"Ironies vs Europe" regarding migration and security

TLDR

Once proponents of a unified asylum system under the EU Pact, European governments are now behaving arbitrarily and undermining their collective responsibilities. Countries like the Netherlands and France, which championed burdensome border procedures and reforms, are now backtracking. A key player, Germany, resists reform while complaining about the broken Dublin Regulation. The text highlights how these states prioritize national interests over a cohesive, fair asylum system, undermining EU laws. As this selective implementation continues, Europe risks losing its Common European Asylum System. A renewed commitment to comprehensive, long-term solutions is essential to avoid future displacement crises.


The European Union's Pact on Migration and Asylum was initially hailed as a much-needed solution to Europe's fractured asylum and refugee protection approach. Yet, in an ironic twist, the states pushing for the strictest measures in the Pact are now stepping back from it. European governments behave arbitrarily and collectively simultaneously, focusing on narrow national interests while undermining the collective framework meant to ensure equitable asylum procedures across the Union.
 
The Netherlands, for example, was the architect of the controversial mandatory border procedures that forced stricter controls at Europe's borders. However, now that this policy is law, the Dutch government, after a change in administration, is seeking an opt-out. Once one of the most uncompromising Member States during negotiations, France is equivocating, having forced through the most extreme versions of the Council's position. Meanwhile, Germany's complaints about the dysfunction of the Dublin Regulation seem incredibly disingenuous, given that Germany's refusal to embrace reform proposals in 2016 and 2018 helped maintain the status quo.
 
This arbitrary behavior is not new. Historically, Member States have adopted collectivist approaches only when convenient, primarily to benefit their national agendas. Countries that once fought to impose stricter asylum rules on others are now trying to back out, creating instability in the system they helped build. In essence, these states' actions represent an attempt to " have their cake and eat it too" – benefiting from strict measures when advantageous but seeking exemptions or modifications when those rules prove politically inconvenient.
 
The failure to reform the Dublin Regulation, the cornerstone of European asylum law, lies at the heart of the current dysfunction. The regulation's underlying principle – that refugees must seek asylum in the first EU country they enter – puts an unfair burden on border states like Greece and Italy. When the European Parliament and Commission offered tentative reforms in the late 2010s, they were rejected, mainly due to opposition from states like Germany, which now decry the current system's dysfunction.
 
Meanwhile, European governments selectively implement the Pact's provisions, focusing on policies that serve their national interests, often at the expense of human rights. This includes ""innovative solutions"" that do little to address the root causes of displacement but rather aim to manage asylum seekers in a way that minimizes their political impact at home. Such actions risk undermining the very fabric of the Common European Asylum System, which was meant to foster solidarity and shared responsibility.
 

Conclusion

The arbitrary and collectivist behavior of European governments threatens the integrity of the EU's asylum system. These actions highlight a broader reluctance to address the complexities of migration in a unified, consistent manner. Instead of building a genuinely collective framework, states prioritize short-term national interests, undermining EU law. This weakens Europe's ability to respond to current and future displacement crises and exposes the entire system to collapse. To safeguard the Common European Asylum System, European leaders must commit to comprehensive reforms, prioritize human rights, and prepare for future challenges collaboratively.
 
Thanks for reading. Please follow my blog and write your feedback.