The path forward for the long-awaited reform of the European Union’s policy on asylum seekers is unclear as Maltese policy-makers cast doubts over fresh proposals put forward by the European Commission.
The Commission yesterday presented two proposals to amend the controversial Dublin regulations. One, however, is a radical overhaul seen as unlikely to garner the support of member states, the other a minor tweak deemed insufficient to address the inherent problems in the system.
The Dublin regulations, which date to the 1990s, require refugees to seek asylum in the first country they arrive in. The Commission’s document notes that the current migration crisis has exposed “significant structural weaknesses and shortcomings in the design and implementation of European asylum and migration policy”.
Malta has consistently maintained that the rules place an unfair burden on frontline countries and called for amendments to achieve a fairer distribution of asylum seekers across the EU.
The first of the Commission’s proposals would entail a “fundamental change” whereby asylum applications are no long pro-cessed by the country of entry. Instead, applications would be spread across EU countries through a permanent distribution scheme based on “relative size, wealth and absorption capacities”.
The plan requires the approval of EU member states, and has been staunchly opposed by Central and Eastern European countries thus far.
The second, more modest, option put forward by the Commission would keep the current system in place, but add a “corrective fairness mechanism” allowing asylum seekers to be relocated around Europe from frontline countries during times of crisis.
Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Abela told the Times of Malta that it was far more likely that a majority of member states would agree to the second option, retaining the existing regulations.
Mr Abela said a lot would depend on the specifics of the Commission’s proposals, but added: “Any reform would primarily have to ensure that Dublin functions better, or more fairly, as a mechanism for the allocation of asylum applications to individual member states.”
Labour MEP Miriam Dalli, however, said “modest changes” would not deliver the policies that Europe urgently needed. “This is the time when we require courageous policies that can really provide a European answer to the challenges we are currently facing,” she said.
Dr Dalli, the rapporteur for the Socialists and Democrats group on the permanent relocation mechanism, said settling for a system that was activated only during times of crisis would mean frontline countries continued to receive the major part of asylum seekers.
“My political group and I will be pushing for a permanent option with fair sharing of responsibility. Anything else is unacceptable to us,” she said.
This view was echoed by Nationalist MEP Roberta Metsola, the European People’s Party shadow rapporteur on the Dublin review, who called for a shift from emergency solutions to a long-term, all-encompassing perspective. “The logic of the Dublin regulation has failed. It needs to be profoundly overhauled and have the fair sharing of responsibility among member states as its corner stone,” she said. “There is no doubt in my mind that a simple tweak of the current system would in no way be sufficient.”
Meanwhile, Nationalist MEP Therese Comodini Cachia stressed that reform must not be seen in isolation but would have to be part of a holistic package, including fostering relations with third countries and addressing the root causes of migration.
She warned that failure to achieve reform could lead to difficulties to Malta, due to the country’s size and resources, if there were to be a large shift in migration flows.
“The fact that we are in the midst of a migration crisis does not help the discussion on reform. So far, we have witnessed a clash of ideas stemming from national interest. The reform must deliver more solidarity, both towards migrants and towards other member states dealing with the crisis,” she said.