EU Migration and Asylum at a Crossroads: Planning for Uncertainty

Following the adoption of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum reforms, the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is about to formally begin its new life, with the policy machine now in motion. The policy cycle officially starts in October 2025 when the European Commission presents its first Annual Asylum and Migration Report and transmits to the Council a proposed allocation and distribution of solidarity, based on the needs identified in the Annual Report. It will then be up to the Commission to secure buy-in from member states and the Council to reach an agreement on the “Solidarity Pool”.

Since the reforms’ adoption, the Commission’s mantra has been clear: “implement, implement, implement”. The immediate focus is on ensuring operational preparedness and rallying member states behind the new architecture. Once the Annual Report is published and discussions on the Solidarity Pool begin, national administrations and EU systems will have to be implementation-ready by mid-June 2026, when the reformed rules become fully applicable.

Beneath the surface, uncertainty looms on two fronts: whether member states will have the capacity – people, infrastructure, resources – and the political will to implement, and how resilient the system will be to external shocks – from geopolitical instability and displacement dynamics in nearby regions to potential rises in irregular arrivals that test both administrative and political resilience. This Discussion Paper aims to steer an informed conversation about the risks and possible failures linked to implementation. It adopts a foresight-inspired approach to stress-test assumptions and identify pressure points before they harden into crises.

The Paper sets out four fictional but plausible scenarios. The scenarios are based on a two axis-matrix which reflects different political priorities: implementing the new rules in full and preserving the CEAS. In the first scenario, implementation is ensured and the CEAS preserved until geopolitical instability threatens both. The second scenario features a phased, control-first rollout that preserves the CEAS but leaves the overall system fragile. In the third, a coalition of willing states aims to form an ‘Open Supra-governmental Avantgarde’ (OSGA). The OSGA promotes cooperation and implementation via mini-Schengen and mini-Dublin arrangements while the CEAS comes to an end. In the fourth, non-implementation cascades into the collapse of the CEAS and threatens the EU as such.

The Paper presents these scenarios via an experimental and journalistic register to maximise accessibility and policy salience. Each fictional report is set in late December 2026 – six months after the Pact’s entry into application and roughly a year after the Solidarity Pool’s scheduled adoption – to illustrate how early decisions and external events could combine in practice.

None of the four scenarios is intended to predict how the future will unfold. In fact, the scenarios are not based on an accurate stocktaking of member states’ capacity or will to implement the new rules. However, each reveals specific vulnerabilities – from limited commitments to solidarity and capacity bottlenecks, political polarisation and over-reliance on externalisation – that policymakers should factor into implementation choices. While the paper does not advance recommendations, it argues that a foresight function should be built into the CEAS through regular and system-wide assessments. Doing so is essential to strengthen preparedness, maximise the reforms’ potential benefits while avoiding strategic risks.

Read the full discussion paper here.
 

Alberto-Horst Neidhardt is Senior Policy Analyst and Head of the European Diversity and Migration programme.

Virginie Jacob is a Senior Advisor on Migration and Diversity at the European Policy Centre.

The support the European Policy Centre receives for its ongoing operations, or specifically for its publications, does not constitute an endorsement of their contents, which reflect the views of the authors only. Supporters and partners cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.