Editorial

Four European Union members - Italy, Malta, Greece and Cyprus - have formed a "lobby" - the Quadro Group - aimed at ensuring that the momentum gained during the outgoing French Presidency of the EU in addressing major illegal immigration issues is kept up during the Czech and, in due course, the Swedish Presidencies.

This initiative begs two questions. First, is Quadro the right structure for this immigration lobbying role? Second, will it serve a necessary purpose?

There is little doubt that the French Presidency's European Pact on Immigration and Asylum was a step in the right direction. It would probably have been more comprehensive and its impact more potent had the French Presidency's focus on the agenda not been severely distracted by Georgia, Russia and the global financial melt-down, huge issues that France dealt with as effectively as any European response could. For the first time in a while, the Presidency exercised real leadership over European matters.

The question now is how to ensure that the ground gained in tackling the problem of illegal immigration is not lost in the face of the Czech Presidency's lukewarm agenda on this issue. The Czech Deputy Prime Minister has been quoted as saying that, while the Mediterranean was important, there were more serious problems to solve, such as the gas dispute between the Ukraine and Russia and the Israeli/Hamas confrontation in Gaza.

Understandably, perhaps, when viewed from the geo-political perspective of a central European or north European country the problems of illegal immigration in the Mediterranean may pale. There is a north-south divide in Europe, which, inevitably, drives political priorities. For Italy, Malta, Greece and Cyprus, which lie in the front line of the flood of illegal immigrants escaping appalling - and, with the global financial crisis, deteriorating - conditions, this is a paramount consideration. Malta rightly considers it as central to its, and, in reality, European, security.

But is Quadro the right or even an adequate structure for this role? Why have the architects of the European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, France - itself a Mediterranean country - not been included? Why is Spain - another major Mediterranean country - not involved? There can be little doubt that if Quadro were Sextet, Europe would be having to respond to a far more powerful lobby, containing three of the five major countries of the Union instead of just one, Italy. It is difficult not to conclude that Quadro, while well-intentioned, can only exercise very limited reach. Every diplomatic effort should be made to bring France and Spain into the fold.

Will Quadro still nevertheless serve a necessary purpose?

The Immigration and Asylum Pact undoubtedly led to some well-intentioned and - if implemented - positive steps towards a fairer burden-sharing regime between EU member states. But if the EU Commission's feet are not kept to the fire, the implementation of the pact will falter. It is already almost three months since the agreement was signed and the so-called voluntary resettlement scheme - a vital element for Malta - which the Commission was tasked with devising has not got off the ground. The commitment to Frontex, the re-assessment of the iniquitous Dublin II Convention and re-admission agreements with third countries still remain outstanding.

Yes, Quadro could serve a useful purpose. But it would be so much more effective if it were a Sextet.