THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION REPORT. Europe in a period of transition

THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 108 agreed a compulsory relocation mechanism.The principle of European solidarity has been undermined. And there are worrying overtones to the term “return partnership” and its possible consequences. At the same time, the proposed new Regulation on migration and asylum management seeks to replace the failed model of the Dublin III system, but does not appear to offer a real and effective solution to the deficiencies that this system has already demonstrated, such as es- tablishing responsibility for studying applications in the first country of entry. None of these measures represent real, effective solutions to the situation of the states of southern Europe (Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain). Although recommendations have been made and proposals implemented with respect to the prevention and management of crisis situations or situations where there is a risk of crisis, once again the opportunity to establish agreement on a mechanism for safe disem- barkation and subsequent compulsory relocation has been missed. One positive contribution is the mention of search and rescue operations and disembarkation in all the proposals, although the issue of search and res- cue is not addressed in a coordinated manner, with EU funding. Another welcome development is the mention of the non-criminalisation of humanitarian actions on the Mediterranean, although it is important not to forget that states have search and rescue obligations at sea, on the basis of international law. With respect to the possibility of repealing the Tem- porary Protection Directive and its replacement by an- other instrument to deal with crisis situations, there is the risk that this will not occur, as happened with the Directive at the most critical moments of 2015, when many refugees died while seeking to save their lives and reach safety in Europe. The proposals with respect to third countries main- tain the focus on externalising the management of mi- gration, without proposals to guarantee the protection of migrants and refugees within the framework of the application of these agreements. Moreover, there contin- ues to be a high risk of making aid conditional on coop- eration in migration management, forcing countries that are unable to guarantee due respect for human rights to assume excessive commitments to accept people who are in need of international protection. One clear exam- ple is the EU-Turkey agreement and its negative impact on human rights, an example that could be replicated with respect to other third countries. The excessive emphasis on increasing returns carries the risk that people will be returned to unsafe countries. Moreover, although it is too early to determine whether certain countries will accept such returns, if they refuse to do so there is once again the risk that people will be held in extended detention in the case of border procedures, or that they will be stuck in legal limbo. Again, we lack effective proposals regarding legal access routes, despite the publication of a recommenda- tion with respect to resettlement, the legal framework of which does not establish an obligatory quota for Member states. The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) welcomed the new Pact on Migration and Asylum but argued that the proposals it contains will be difficult to apply and cannot be considered to constitute clear progress towards the creation at EU level of a resilient common strategy with a vision of the future with regard to migration and asylum. The EESC recognises the need for the proposals to have the legal status of a Regulation, which is binding and directly applicable in Member states. However, to constitute a genuine policy, all the relevant regulations must be adopted jointly. Among other issues, the EESC questions the pro- posed policy of return to countries of origin, as the EU will be reliant on the goodwill of countries of origin and of transit for the success of any collaboration. For this reason, these countries should be offered clear incentives and disincentives. While offering an opportunity for binding solidarity, the Regulation regarding situations of crisis and force majeure provides for procedural support rather than emergency solidarity measures. And any solidarity is un-