EU leaders endorse migration outsourcing but offer few details

At the end of a high-stakes summit in Brussels, EU leaders signalled a potentially transformative shift in how the bloc approaches migration policy.

The 27 leaders of the European Union gave on Thursday their most explicit endorsement yet of the contentious project of outsourcing migration policy, even if they offered scant details on how the idea would work in practice and how authorities would be able to respect human rights while transferring migrants outside the bloc’s borders.
“New ways to prevent and counter irregular migration should be considered, in line with EU and international law,” the leaders said in the conclusions of a one-day summit.
Albeit vague, the line effectively acts as the political go-ahead to experiment with established legal norms and come up with “innovative solutions,” as some leaders like to call them, to decrease the number of asylum applications, which last year reached 1,129,000 last year, the highest number since 2016.
Ahead of the summit, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, the Netherlands’ Dick Schoof and Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen hosted a group of countries considered supportive of outsourcing to create a common front and set the tone of the hours-long negotiations.
The final text did not include one of the group’s pet projects: the construction of “return hubs” in non-EU countries to host those whose applications for international protection have been rejected. Still, Ursula von der Leyen pointedly referred to the idea during a press conference, confirming the option is officially on the table.
“The return hubs have been discussed. There are open questions: For how long can people be there? What are you doing, for example, if a return is not possible?” the European Commission president said.
“It’s not trivial but this is a topic that is being discussed.”
Von der Leyen did not suggest any potential destination to build these “return hubs” and did not confirm if her upcoming legislative proposal to speed up deportations would include that key element. But the Commission chief seemed to embrace outsourcing as she proposed two additional possibilities to move asylum procedures away from the EU:
Spain’s Pedro Sánchez and Belgium’s Alexander De Croo struck a discordant note on Thursday by openly voicing criticism of “return hubs,” saying they would cost too much money and fail to solve the root causes of irregular migration. “History has shown that these solutions don’t bring much in the way of results,” De Croo said.
The reduced size of the opposition, however, indicates the tide has definitely turned in favour of offshoring, despite repeated warnings by humanitarian organisations that it would undermine the asylum process and fuel violations of human rights.
European Council President Charles Michel said he could “see that positions and plans are more convergent, especially on the external aspect of migration, and that there is a desire to take increasingly operational action in the field of migration.”
Hubs were not the only hot-button issue on Thursday’s agenda.
Leaders also devoted their time to discussing the phenomenon of instrumentalised migration carried out by Belarus and Russia across the bloc’s Eastern border, which Poland, Finland and the Baltic states have suffered firsthand.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk opened Thursday’s debate by presenting his new strategy against instrumentalisation that includes a “temporary territorial suspension of the right to asylum.”
The sweeping plan, which appears to contradict a core principle of international law that compels countries to accept and examine every asylum claim, was not met with reservations by fellow leaders, according to several diplomats.
In his remarks, Tusk said he was drawing inspiration from an emergency law that Finland introduced in July and that legal scholars argue effectively legalises pushback.
“I very much understand Poland, Donald Tusk’s proposal (on) how to secure the border against instrumentalised migration from Russia and Belarus,” Finnish Prime Minister Petteri Orpo told reporters on Thursday in a show of solidarity.
“We had the same phenomenon on our border one year ago and we did our national legislation but it’s not a sustainable solution. We need European-level legislation against instrumentalised immigration.”
The demand was firmly reflected in the conclusions that leaders signed, where they say “exceptional situations require appropriate measures” and that external borders must be protected “through all available means” and “in line with EU and international law.”
But where the line between legal and illegal lies was left up for interpretation. The Commission has not yet concluded its internal analysis of the Finnish bill, making it impossible to assess how much Brussels is willing to tolerate at this delicate juncture.
“These are hybrid attacks by state actors, and therefore, Poland and other member states need to be able to protect our union from these hybrid attacks. (That) goes for Finland and the Baltic States,” von der Leyen said.
“They have to be able to take measures that are temporary and appropriate. We are working on that with Poland right now.”
Thursday’s conclusions also call on the Commission to sign more wide-ranging EU-funded deals with neighbouring countries to prevent arrivals from happening in the first place. Von der Leyen hailed her Tunisia deal as a success, saying migrant flows through the Central Mediterranean have decreased 64% this year.
Notably, the leaders’ text highlights “the importance of implementing adopted EU legislation and application of existing legislation,” a rhetorical win for the Commission after Poland and Hungary vowed to ignore the migration reform completed in May.