editorial" "
Over a quarter of the conclusions of the European Council of Salonica are dedicated to an issue of the greatest priority: the policy of the European Union on immigration, frontiers and asylum. The conclusions assign a substantial programme of work to the current Italian Presidency. They begin with recognition of the “urgent need for a more structured Eu policy in these areas” and reaffirm the need to accelerate the development of a common European policy on asylum and migration. While the heads of state and of government reached agreement on numerous measures and proposals to reinforce the frontiers of Europe, the development of a common system of asylum still has a long way to go. A “partnership with the countries of origin” i.e. the countries whence immigrants come does not address the underlying causes of migration: it is limited to providing aid to these countries to help them stop refugees from leaving home. The summit supported the harmonization of EU policy on immigration, especially with the adoption of common standards on the channels of legal immigration, but failed to achieve, or even predict, any effective progress. Bearing in mind the common interest of all member states to establish a more efficient management of external frontiers, the Council noted the results achieved by the various pilot projects and the conclusions of a study by the European Commission on the control of maritime frontiers. It examined the possibility of setting up a European frontier agency with a view to improving cooperation in the management of external frontiers. With regard to the “problems relating to the integration of migrations in the relations of the Union with third countries”, the Council proposed that the degree of cooperation by third countries in combating illegal immigration be evaluated; a proposal that leaves open a significant number of important practical, financial and legal questions, for example in terms of asylum. The British government in the end relinquished its own proposal for the funding of pilot projects at the Eu level, and the Council invited the European Commission to analyse the first part of the proposal, namely the improvement of the protection of refugees in their regions of origin. Another positive conclusion is represented by the gradual development of a policy at the Eu level on the integration of citizens of the Union who are legally resident in third countries. The Council took note of the Communication of the European Commission in June on the issue of an all-inclusive and multidimensional integration policy which should cover the following areas: employment, economic participation, education and language training, healthcare services, housing and questions relating to urbanization, culture and participation in social life. The Council emphasised that integration ought to be conceived as a continuous two-way process based on the rights and duties of both sides. Since the primary responsibility for integration is incumbent on the individual member states, the Council emphasised the importance of cooperation and the exchange of information and invited the Commission to present an annual report on migration and integration in Europe. Fortunately, the attempts to retain the power of veto at the national level in the area of immigration policy were blocked in the final draft of the constitutional treaty, approved by the European Convention on 10 July. Despite that, due to the lack of political will in tackling the positive aspects of immigration, it will be difficult to make much progress in this area. The Council of Thessalonica at least showed some signs of recognizing the positive aspects of migration, as a source of enrichment for European societies.
