Brunner's missed opportunity

Migration policy did not only dominate the election campaign in Germany. Despite the recently adopted reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), the issue remained central at EU level. In addition to the unfaltering debate on the CEAS reform – and unclear implementation steps – some Member States have been increasing the pressure on the European Commission for a new legislative proposal to make the return of third-country nationals who are ordered to leave more effective. An earlier proposal on returns from 2018 could not be agreed between the European Parliament and the Member States. In view of the ongoing pressure, the Commission eventually presented a proposal for a revised Return Regulation in early March. We spoke to Birgit Sippel, Member of the European Parliament for the S&D Group.

Dear Ms Sippel, why have Member States in recent months increased pressure on the Commission to present a recast of the Return Regulation as soon as possible?

Birgit Sippel: Recently, many of the conservative governments of Member States have been moving towards a right-wing populist rhetoric, calling for tougher measures and more isolation, so that people seeking protection do not come to Europe in the first place and are deterred at all costs. And all this despite the fact that only a few months ago, after many years of negotiations, we adopted a major reform of the European asylum system which tightens the existing rules and must be implemented within the coming year.

I am afraid that the CEAS implementation is also part of the explanation of why Member States are crying out for a new return proposal, since they have realised how labour-intensive the implementation of the CEAS reform will be for some of them. And instead of dealing with this important work, the impact of which we will only see effectively from summer 2026, it is much easier to raise ever new and louder political demands. This is not about truly new approaches, but rather repackaging old concepts and promoting them as innovative. What is more, many of these approaches do not provide a real solution to existing challenges.

What are the key elements of this newly proposed return regulation?

Unfortunately, there are few positive aspects in this proposal and the few potential improvements are missed opportunities. For example, the generally positive proposal for monitoring human rights in returns is far too vague. The monitoring mechanism of fundamental rights in the Screening Regulation could have served as a blueprint already enshrined in EU law.

Instead, the von der Leyen Commission, and in particular the new Home Affairs Commissioner Magnus Brunner, propose, among other things, a significant increase in detention possibilities. The detention period is to be extended to two years and no exceptions are foreseen for children and families. In some cases, it is even unclear whether there should be a time limit for detention at all. Some experts therefore speak of the Detention Regulation instead.

Another worrying aspect is the proposal for automatic, i.e. mandatory, recognition of return decisions, without there being any harmonisation of asylum decisions due to the CEAS reform – meaning that major differences in the asylum process and decisions between Member States persist. The significant differences in recognition rates in comparable cases across the EU could oblige Germany, for example, to return people who would have otherwise been granted protection status under the German system.

Last but not least, the concept of ‘return hubs’ in third countries is of course highly problematic because right-wing externalisation fantasies have already proven to be impractical while at the same time wasting huge sums of taxpayers’ money. This has been demonstrated by the British Rwanda model and by Italy’s agreement with Albania. This money is then missing in other crucial areas.

It is not clear from the Commission’s proposal how practical obstacles regarding such return hubs will be overcome. As regards fundamental and human rights requirements for such ‘return hubs’, the proposal remains too vague. In the end, it is not clear what happens with the persons concerned in these hubs. They might even remain in these facilities for an unlimited period of time, in unclear and most likely unacceptable reception conditions.

How does the S&D Group in Parliament appreciate the proposal?

Effective return policy is part of a functioning migration system. However, the focus must be on how we can develop a sustainable, dignified, and feasible return approach through closer cooperation at EU level, as well as genuine partnership and cooperation with countries of origin.

Of course, we are ready to talk about a reform of the return rules based on these principles and respecting our fundamental rights. However, I have serious doubts as to whether this proposal fulfils these conditions. Commissioner Brunner missed a real opportunity with his first foray into European migration policy, which will render the work on the proposal in the parliament as well as in the trilogues difficult.

What are the next steps and what results can be expected in view of the new situation in the Parliament, but also of the position of the new German government in the Council?

We are still at the very beginning of the legislative process and it would be premature to speculate on possible results. It is clear, however, that it is up to us as Socialists and Democrats to ensure that this proposal does not amount to a gift from der Leyen to Italian government leader Giorgia Meloni, but actually provides real added value in practice. Given the EPP Group’s cooperation with far-right political groups, which we observe increasingly frequently during this legislature, this will also be a challenge in the Parliament. But we are ready to stand firmly against such alliances.