New Zealand: On December 19, 2018, the Labour-led coalition government announced that New Zealand would vote in favour of the pact after being consulted by the Crown Law Office and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Foreign Minister Winston Peters defended his government`s decision on the grounds that “the pact is not legally binding and does not prevent New Zealand from defining its own migration policy.” The government`s decision was rejected by National Party opposition leader Simon Bridges, who said the pact could not distinguish between legal and illegal migration and limit the ability of future governments to define foreign and immigration policy.   Bulgaria: on 5 December, the government announced that it would not sign the agreement; Their representatives would vote “included.”  The draft agreement lists 23 objectives and commitments. This includes collecting and using accurate and anonymous data to develop an evidence-based migration policy, to ensure the identity of all migrants, to improve the availability and flexibility of regular migration, to promote cooperation in monitoring missing persons and to save lives, to ensure that migrants have access to basic services and to provide provisions for both the full participation of migrants and the social cohesion.  Protests against the Brussels agreement became violent and led Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel to propose his resignation. The fight against forced migration poses other problems. For example, how should states protect people fleeing repression and conflict? When conflicts end and migrants no longer need protection, when and how should they return? The increasing use of temporary protection, as in the crises in Bosnia and Kosovo, has led EU Member States to give high priority to the harmonisation of policies and temporary protection mechanisms for burden-sharing. At the same time, the Puebla group focused on the temporary protection of victims of natural disasters after Hurricane Mitch. We reaffirm our opposition to the notion of `shared responsibility`, which in its current form only implies the distribution among states of the burden of receiving forced migrants, which often have nothing to do with the causes of the mass exodus of human beings. We are not in favour of shifting the burden to others, while the current complexity of the migration situation is largely the result of irresponsible interference in the internal affairs of the sovereign states of the Middle East and North Africa. In this context, countries that have actively participated in such interference should be most accountable, including for the consequences of immigration. It is fair to note that GCM supporters, including UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, supported the progressive case that “migration must work for all,” making conservative governments uncomfortable (Full Revelation: I worked as an editor on some UN GCM documents). I didn`t think we would destabilise EU members, but life is full of surprises.
To answer these questions, it is useful to look at other recent UN agreements – such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals – and also older examples of poor international bargains. Following the intergovernmental negotiations, the final draft of the GCM was published on 11 July 2018. The draft contains 23 general objectives to ensure safe, orderly and regular migration, proposing a series of measures that are considered relevant instruments and best practices. The importance of data for well-informed strategies is reaffirmed throughout the document, as is the need for the global portal of migration data and other data repositories for the maintenance and dissemination of accurate and timely data in partnership. Objective 1 of the final text recommends “collecting and using accurate data