Denmark's new Iron Lady wants more missiles and fewer migrants. Will Europe follow her lead?
Now her plans make headlines because observers expect her to push the EU, as a bloc, towards embracing the hard-line policies that have worked for her in Denmark.
On defence, Frederiksen is urging Europe to spend heavily to ensure the EU can defend itself by 2030 – an immense task when Russia is making weapons faster than its enemies.
'Cutting our defence spending in the past 30 years was a huge mistake,' she said in Strasbourg. 'Russia's rearming means that they could, within two to five years, pose a credible military threat to Europe and NATO.'
Frederickson matches NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte – a conservative from the Netherlands – in warning that the Russian threat is part of a broader danger from partners including Iran, North Korea and China.
Every word is a reminder that European concerns align with the Australian debate about China and whether the AUKUS submarine pact will produce results. Frederiksen met Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at the NATO summit in Lithuania in 2023.
Denmark has moved more quickly and forcefully than its neighbours to close borders to asylum seekers and try to deport those who do not gain refugee status. Frederiksen sought an agreement with Rwanda to accept asylum seekers, but it has not led to transfers.
This can seem a startling shift for those who mainly see Denmark as a progressive Scandinavian state that has championed equal rights and a strong social safety net. Some Australians may find it hard to reconcile with the glamorous images of Queen Mary, the Tasmanian wife of King Frederik X.
'It is beyond our comprehension how some people can come to our countries and get a sharein our freedom and our vast range of opportunities, and, indeed, decide to commit crimes'.
Open letter signed by Mette Frederiksen this year
Mood turns against migration
However, there is significant discontent in Denmark about migration, turning the popular mood against the idea of a multicultural society where minarets can rise alongside Lutheran steeples.
A YouGov survey in February found that 41 per cent of voters in Denmark believed that migration was mostly bad for the country.
Voters in neighbouring countries have strong views, also, but the policies in Denmark have been tougher.
In 2018, for instance, the Social Democrat government unveiled a 'ghetto package' of laws out of concern about neighbourhoods with large migrant populations. These laws sought to break up areas where most residents were 'non-Western', demolish their housing and move them elsewhere. The government has since moved away from using the 'ghetto' label, and an adviser to the European Court of Justice has determined the laws are probably discriminatory.
Michelle Pace, a professor in global studies at Roskilde University in Denmark, says there has been a 'paradigm shift' in Denmark towards a tougher migration policy and the results will be felt across the EU.
'Denmark's migration policy, characterised by its increasingly strict approach and emphasis on repatriation, is a significant development,' says Pace, who is also an associate fellow at Chatham House in London and an associate member at Deakin University in Victoria.
'This shift, with its focus on stricter conditions for residency, family reunification, and a move away from integration towards repatriation, has gained domestic acceptance.'
Pace calls the Danish model a pioneer in harsh or restrictive migration policies, and it's one clearly seen by several EU political leaders as an example to follow. In May, for instance, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni signed a letter with Frederiksen warning on migration and crime.
Loading
'It is beyond our comprehension how some people can come to our countries and get a share in our freedom and our vast range of opportunities, and, indeed, decide to commit crimes,' they wrote.
'Although this concerns only a minority of immigrants, it risks undermining the very foundation of our societies.'
Leaders from Austria, Belgium, Estonia, Latvia, Poland and other countries also signed the letter, highlighting concerns that are now mainstream.
Michala Clante Bendixen, the head of Refugees Welcome, a legal advice and advocacy group in Denmark, is scathing about Frederiksen because of the harsh attitude to outsiders from different cultures.
The Danish approach, she says, means a child can be born to migrant parents in Copenhagen and struggle to gain citizenship because of a complicated test.
'We only have very small left-wing parties in Denmark, and they don't really have much power,' she told this masthead.
'It's like the vast majority of members in parliament, no matter how the government changes, all agree on this very, very strict policy and the goal of zero asylum seekers.
'That is really shocking and very depressing, especially when it comes from the Social Democrats.'
Bendixen says some politicians have argued that it would be better to have 10 migrants from Britain than a single one from Somalia.
Loading
'I think that is shocking. How does that make you feel if you are a Somali Dane?' she said.
'How does it make you feel if you are a Muslim Dane, when people constantly talk about you as a problem and undermining Danish values? It's racism in its clearest form.'
Whatever it is called, it is proving popular with voters in Denmark. The shift in community sentiment is clear. And if Frederiksen has her way, it will lead to change across Europe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
44 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Trump's dealmaker name on the line in high stakes tariff talks
President Donald Trump set out early in his second term to fulfill a decades-long desire of reshaping US trade with the world, but the main outcomes so far have been discord and uncertainty. The real estate tycoon, who has staked his reputation on being a consummate dealmaker, embarked on an aggressive strategy of punitive tariffs that his administration predicted could bring "90 deals in 90 days." The score so far? Two. Three if you count a temporary de-escalation agreement with China. The 90-day deadline was due on July 9, with dozens of economies including the European Union, India and Japan facing tariff hikes without a deal. But days before it arrived, Trump issued a delay to August 1. It was his second extension since unveiling the tariffs in April -- reigniting the "TACO Theory" that has gained traction among some Wall Street traders. The acronym coined by a Financial Times writer stands for "Trump Always Chickens Out," highlighting the president's inclination to roll back policies if markets turn sour. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, part of Trump's multi-leader trade team, has reportedly been a key advocate for the pauses. But the label has irked Trump and he insisted Tuesday that the deadline had always been in August. "I didn't make a change. A clarification, maybe," Trump said at a cabinet meeting. This week, he published more than 20 letters dictating tariff rates to world leaders including in Japan, South Korea and Indonesia. "We invite you to participate in the extraordinary Economy of the United States, the Number One Market in the World, by far," Trump wrote. He also issued letters to the EU, Canada, Mexico and Brazil -- although Brazil was not previously targeted by the steeper "reciprocal" tariffs and Canada and Mexico face a separate tariff regime. The documents "appear to be Trump's way of combatting the TACO label," said Inu Manak, a fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. "He wants to show that he's not just kicking the can down the road on the deadline, but that he means business," she told AFP. "He's likely frustrated that there isn't a parade of deals coming in." - 'Politically complicated' - "The shift in his rhetoric from 'there is no cost -- the foreigners pay the tariffs' to 'there is a short term cost, but there will be a long term gain' has put him in a more politically complicated position," said William Reinsch, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Trump has repeatedly claimed that foreign countries foot the bill for tariffs, although the reality is more complicated with US companies generally paying them. "In the public's mind, the tariffs are the pain, and the agreements will be the gain," said Reinsch, a former US commerce official. He warned that without trade agreements, Americans could conclude Trump's strategy was flawed and deem his tactics a failure. While the 90-deal goal was probably unrealistic, Reinsch said, "it's clear that three (UK, China, Vietnam) with only one actual text made public (UK) is too small." - Deflecting attention - Meanwhile, Trump has announced a 50 percent levy on copper imports starting August 1. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said officials would also conclude investigations into semiconductors and pharmaceuticals -- which could lead to tariffs -- at month-end. "That timing is not coincidental -- it lines up with the new deadline of August 1, adding more pressure and deflecting attention from any lack of deals that get made in that time frame," Manak said. Analysts believe Trump's supporters will likely not pay much attention to trade talks unless the tariffs fuel inflation. "Trade policy is not top-of-mind for the average voter," said Emily Benson, head of strategy at Minerva Technology Futures. She expects the Trump administration's focus on boosting US manufacturing and reinvigorating the defense industrial base means it could be willing to bear some political heat to achieve those objectives. But it's a delicate balance. Voters will likely pay more attention if Trump follows through on his August tariff threats, Manak said. "And we could see a negative market reaction as well, which would not go unnoticed."
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
US wants to know how Australia would use subs if America goes to war
Washington: The Pentagon has confirmed it is asking Australia for undertakings on how its AUKUS submarines would be used in the event of US military conflicts and for 'substantial increases' in defence spending as part of its review of the $368 billion agreement. A senior US defence official, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said the Trump administration wanted a clear idea of how Australia would deploy the nuclear-powered boats in the event of a contingency, though this was much broader than conflict with China over Taiwan. 'There's a conversation about command structure, about alignment of assets. We would want, in any scenario, a clear sense of what we can expect from Australia,' he told this masthead in an interview. 'There seems to be a hyper-emphasis on Taiwan in public reporting. But this is broader than any one particular contingency. It is about how we can reasonably expect these kinds of critical assets to be allocated across different scenarios.' This masthead can also reveal that the Pentagon's AUKUS review focuses on four areas: command structure, the US's capacity to produce the boats, posture (positioning) of the assets and Australian defence spending. Meanwhile, US Undersecretary of Defence Elbridge Colby, who is heading the review, publicly confirmed reports that the US wanted its allies such as Australia and Japan to 'step up' and make commitments about how they would act in the event of a conflict. Loading Colby said the Pentagon was implementing US President Donald Trump's commonsense agenda of restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength. 'That includes by urging allies to step up their defence spending and other efforts related to our collective defence,' he said, noting it applied in both Europe and Asia.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
US wants to know how Australia would use subs if America goes to war
Washington: The Pentagon has confirmed it is asking Australia for undertakings on how its AUKUS submarines would be used in the event of US military conflicts and for 'substantial increases' in defence spending as part of its review of the $368 billion agreement. A senior US defence official, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said the Trump administration wanted a clear idea of how Australia would deploy the nuclear-powered boats in the event of a contingency, though this was much broader than conflict with China over Taiwan. 'There's a conversation about command structure, about alignment of assets. We would want, in any scenario, a clear sense of what we can expect from Australia,' he told this masthead in an interview. 'There seems to be a hyper-emphasis on Taiwan in public reporting. But this is broader than any one particular contingency. It is about how we can reasonably expect these kinds of critical assets to be allocated across different scenarios.' This masthead can also reveal that the Pentagon's AUKUS review focuses on four areas: command structure, the US's capacity to produce the boats, posture (positioning) of the assets and Australian defence spending. Meanwhile, US Undersecretary of Defence Elbridge Colby, who is heading the review, publicly confirmed reports that the US wanted its allies such as Australia and Japan to 'step up' and make commitments about how they would act in the event of a conflict. Loading Colby said the Pentagon was implementing US President Donald Trump's commonsense agenda of restoring deterrence and achieving peace through strength. 'That includes by urging allies to step up their defence spending and other efforts related to our collective defence,' he said, noting it applied in both Europe and Asia.
