Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has said that his country will not implement the measures of the EU Migration Pact even as a key meeting of ministers in Brussels today signed off on elements of the agreement.
Hungary, along with Slovakia and Poland have strongly opposed the Pact, with Orbán previously saying that “as long as Hungary has a patriotic government, we will not implement the Migration Pact”.
Today, after the meeting in Brussels, the Hungarian PM posted on X that the EU was attempting to “force” his country to take in more migrants – or pay to avoid that. “The rebellion begins,” he posted on X.
“With today’s decision, Brussels is attempting to force Hungary to pay even more or take migrants in. This is unacceptable. Hungary already spends enough to protect the Union’s external border.”
“We will not take a single migrant in, and we will not pay for others’ migrants. Hungary will not implement the measures of the Migration Pact. The rebellion begins!” he said.
Orbán’s government has strongly opposed the idea of a solidarity mechanism, where countries which receive a surge in the number of migrants are aided by other member states who either take a share of migrants or contribute to a common fund.
As reported on Gript earlier today, Ireland favours providing funding to Mediterranean countries during migration surges instead of accepting additional arrivals from those regions.
The country will opt that, in situations where so-called “frontline states” such as Greece and Italy begin to receive significant numbers of migrants and asylum seekers, Ireland would contribute to a common migration fund under a solidarity mechanism, rather than taking a certain share of the migrants, which was the other option.
The EU Migration Pact was first proposed around the time of the 2015 Migrant Crisis, in which Greece and Italy had to initially cope with large numbers of migrants fleeing the Syrian civil war and the rise of ISIS, with significant numbers of refugees coming across the Mediterranean and landing in a small handful of European States.
The self-stated aim of the Migration Pact is to replace the existing Dublin immigration rules.
It would look to speed up the first round of checks on people arriving at the border, with more thorough security and health assessments, and to overhaul how the State handles the removal of those who are refused asylum.
EU governments are also discussing the idea of setting up processing centres in non-EU countries to manage deportations when someone’s home state will not take them back. Taoiseach Micheál Martin has said in recent weeks that the Government is considering whether this kind of system could fit into Ireland’s response.
The proposed changes would expand the situations in which someone can be held while their removal is arranged, and they would allow authorities to send an unsuccessful applicant either to their home country or to a designated safe third country, even without the person’s agreement. At the moment, only about one fifth of people who are refused asylum are actually returned to their home State.
The European Commission now classes Ireland as being under migration pressure, pointing to the ongoing shortage of accommodation for those seeking protection.
Some Irish TDs, including Tipperary Independent, Mattie McGrath have argued against the EU pact, saying it undermines sovereignty and Ireland’s right to decide at a rime of unprecedented migration, while Aontú called for a referendum on the measure.
79 TDs voted in favour of Ireland’s opt-in to the EU Migration Pact last year, with 72 voting against. Opposing the measure, leader of Independent Ireland, Deputy Michael Collins, said that the voting through of the pact was “against the will of the Irish people, kicking democracy in the teeth”.
However, then Justice Minister, Helen McEntee, “warmly welcomed” Ireland’s opt-in to the pact saying “EU migration is a shared European challenge, and the Pact will greatly assist Ireland to continue taking an active role in managing migration in Europe, securing national and EU borders, and ensuring our asylum systems are cohesive, fair, and efficient.”