1. Introduction 1 The EU's migration and development policies are permanent construction sites. For many years, migration and asylum policies have been marked by ongoing disputes over, among other things, fair burden sharing and the externalisation of borders and asylum. The EU's development cooperation, on the other hand, has been the subject of constant re-evaluation of its funding and implementation. But particularly contentious is the interface between these two policy fields. Migration policy actors, for example, have a strong interest in instrumentalising development cooperation for the management of migratory movements. Development experts, on the other hand, insist that development policy has and must pursue independent goals and that financial resources for development can and should only be used for genuine development policy goals. In view of the growing migration challenges, it is to be expected that the pressure from migration stakeholders on development actors will increase and that conflicts over these policy areas will intensify. Since 2020, the European Commission has attempted to revive stalled negotiations on the reform of the Common European Asylum System(CEAS). This includes several proposals on asylum and labour migration. However, with limited consensus between member states on the strategic direction and the specifics of implementation, progress remains stifled, despite an agreement between the European Parliament and the Council of the EU on a roadmap to speed up negotiations before 2024. While the EU's rhetoric has been that of'reform', civil society actors, including the Progressive Migration Group, argue that the'New Pact' is regressive, does not factor in sufficient consultation with African partners, and could worsen vulnerabilities by lowering protection standards and focusing on securitisation of migration. This tension between political expediency and pragmatism is at the heart of the migration discourse and formed the basis of discussions by the Progressive Migration Group in June and September 2023. The heart of the issue is whether the adoption of the New Pact will affect the relationship between the EU and Africa on migration management, protection and regular pathways. But beyond a critical take on the EU's strategy, if Europe and Africa are to forge a constructive way forward on migration, it should be through a negotiated joint strategy and approach based on a common understanding of the challenges and solutions. This policy brief, based on my past analysis, 2 identifies areas of more constructive collaboration. Of course, as positions further diverge from each other, this may be easier said than done. 2. A'new' pact or old wine in a new bottle? Since 2014, the EU has grappled with how to develop a strategy on migration that its member states agree on and that aligns with its broader foreign policy objectives. At the heart of this debate was(and still is) the need to address rising irregular migration into Europe. While the largest numbers of international migrants to Europe(including through irregular channels) are from Eastern Europe and Asia, the sticking point has been and remains Africa. While this policy brief does not delve in much detail into the many possibilities for why this is, scholars have raised the issue of race(and thus, racism) in analysing this approach. 3 Regardless of the motivations, the most obvious aspect of the discourse within the EU on migration is that it centres its strategy around responding to 'irregular' migration – which is a mix of forms of migration that follow unlawful and unregulated pathways and include people fleeing conflict, those smuggled and/or trafficked, and those that enter into Europe irregularly. The current European strategy is about a particular category of migration(and thus, migrants) from Africa into Europe. It does not focus much, if at all, on migration within Africa and/or from other regions of the world – though these do get some passing mention. The'irregular' distraction in the New Pact. 4 Entry points for Europe and Africa