The EU is deeply divided on the issue of migration

The European Commission did not publish the first annual report on asylum and migration on the scheduled date, as required by the new migration and asylum pact, which the European executive body was supposed to send to the European Parliament and the Council on 15 October 2025. EU officials claim that the delay was caused by ongoing consultations with Member States and that the report needs “further fine-tuning” before it can be released, adding that it will be ready “soon”.[1] In reality, however, political debates have once again surfaced about how Europe should share the responsibility for accepting asylum seekers.  The deep divide shows that most EU countries are under great pressure and disagree on how much help other Member States should provide and how repatriation should be organised. Furthermore, the EU, which is primarily concerned with Ukraine and is seeking to develop a unified position on the war with Russia, is avoiding further division on the issue of migration. Below, we outline some of the deep divides within the European Union that caused the delay of this highly awaited report.

Reasons for the divide

Analysts say the main reason for the delay of the report is the quota for the relocation of asylum seekers among EU countries. Almost half of EU countries are under some form of migration pressure. The so-called solidarity mechanism, which would allow asylum seekers to be transferred to other Member States, would become operational once the quota is adopted. The aim is to set up an Annual Solidarity Fund, which would define the procedures for determining how many asylum seekers should be relocated to each country and how much each Member State should contribute to this mechanism.[2]

In recent months, Spain has granted asylum to 16,060 people (24.4% of all applications submitted in the EU), ahead of France (14,220, or 21.6%), Germany (13,450, or 20.5%), and Italy (7,360, or 11.2%).[3] This gives Spain and France strong arguments in the ongoing negotiations. At the same time, it suggests that countries such as Italy, Poland, or even Germany are doing less to manage the flow of migrants and refugees, which is clearly not true. In 2025, Italy took in 50,000 illegal immigrants, more than any other country in the European Union.[4] Poland is the second largest host country for Ukrainians in the EU after Germany, providing temporary protection to approximately 1 million Ukrainian refugees as of August 2025. Germany is providing temporary protection to more than 1.26 million Ukrainians.[5]

The solidarity mechanism

The new migration and asylum pact was proposed in 2020 and adopted in 2023 after three years of negotiations. The Council of the European Union approved the Pact on 14 May 2024, but Hungary and Poland voted against it. It focuses in particular on the new set of EU migration rules, which will come into force in June 2026 and oblige Member States to share the costs and work involved in receiving migrants.

The main obstacle that has divided EU countries and most likely blocked the publication of the report is the so-called solidarity mechanism. Available information from EU and European government sources shows that some northern and central European countries would rather make financial contributions than accept relocated migrants, while southern and frontline countries such as Spain and Italy continue to fight for shared relocation. Spain and Italy argue that they have taken in the most migrants in recent years and are demanding solidarity from other EU member states. They also argue that a fair sharing of the burden cannot be achieved through financial contributions alone. Under the pact, a country either accepts the relocation of asylum seekers or pays EUR 20,000 for each person it refuses to accept, or provides operational support for infrastructure funds. The European Commission has set a target of at least 30,000 relocations and EUR 600 million in financial contributions per year.[6]

Poland and Hungary oppose any idea of relocation. Polish Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński reiterated that Warsaw will never accept solutions that could be a potential threat to Polish citizens. This position is in line with Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s statement that Poland should be exempted from relocation requirements and instead provided with EU funds to strengthen the protection of its eastern border.[7] Both Hungary and Poland are frontline countries in terms of migration: Hungary on the Balkan route, Poland on the Belarusian route. Since the 2015 migration crisis, Hungary has maintained a consistent position on migration, calling for migration to be stopped rather than for migrants and asylum seekers to be relocated. With the current Slovakian and Czech governments also taking an anti-immigration stance, Hungary and Poland are no longer isolated in the ongoing talks.

The change in the position of the northern countries reinforced the position of Hungary and Poland. Thus, Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen stated that her government would clearly not accept migrants from other EU Member States. Swedish Migration Minister Johan Forssell emphasised that his country has already taken in a large number of asylum seekers over the past ten years and would now focus on financial contributions.[8] Much has changed in the last ten years, when Nordic countries championed the ideal of open immigration policies. The war in Ukraine has undermined the foundations of the economic and social systems of Nordic countries: the influx of Ukrainian refugees, which has overwhelmed reception centres; the economic crisis resulting from sanctions against Russia; their significant financial contribution to the war through the purchase of weapons for Ukraine, the reallocation of investments for military purposes, and serious problems with the integration of migrants who had previously been welcomed.

The war in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine is occupying all the attention of the European Commission, which is why it will not tolerate friction over issues such as migration. In a letter sent to the 27 EU governments a few days after failing to publish the report, von der Leyen stated that there was still much work to be done before the migration and asylum pact could come into force, but she tried to remain cautious without going into any specific details. He promised to return illegal migrants and to cooperate with non-EU countries in order to ease the burden on frontline countries.[9] Her letter was intended not only to explain the delay, but also to dispel concerns about the European Commission’s ability to handle the migration issue.

More importantly, implementing any coherent EU policy will first require the EU to find money either for relocation or for effective repatriation, in order to compensate those countries that have agreed to cooperate with the EU and take back immigrants. Running out of resources, the EU decided to seize Russian state and private assets frozen in Europe to finance the war in Ukraine. Furthermore, the EU has to buy expensive American gas and oil, as well as weapons, not to mention the tariffs imposed on EU goods. As all these resources flow to the US and Ukraine,[10] it is unlikely that the EU will be able to manage migration effectively.

The financing of the conflict in Ukraine indicates that the EU is prepared to deal with the humanitarian consequences if hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians leave their country. Over the past year, it is estimated that more than 80,000 Ukrainians have left Ukraine for Germany. The weekly number of asylum applications in Germany rose from 100 to 1,000 after Ukraine lifted its travel ban on men between the ages of 18 and 22. German authorities are concerned about this, especially in Bavaria, where there are growing calls for stricter immigration regulations. [11] Official statistics show that approximately 1.26 million Ukrainians were residing in Germany in mid-October 2025, compared to 1.18 million Ukrainian refugees registered a year earlier.[12] The number of Ukrainian refugees is likely to increase even without a significant escalation of the war, especially in winter, when Russian attacks on energy centres become more intense. Until the flow of Ukrainian migrants stops, the EU will have difficulty developing a coherent policy on migration and asylum.

Several European governments are under pressure from opposition parties or public opinion, or are facing financial difficulties due to Ukrainian refugees. Similar criticism has been levelled at them as at immigrants and asylum seekers from Africa and the Middle East. The German government is particularly concerned about Ukrainian immigration and the resulting rise of the strongly anti-immigration AfD party. Even the regional government of Bavaria called for the abolition of privileges for Ukrainians.[13] Therefore, disagreements over immigration will only motivate these critical voices and undermine the EU’s current strategy to mobilise for the war cause. Poland and the Czech Republic have also experienced similar criticism towards Ukrainians in recent months. Postponing the debate on migration thus seems preferable to once again exposing the EU’s deep splits on this issue. Furthermore, even if it wanted to, the EU is unable to formally assist refugees arriving from Ukraine, while rejecting immigrants arriving from the Middle East or Africa via the Mediterranean and the Balkans. Spain and Italy are facing immigration from Africa and the Middle East and are calling for a consistent strategy, which is not easy in the shadow of the Ukrainian humanitarian crisis.

Closing remarks

The delay in the EU report on migration shows that the European Commission is unable to bridge the deep divides between EU countries on the issue of migration. It particularly highlights differences of opinion regarding the solidarity mechanism, which the EU believed would enable it to share the burden of migrants between different countries or demand financial contributions to compensate for the burden borne by others. In reality, however, the EU’s reception infrastructure and financial resources have already been exhausted by the influx of migrants and refugees. Furthermore, under pressure from national governments and anti-immigration opposition parties, they are unable to agree to pay the price of migration due to the economic crisis and the war in Ukraine, which is consuming all available resources.