The open method of co-ordination in immigration policy: a tool for prying open Fortress Europe?

Abstract

The European Union’s immigration policy develops cautiously. Nation-states view immigration control policy as critical to maintaining sovereignty and are slow to relinquish their policy monopoly. This paper analyses the Commission’s 2001 communication on an open method of co-ordination in immigration policy, which proposes the creation of a European immigration regime of co-ordination, lacking the imposition of binding external conditions or quotas. Upon tracing the development of EU immigration policy and discussing the OMC and its soft law character, the ‘Communication’ is reviewed. A survey of its main tenets shows that while security thinking remains prominent, there is equal emphasis upon liberalization and co-ordination. ‘Fortress Europe’ is far from inevitable. However, though the OMC appears to be an appropriate mechanism for effecting co-ordination leading to a common regime, the member states have not embraced the format to avoid the further introduction of new ideas and actors into the process.

Keywords:

• EU governance
• EU immigration policy
• open method of co- ordination

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Jonathan Zeitlin, Martin Rhodes, Dermot Hodson, Susana Borrás and Bent Greve for their engaged comments and encouragement on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

Democratic deficit refers to the fact that the major decision-making organs of the EU, the Council and the Commission, are both non-elected bodies, whose policy decisions are isolated from the wider public. This widens the perceptual gap between citizens of the member states and Brussels and is seen as a major cause of public indifference toward the EU and its institutions.

SN 200/99 (Presidency Conclusions of the Tampere European Council, 15 and 16 October 1999).

However, see Borrás and Jacobsson (2004), who show that the OMC creates firmer obligations and sets clearer criteria than agreements that are usually termed ‘soft law’

The directive is rooted in article 63(3) of the EC Treaty that entreats the Council to adopt measures on the ‘conditions of entry and residence, and standards on procedures for the issue by member states of long-term visas and residence permits’

COM (2001) 710 on asylum and COM (2001) 387 on immigration.

SN 200/03 (Thessaloniki European Council, 19 and 20 June 2003, Presidency Conclusions).

Interestingly, these two areas, which attracted the attention of the EU Presidency at Thessaloniki, are areas where the social partners would play a lesser role in determining policy. The ‘interested parties’ would more likely be government entities such as departments of the interior or law enforcement agencies which have direct contact with migrants. Perhaps they are viewed as less likely to contradict the interests of national governments than the social partners if their input and assent became a standard element in the policy-making process.