 the Institute of International European Affairs. I've great pleasure in welcoming you all to our meeting today with Mr. Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, who is the chair of the European Parliaments Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. We're delighted to have Mr. Lopez Aguilar speak to the IIA this morning on a topic which is of which is among the greatest challenges faced by the European Union at present. That is how to bring about and to shape a humane migration and asylum policy for the European Union. A challenge which is exacerbated by the particular pressures surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the predicament in which migrants and refugees find themselves as a result. Mr. Lopez Aguilar has been a member of the European Parliament since 2000. He's a distinguished former Minister for Justice of Spain and head of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party in the Canary Islands. He's also been a member of the Spanish Parliament and the Secretary-General of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party in the Canary Islands. At the same time, he has built up an academic career as a professor of constitutional law at the University of Las Palmas. Mr. Lopez Aguilar will speak to us for about 20 to 25 minutes and then we'll open the floor to the audience. We're looking forward to what I'm sure will be a very stimulating and an interesting address which, incidentally, is on the record and at all points. Mr. Lopez, we are, once again, you're very welcome and the floor is yours. Well, first of all, good day to you all. It is my honor and my privilege and I'm thankful for giving me the chance to exchange some views with the attendance of this session of yours Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin. I hope I will be of some use to this discussion and to its participants. Yes, I'm a professor of law by training. I've been in the European Parliament ever since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force. Actually, 2009, after having served in the Spanish Government as Minister of Justice, I moved to the European Parliament and I have chaired the Committee of Liberty, Justice and Home Affairs, which, by the way, is the busiest committee in the house, the widest legislative scope and the committee which best expresses the lawmaking dimension of the European Parliament ever since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force. So, if you allow me, I will be speaking for, let's say, some Do you see me? Yes. Yes, okay, because I will be speaking, let's say, for 10, 15 minutes, no more than that, so that I can open as room as possible for the discussion, so that we may exchange views and I can take questions and answers, if you will, okay? So, let's get started. The first point I wanted to make is that precisely, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in coincidence with my landing in the European Parliament 2009, along with the Charter of Honourable Rights and with the Lisbon Treaty came along the European area for Liberty, Justice and Security, which is Articles 67 to 89 from the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union. And in that space, European space for Liberty, Justice and Security, you see that many competencies that were long the realm of the member states, the sovereignty of the member states are now the domain of the European Union competence, including migration and asylum. For a long time, migration and asylum were conceived to be a core issue for the sovereignty of the member states, no longer. Now, they are European Union competence, both for policymaking and both and lawmaking. And we in the European Parliament, we have grown up to become a true parliament, a true lawmaking body in which we do make laws on the matter. So, the second point I want to make is that according to the Lisbon Treaty, we have adopted laws on migration and asylum and we have done from the European Parliament side our best to build up a truly European common asylum system and a common migration policy and legislation. So, we adopted, in the first mandate in which I chaired the Liberty Committee 2009-2014, the so-called migration package along with the Schengen package, which is the set of pieces of legislation which secure free movement within the Schengen area and a common management of the external borders of the European Union and an asylum package. The migration package is an array of pieces of legislation. We adopted, before I came to the European Parliament, that was in 2008, the so-called return directive. But along with the return directive, we have set forth a number of pieces of legislation trying to create some ground for legal entry and legal migration to the European Union, including the single permit directive, including the posted workers directive, including the seasonal workers directive, which are of the essence for many countries, particularly in the agriculture sector, including the blue card directive so that qualified workers from abroad may enter regularly into the European Union, including the Schengen borders code, including the European visa code, of which I happen to be a rapporteur myself, too, which sets a common policy to enter the territory of the European Union along with the so-called interoperability package, which makes sure that all of the data at disposal of the visa information system and Schengen information system, etias and entry exit system, are compatible. And they may be shared among the member states, sharing the area of liberty, justice and security. But we also adopted a so-called asylum package in all, including, of course, the agency, the special agency, which helps the states to handle asylum demands into the European Union, which is the so-called ASO, the agency for supporting the asylum system, and Dublin regulation, which is the regulation, which is a European law binding for the member states, which sets the responsibility to handle the asylum requests and to handle the social services and protection, which is entailed by the grant of a refugee statute. We also adopted the whole asylum array of pieces of legislation, including the qualifications directive, the common procedure directive, the receptions directive, and along with all that, we also established a so-called relocation program, which is binding for the member states, and resettlement program with the help of the UNHCR. So the third point I want to make is that there is no legislative void at all. There is law at sight. There is effective law, which has been enacted by the European Parliament as a true lawmaking body. We have made laws on the matter, and those laws are effective in force, and they are binding for the member states. But the fourth point I want to make is that in coincidence with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and all this work that we have carried out throughout the years, the European Union has somehow submerged itself into the worst series of crisis ever in the European process history. We know that there was the great recession, wow, the worst crisis ever. Then there came the so-called migration crisis, wow, the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, but not only in the Mediterranean, Brexit, and now the COVID pandemic. So it's been a series of critical episodes in which the European Union has lost momentum. And you know what? There has been an increasing number of member states defying, challenging the European law, showing lack of political will to stand by the European principles in every possible way, including the so-called illiberal regimes, which are under the so-called Article 7 Procedure, which is also the competence of the Comedian Chair, Comedian Liberies, Paramount Rights, Justice, and Home Affairs. And there have been an increasing number of countries which have been defying the legal mandate of solidarity, binding solidarity, and shared responsibility, both to handle migration flaxes, external borders of the European Union, and asylum seekers' requests and refugees statute within the European Union. So we have seen an increasing number of infringement procedures dealing with the contempt towards European law that has been shown by a number of member states of the European Union, and a number of rulings of the European Court of Justice condemning the violations of European law by an increasing number of member states regarding both migration and asylum legislation. And that is why we have come to some kind of a deadlock. We have seen that increasingly so, both migration package and asylum package need to be reviewed and updated, but not to step backwards, not to make it in the wrong direction. But in the view of the Comedian Chair, precisely to refine the legal instruments at site so that everybody knows which are the rules of the game, but making sure that the mandates of binding solidarity and shared responsibility, which are enshrined literally in Article 80 of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union are fully respected by all of the member states. Then there came the UN big global pact of migration and asylum adopted by the UN General Assembly Special Conference in 2018. And then came the Special Conference on Migration and Asylum convened in Geneva with the participation of the IOM, UNHCR, and also the European institutions, including the European Parliament in the relation that I chaired December 2019. And then came the idea that we should be needing some kind of an updated pact on asylum and migration to make sure that all the countries abide by the rules of the area of liberty, justice, and security based on mutual trust and effective cooperation, but mostly on solidarity and shared responsibility. So, President von der Leyen, on her way to be invested by the vote of the European Parliament, which she did, promised that she would deliver a new pact on asylum and migration. And that commitment has been taken by the new Commissioner in charge for the Home Portfolio, the Swedish Commissioner, Ilva Johansson. So, throughout her hearing examination, thorough examination of her capacity to tackle the portfolio that had been invested upon her, she committed herself to deliver a new pact on asylum and migration by March 2020. But you know what? By March 2020, again, all the calendars were in a complete upheaval because of the coronavirus crisis. Yes, we understand that this coronavirus crisis is a serious matter that has somehow put to a halt the whole calendar of commitments that were to be delivered by the new Commissioner of Home Affairs. So, she has postponed her commitment up until we somehow be back to normal in the European Parliament. I can tell you that chairing the Liberal Committee, we have been keeping up our work right from the very first day of this pandemic crisis, even in the worst conditions, even in confinement measures that have been imposed by many member states upon their citizens, including Spain, including my country, including my government. That means that we have been for some time working in remote, but it's been three or four weeks that we are back to Brussels, back to ordinary work in Brussels. Of course, with many difficulties because it's not easy to get to Brussels in these conditions, but we are doing our best to keep up our work. And we have heard from Commissioner Johansson that she would be delivering her new pact on asylum and migration by late July or early September. I guess it will be early September. And of course, we are worried that this new pact of asylum and migration shows, and I conclude, what in the view of the Liberal Committee, which I represent and my personal political view, is the wrong direction. The wrong direction is sticking to what I call a negative outlook to both migration and asylum, which means that somehow the European Union keeps in denial of any goodness, seeing any kind of goodness, both in migration and asylum seekers. I try to explain this negative view. This negative view dwells on the assumption that migration is a problem. And migration is a crisis. More than that, migration is a threat, a threat to European security and a threat to European identity. That is, in my view, a wrong approach, which is doomed to fail. We have actually contested that wrong approach. We have adopted ever since 2016 a series of resolutions in which we endorse what we call a holistic approach, a positive approach towards migration and asylum. Of course, we understand that member states are worried about irregular migration. But let me tell you, in fact, it is seldom told that irregular migrants are returned in more numbers than they enter irregularly into the European Union, which means that even in the worst of the migration crisis, the return policy is underway, and it's very effective. And it's very seldom told, which means that we are no, by no means, we are no under some kind of an invasion. The migration fluxes are manageable. Insofar as there's political will to do it the European way and consistent with European law. Second, the idea is weird, the idea which is the assumption particularly in the Council is we wish migration would not exist, asylum seekers would not exist, but in so long as they exist, the principle is that those countries with vulnerable borders, particularly towards the Nigerian, the vulnerable external borders of the European Union, are the ones to be responsible for securing the borders. That is also wrong approach. That takes the European view. We have heard complaints time and again from Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, which have vulnerable borders, external borders of the European Union towards the Iranian. But we insist that this is a European issue. Those coming to our soil are actually looking for, do you see me? Can you hear me? Excuse me because I lost track of you. In my screen, I don't see you anymore. I'm going to try to catch up and get you back. But anyhow, if you can hear me, I'll finish. So I tell you that we have to overcome this negative look and come to a more positive approach, which includes of course cooperation with the countries of origin and transit, which includes of course a serious and effective return policy. But which includes also social inclusion, social integration, and legal pathways, regular pathways to make it to Europe. And I conclude stating a case. I have been a strong advocate within the European Parliament for two causes. One is enlarging the scope of humanitarian visas. Why? Because it is a fact that 95% of those who have been granted asylum refugee statute within the European Union came to the European Union in the first place irregularly. Why did they do that? Because they were not given a chance to make it regularly. And by that, I mean that they had to expose themselves to the illicit trafficking of human beings and human exploitation, which is a nightmare, which is an incredible nightmare of human rights violations. Absolutely intolerable in a union of the moral statue of the EU. That should not happen. They have to expose themselves to illicit trafficking of human beings and to the ordeal of crossing the Sahara or Libya or those incredible ordeals, because they are not given the chance to make it regularly to the European Union. We have to, first of all, enlarge legal pathways to make it to the European Union. Second, we have to come up out with a truly European framework for search and rescue. Because we see that many times search and rescue are executed by NGOs and humanitarian organizations and volunteers, which are subject to be criminalized on the grounds of the facilitation directive which allows member states to equate humanitarian aid or rescuing people of disease with cooperation with illicit trafficking of human beings, which in my view is unacceptable too. But the point is that those search and rescue operations should not be trusted to NGOs and humanitarian missions, but to a truly European effort, which could be also helped with the enhancement of the Frontex Agency that we have set in force by new legislation also adopted in the European Parliament. That is why in my view it takes a more positive approach, a more positive outlook to really make sense of the new pact of asylum and migration. Otherwise, it should be a missing chance, a missed opportunity that we should not allow ourselves if we want to actually fulfill the promise of the Lisbon Treaty on the European Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union when it entered into force nothing less than 10 years ago. I stop here and take your questions. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Lopez Aguirre. I have to say I found that a very impressive and passionate presentation. Just on a personal note, I should say that much of what you said resonated with me because in 2016, the UN General Assembly adopted the so-called New York Declaration on Migrants and Refugees, and I happened to be the co-facilitator of that negotiation as the Irish Ambassador. And one of the things that we were trying to do was to ensure that positive dimension of migration was accepted worldwide. I would have to pay a small tribute, by the way, to Peter Sutherland, one of our compatriots who, as the UN Special Representative for Migration over 10 years, insisted that migration had to be seen as a positive opportunity. And in a sense, I followed in Peter's footsteps by getting that sentiment agreed as part of the New York Declaration. You are doing very valuable work in the European Parliament in the same direction, and that's one of the reasons why I was very taken by your presentation. And it's now more urgent than ever because of the rise of populism in parts of the EU since then. Let's go straight over to questions. And I suppose I just kick off with one myself, that you talked about what the European Commission has been trying to do in its first few months under the new team. Once you're reading of the overall political mood at present, I suppose you can read best the sentiment within the Parliament. But do you feel that this negativism that you're talking about is still persisting, or do you see any chinks of light, any reason to be optimistic? Well, first of all, shall I take questions one by one, or shall I take, shall I hear? Okay, if you allow me, I'll do this verse one, and then I'll take some questions, I'll take note, and then I'll try to summarize my reaction towards the points that I'm here to hear or to respond to. Well, first of all, that negativism is not declining on the contrary. It's been on the rise for all too long for understandable reasons. I said that the European Union has seen the worst series of crises ever. And that series of crises have not only confined themselves to be financial or economic. They have had political impact and social impact as well. Inequality is on the rise. Distrust have amounted to a rise of europhobic trends, nationalistic and reactionary moves, and platforms that have taken advantage of the malaise of this sense of dissatisfaction with the state of school, and the kind of answers that were provided by the European Union institutions, particularly throughout the Great Recession. I'm to acknowledge, too, that the kind of response that we're having after the pandemic and the coronavirus crisis is showing that the commission has somehow learned some lessons from the mistakes of the past. We criticized heavily, I myself, as chair of the Liberal Committee, but also as a socialist, because I am a socialist. I criticized heavily that the European Union reacted too little too late, but most importantly, in the wrong direction, before the Great Recession and the damage that it caused and the inequalities on the rise. In this time, the European Commission is reacting better, is reacting more promptly, is reacting more effectively, and it's reacting in the right direction. It's yet to be seen if it's sufficient or not. Particularly, we are waiting for the Council to make up its mind this late July, but the point I'm making is that, yes, there has been distrust and negativism, and most of it, of this negativism has been based on assumptions that have to be challenged, because they are fake assumptions. For instance, it is widely spread the impression across the public opinions of the member states that we are subject to somehow some kind of an invasion, ever since the so-called refugee crisis 2015, and that migration is out of control. It's never been true. The figures, even in the worst peak of the refugee crisis, which was certainly a consequence of the troubles in our neighborhood, namely the civil war in Syria, the protracted civil war, and millions displaced mostly to Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, not to the European Union, but those who came to the European Union were by no means an invasion. They could have been handled if there would have been some solidarity, but there was not. So Greece felt abandoned. Then Italy felt abandoned towards the Libyan coast, and the reaction has been there. The reaction has been a rise of populistic trends, including a change of guard in the Italian government, in which Salvini, extreme right, nationalistic reactionary somehow interpreted that feeling of many Italians that they had been abandoned, and the rest of the member states were turning a blind eye towards the influxes coming to the Italian islands, eolic islands, or Sicily, or Naples, from Libya. So that negative trend is still there. It has to be tackled with leadership, and we urge the Commission to play its guiding role, not to simply hear from the member states that they're not willing to cooperate, and then come with a minimum common denominator kind of proposal. We want, on the contrary, the Commission to show ambition, to show leadership, to show guidance, of course, understanding that the member states are reluctant, some member states are particularly reluctant, but also facing those member states which are not only denying any solidarity towards those who have external borders toward the Mediterranean, namely the so-called Visigrad group, mostly Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, and draw the consequences of that guiding role and leadership, including not only infringement procedures, but also minorizing those countries in the Council. We have complained many times that the Council has taken on the assumption that its decision should be made by consensus, meaning unanimity, but the European law does not require unanimity from the Council. It would suffice, qualify the majority, so those member states which are reluctant to show any will to stand up to mutual trust and solidarity and share responsibility should be minorized in the Council, and for that it takes a commission which takes also its guiding role, and of course negative attitudes are also expressed within the European Parliament. Increasingly so, because there has been an increase of extreme right nationalistic and europhobic seats within the European Parliament in the last two elections, and in this particular mandate of the European Parliament the numbers are high, but they can still be minorized by a pro-European majority, both in the Liberal Committee and in the Plenary. Of course it'll take the cooperation between the EPP, which is the first group, the largest group, the S&P, I'm a Socialist, the second group, Renew, the Liberals, third group, but also Greens, and at times, at times, GUE, which are more pro-European than the extreme right and the Nationalists, the so-called United Left, so that we can build up a majority which can inspire an asylum pact, a new asylum immigration pact, which is more consistent with European values, with European law, which I insist is effective by now, there is no legislative void that needs to be filled in, maybe we may update it, but there is no legislative void, and with humanitarian law, which is binding in disease, because there is also international humanitarian law, which is violated much too often, particularly when closing harbors to search and rescue operations, that is illegal in international law, and it's good that it's told, that it's said, that it's outspoken vocally, that's what I do in the Liberal Committee. Thank you, now we hear the rest of the questions. Okay, thank you very much, I mean, you've set out the challenges very, very clearly, and I think we all hope that it'll be possible for the European Commission and the Parliament to help to stimulate a consensus on the new pact. So just turning to some of the questions, first of all, the question generally about the role of the African Union in terms of promoting more legal pathways for people to come to the EU, and also incurring irregular migration flows, how do you see the partnership with the African Union? And I suppose generally, more generally, do you see a risk that the, let's call it the delay of a few years that we've had in updating the Union's migration asylum policy, is there a risk that that will, or is already affecting partnership relationships with our partners in Africa? I mean, are they coming to doubt perhaps European sincerity on all of these issues? A third question I just add in is Libya. Do you feel that specifically, or how would you like to see the new pact deal with Libya, with the Libyan search and rescue area, and the allegations of human rights abuses there? So if that's not too much, I'll invite you to address those. Okay, thank you. Thank you for the questions, very interesting. I'll try to summarize. First of all, it must be said that there is an internal dimension of the asylum and migration policy and lawmaking in the European Union, which points out to the responsibilities of the member states to abide by European law. But there is also an external dimension which takes a lot of European Union going global and behaving as a global actor, worth of its name. That is, in my view, the challenge of the European diplomacy, the European external action services, which are headed by everybody know the so-called High Representative, which is also Vice President of the Commission, and which is also chairing the Council of General Affairs, that means the Council of International Relations or Foreign Policy when it comes to the gathering of member states, foreign ministers. That is Pepe Borrell, the Spanish guy in charge by now. First it was, we know before him, it was Federica Mogherini and, well, we have been rehearsing the capacities of the European Union to engage with the African Union, which is sitting in its quarters in Ethiopia, Arisaveva. I think it is most interesting that we do our best to get the cooperation of the countries which are also being part of this experience of combining energies to secure fruitful and constructive interlocution with rest of the global actors, including the European Union. I may say that the first foreign visit of President for the Lion when she took office was precisely to the African Union headquarters in Arisaveva and the same goes with the High Representative. So we're taking seriously Africa. It is increasingly the great interlocutor for the European Union, increasingly so. I could also say that as a Spaniard, I always insist that we should not overlook Latin America, but yes it is a fact that Africa is the giant. Africa is the giant, the neighboring giant for the European Union. We need to cooperate with Africa particularly when it comes to countries of origin and transit. The second point I want to make is that it is important that we know and it is seldom told that migrations are in Africa of gigantic dimension, within Africa, within Africa. In the European Union, it is often the impression in the public opinion of the member states that all migrants or potential migrants of the European Union are looking outwards to the European Union, are looking to the European Union, are approaching the European Union. It's complete fake, it's complete false. Migrations are taking place all over the world and I would say the continent, which is by now more reluctant and more armored against migration in the global actor, which is more aggressively relaxed and negative towards migration keeps being the European Union, is still the European Union. It is a very small percentage of the migration flows in the world, those who are approaching the European Union, but those who are approaching the European Union, we need to take them seriously and cooperate with the African countries. I would also add that, yes, when it comes to legal pathways, we have to understand that enlarging the legal pathways would be a way to tackle and dismantle what we call the illicit trafficking of human beings business model. They make a lot of money, they make a lot of money of the lack of legal pathways. There are so many in this pair that considering that they cannot make it to Europe regularly, they pay whatever the price, even inducting themselves for the rest of their lives to mobsters and traffickers for the sake of being given a chance to approach the European Union. And that is a misery that we cannot tolerate. We should combat it with a constructive approach that has to be European if we want to be effective when having an interlocution with a global actor as it is the African Union and the way. And yes, it is, I think there has been a postponement and a delay because for all too long we have dragged our feet, but I would say when we approach the European architecture that we should single out the accountability of every institution. In my view, the European Parliament is still breathing a European majority and it's still making up its mind. We still build majorities in the European Parliament. We still enact laws, first reading, second reading. It is in the council where you find the deadlock in all too many issues. In the council we see that many, many files have been blocked, including Dublin regulation, which bears the name of the capital of Ireland. Dublin regulation is known all over the world and every time I talk about Dublin regulation I have to explain what is it about? Where is the deadlock of Dublin regulation? Because literally it sets the responsibility for handling the asylum request and protecting the refugee on the country of first entry, which means number one, an overload to countries with a border towards the Mediterranean, namely Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Italy and Spain. Second, it does not prevent secondary movements because once they are there, despite the efforts of those countries and all the resources that are requested from those countries, asylum seekers or refugees keep moving, keep moving somewhere else at times, of course, for the sake of better standards to watch north. So there is a situation which proves dysfunctional, subject to criticism, to continued attacks of war and arguments, which result in increasing distrust between member states. We need to tackle the issues, but not to deny shared responsibility or solidarity, but on the contrary, to reaffirm shared responsibility and solidarity while updating the instruments, refining the instruments to make sure that solidarity is in place. So those are the challenges by now, and yes, we have seen a delay, but we only hope that it will be overcome when we can be back to some better level of normality in the functioning of our institutions right after the summer break in September after this coronavirus crisis. And as to Libya, I'll be clear on this. Once upon a time, Libya was a failed state, but it's been some time that Libya is a no state at all. It's a terrible place where the most unthinkable violations of human rights take place on a regular basis. It shouldn't be with impunity, but that is the situation by now. And I find it appalling that for the sake of dirty realism, some kind of a dirty realism, dirty real politic, member states are negotiating with whatever or whoever is in Libya for the sake of preventing migrants to take the risk of sailing a float towards the European Union with the risk of perishing in the attempt. That is terrible. The concentration camps in Libya, the kind of facilities in which those coming from Sub-Saharan Africa approaching the Libyan coast are detained and subject to unbearable human rights violations, including abuses of women and children, terrible abuses of women and children cannot be overlooked indefinitely by the European Union. And yes, we know that out of despair, Italy was the first to try to negotiate with Libya to prevent more irregular migrants trying to approach the Italian coast out of what we might call this dirty real politic exercise. It is miserable. We should not tolerate that indefinitely, but for sure, and I conclude, Libya is no safe harbor and takes safe harbor for the European Union to cooperate with this embarkation of people rescued at sea in whatever the situation. And it happens all too often that people are intercepted on their way to Europe and be brought to the Libyan coast with the cooperation of the European Union Agency Frontex. That should not happen. We should criticize that many times because in our view, it's intolerable. Libya is no safe place at all. And Libyan harbors are not safe harbors at all. That is what is very clearly stated in every resolution that has been adopted by the European Parliament. Thank you very much, Mr Dobos Agriar. I'll pass on now if I may three further questions, which I think are linked. One from a colleague in one of our universities in Dublin, Dublin City University is really about the issue of European values. You touched on that at one point. Can one really talk about moving towards or having common European values when certain member states, and I think we all know the names, are showing hostility towards and towards migration towards inward migration. And a related question would be the rule of law. How should we react to the fact that there are threats to the rule of law from such member states? And then thirdly, perhaps in a more positive vein, do you think that Germany as presidency of the council will have a better chance of overcoming the deadlock on the council that you were talking about? Yeah, that's a good set of questions, Sue. I thank you for that. First of all, values of the essence. I have said it a million times. The European Union is not the euro. The European Union is not the single market. The European Union is a union of law. And law takes principles and values. You know what they are enshrined. Once they were somehow vaguely defined by the rulings of the European Court of Justice, but now they have been put in writing. Article two of the Treaty of the European Union. What once were called the so-called Copenhagen criteria are no European constitutional values, namely rule of law, representative democracy, equality under the law, separation of powers which include judicial protection of fundamental rights, pluralism, political pluralism, protection of minorities, which means the guarantee of the function of the opposition, which means that I as chair of the Committee of Fundamental Rights, Liberties and Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament, I have presided a number of delegations to what they call themselves illiberal regimes. But you know what? Those illiberal regimes, namely Hungary and Poland, subscribed to the Treaty of Lisbon so that it entered into force. And now they are bound to those values. They are bound to the Treaty of Lisbon. They are bound to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which came along with the Lisbon Treaty, so they cannot simply violate those values and get away with it. I mean, our view, in the view of the Libyan Committee, they violate those values when they equate democracy with the rule of majority. Democracy is not simply ruling by law, laws enacted by a majority in Parliament. Democracy is rule of law, which means that no one is allowed to break the law, not even a parliamentary majority, when there is a constitution under their constitutional values that are enshrined in the European law. And democracy has never been simply the rule of majority. Democracy means protecting minorities, and that is also put in writing in Article II of the Treaty of the European Union. So we do care about those regressions, those constitutional breakdowns that have been taking both a place in both member states. I insist, I underline member states of the European Union, Hungary and Poland. That is why from the European Parliament we launched Article VII procedure, which is the device at disposal, which is device at our hand. Of course, it is cumbersome, the procedure. We adopted both the initiative in Hungary and Poland with two-thirds majority of the European Parliament. Not easy, that wasn't easy. It took us a long way, a lot of negotiations, and of course it took us serious of very grave indications of violating European Union values from those member states. It took us much hearing of the authorities of both countries. I have been in both countries, of course I have had talks with their prime ministers, with the ministers of justice, but yet we have seen that there have been a number of laws enacted by parliaments of those countries which are being subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice, and yet those countries keep in contempt of the rulings of the European Court of Justice, that shouldn't happen. That is why we insist from the Council that they should take on the Article VII procedure that we and the European Parliament have set in motion. That is our response, and it is a serious matter, a very serious matter, that we see that there are countries which are in denial of fundamental principles of European law, including in this regard, they are liberty, justice, and security, any responsibility and any solidarity with those countries which are overloaded with hotspots or migration flaxes or asylum seekers. For instance, everybody knows that there were decisions being taken by the Council in order to relocate those which are overloading the capacities of certain hotspots in the Greek islands, namely Samos and Lesbos, and at times in Italy too, and these countries were subject to a procedure before the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Justice stated that they had violated the European law by denying any solidarity in their relocation programs and not accepting migrants or asylum seekers coming from the hotspots of the overloaded capacities of the country's automation. So that is a serious existential challenge for the European Union, and we should not underestimate the importance of that existential challenge. It is miserable that we keep hearing the testimonies of journalists being harassed, judges that have been removed from their positions and the preposterous allegations that they are some kind of a heritage of the communist regime, that they should be perched for the sake of the sanity of the Polish judicial system, let alone talk of the so-called LGBT free zones in Poland, which is subnautious, which is completely against European law, which forbids discrimination of people on the basis of their sexual orientation. That denial of European values should not be underestimated. In my view, they pose a serious existential challenge of the European Union, and after Germany, yes, it's a veteran. It's a heavyweight. Well, we have seen because that's the dynamic of the European architecture, we have seen a number of small member states of the European Union exercising their rotating presidency for the first time ever. We come from the Croatian presidency now, Croatia is the latest comer to the European Union. It entered into the European Union as number 28 by then. In 2013, the other day, yesterday, yesterday evening, so to say, but Germany, Germany is a founding member state is the heavyweight. So we expect from Germany a certain energy to tackle, to take on pending files, deadlocks and riddle them, put some energy to get them going, and some influence to break deals when necessary. Yes. And if I may say, I have written its program because every rotating presidency comes out with a certain written declarations of their ambitions. And it's quite large, quite significant. And it includes a very explicit chapter of rule of law, a very explicit chapter regarding article seven procedures, which in my view is meaningful. So I only hope that Germany will be of help not only not only to unriddle the current deadlock as to the so-called recovery plan, and its instruments grants, mostly grants and some loans with a proper combination of own resources and bonds, your recovery bonds for the so-called new generation recovery plan for Europe, and also unriddle the deadlock of the rule of law procedures, which are still pending on the table of the Council for all too long, because we in the European Parliament will have done a part of the job. I take more questions. Okay. Thank you very much, Natan. Thank you again for the passion and the commitment that you show in response to all of these questions. So there was a question from a colleague about really that the disparities in the way in which asylum cases are decided on from one member state to another. In other words, despite the various directives on asylum policy, for example, the return directive you referred to and the qualification directive, it seems that positive decisions on asylum cases very greatly from one member state to another. How can we overcome these disparities? Can we overcome them? That's really the question. And then let me quote also a comment which the Ambassador of Malta to Ireland has just made. And it really goes back to what you were saying a moment ago, Juan Fernando, about the unfair burdens carried within the EU. So the Ambassador makes the point that Malta has received over 22,000 migrants and asylum seekers since 2005, of whom only 8% have been relocated to EU countries. A handful of member states, Ambassador says, can't be expected to continue shouldering responsibility for migration flows. We need decisive and sensible solutions, particularly permanent and predictable relocation mechanisms. We can't depend any further on ad hoc solutions with only some member states pledging support. You'll be familiar with those sentiments, but if you could come back on the asylum cases, that'll be very interesting. That's probably all we have time for because I know that you have another commitment to go to. Thank you again for the questions. Most interesting. Of course, I thank all the participants and I thank all the attention that might be given to these issues which are sensitive and divisive. I could start out each and every one of my answers by saying, we're talking, now we're talking. Of course, these serious matter and they are open problems. So let me tell you that whenever I am part of this kind of conversation, I feel like saying, hey, listen, your concerns are my concerns. Your sensitiveness is my sensitiveness and your disarray, your dismay before the state of school as it stands by now is my dismay. I'm also unhappy about the situation. I'm a fighter. I'm not here not only to provide an analysis. I am here to put up a fight on these sensitive issues and to take a side because they are divisive. I tell you, in the European Union, their speeches and their attitudes which are very confrontational on these delicate matters. And I understand that. But having said this, you have dwelt on points which are now precisely subject to discussion into this exact point of time. Disparities, despite the effective law that we have adopted, it is a fact that there are many disparities into the member state's behavior. Some handle asylum seekers' requests with efficiency and provide a sufficient level of protection and so much more mean towards the possibilities of the law which is effective and which could be inspiring the kind of response. It depends largely on political will, but we got to make sure that at least we have provided the legislative, the pieces of legislation, the legislative framework which secures that there is a European common asylum system which makes sense at the European level and does not simply rely on the political will of the different member states to do these or that in a certain degree of extensions or death. You may see that, particularly when it comes to receiving people rescued in disease. You have seen that all too long the solution, particularly with the multi-declaration, which was meaningful and it was appreciated by the European Union. We said it is a step in the right direction, but is it enough? Is it sufficient? Is it acceptable as a European response? The answer to those questions keeps being no, because in the multi-declaration what it is behind, it is always some phone calls between Prime Ministers which come up with a certain level of compromise, a certain level of mutual assistance in the lack of a truly European kind of response and an exchange of phone calls between Prime Ministers is never enough as a European response. It does not suffice that whenever there is a boat stranded in the sea, particularly with vulnerable people, pregnant women or women with little kids, minors, what we call an accompanied minors too. That means minors without a mother, without a parent to take care of them. And what is the answer? Some Prime Minister calls to another Prime Minister and says, hey listen, you take five, I take eight and this other guy takes 10 and that'll do. For this time, for this time being, that'll do. Is it a European answer? No, that is not. We need a European framework. Those issues are the ones which are to be discussed with the occasion of the new pact on asylum and migration. Those issues, not simply the obsession on returning, returning, returning, because I insist returning is a very effective policy, but I insist we also have to care about binding solidarity. Greece has been complaining about lack of solidarity and the rest of the member states turning a blind eye on them. That is the origin of Golden Dawn, which is the Nazi extreme right in Greece. Malta has complained about lack of solidarity of the rest and the Maltese case is very significant because it is often told by the Maltese authorities they make a right point, a fair point, fair enough that they are the smallest country in the European Union. Their population is 400,000. For them to receive 22,000, it means a percentage of its population that would equate like Germany having 2 million asylum seekers all of a sudden. Because 20,000 for 400,000 is a percentage completely unbearable to the size of Malta. So Malta needs and deserves solidarity from the rest and I insist solidarity ever since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force is no longer a desideratum. It's no longer a wishful thinking. It's no longer, I wish it could happen. It is a binding mandate. It's a legal mandate enshrined by the law. So there has to be solidarity. No solidarity at all is not a legal choice. It's not a choice which is in accordance in conformity with the European law. On the contrary, it violates European law denying all solidarity with Malta. And the same came with Italy, which I said at a certain point of time somehow slipped into the dark side of the force with the extreme right Interior Minister, which was extremely disruptive for the for the management of this whole thing. And of course it is also systematically so the case of Spain and in the Canary Islands. Believe me, believe me because I live in the Canary Islands and maybe many of you do not know that by now Canary Islands is back again. Number one highest peak of irregular migrants, I mean aboard these so-called wooden boats, kayukos from Western Africa. So we have a problem of lack of solidarity here. These are the issues that have to be dealt with with the occasion of the new migration and asylum pact because we are not happy with the study school. We need to make sure that there is a commission which is highly committed to secure solidarity to those countries which have this external border of the European Union in their understanding that the impact and the effect of it all is truly European, that they are bound to come to the European Union, not only to Malta, not only to the Canary Islands, but also to the Greek islands, to the Oligales in Italy. They're actually bound European Union bound words. That is the issue here. And then of course, when it comes to the asylum fluxes and inequalities, I would simply add that that returns are very effective. They are mostly handled on the grounds of national capacities. There are many flights that are hired precisely to return irregular migrants from different member states, sometimes with the cooperation of Frontex, which is enlarging its capacity. The so-called Frontex, which is now the European external border and Coast Guard Agency. But in all, it is a fact that secure European common asylum system overseen by the EASO agency. And with the true European will, will take a new political cycle. And I only hope that this commission understands the problem, gets the problem right, and does its very best to persuade those member states, which are reluctant to be part of this European system framework and answer, that they have to move in the right direction. And still, enlarging the possibilities of those who are truly entitled to refugee status, according to international humanitarian law and to the qualifications directive, to be part of the European social fabric, to be given the chance to settle in the European Union and to be part and to contribute to the European diversity and wealth in every possible way. That takes, in my view, also a financial support. From the European Union, we have done our best to increase the budgeting in this regard. We have came forth with a number of instruments. A migration on asylum fund, so-called AMIF, and we have insisted that it has to be financed properly. An internal security fund, which is precisely to make sure that interoperability results in returns when they are needed. Although I insist that returns are more effective than widely seen, I usually come to the discussion just to check that many people think that there are no returns at all in Europe, that everybody who sets food on European soil is here for good, not true. Many of them are returned effectively. But those instruments, including the asylum immigration and internal security fund, should be a part of a new landscape in which we should be more consistent with the values and the principles that we have enshrined in European law. I only wish that this opportunity, this chance of discussing a new asylum immigration pact, which is consistent with the Global Immigration and Asylum Pact, which was adopted by the UN Declaration in December 2008 and continued with the conference in Geneva 2019. This opportunity, this chance will not be missed, that we will be delivering. Because in my view, there is nothing more threatening for the European Union, nothing more threatening by far more threatening than the idea of migration or asylum out of control by far more threatening than that. If there is something threatening is the divorce between the European Union promise and its delivery. It is about time that we actually deliver with the truly European common migration and asylum system worth of its name. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Robesaviar. Thank you for a superb tour d'horizon of all the issues we're facing in relation to migration and asylum. It's clear that a humane new pact and new policy will be in safe hands in the European Parliament under your watch. And we all look forward to an ambitious outcome to what the Commission is trying to do at present. We hope that they will take your advice to heart and we look forward to the right kind of pact emerging from that. Thank you for giving us your time. Thank you for your insights, your analysis. Most of all for your passion and your conviction on all of these issues, which are essential to the European values. Thanks very much. I hope we haven't detained you too long. We found it very rich in stimulation and we hope we'll see you again sometime. Thank you very much. It is me to thank you, the International and European Affairs Institute in Dublin. It is me to thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk to you and be of some help. That was my aim to provide some European Parliament insight and of course state the case of the European Parliament which in my view it is always of significance to clear out that within the European architecture there are institutions and there are some institutions which actually behave European that is the case of the European Court of Justice that is the case of the European Parliament but it takes in my view it takes some time to to see the Council behaving truly European not simply the sum of national governments looking at the national interests but also looking European, going European in the in the in the expression of their political will but anyhow my only aim was be of some use to this to this gathering and and I thank you I truly thank you for that and I only hope as I said that this occasion of us in this mandate of the European Parliament will be fruitful to deliver a new asylum and migration pact which are not only humane consistent with humanitarian and international and European law but also effective also effective which is also translated from words to acts thank you for that