ENHANCING THE VOICES OF THOSE AFFECTED BY THE EU’S POLICIES ON MIGRATION AND ASYLUM Introduction INTRODUCTION In recent years, the European Union’s and EU member states’ policies on migration and asylum seem to have increasingly shifted towards an approach that prioritises the curtailment of the movement of refugees and migrants both towards and within the EU (“onward movement”), at the expense of their rights. third countries outside the EU and on maintaining an imbalanced EU system that will continue to disproportionately affect member states at the union’s external borders, not least through stricter rules aimed at halting the onward movement of asylum seekers and refugees within the EU.2 An element of this shift is the increased emphasis on agreements with third countries, such as Libya and Türkiye, and more recently Albania, Egypt and Tunisia, for the purpose of halting the movement of refugees towards the EU. It also includes the numerous incidents of irregular forced returns (i.e. pushbacks) that have been reported at European borders, at times in blatant disregard even of interim measures granted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR),1 and an ongoing lack of intra-EU political will, when it comes to sharing the responsibility to protect refugees in a fair and proportionate manner, in accordance with the principle of solidarity underlying the very foundations of the EU. Notwithstanding the multiple issues arising out of this approach, which seem to be also accompanied by frequent representations of refugees and migrants as “bogus”, threats and freeloaders purposely cherry-picking their country of destination (e.g., asylum shopping) in pursuit of benefits, on the one hand, yet helpless victims at the hands of smuggling rings and other states (“instrumentalisation”), on the other, a significant element that stands out is the ongoing absence, at least at the level of institutional discussions, of the “voice” of the very people affected by these policies. The latest step in this approach is the recent agreement (December 2023) on the European Pact on Migration and Asylum, which despite the serious concerns it has raised since September 2020, when it was initially proposed by the European Commission, doubles down on shifting the responsibility to protect refugees to 1 For more, see GCR, “GCR’s information note on interventions and on interim measures granted by the ECtHR in cases regarding pushbacks,” 26 January 2024 (last update), https://tinyurl.com/3rx8szr8. In this context, the current project attempts to serve as a pilot for assessing this policy shift and relevant developments around the pact and the 2 For more on the pact, see, among others, Joint Statement by civil society organisations, “The Pact on Migration and Asylum: To provide a fresh start and avoid past mistakes, risky elements need to be addressed and positive aspects need to be expanded,” 13 October 2020, https://tinyurl.com/mr3k84ye; PICUM, More detention, fewer safeguards: How the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum Creates New Loopholes to Ignore Human Rights Obligations, October 2020, https://tinyurl.com/fkwx8hz9; ECRE, “Editorial: Migration pact agreement point by point,” 9 June 2023, https:// tinyurl.com/4ewnkfw9; MSF, “MSF calls on EU Parliament and EU member states to prioritise safety of people seeking sanctuary,” 12 December 2023, https://tinyurl.com/23y5fr9w; HRW, “EU’s migration pact is a disaster for migrants and asylum seekers,” 21 December 2023, https://tinyurl.com/4pmk6ujr. 5