Thread by @LeopoldTraugott

Some thoughts on the idea of establishing refugee “reception centres” / “disembarkation platforms” outside the EU's borders, which will be discussed at #EUCO later this week.

While the concept has some merits, its implementation is fraught with problems. [THREAD, 1/ ]

The idea, in short, is to create centres outside the EU (e.g. Northern Africa, Balkans), where refugees can lodge their asylum claims & have them assessed by authorities. If asylum is granted, they can then travel on into EU safely. 2/

There are some attractive aspects to this model. Deaths would be reduced as refugees would no longer need to cross the Mediterranean (>3.100 deaths last year) to claim asylum. Smuggling business would go down & threat to Schengen zone would be reduced. 3/

But if you look closer (doesn’t even need to be that close) a range of problems becomes apparent. Some may be overcome rather easily, others raise fundamental questions marks on the feasibility / desirability of such reception camps. 4/

First and foremost, where would such camps be placed? The states consulted so far (e.g. Libya, Albania) have outright rejected the idea. And if you ever find a host, there will be a massive price tag - are EU states willing to pay this? 5/

How will centres be administered? Needs to be EU itself + ideally UNHCR, IOM. No way this can be left to third countries. Libyan camps are hell; even Australian ones quite inhumane; also Greek hotspots weren't too well run. Big task & responsibility. 6/

Which asylum system would be used? While the EU has some shared standards, there are still big differences nationally. e.g. acceptance rates for asylum seekers from same country vary drastically between EU members. Further harmonisation + EU asylum agency would be necessary. 7/

And, of course, the million dollar question - where do refugees go once their asylum claim is accepted? If asylum is granted to 10,000 refugees in a reception centre in, say, Tunisia, then which EU country takes in how many of those? 8/

The only way to solve this properly would be through quotas - but that is politically impossible. The last ones failed dramatically, and they were only for comparatively small numbers even. Hard to see how this can be done. 9/

Of course you can use financial incentives to encourage countries to take in more people. But that alone will be too little if numbers soar. Risk is that centres become overcrowded as EU members are unwilling to take in even those whose claim for asylum has been accepted. 10/

This is also a key risk for potential host countries. What happens to refugees travelling to centres who are either a) rejected or b) accepted but not transferred? Will they remain stranded in host state? Or try cross Mediterranean on their own? Big risk for host country. 11/

Also often ignored: these reception centres will likely be pull factors. Threshold (both €€ and danger to life) for crossing Mediterranean surely higher than for travel to e.g. Tunisia to lodge asylum claim there. 12/

I am really not opposed to reception centres on principle. I think that if done well, they could be an efficient tool in helping to manage (forced/irregular) migration to Europe. But they are no silver bullet, and much can go wrong - with quite bad consequences. 13/

Several EU member states seem keen to explore in more detail how refugee reception centres abroad could work. Perhaps they’ll find a smart, efficient & humane way of doing it. But for this, they need to confront many difficult questions first. I've outlined but a few. 14/14 ENDS

Interested in hearing opinions on this esp from @emmevilla, @tinaleeinberlin, @sd270, @APHClarkson, @JudithVonberg, @LuRasche, @ekztarf, @migrationli, @pietercleppe, @er1cmau , @StevePeers , @NinaDSchick, @iverna1, @pswieboda