According to the Geneva Convention, the EU is responsible for people who need international protection. The Dublin Regulation, which is part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), establishes that the first country a refugee enters is responsible for processing his or her asylum application. This system has proven problematic over recent years. Since the European refugee crisis reached its peak in 2015, the necessity of reforming the Dublin Regulation in the spirit of burden-sharing has become clearer than ever. Burden-sharing involves states taking on responsibility for refugees of other states. For example, countries facing less immigration pressure, such as Romania and Poland, would accept a certain quota of asylum-seekers from countries that receive the most migrants, such as Italy and Greece.
Ahead of the 2019 European Elections, French President Emmanuel Macron declared the need for a ‘European Renewal’ in the context of the Migrant Crisis and the rise of Euroscepticism. While Macron’s European Renaissance outlines many ambitious proposals, one arrangement to tackle European migration, namely the creation of a Common Border Force and a European Asylum Office, must be evaluated. This article argues that Macron’s call for a Common Border Force fails to address issues of migration and Euroscepticism. While the initiative proposes an alternative to the Dublin Regulation, it neglects the concerns of Central European member states regarding migration as well as Eurosceptics’ fear of the increasing jurisdiction of the European Union (EU) over National Parliaments.
On 17 October, King’s Think Tank’s European Affairs and Defence and Diplomacy Policy Centres co-hosted an event exploring migration policy in a time of regional, and potentially global, crisis. The event was interactive, with teams of students grouped together, each with a different migration focus. The event’s aim was to create successful and enactable policy suggestions which would alleviate certain pressures within each migration focus. Whilst the teams were each allocated a specific migration crisis (US-Mexico Border Crisis, European Refugee Crisis, Post-Soviet State migration, Migration from the Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar, or Venezuelan/Colombian Migration), they were free to set their own identity and policy focus. Each group then had 2 minutes to present their proposals, competing for the chance to be published on the King’s Think Tank Blog.