Subscribe
During the current plenary session of the European Parliament (19–22 January), a topical debate under Rule 169 has been scheduled on “Restoring control of migration: returns, visa policy and third-country cooperation”, at the request of the European People’s Party. The debate, formally listed on the Parliament’s plenary agenda, reflects a growing awareness that Europe’s migration framework has struggled to deliver effective control, credible enforcement and public confidence.
For the European Conservatives and Reformists, this discussion highlights a reality long evident but too often avoided: migration policy cannot be sustained on declarations alone. Without enforceability, clarity and speed, even the most carefully drafted rules lose their meaning.
The limits of an ideologically driven approach
For years, migration has been one of the most politically sensitive and unresolved issues at EU level. Despite repeated initiatives, action plans and reforms, outcomes have remained largely unchanged. External border pressure persists, return rates remain structurally low, and the gap between European rules and their actual implementation continues to widen.
Over time, migration governance has increasingly been shaped by ideological reflexes rather than operational effectiveness. Humanitarian responsibility has too often been confused with political reluctance to act. The result has been a system generous in principle but weak in execution, creating uncertainty for migrants and frustration among citizens.
This is not a failure of European values. It is a failure of governance.
Returns as the cornerstone of credibility
Any functioning migration system rests on a basic premise: decisions must be enforced. When individuals who have no legal right to remain are not returned, asylum systems cease to operate as instruments of protection and instead become pathways into permanent irregularity.
The European Union has repeatedly acknowledged the centrality of returns, yet progress has been limited. Legal complexity, uneven implementation and insufficient cooperation with countries of origin have all contributed to persistently low return rates. This undermines not only border control, but also the legitimacy of asylum itself.
A firm but fair approach, consistently advocated by the ECR, does not weaken protection for those in genuine need. On the contrary, it preserves it. Clear rules, applied consistently, are essential to maintaining both legality and public trust.
A long-standing ECR priority
This approach is not new. Migration has been a central focus of the ECR Group’s political work for years, framed as a structural challenge requiring realism rather than ad-hoc responses. Through its Migration Policy Group and sustained campaigning, the ECR has consistently argued that weak enforcement, ineffective legislation and the reluctance to defend national competences have undermined Europe’s ability to manage migration responsibly. In this perspective, restoring control is not a rhetorical shift, but the logical consequence of policies that must once again be aligned with reality.
Borders, visas and third countries: reconnecting policy and enforcement
Migration management cannot be addressed in isolation from other instruments of policy. Border control, visa regimes and cooperation with third countries form a single strategic framework. When treated separately, they lose effectiveness. When aligned, they reinforce one another.
Visa policy must be grounded in realistic assessments of migration risk and compliance, rather than political convenience. External border management must be operational, not symbolic. Cooperation with third countries must be structured, reciprocal and results-oriented, rather than declaratory.
Cyprus, the Council Presidency and the issue of returns
This line was reiterated in recent days, when the ECR Group expressed its support for the priorities set out by Cyprus at the start of its Council Presidency. During the plenary debate, ECR Co-Chairman Patryk Jaki welcomed the renewed focus on migration, stressing in particular the need for a returns directive as an essential tool for restoring credibility to EU policy. The message was clear: without effective returns, no migration framework can be sustainable, and no political commitment can be taken seriously.
A test of political maturity
The current plenary debate offers an opportunity to move beyond slogans and address the structural weaknesses of Europe’s migration framework. Whether this opportunity will be seized remains uncertain.
What is clear is that the status quo is no longer defensible. Migration policies based on ambiguity, slow procedures and unenforced decisions serve neither migrants nor citizens. Order and humanity are not opposing principles; they are mutually reinforcing.
If Europe is serious about restoring trust in its institutions and legitimacy to its policies, migration governance must finally be grounded in realism, responsibility and enforceability. That is not an ideological shift. It is a return to common sense.