Solidarity for sale? Five questions about the European migration pact
January 08, 2026
3 minutes
The European Migration Pact will enter into force at the end of June. This pact is intended to finally ensure greater solidarity between European member states in the reception of asylum seekers. But even before the system officially launches, it's already failing. Only a handful of countries have committed to taking in people, while most member states—including Belgium—are opting for a lump sum payment. What does this mean in practice, and why is it so problematic? Flor Didden, migration expert at 11.11.11 answers 5 questions.
1. What exactly does the European Migration Pact aim to solve?
The European Migration Pact aims to address a structural problem that has been dragging on for years: the uneven distribution of asylum seekers within the European Union.
Today, the greatest responsibility still falls on countries at the external borders, such as Italy, Greece, and Spain. Under the "Dublin system," the first country where an asylum seeker enters the EU is responsible for the procedure. The pact was intended to address this by making solidarity between member states enforceable.
That's why an annual solidarity pool was introduced. Member States can contribute by taking in asylum seekers, but are also given the option to replace this with a financial contribution. This freedom of choice is described as flexible solidarity, and is the result of a political compromise. NGOs have opposed this principle from the outset.
2. How does this solidarity work in practice?
The initial application of the system shows that this solidarity remains largely theoretical for the time being. The intention for the first year was to redistribute 21.000 asylum seekers within the EU. Ultimately, only eight Member States to take in a total of 8.921 people, less than half the expected number.
Moreover, that figure is in stark contrast to the broader reality. In the first half of 2025 alone, nearly 400.000 people applied for asylum in EuropeIn that light, the redistribution of fewer than 9.000 people is negligible. The choice of many member states not to take in people, but to buy their freedom, sends a clear message: they refuse to take responsibility.
3. Why is this a problem for the border countries?
Because financial contributions hardly alleviate the pressure on the ground. Without real redistribution, bordering countries remain largely solely responsible for receiving refugees. This will again lead to overcrowded reception facilities, poor living conditions and growing political frustrationsThis forces people to travel further to other EU countries, including Belgium.
These tensions are not new. In the past, countries like Greece threatened to discontinue the Dublin system unless a fair distribution of responsibilities is achieved. The current approach threatens to rekindle this dynamic, which the European asylum system is stalling again on the same structural shortcomings as before.
4. But aren't countries like Belgium already doing enough?
That argument is often used, but er zijn countries that are making much more efforts than Belgium. If all Member States adopt this approach, redistribution will be non-existent. Moreover, our asylum figures have been declining for months.
The Belgian reception system is capable of accepting people, especially within a predictable European framework. This perception is also confirmed by public opinion. Recent polls show that 71% of the Belgian population is in favor of a mandatory distribution plan that takes into account the ability to pay. The political discourse that reception is inherently unsustainable is therefore inconsistent with the facts.
5. Has the migration pact already failed?
This first test is certainly not very encouragingWithout clear obligations, the system risks once again becoming bogged down in non-binding commitments. If member states overwhelmingly opt for buyouts instead of shelter, the structural problems will persist. Member states must realize that the system can only function if everyone does their part.
According to 11.11.11 a fundamental change of course is needed towards a mandatory and structural redistribution systemSuch an approach is not only crucial for the protection of people on the run, but also in the interests of Member States themselves.
A predictable and supportive system prevents crises, limits secondary migration, and enables humane and sustainable reception. Without shared responsibility, European asylum policy remains fragile, inefficient, and unjust.
Flor Didden
Migration Policy Officer
