On this Monday, 9 March, meeting in an extraordinary session in Strasbourg, the members of the LIBE Committee (civil liberties, justice and home affairs) were invited to vote on the report by MEP Malik Azmani (Renew Europe) on the proposed European regulation on the return of persons in an irregular situation in the EU. As a full member of the committee, Sophie Wilmès took part in the vote. Broadly speaking, Sophie Wilmès supports the European Commission's proposed regulation as well as its objectives: “The need for a firmer migration policy, particularly regarding the fight against illegal immigration, is beyond dispute. It is estimated that in Europe, only one in five rejected asylum seekers is returned to their country of origin. If we look specifically at Belgium, the figure is far lower: on average, one in ten asylum seekers... No one can be satisfied with this admission of powerlessness. People who have no right to be on European territory cannot stay there, full stop. Beyond the principle of respecting our laws, illegal immigration overwhelms reception systems and also undermines public trust in migration in general, as well as in the asylum issue, for instance. This proposed European regulation therefore comes at the right time, since it will also complement the arrangements of the Migration Pact, which will come fully into force within a few months.”
She regrets that once again the cordon sanitaire was broken by the EPP in favour of an alliance with the far right. This is all the more serious given that, on this sensitive issue, it is essential to maintain a balance between firmness, effectiveness, proportionality and humanity. She explains: “To my mind, there is from the outset a fundamental problem in working with the far right and thereby legitimising its stance on immigration, given how little regard it has for certain rights, or indeed the theories that underpin its thinking. But it is also a normalisation of radicalism, which is reflected at certain points in the amendments voted on this evening. One example: imposing, without distinction, a 'lifetime' entry ban into the EU on all individuals subject to a return decision. Or accepting the presence of families with minor children in 'return hubs'. It was entirely possible to achieve the desired tightening of European return policy through the amendments tabled by the liberal rapporteur. Here, the safeguards are being cast aside. Out of dogmatism, in a race to outbid one another.”
Sophie Wilmès therefore backed the compromise amendments, originally negotiated within the pro-European “coalition” (EPP, Renew Europe, S&D), before the EPP performed a U-turn to push the matter through by force. She explains the substance: “The position of the pro-European coalition was moving towards a tightening of migration policy, even though the negotiation was tough. We could have reached agreement among the three groups. Indeed, the initial proposal put forward a range of measures that are missing today: the establishment of return hubs as a last resort, the introduction of mutual recognition between member states of decisions ordering people to leave the territory, the reduction of the suspensive effect of appeals to avoid overwhelming reception facilities, or the setting of an unlimited entry ban for individuals posing a security risk or having committed serious crimes on European territory. That is a whole series of important reforms that I support. But at the same time, and this is important, certain guarantees and protections were included: respect for fundamental rights in return hubs, the question of placing minors there, the regulation of coercive measures used to carry out removals, the reaffirmation of certain principles such as non-refoulement, and so on. The list is not exhaustive. It is clear that in the rapporteur's work, there was a genuine effort to find balance. That is no longer the case in the text adopted with the contribution of the far right.”
She concludes: “We need a tangible tightening of migration policy in Europe, that much is clear. But we also have a responsibility to maintain a balance, in line with our values, the most fundamental rights and principles such as the best interests of the child. Here, that is not the case. Instead of taking the lead on the migration issue, which would have been possible within the pro-European coalition, with the support of liberals and socialists, the EPP gave way, clearing the field for the far right, its theories and its radicalism. One only had to see the far-right MEPs cheering in committee after the vote. Their shouts of joy and their applause are the shame of the EPP.”