spokesperson of the Spanish government said after von der Leyen’s letter became public.

Spain, Germany, France, Belgium and Sweden are among those pushing to accelerate the implementation of the migration reform agreed in May because, in their view, the bloc cannot afford to wait two years for the five laws to become applicable.

By contrast, Hungary and Poland are doubling down on their opposition campaign, vowing to ignore the legislation altogether, despite being binding for all 27 states.

“Even member states who say they are against the (reform) largely want it implemented,” said another diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity to freely share their thoughts, arguing that they effectively shot themselves in the foot by divulging fake news to their domestic audience and that it’s now difficult for them to backtrack.

ADVERTISEMENT

Poland, in particular, has taken things a step further by suggesting a “temporary territorial suspension of the right to asylum,” echoing the emergency law that Finland introduced in the summer. Warsaw says the measure is necessary to cope with the migrants that Belarus is pushing to the border as part of a hybrid warfare.

“Poland must take back 100% control over who comes to Poland,” said Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a close ally of von der Leyen.

Brussels has said the suspension would contravene EU and international law while underlining the need to crack down on instrumentalisation. (The Commission has in the past spoken critically about offshoring and later changed its tune.)

“This is extremely problematic,” Davide Colombi, a researcher at the Centre for European Political Studies (CEPS), told Euronews when asked about Tusk’s strategy.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The right to asylum is one of the fundamental rights that cannot be suspended even in a period of declared political crisis. It is protected by EU law, international law and the Polish constitution, which shows that this is not a migration issue in itself. But this is a more general question of law.”

The Polish plan, albeit radical, fits in with a broader pattern across the bloc: faced with far-right competition, a frustrated electorate and overburdened reception centres, governments are becoming increasingly bold in their attempts to curb irregular migration, openly testing the limits of well-established norms.

The last few months have seen Germany’s re-introduction of controls in all land borders, the Netherlands’ (rebuffed) request for an opt-out clause, and Hungary’s threat to bus migrants “free of charge” to Belgium in retaliation for an ECJ ruling.

The rapid succession of events has set alarm bells ringing among humanitarian organisations, who fear the offshoring push will undermine the asylum process, lead to unfair decisions and fuel violations of fundamental rights.

ADVERTISEMENT

“These controversial proposals seek to dismantle the core tenet of international protection: that people under a jurisdiction have a right to seek asylum in that jurisdiction and have that claim fairly examined,” a coalition of 90 NGOs said in July.

Besides migration, EU leaders are set to discuss ongoing support for Ukraine and the G7 initiative to provide Kyiv with a €45 billion ($50 billion) loan that will be entirely repaid by the windfall profits of Russia’s frozen assets.

Although member states have greenlighted the bloc’s financial share of up to €35 billion, a key part of the initiative to guarantee a larger US participation is blocked by Hungary. Diplomats believe Budapest is shooting itself in the foot because the less Washington chips in, the higher the risk for the EU becomes.