Why is the EU taking this step?
The proportion of failed asylum seekers who actually return to their country of origin has long been between 20 and 30 per cent in the EU. The reasons are complex: from the lack of cooperation from third country governments in verifying identity to the deliberate delay in issuing travel documents.
The result is a system that encourages illegal migration: the chances of actual return are low and stay in Europe is relatively stable even after rejection of an application. The EU has therefore looked for ways to increase pressure on countries of origin without having to resort to extreme solutions such as total trade restrictions or the severing of diplomatic relations.
Accommodation, administrative tasks, social assistance and legal processes for failed asylum seekers are costly for Member States. With the EU currently investing billions in external border protection and migration crisis management, there is increasing pressure on the efficiency of the whole system. Higher return rates would mean reducing costs while improving public perception of migration policy.
The new set-up fits into a broader trend: the EU is no longer just a 'soft power'. It uses trade as a tool to advance its strategic interests. The emerging global bloc of competing powers is forcing the Union to think in terms of effective pressure and exchange.
How will the new mechanism work?
According to the agreement reached, trade benefits can only be withdrawn after a series of conditions have been met. The first is a minimum of 12 months of intensive dialogue between the EU and the country concerned and an analysis of the level of non-cooperation in readmission. Another is an assessment of whether the country has been given sufficient time to remedy the situation and an assessment of the proportionality and impact of the EU's actions.
This means that the EU does not want to proceed automatically with sanctions. Rather, it creates a systematic process of pressure that allows countries to react and improve cooperation.
The poorest countries get a reprieve. For them, the readmission condition will not apply until two years after the new regime comes into force. This will preserve the humanitarian principle that the economically weakest countries should not be penalised immediately and drastically.
The reforms also include the extension of binding international conventions, including the Paris Climate Agreement and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Economic and political impacts
Many countries rely on exports to the EU because the European market is key for them. The removal of preferential tariffs could dramatically reduce the competitiveness of their producers, affecting both jobs and economic stability.
This economic argument gives the EU a powerful tool in its hands, which has often been ignored by the countries of origin until now. If their leaderships know that non-cooperation will directly jeopardise exports and budgets, the incentives to agree grow.
The EU has not been able to ensure an effective return policy in the long term, mainly because it has not had strong enough leverage. An attempt to introduce trade conditionality was rejected years ago as too radical. However, the situation has changed and pressure from Member States is increasing. The introduction of a mechanism could significantly increase the proportion of genuine returns, freeing up capacity for genuine refugees.
The European Parliament was initially opposed to the link between migration and trade. It feared that this would weaken the development dimension of the system and normalise the linking of the humanitarian agenda with security policy. However, it eventually reached a consensus: a longer preparatory phase, a deferral for poor countries and full access to documents. Thus, a compromise emerged that made political agreement possible.
Why can this be a positive development?
If the Union does not have the ability to enforce returns, its asylum policy remains incomplete. The introduction of readmission conditionality is the first mechanism that has the potential to break the deadlock and bring concrete results to European migration policy.
Migration is a key issue of political discontent in many Member States. If return rates increase, the pressure on both social systems and integration will be reduced. This can reduce polarisation and strengthen citizens' trust in European institutions.
The new system may not be to the detriment of drastic border closures or repressive interventions. It relies on economic incentives that are natural, mild and predictable. Countries have the opportunity to cooperate, and punishments only come when there is long-term passivity.
As the rapporteur, Bernd Lange, has pointed out, the reform is also a strengthening of the multilateral system. The migration agenda is thus not an isolated pressure, but part of a broader package of rules promoting "sustainability, human rights and responsible governance", rapporteur Lange summarised the proposal.
Moving towards a transactional policy model
The introduction of readmission conditionality moves the EU closer to the transactional policy model that is mainly associated with Donald Trump. This is an approach in which international relations are governed by the barter principle of 'benefit for value' and economic power is used as a lever to advance interests.
While Brussels has hitherto criticised this type of policy, the reality of global competition seems to be forcing it to do likewise.
Even more recently, EU Commissioner Teresa Ribera warned that Trump's transactional diplomacy was undermining relations with Europe. Paradoxically, however, the EU is now adopting elements of this approach - not as an ideology, but as a pragmatic tool to address migration.
No fundamental reform is without risks. In this case, in particular, it is the risk of counter-pressure: some governments may react with rejection or seek other trading partners (such as China). The potential for politicisation of the mechanism is also a risk - the withdrawal of benefits should be transparent to avoid accusations of double standards.
Equally complicated can be the vetting of cooperation, which can be administratively burdensome. It is therefore to be hoped that the benefits are likely to outweigh the risks - especially if the system is set up in a fair and predictable way.
Only time will tell whether this is an awakening from an ideological dream to an objective reality on the part of Europe's political elites.
