By Andras Balffy, Brussels
Five months can feel like an eternity. Nowhere is this more evident than in European migration policy. Last spring, EU member states adopted the Migration and Asylum Pact with much fanfare. It hasn’t even been implemented yet, but key elements already seem outdated. At the EU summit in Brussels, it became clear that a majority of the 27 member states want to go much further than the pact outlines. Migration was the topic that the heads of state and government debated most intensely and for the longest time.
No binding decisions were made, and initially, it wasn’t even certain if all member states would sign the final declaration. Poland reportedly raised objections, as it wanted its recently announced restrictions on asylum rights formally recognized. Meanwhile, countries like Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg emphasized the opportunities migration offers, given Europe’s demographic outlook.
However, the general tone of the discussions was clear: European asylum laws should become stricter, more binding, and more efficient. With right-wing parties gaining electoral success across borders, what was considered taboo just a few years ago is suddenly becoming mainstream. The goal is twofold: to demonstrate resolve to domestic audiences and to send a message to potential economic migrants that they shouldn’t even attempt the journey. One observer referred to this shift as the “Orbánization” of Europe, in a nod to the uncompromising migration policies of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
The buzzword of the moment is “innovative solutions.” New approaches are sought to reduce the number of asylum seekers reaching European soil—and to ensure that those without a right to stay leave as quickly as possible. But how? The most controversial point in the debate involves so-called “return hubs,” or repatriation centers in safe third countries. These centers would house asylum seekers whose applications have been denied but whose home countries refuse to take them back. The Netherlands, whose new government has recently taken a hard line on migration, has taken the lead on this issue: a minister visited Uganda to explore the possibility of establishing such a center there. The Netherlands envisions deporting individuals from the “surrounding region” of the East African country to this facility.
“This is a serious plan, but it still needs further development,” Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said in Brussels. The Netherlands sees itself as a pioneer in migration matters. Ahead of the EU summit, it organized an informal meeting with Italy and Denmark involving like-minded states. Eleven heads of government attended. A diplomat involved said the group plans to maintain this format ahead of the December summit, where concrete decisions could be made.
Another “innovative solution” could involve deportations to Syria, from which millions fled during the civil war. For over a decade, EU states have refused to negotiate with the Assad regime—but objections are now being reassessed. A handful of countries proposed re-evaluating Syria’s security situation this spring to allow deportations. Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer said ahead of the summit that the Middle Eastern country is now “documentedly safe” in many areas.
At the table with the most migration-critical countries was European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who had already laid the groundwork for tightening the asylum system. In a letter to member states, she described return centers in third countries as a “possible step forward.” She also expressed openness to the “Albania model.” Italy has set up an asylum center in the Balkan state for migrants intercepted in international waters.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz remains more skeptical. Concepts like Italy’s center in Albania, he argued, are “not really a solution” for Germany because they only outsource a relatively small number of asylum procedures. More important, he said, is the rapid implementation of the agreed Migration Pact, which includes stronger border protections.
Scholz did not explicitly comment on the Dutch Uganda proposal. This raises even greater questions of logistical and legal feasibility. Uganda’s foreign minister told Reuters he did not expect his government to accept a large center, noting that 1.6 million refugees from neighboring countries already live in Uganda.
