If the EU does not accept this proposal for the Return Directive at first reading, there will be no common rules on treatment of illegal migrants for up to ten years, warns the European Parliament’s rapporteur, Manfred Weber (EPP-ED, Germany), in an interview withEuropolitics .

Opponents of the Return Directive claim that it would betray the fundamental principles of the EU. What is your response to that accusation?

The critics must compare the directive to the current situation in the EU. For example, a lot of member states have no maximum limit for detention of illegal migrants. Is it better to have no directive, or one that sets a limit? Or, a lot of member states have no right of voluntary departure. We can now establish, in an EU-wide directive, that every illegal person must have the right to leave voluntarily. And we can also install a number of safeguards regarding children, migrants’ access to health care, etc. The guidelines of the Council of Europe are now part of the directive. The European Commission and the Court of Justice could have legal power to enforce the rules. The situation now is not very good, and the directive improves it.

Would it not be more logical to agree first on rules for legal migration, and then for the expulsion of illegal migrants?

We already have minimum standards and rules for the treatment of asylum seekers. It is a good decision to first discuss rules for all the people who need our help, such as the asylum seekers; then, as second step, to see what we should do with the ten or 12 million people residing illegally in the EU. They are the modern slaves, they have no rights. And the third step is the question of legal migration. The three steps are not far from each other.

Why is there now so much rush to get the directive adopted?

I have been working on this for 2.5 years, and my partners in the Council have always been saying that the directive is not really necessary, that things are working well at national level. The Slovenian Presidency is the first one that has made progress. Nobody at the Council really wants to see a European approach, because it does not make the work of their authorities any easier. So, if we do not accept this result, we will have no directive for the next five or ten years.

Why five or ten years? The Commission says that if the Parliament does not adopt the directive at first reading in June, there could be a chance for a second reading, although it would take a year or two…

The European Parliament has a problem to accept the negative sides of the current compromise, and I am still not sure that a majority of MEPs will support it. The Council is in a similar situation. Neither of the two institutions is sure to support the compromise with a majority of votes. And that is why it is the first reading or nothing. I see no chance for a second reading.

Do you believe that the Council will find an agreement in the next weeks and that the Parliament will adopt the directive?

I believe there is political will in the Council to have a result. The Slovenian Interior Minister, (Dragutin) Mate, is a strong partner and does a very good job. So I am hopeful. As for the Parliament, there has only been a debate about the negative sides of the compromise. But as the debate goes on, everybody should see that there are a lot of good steps in the right direction.

So you are optimistic that the Parliament will agree?

In politics, you always have to be optimistic… But there is a good chance for securing a majority. The Parliament must show that it is a serious partner in the field of migration. And do not forget that we have already had a vote in the committee [Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs], and we agreed, for example, on the 18-month detention limit. So I am not talking about visions, but about the result of the committee vote.

One big problem for the negotiations was, frankly, that the Council was glad to have no result in the end. It was not easy to negotiate what we have now. The NGOs and some of my colleagues must understand that either we have minimum standards based on the directive, or we have nothing.

Some of your opponents in the Parliament, notably from the Socialist group, say that they were not sufficiently consulted on the most controversial parts of the text. Is that true?

I have regularly informed the shadow rapporteurs about the progress on the working level, and I even decided to take them in person to all of the important meetings with the Presidency. So the Socialist group was part of the negotiations as well. They have changed their shadow rapporteur, but that was not my problem. I did my best, and I have had no complaints from the Greens or the Liberals.