Actually, I suspected that your call for the European solidarity in the migration issue is just a spiteful thinking in the sense: “Since we have worsened the quality of living in our country, I want it to be worse in all EU members”. Because obviously any redistribution does not help to improve your situation (it may at best take longer to worsen deeper) but it would definitely worsen situation in other those other members.
As a good European, I feel for citizens of all EU member states that’s why I would rather prefer to change policies to less welcoming in order to discourage people across the world from even considering to be a viable option for their future lives to illegally cross borders of EU. There surely is a place for that because no other country in the world has such welcoming policies and there is no reason to pretend that EU is able to somehow magically “schaffen” (as your PM said) more than other countries.
And what does it mean more welcoming than other countries in the world?
EU states are the only states in the world that actively collect migrants before they reach its borders - it’s usually enough if they move several dozen meters from the north African or Turkish shores and they are being picked-up by Western European activists who then unload them in an EU member state and say: EU, do care for them! It was obvious that when Salvini tried to block these options, number of migrants taking advantage of this option has decreased.
There are very soft conditions for granting asylum in EU: Basically any person living anywhere in the world can find a reason why (s)he have right to live in EU. All countries in the world have some problems: corrupted governments, weak governments, civil or tribal or religious conflicts/tensions criminality, droughts, warms and other “climatic” reason (this reason has become popular recently to take advantage of the climate change mania in Western Europe), not enough tolerance of the society to individual rights of people (ethnicity, nationality, sexuality, etc.) or too conservative family upbringing (this is now popular among rich youth from dogmatic Islamic states that are not happy with their parents’ conservatism). And last but not least: poverty… So basically, it is really very hard to find anybody out of 10 billions of people in the globe who wouldn’t find a “rightful reason” to be granted asylum in EU.
Even if there is an asylum applicant found not entitled to be granted asylum in EU, EU fails to return it to his/her country of origin. The countries of their origin simply do not allow them to come in. Or even more simpler, the asylum applicants throw their passports away before reaching EU borders and they cannot be identified at all. Therefore, basically anyone who illegally crosses borders EU may stay in EU indefinitely.
The benefits for asylum seekers are especially in some EU members states highest in the world. And it is not only financial benefits but also providing other services for living (including accommodation, etc.), support of family reunification, and, last but not least: the ability to live the way they want including modifying the host environment in a way to suit them in the name of “multi-multiculturalism”. This leads to gradual shift of original European settings (including culture, shopping/goods, religious building and all the lifestyle habits etc.) to the ones that corresponds to the countries of origin of the migrants. Original inhabitants may then rightfully feel ousted…
I could name even more issues. But I guess these are good examples of issues that must be somehow dealt with BEFORE you can even think of mandatory participation of all EU members. The EU must send clear message to the world that illegally crossing borders of EU will not bring anybody a happy life and therefore should not consider is as an option to his/her living situation. This message would be spread via social networks (because Internet is everywhere today) both as an official campaign and unofficially by migrants who already are in EU, and the wave of applicants would substantially decrease in a such way that there would be no need for any common participation.
Note that it does not apply to legal crossing of borders: if e.g. Germany wants to invite some workforce, you are free to do it in a way you find reasonable (although I guess that after experience with inviting Turkish workforce in 1970th that has become dominant part of German society in the half century since than), you should be more careful even with the legal migration. For example, Poland and the Czech Republic have millions of Ukrainian gastarbeiters but with clear understanding of all sides that it does not mean a permanent residence.
And I also think that EU should revise the development help policy: EU should be less focused on financial transfers and more on transfers of knowledge that would help the authorities and citizens in the developing countries to deal with their specific problems themselves. Instead of centralization, EU should take advantage of diversity of its member states (history, experience, relationship to specific regions) and work together on effective solutions that would complement their difference in a smart way. For example, some EU members have colonial past which means good knowledge of some regions but mistrust of their citizens, other EU members don’t have such past and therefore could be more trusted as unbiased. So for example, after some short introduction by French, Czech police and army took responsibility for training and policing in Mali because they can be trusted that they don’t have any side interests. Thus the closer cooperation and combination of efforts of diverse EU member states can together bring more active and efficient EU foreign policies than centralized EU or individualistic policies of each EU member state.