Questions & Answers: Planned EU asylum reform: What you need to know

After Germany’s yes to a controversial crisis mechanism, can the EU asylum reform finally be negotiated to a conclusion? The events of the past few days raise numerous questions in Brussels and Berlin. However, what happens next will not only be decided in these two cities. An overview.

What is the status of the EU asylum reform after Germany’s yes to the so-called crisis regulation in the event of the arrival of an extremely large number of migrants?

The federal government had expected that it could pave the way for important negotiations with the European Parliament by making concessions in the dispute over the crisis regulation. Since this Friday at the latest, however, it has been clear that the hope was premature. According to diplomats, the German concessions do not go far enough for Italy in particular. Rome is also bothered by Germany’s financing of civil sea rescue projects.

In principle, the plans for the EU asylum reform provide for numerous additions and tightening measures in order to limit unwanted migration. In particular, there are plans to deal much more harshly with people from countries that are considered relatively safe. In the future, after crossing the border, they will be taken to strictly controlled reception centers under prison-like conditions. Normally, it would then be checked there within twelve weeks whether the applicant has a chance of being granted asylum. If not, it should be sent back immediately.

In addition, it should be ensured that some of the asylum seekers will be taken away from heavily burdened countries such as Italy and Greece in the future. Countries that do not want to accept refugees would be forced to make compensation payments.

If Italy does not agree – why did Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) announce a “political agreement” on Thursday after an EU meeting?

Faeser is currently not only Interior Minister, but also the top candidate for the Hesse SPD in the state elections on October 8th. It is possible that she wanted to present a political success a few days before the election. However, it is also conceivable that she did not correctly assess the situation and Italy’s concerns. Faeser must now hope that some agreement can be reached in the next few days.

Developments at the EU’s external borders are also putting pressure on us. The number of asylum applications recorded by the EU recently rose to its highest half-yearly level since the refugee crisis of 2015/2016. According to the UN refugee agency UNHCR, 186,000 people had crossed the Mediterranean to Europe by September 24th of this year. According to UNHCR data, there were around 150,000 for the whole of last year.

Is it true that the federal government has negotiated far-reaching changes to the plans for the crisis regulation?

EU officials, who usually have a very sober view of the facts, answer this question with a resounding no. Anyone who looks at the new text will see, for example, that a rule has been deleted that would have allowed EU countries to temporarily deviate from EU standards for material support services and access to medical care in the event of a large influx of people. In addition, applications for the protection of minors and their family members should be given priority, even in crisis situations. Stronger information and justification obligations are also planned for countries that want to make use of the regulation.

However, the bottom line is that these changes are not substantial. The original text would also have stipulated that Member States must cover the basic needs of applicants in areas such as food, clothing, adequate medical care and shelter, even in crisis situations.

The Greens had recently blocked the government’s approval for weeks out of concern about an unacceptable lowering of protection standards. Why did they still agree?

Leading Green politicians such as Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock justified the change of course on Thursday with the changes that have yet to take place. However, even Green members of the Bundestag assume that Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) made informal use of his directive authority on Wednesday and ordered that resistance to the crisis regulation be given up. Julian Pahlke criticized that “the Chancellor’s decision to approve the regulation at any price” only made improvements more difficult.

What does this mean for the Greens?

You are in a dilemma on this topic. Right from the start, there was fundamental resistance at the grassroots level against the planned stricter asylum course that is being negotiated in the EU. “The traffic light must not take part in this isolation policy,” the federal spokesman for the Green Youth Timon Dzienus recently wrote on X (formerly Twitter) in connection with the negotiations in Brussels. He warned of “even more chaos, suffering and misery at the external borders because people are being disenfranchised.” As part of the government, top Green Party politicians are forced to make concessions – a test for the party.

Does this also apply to the traffic light coalition as a whole?

Also for them. As with other topics – see basic child security or the heating law – the dividing line runs primarily between the Greens and the FDP. When it comes to migration, FDP General Secretary Bijan Djir-Sarai recently even accused the Greens of being a “security risk for the country” and of making consistent government action more difficult through “unrealistic positions”. He now told the “Tagesspiegel”: “I welcome the fact that the Chancellor has now made it clear to the Green coalition partner that the asylum transition must come.”

What is the mood among the population on the subject?

According to the current ARD “Germany Trend,” support for limiting the number of refugees has grown, as has general skepticism about immigration. 64 percent of those surveyed are in favor of Germany taking in fewer refugees, 12 points more than in May. When asked whether Germany has advantages or disadvantages through immigration, 64 percent answered “more disadvantages”; in May, 54 percent said this, according to the survey by infratest dimap.