The destiny of the Return Directive will also signal the future of the European Union’s decision making in the area of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). The proposal is seen as a test case, as it is the first major piece of legislation in the field of migration and asylum policies adopted in a co-decision procedure by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament.

If it is adopted by a qualified majority of member states and a simple majority of MEPs at the first reading, it could herald a new era brought about by the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty extends qualified majority voting in the Council and the co-decision powers of the Parliament into a number of new JHA areas (see Europolitics3407). If the proposal fails, it will signal a rocky road ahead for efficient decision making.

Despite years of wrangling, the Parliament’s rapporteur, Manfred Weber (EPP-ED, Germany), thinks that the procedure has worked. “The balance is fine. The job of the Council is to make the directive practical, and the Parliament must define the safeguards and the principles,” Weber told Europolitics. Still, he added a word of warning: “The Parliament must show that it is a serious partner”.

The opponents of the directive are less enthusiastic. They accuse MEPs of weakening their principled stance. “There is a general shift on the part of the Parliament to go for a more ‘responsible’ line rather than to be the guardians of civil liberties and human rights. This is possibly a result of the co-decision and the pressure on MEPs,” said Bjarte Vandvik, the secretary-general of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE). “I am worried that this could be a symbol of the future approach to the whole European asylum system.”

A table on current national practice is available at www.europolitics.info > Search > 225700