
Can freedom of movement survive Europe's migrant crisis?
The Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said that he felt compelled to introduce border checks in particular to 'reduce the uncontrolled flows of migrants across the Polish-German border to a minimum'. The source of Tusk's angst is the tougher border regime introduced by new German Chancellor Friedrich Merz less than two months ago. Under the new measures, German border guards have been given the power to stop and turn back anyone trying to enter the country without the correct paperwork. The federal police have also been granted the power to reject asylum seekers at the border if they have grounds to.
Contrary to Tusk's accusation, the flow of migrants has been far from 'uncontrolled': according to the German authorities, just 3,488 migrants have been turned away at the country's shared border with Poland. But Tusk's barb speaks to the tension between Germany and Poland that has been growing for some time.
Merz entered Berlin's chancellery in May off the back of a violence-soaked election campaign in which the debate over migration raged thanks to the inflammatory, yet effective, rhetoric of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. More than 3 million asylum seekers have entered Germany in the past decade, placing a strain on crucial elements of the country's social infrastructure, piling fuel on the fire of the AfD's anti-migrant messaging and increasing the pressure on politicians in Berlin to be seen to tackle the issue.
Indeed, Merz's predecessor Olaf Scholz was the first to deal a blow to the Schengen Area system when his government introduced 'temporary' border checks in the autumn of 2023. These measures were extended most recently in February this year. They seem to be working: the number of illegal migrants entering Germany dropped from a post-pandemic peak of 127,549 in 2023 to 83,572 last year, with German authorities hopeful that that number will drop again to just over 30,000 by the end of this year.
Nevertheless, Merz made it a day one election promise to clamp down on illegal border crossings even further – not least to demonstrate to the nearly one in four Germans who voted for the AfD in February's election that their concerns over migration were being heard. Merz's legislation has not been without its controversy – his critics claim it breaches the EU constitution, while supporters say it is merely enforcing the terms of the EU's Dublin Agreement under which asylum seekers are obliged to seek refuge in whichever European country they first enter. Germany, of course, has no external EU borders.
In remarks certain to inflame tensions with Poland further, Merz hit back at Tusk yesterday: 'We currently have to implement border controls because the protection of Europe's external borders is not sufficiently guaranteed.'
But just as in Germany, the issue of migration goes back further than just the last few months in Poland, and the country now finds itself squeezed on both sides. Since late 2023, the country has also been experiencing pressure along its eastern border, specifically the 250-mile stretch it shares with Belarus. The Belarusian and Russian authorities have for several years now been waging a campaign of 'weaponised migration' against the EU, encouraging migrants mainly from the Middle East, Asia and Africa to travel through their countries and attempt to cross into the bloc along their shared borders with EU member states, including Poland. According to the Polish authorities, over 30,000 migrants crossed into the country this way last year, a rise of 16 per cent on 2023.
Migration featured heavily in Poland's presidential election last month, in which the conservative candidate Karol Nawrocki, backed by the Law and Justice (PiS) party, won. 'Order must be established on the western border,' Nawrocki said. As such, the domestic pressure is continuing to pile up on Tusk to combat the flow of migrants into Poland.
This latest blow to the sacrosanctity of the Schengen Area by Poland shows the extent to which the EU and its leadership are beginning to strain under the pressure, both literal and political, of Europe's ongoing migrant crisis. It also suggests separately that Belarus – and its overlords in the Kremlin – are succeeding with their policy of attempting to sow chaos and instability throughout the continent by weaponising migration. Poland almost certainly won't be the last to buckle under the pressure to curb freedom of movement around the bloc.
The former German chancellor Angela Merkel made it known this week that she disapproved of Merz's new border regime. 'If someone says 'asylum' at the German border,' she said pointedly while meeting with a group of refugees at the start of the week, 'then they must first be subjected to a procedure – right at the border, if you like, but a procedure.' But, as the tenth anniversary of her now-infamous open-doors asylum policy and rallying cry 'Wir schaffen das' approaches next month, the irony is not lost that, through her policies, this most Europhilic of politicians could be responsible for the bloc's weakening – if not total collapse.
Merz and Tusk's war of words gets to the nub of the problem the EU faces when it comes to dealing with the migration crisis it has now been experiencing for close to ten years. It is becoming increasingly clear that to have freedom of movement inside the bloc, the EU must protect its outer borders with a ferocity it can't – or won't – deliver. Until that moment comes, Merz has made the first move and made Germany's position clear: it is every man for himself.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ukraine-Russia war latest: Trump could meet Putin to discuss ceasefire ‘as soon as next week'
Donald Trump could meet with Vladimir Putin next week to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, a White House official has said. The official told the Associated Press that Trump was open to meeting both Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, but cautioned that a meeting had not been scheduled yet and no location agreed on. Such a face-to-face meeting would be the first between a sitting US and Russian president since Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva in June 2021, some eight months before Russia launched the biggest attack on a European nation since World War Two. The plans were disclosed in a call with European leaders, according to the New York Times, who cited two people familiar with the plan. Earlier on Wednesday, Trump said Mr Witkoff had made 'great progress' in a meeting with Putin, adding: "Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come.'


Daily Mirror
3 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump breaks silence on major Putin summit with three-word review
Donald Trump has finally addressed the possibility of a face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, hours after reports of a summit started to circulate Donald Trump has finally spoken out about the buzz surrounding a potential summit with Vladimir Putin, mere hours after speculation about such a meeting began to make headlines. During a press conference at the White House on Wednesday evening, Trump indicated that there is a "very good prospect" for what could be a momentous one-on-one with Putin. While the press conference in the Oval Office was primarily about Apple's multi-billion-dollar investment in the US, the topic shifted when Trump was probed by journalists regarding the rumours of a summit with Putin. He responded: "There is a very good prospect that we will [meet]." This development unfolds as Trump dealt Russia two significant setbacks within hours earlier today, despite suggestions that he might be willing to engage with Putin as early as next week. The White House reaffirmed on Wednesday its commitment to imposing secondary sanctions on Moscow, with this Friday, August 8, marking the deadline set by Trump for Putin to cease hostilities in Ukraine. Washington had already issued a stark warning that it would severely impact the Russian economy if Moscow did not actively seek peace in Ukraine. Today, the White House doubled down on its commitment to implement regulations that will bar third parties from engaging in trade with entities under Russian sanctions—a policy set to take effect in a mere 48 hours, reports the Express. This firm stance was maintained despite President Trump's remarks that his special envoy Steve Witkoff's recent dialogue with Putin "went well". Taking to Truth Social this afternoon, President Trump posted: "My Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, just had a highly productive meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. "Great progress was made! Afterwards, I updated some of our European Allies. Everyone agrees this war must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come. Thank you for your attention to this matter!". Earlier in the day, President Trump had branded Russia as an "extraordinary threat" to US national security and foreign policy. He announced this as he enacted an executive order to slap an additional 25% tariff on Indian imports of Russian oil. President Trump clarified his position, stating: "I determine that it is necessary and appropriate to impose an additional ad valorem duty on imports of articles of India, which is directly or indirectly importing Russian Federation oil." The US administration is aiming to cut off a significant source of revenue for the Kremlin by targeting Russian oil sales, thereby crippling their ability to fund the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.


Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
The case for an independent Kent
I'm just back from Vancouver, where I was speaking at a fundraiser for the Free Speech Union of Canada. At the dinner afterwards I sat next to an Alberta separatist, a movement I was unaware of until now. Dating to the 19th century, it advocates for the secession of the province of Alberta and has been given a renewed impetus by the federal government's hostility to fossil fuels under Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney. Petroleum is Alberta's biggest industry by far, and the revenue generated by energy exports means the province is a big contributor to Canada's national budget, with its net contributions dwarfing those of other provinces. Shouldn't Canada's liberal prime ministers just say 'thank you' instead of wagging their fingers at Albertans for not doing more to save the planet? Not surprisingly, the separatist party has done well in recent elections, and 65 per cent of United Conservative party voters say they would vote for independence in a referendum. I was told this could take place within a year. This gave me an idea about how to fix Britain's immigration problem. Why doesn't Kent county council, which changed hands from the Conservatives to Reform in May, demand that Kent secede from the United Kingdom? If it became independent it would not be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights and would have much more latitude when it comes to turning back the boats, processing asylum seekers offshore and deporting those illegal immigrants currently accommodated in hotels. I suppose it's possible the people-smugglers might steer their dinghies towards East Sussex instead, but that county could then follow suit. Indeed, the entire south coast could become an independent sovereign state. I know, I know. Wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw from the ECHR than to break up the UK? That's the policy of Reform UK, but there are political difficulties. For one, it might jeopardise the Good Friday Agreement, which refers to the ECHR in several of its provisions. That's because the only way to persuade Sinn Fein to sign up was to assure them the human rights of former terrorists would be protected by Strasbourg rather than the hated British judiciary. Would they regard the agreement as void if Britain withdrew from the Convention? Another problem with withdrawing is that it might derail the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. The EU has the right to terminate the part relating to 'Law Enforcement and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters' if the UK is no longer bound by the Convention. Not everyone thinks these are insurmountable obstacles. Lord Lilley, one of my Tory colleagues on the red benches, wrote an excellent paper last month for the Centre for Policy Studies in which he argued that the Belfast Agreement could survive Britain's departure from the Convention provided ECHR rights remain incorporated into Northern Ireland law, and while it's true that the EU could stop co-operating with the UK when it comes to tackling crime, why would it? 'To forgo that co-operation would be a self-inflicted loss,' he says. But I'm not confident that Nigel Farage, newly installed in No. 10, would hold his nerve when Sir Humphrey pointed out these problems. 'I think you'll find there are some more nuanced positions you could take that would confound your critics, Prime Minister.' A wily cabinet secretary would also point out that even if the UK did withdraw, it would still be party to the Geneva Refugee Convention and obliged to offer asylum to anyone with a 'well-founded fear of persecution'. The beauty of my proposal is that the newly independent country of Kentland wouldn't be bound by the Refugee Convention either. According to Article 16 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States: 'A newly independent State is not bound to maintain in force, or to become a party to, any treaty by reason only of the fact that at the date of the succession of States the treaty was in force in respect of the territory to which the succession of States relates.' Admittedly, that Convention has not yet been widely ratified, but m'learned friends tell me this 'clean slate' principle is broadly accepted. So there's the solution. Make Kent – or the entire south coast if necessary – an independent sovereign state and dispatch a bunch of Reform councillors armed with harpoons to intercept the small boats. Any undocumented migrants that got through could be sent to the Isle of Sheppey for 'processing'. I imagine the prospect of being held in a pen on Sheep Island for several years would be enough to put off even the most determined.