Immigrants hijack agenda

In May, when the European Commission made a proposal to move some justice matters away from intergovernmental co-operation and unanimity voting and towards the community method, the mechanism that would allow this to happen, the ‘passerelle clause’, seemed like a huge issue.

The notion of abandoning national vetoes on issues such as police co-operation, criminal procedures or even anti-terrorism legislation had many EU capitals in a flurry over what position to take.

Observers agreed it would be the big topic of the informal meeting of justice and home affairs ministers next week (20-22 September). The very fact that this meeting is taking place in Tampere in Finland - the birthplace of the plan to create EU competence over justice, freedom and security seven years ago - caused some to consider that a big push was under way to move forward on these matters.

But since then events have taken over.

First, some member states have made it clear that the passerelle clause is not something they will be voting for - and unanimity is needed among all 25 members to sanction it. Germany is the big worry for both the Commission and the Finnish presidency, both keen to see it approved.

Berlin sees the use of the passerelle as tinkering with the rejected EU constitution, which allows for justice matters to come under community competence. Germany, which wants to see the constitution implemented in full, fears that once a passerelle clause is implemented, other member states would lose interest in the constitution.

Germany has said that it is also opposed to the clause because it sees a parallel process going on which it would be foolish to duplicate. Resurrecting the EU constitution is a priority of Germany’s EU presidency, which starts in January, and both this process and the passerelle would take months to negotiate, requiring ratification by national parliaments.

"I can’t see the passerelle working since the incoming presidency is so against it," says Hugo Brady of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based think-tank.

Ireland, the UK and, to a lesser extent, the Netherlands, are also sceptical about the passerelle clause. But not everyone is against it. The Commission argues that, just like proposals on the internal market or environment, it would speed up decision-making in the Council of Ministers. Currently matters can take years to negotiate because all 25 member states must be on board. France and Spain are among its biggest supporters, as are members of the European Parliament who would be given co-decision powers on justice matters. "I don’t think this old type of decision-making works. It grew up in the 1970s and it’s 30 years out of date. The EU has moved on and this is a relic, frankly," says UK Liberal MEP, Sarah Ludford.

Thierry Balzacq, professor of political science at Namur University in Belgium and research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies, also believes there is a momentum towards making better decisions. "If there isn’t a positive answer to the passerelle next week it will be closer to the positive rather than the negative side of the spectrum," he says. Balzacq adds that much will depend on the pressure France can put on Germany to change its mind, which from January may be more inclined to build consensus as EU president.

But another issue has shifted the passerelle off the top of the justice agenda. Since the beginning of the year thousands of immigrants have made their way to Spain, Malta and Italy in search of a better life. The loss of life along the way and the unprecedented numbers arriving has shifted pressure onto the Commission to come up with a response.

Finland will propose ideas on immigration at next week’s meeting, including using EU funds to finance the processing, reception, maintenance and possible return costs created by illegal immigrants and a proposal that they be fingerprinted. It will also suggest that member states use the same rules for determining asylum applications and returning immigrants to their country of origin.

Terrorism is also high on the agenda and ministers will discuss plans to share information and develop police co-operation.

Despite other pressing issues and the doubts of some member states, the passerelle will be debated next week and go before the European Council in December. "We’re hoping for a conclusion that will enable us to bring the matter forward," said one Finnish official.

But for some - immigration, terrorism and the EU constitution are the concrete issues affecting the EU and therefore the passerelle clause may well be sidelined. "There are real things in this [Finnish] dossier about important issues happening at the moment," says one EU official. "This is the return to real politics," says Brady.

In May, when the European Commission made a proposal to move some justice matters away from intergovernmental co-operation and unanimity voting and towards the community method, the mechanism that would allow this to happen, the ‘passerelle clause’, seemed like a huge issue.

• Primary Source