Rubber-stamping highly controversial migration reforms is not the way to deliver a just and sustainable migration system, Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament warn ahead of tonight’s trilogue negotiations. 

Negotiators from the European Parliament and Council are aiming to reach an agreement this evening on two files – Safe Country of Origin and the Safe Third Country Concept – that will drastically undermine key elements of the Migration and Asylum Pact. S&Ds were a key force behind the delivery of the Pact during the previous mandate. 

If a political deal is secured tonight, the files would pass a key legislative step with an unprecedented lack of scrutiny from the European Parliament. 

Ana Catarina Mendes, S&D vice-president, said:

“At the same moment that Parliament is awarding the Sakharov Prize to a journalist locked up by Georgian authorities, these proposals define Georgia as a safe country of origin. This is complete hypocrisy.

“It took eight years of careful work to deliver the Migration and Asylum Pact. In Parliament, conservatives are teaming up with the far right to undo that work in a matter of months. 

“From the outset, we have said that we will work responsibly for reforms that are both just and sustainable, in line with our values. But these proposals are simply bad for the EU: the legislation is rushed, they will allow member states to unilaterally disapply the right to asylum, and they create a situation where Europe is strategically dependent on foreign governments to manage migration.

“The EU must not create a system that trades human beings for money. This is against fundamental rights and, ultimately, it will not work. The Rwanda and Albania models were tried, and they failed.” 

Cecilia Strada, S&D shadow rapporteur, said:

“If a deal is reached tonight, this parliament’s negotiators would be rubber-stamping highly flawed proposals. They are pushing through these files at speed despite migratory pressure being low and continuing to decline. I fear the EPP and ECR rapporteurs are only focused on delivering Giorgia Meloni’s Christmas present: slashed EU asylum rules.

“I remind the rapporteurs that several countries on the EU list of safe countries of origin have recently been the subject of resolutions condemning the deterioration of rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights, such as Georgia, Serbia, Turkey and Tunisia, voted by a large majority including the EPP. Now they are saying they are safe. And worse than that, we are creating a strategic dependence on these governments who will ask for more and more in exchange for accepting asylum seekers. We should not seek to establish a trade in people for money with third countries. It is wrong and unsustainable.” 

Note to editors

Irregular entries into the European Union dropped by 22% in the first ten months of 2025 to 152 000(opens in a new tab), according to preliminary data released last month by Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. 

At EP committee stage earlier this month, S&Ds expressed strong concerns about both the Safe Country of Origin and the Safe Third Country Concept. At the opening of the European Parliament Plenary in Strasbourg on 15 December, S&Ds moved to challenge the negotiating mandate of the Parliament over these strong concerns.  

Rules for creating an EU list of Safe Countries of Origin already exist under the Asylum Procedure Regulation, a key element of the Migration and Asylum Pact. The new Commission proposal aims to significantly weaken the existing rules in two key ways.  

Firstly, under this proposal, all candidate countries for EU accession would de facto be considered safe for their own nationals without assessment of whether they actually fulfil the criteria laid down under the Pact rules. Even where the Parliament has adopted resolutions on candidate countries, pointing to civil unrest, foreign interference, or political extremism, MEPs in the LIBE committee are being asked to ignore these positions. Secondly, additional countries identified as ‘safe’ under the proposal – such as Egypt, Tunisia and Bangladesh – should not be considered safe. Even ‘factsheets’ produced by the European Union Asylum Agency – which are supposed to support the Commission proposal – do not support the assessment that these countries are safe. 

The Safe Third Country Concept – essentially another country outside the EU in which an asylum seeker might get protection instead of within the EU – is also regulated by the Pact. Again, the Commission proposal seeks to fundamentally re-writes these rules.  

Among other changes, the proposal removes the ‘connection criterion’ which currently stipulates that a third country can only be considered safe for an asylum seeker if they have a familial, cultural or linguistic connection, or have resided or studied in the country. If this criterion is removed, member state governments will be free – through loose bilateral arrangements – to designate any third country as safe for any and all asylum seekers. In this circumstance, a member state will therefore be free to reject any asylum applications it receives on the basis that safety could be found in this third country, irrespective of the merits of individual asylum applications.