Concreteness, or just easy enthusiasm with respect to expected results but remained in a state of power? More precisely: with respect to the migration issue, what has been decided in Luxembourg in recent days? Has Italy, in the presence of the Interior Ministers of the various member countries, finally "turned around", or was it a pure and simple manifestation of intent which, however appreciable in the attempt, has changed nothing compared to the contingent moment? What is the substantial content of the agreement that would have been reached at that meeting? Has the Dublin Treaty been modified, have mandatory derogating measures been taken, or have supplementary “notes” been drawn up?
According to what was possible to learn from the most accredited "media", and with the exception of Hungary and Poland, expressing a vote against, and Malta, Slovakia, Lithuania and Bulgaria, which abstained, the remaining Interior Ministers of the European Union would have reached an agreement on the new "Migration Pact", consisting, it would seem, of a complex architecture of measures that would purport to reform both the so-called right of asylum and the management of the phenomenon.
It does not seem to be known whether that agreement was sealed in writing, or if, instead, as it would seem, it was a verbal exchange whose strength will recover (if it recovers it) its binding operation in the near future.
Even if we want to disregard the perplexities indicated, a basic sensation would indeed seem to impose itself: the different drives exerted by the succession of diversified emergency situations, multiple in their manifestation, and pressing in their pressure, would seem to favor the exercise of a government, such as precisely the current one led by Meloni who, precisely on the basis of urgency and necessity (which does not seem to be the migratory one, but rather the one centered on the prevailing economic crisis), would tend to its own strengthening along the lines of a pseudo-liberal approach based on the need , if real it will be necessary to wait to ascertain it, to protect the safety of the populations involved in the transformation process, as well as their development. However, the point would seem to arise, and moreover, on another aspect, namely on the effective novelty of this agreement reached in Luxembourg.
Meanwhile, because, already in the year 2020, and precisely in the month of September 2020, the Commission had taken care to publish its new pact, which, in its intent, aimed to integrate the asylum procedure into the overall management of migration, linking it to the pre-screening and return, and at the same time including the management of external borders, under the impetus of greater political foresight, programmatic preparedness and concerted response to crises to be implemented through a mechanism of solidarity and external relations with the main third countries of origin and of transit. So why, even if we want to disregard the current government action, the need to guarantee a far-sighted and comprehensive European migration policy, based on solidarity, has constantly represented an objective of primary importance for the European Union as policies on immigration probably aim at establishing a balanced institutional behavior useful for putting in place, and implementing them, the mechanisms for regulating both regular and irregular immigration. Finally, because, again regardless of the Italian initiative, the European Union already has the competence to enter into agreements with third countries for the purpose of readmission to their country of origin or provenance of third-country nationals who do not satisfy or no longer satisfy, the conditions of entry, presence or stay in one of the Member States.
In other words: the problem is not that of defining intervention strategies, which already exist, but rather that of guaranteeing their full implementation. All the more when the correct management of migratory flows would involve, and we must not forget this, not only the guarantee of fair treatment of third-country nationals who find themselves residing legally in the Member States, but also the strengthening of complementary measures aimed at countering irregularity, as well as the promotion of policies of greater cooperation with third countries in every sector of life. And even more so, when, at least in terms of intentions, the European Union itself has an interest, or manifests it concretely, in developing, within the individual Member States, and therefore also within our Italy, a uniform level of rights and duties for all those regular immigrants who insist on it, which is in all respects comparable to that of European citizens, seeing and considering that, under the Treaty of Lisbon, too often forgotten, all immigration policies, they should, as in fact they must, be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility among the Member States, including at a financial level, this being the provision of Article 80 TFEU. Thus, the Government's initiative would appear to be part of a disciplinary program of intent already in place in the European institutional context.
It would only be a matter of understanding whether the intentions will pass from a state of power to the concrete one of deed because to date, on a regulatory level, nothing seems to have changed, with all that follows regarding the redistribution throughout the territory of the Union, of those who found themselves landing on the Italian coasts, which, in the state, continue to represent the place of first landing. Let's be clear: it is certainly not by amplifying the perception of emergencies and precariousness as an indisputable factor of transformation that one can expect to increase one's own internal strength and to preserve, if it still exists, the current structure of so-called Western power on a global level, because it would be necessary to focus one's intervention policies not on the populations, but rather on guaranteeing unity and stability on the supranational state level in order to be the condition of the former, a direct and immediate consequence of the balance and correct exercise of the latter. And even the belief that the migratory problem can be resolved through loyal cooperation with third countries appears to be a very illusory consideration, and certainly not very focused on considering the existing critical issues even only in terms of relations and relations of those same third parties with the surrounding context.
Especially when one pauses to reflect on a circumstance: the more than difficult cooperation with the countries of origin has always contributed over the years, and still contributes today, to the reduced number of repatriations of irregular migrants carried out by the EU. The effects of the negotiations with third countries have not been useful precisely because it has not been possible to put in place, and evidently due to a lack of internal agreement, synergies with the Member States and between the various policies of the Union.
It certainly cannot be argued that the actions undertaken by the European institutions to facilitate cooperation on readmission have not been relevant and targeted, but in fact the results have been consistently uneven. Which means that once again, mutatis mutandis, the result of the initiative of the current Meloni government will not be able to deviate from the reference trend, remaining in the state of exercising political activism destined, with good likelihood, to remain so where it does not introduce elements of news such as to reverse the course.
It cannot be thought of transferring the all-European interest in the functional control of flows to a third country, without any guarantee of effectiveness.
Future developments will offer the answer on the efficiency of the current initiative, while in the meantime arrivals will in all probability persist and it will be necessary to prepare all useful means to guarantee the best reception and the best assistance in full respect of human rights and the Conventions in force.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro
