logo
Denmark's migration reset sets the stage for EU-wide rethink

Denmark's migration reset sets the stage for EU-wide rethink

Euronews5 days ago
When it comes to migration, Denmark can barely hide its sense of vindication.
"What has been mainstream among our populations for quite many years is now mainstream for many of us politicians as well," Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said earlier this month, speaking at the European Parliament in Strasbourg.
"Finally."
Her minister for immigration, Kaare Dybvad, feels equally triumphant.
"I remember when I started in this post three years ago, the Austrian minister was the only one who supported these notions," Dybvad told Euronews in an interview.
"Now it seems there are a lot more countries that have rallied around the notion that we should get democratic control of the migrant flows."
For years, Denmark was considered the European Union's black sheep of migration policy. In the aftermath of the 2015-2016 migration crisis, the country began adopting increasingly restrictive rules to deter arrivals and hinder access to legal safeguards, a decision powered by its opt-out clause from the EU asylum framework.
In 2019, Denmark approved a "paradigm shift" law that made temporary protection for refugees the new norm. The focus turned to self-sufficiency to stimulate integration in the labour market and reduce welfare dependency. Permanent residence was still available, but subject to strict criteria on full-time, long-lasting employment.
By limiting the duration of asylum, Danish authorities made it easier to check whether the grounds of protection were still applicable and, if not, whether deportation was feasible.
Denmark became the first European nation to declare parts of Syria as "safe", alleging the situation on the ground had "improved significantly". At that time, the designation, which saw the residence permits of hundreds of Syrian refugees revoked, proved extremely controversial and made international headlines.
A similar outcry occurred in 2021 when Denmark signed a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda. Under the deal, Denmark would transfer asylum seekers to a reception centre in the African nation to wait for the examination of their applications.
It was the first time that an EU member state openly pursued an outsourcing strategy. The European Commission, which had harshly criticised a similar scheme between the United Kingdom and Rwanda, reserved its right to take legal action.
"External processing of asylum applications raises fundamental questions about both access to asylum procedures but also effective access to protection in line with the requirements of international law," a Commission spokesperson said in 2022.
A year later, Denmark ditched the plan – but retained the principle. Instead of pursuing outsourcing at a national level, the country would aim higher: the European dimension.
From black sheep to shepherd
The Danish bet on the European level did not immediately resonate.
The bloc was then negotiating the New Pact of Migration and Asylum, a comprehensive reform aimed at establishing common, predictable rules for the reception and distribution of asylum seekers. The talks were bitter and intense, and laid bare the old-age divisions between the South and the North. At times, the Pact seemed doomed to fail.
In the end, member states recognised the value of having collective legislation to deal with a cross-border challenge like irregular migration. The five interlinked laws under the Pact were adopted on 14 May 2024, with only Poland and Hungary voting against.
The moment was hailed as a historic breakthrough.
But for Copenhagen, it was not enough. Two days after the vote, Denmark published a letter co-signed by Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania.
In the document, the 15-strong group advocated, in no uncertain terms, the outsourcing of asylum procedures, including by setting up a "return hub mechanism" where "returnees could be transferred to while waiting their final removal".
The letter made special mention of Italy's initiative to build centres in Albania to process asylum claims of migrants rescued in high waters.
It was a show of force and a declaration of intent that Brussels could no longer ignore. The conversation quickly shifted from the Pact to so-called "innovative solutions".
In October, the lobbying paid its greatest dividend when Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, endorsed the idea of building deportation centres on foreign soil, a clean break from the executive's traditional thinking.
Soon after her re-election, the Commission presented a draft regulation that would enable member states to strike arrangements with nations outside the bloc to transfer rejected asylum seekers in return for financial incentives.
By coincidence, the law is primed for negotiations just as Denmark assumes the six-month presidency of the EU Council. The country has underscored its intention to reach a political deal on the file before the end of the year.
Another key priority is the review of the "safe third country" concept, which would facilitate the relocation of asylum seekers beyond European borders.
"We want to move the migration agenda forward," Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark's foreign minister, said earlier this month in a briefing with journalists in Aarhus.
"It's well known we have a rather tough policy towards illegal migration, and we have proven to be pretty successful," he added.
Pushing the law
As it happens, Copenhagen has more-than-decent chances of success: the 15-country group that backed the 2024 letter has grown over time and today represents a decisive majority. Germany joined shortly after its new federal chancellor, Friedrich Merz, came into office. Merz has praised Denmark's migration policy as "truly exemplary".
The speed at which things are moving has alarmed humanitarian organisations, who warn that outsourcing will waste taxpayers' money and fuel human suffering.
"Denmark's model of migration control is being advertised as the gold standard and worthy of imitation because it aims to deter asylum-seekers from coming," said Céline Mias, EU director at the Danish Refugee Council (DRC).
"The current trend of European nations focusing on deterrence mechanisms and externalising asylum processes is not only ethically questionable, often violating the principle of non-refoulement, but also demonstrably ineffective in the long run."
At any rate, outsourcing remains a largely abstract concept.
Neither Denmark, its allies nor the European Commission have yet offered details on what these external facilities might look like in practice. There has been no financial estimation, no logistical blueprint and, crucially, no suggested destination.
The Italian-Albanian protocol, which von der Leyen hailed as a pioneering model from which the bloc could draw lessons, has fallen well below the five-digit figure of asylum seekers originally announced. With a reported price tag of €74.2 million, the centres currently host a few hundred migrants under deportation order.
Danish officials admit they have not yet conducted an assessment to flesh out the project of "return hubs", but insist any agreement with a non-EU country should be designed as a mutually beneficial partnership and comply with international law and fundamental rights, a high standard that might complicate the selection process.
Given the divisive nature of outsourcing, the scheme is expected to be pursued by a "coalition of the willing" with the political and potentially financial support of Brussels.
A progressive spin
Denmark's approach to migration comes with an ideological twist.
Instead of being spearheaded by a right-wing government, as is generally the case in Europe, the stringent policy is enthusiastically promoted by the Social Democrats.
The party defends many of the ideas common in the European left, such as climate action, gender equality, LGBTQ rights and a strong welfare state. But on migration, it has chosen to deviate sharply from the progressive agenda and adopt a hard line that raises eyebrows among socialists and prompts cheers among conservatives.
The taboo-breaking fusion has played in Frederiksen's favour. The prime minister is one of the three socialists who have managed to survive the recent right-wing shift and retain their seat in the European Council. The other two are Malta's Robert Abela, who supports outsourcing, and Spain's Pedro Sánchez, who opposes it.
"We need to tackle the migratory phenomenon by thinking about the future generations and not the future elections," Sánchez said last year, arguing a welcoming approach was necessary to address Europe's demographic crisis and ensure economic prosperity.
But Frederiksen and her ministers are convinced that their method is the only viable option for centre-left politicians to stay in power and fend off the advance of hard-right forces, which pose a direct threat to their progressive beliefs.
Kaare Dybvad, Denmark's minister for immigration, believes other social democratic parties should reframe the hot-button issue by taking their cue from Copenhagen.
"Migration is often a burden for the constituents. Working-class communities have taken the largest part of the task of integrating people into local communities and the labour market," Dybvad told Euronews.
"And therefore, if you're a party that is representing low-skilled, low-paid people, then you should be quite restrictive around migration."
Asked if he felt vindicated by Europe's change of heart, the minister said: "I'm just happy that we have a lot more discussions on these matters."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

European Commission hopes to finalize EU-US trade deal soon
European Commission hopes to finalize EU-US trade deal soon

LeMonde

timean hour ago

  • LeMonde

European Commission hopes to finalize EU-US trade deal soon

Talks between European and American officials have not broken down. The deal reached by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump opened a new phase of discussions, which is expected to lead to the publication of a joint statement. Although not legally binding, the document is expected to outline the terms of the informal agreement that the two leaders reached at the Turnberry golf resort, which is owned by the US president and located on Scotland's west coast, on July 27. "The text is practically ready; we are now waiting for our American counterparts to get back to us to confirm the final details," said a senior European official. As he put it, "It takes two to tango." Nevertheless, Trump has already begun to implement his side of the deal by signing, on July 31, an executive order establishing the new tariff regime, including 15% tariffs on imports from the European Union. However, this executive order, set to take effect on August 7, will not resolve all outstanding issues. It only applies to "reciprocal" tariffs, which exclude cars and car parts. Therefore, the automotive industry remains subject to export taxes of 27.5% when shipping to the United States. "We expect a change to happen very soon," said the aforementioned official.

Why is Slovenia the only EU country to ban arms trade with Israel?
Why is Slovenia the only EU country to ban arms trade with Israel?

Euronews

timean hour ago

  • Euronews

Why is Slovenia the only EU country to ban arms trade with Israel?

In the absence of a consensus at European level, Slovenia is going it alone. On Thursday, it became the first EU country to ban all arms trade with Israel, including transit and imports. In a press release, the Slovenian government explicitly outlined its concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza and denounced the EU's inability to adopt such a measure because of "internal disagreements." The decision is above all symbolic, since the Slovenian government says it has not issued any arms export permits to Israel since October 2023 because of the conflict. This decision is intended to intensify the pressure on the Israeli state to put an end to the war in Gaza. "All measures are on the table, we support, as we have done in the past, the suspension of the accession agreement with Israel, as well as trade sanctions and an arms embargo, sanctions against certain settlers, certain ministers and the Israeli government that supports violence", declared Tanja Fajon, Slovenia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, on 15 July in Brussels. "All measures must be taken as soon as possible, until there is a ceasefire, until the violence has stopped, until we have a resolution between the two countries", she added. Falling sales Other European countries such as Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands have not gone as far as Slovenia, but have reduced arms sales to Israel. Belgium officially banned arms exports to Israel following the 2008-2009 Gaza war. In the Netherlands, the Court of Appeal in The Hague annulled the export of F-35 spare parts to Israel in February 2024. The 2013 Arms Trade Treaty prohibits states from transferring weapons that will be used to commit genocide or crimes against humanity. In 2008, EU countries also undertook to refuse transfers of technology and military equipment that could be used to prolong armed conflicts. "For European states, there is an obligation not only not to export equipment that could be used to commit crimes in Gaza, but also not to export equipment that could be used to maintain the land, air or naval dimensions of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories," Samuel Longuet, a researcher at the Groupe de recherche et d'information sur la paix et la sécurité (GRIP), told Euronews. "So this covers virtually all the military equipment that could be used by the Israeli army." Continued exports Meanwhile, European exports of military equipment to Israel continue. Some countries state that the parts are only assembled in Israel or that they are used as training equipment, and not in Gaza. "The work of several human rights associations in Italy, as well as the Italian investigative press, revealed that the Italian government had just suspended the granting of new export licences, but everything that had been authorised before 7 October 2023 was still going to Israel. In particular parts for training aircraft," explains Longuet. The transfer of dual-use technologies, which can be used for both civilian and military purposes, also poses a problem. In Belgium, the Flemish region allowed a local company to export "screens that ended up in the control cabins of Israeli drones that were used to bomb a humanitarian convoy a few months ago," the researcher said. "The argument put forward by the Flemish government at the time, before 7 October, in March 2023, was that this was a generic technology, a screen that could be found, yes, in a drone control cabin, but also in anything else. And so in this case, it didn't require the company supplying these screens to apply for an export licence, since it wasn't strictly speaking a military technology", he points out. The United States is by far the leading supplier of weapons to Israel. It accounts for two-thirds of Israeli arms imports, with Germany and Italy coming in second and third places. Germany mainly sells frigates and torpedoes, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. "What we export is a little bit of everything in fact. Parts that can be used on Israeli ships, so equipment that will be used in naval systems. We also supply parts for training aircraft," says Longuet. "The UK and Italy, for example, export parts for the Italian M-346 aircraft used to train future Israeli fighter pilots," he explains. At the European level, an arms embargo is unlikely to succeed. It would have to be approved unanimously by the EU Council. However, Longuet says countries such as Germany, Hungary and the Czech Republic, staunch supporters of Israel, would likely block it.

Trump warns EU: 35% tariffs if $600bn investment pledge unfulfilled
Trump warns EU: 35% tariffs if $600bn investment pledge unfulfilled

Euronews

timean hour ago

  • Euronews

Trump warns EU: 35% tariffs if $600bn investment pledge unfulfilled

A controversial investment pledge forming part of the EU-US trade deal will need to be honoured by the EU or 35% blanket tariffs will be applied to the bloc, US President Donald Trump has warned. On Tuesday President Trump was quizzed on the deal he agreed by handshake with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland on 27 July on CNBC's 'Squawk Box' via phone. He touted the US position - which a White House fact sheet stated - that the agreement included a pledge for the EU to invest $600 billion in the US by the end of his second term. "This new investment is in addition to the over $100 billion (that) EU companies already invest in the United States every year," the fact sheet stated following the deal. The European Commission is unable to design and implement investments on behalf of the private sector. The $600 billion has been described by the Commission as an indication based on the executive's contacts with industry. "It's not something the EU, as a public authority, can guarantee – it's something based on the intention of private companies," a senior official said last week. Asked on Squawk Box what teeth there were in the investment pledge element of the deal, Trump said, if it didn't happen, 'then they pay tariffs of 35%'. Trump said that the investment pledge was one of the reasons he had dropped tariffs to a blanket 15% rate, so if it is unfulfilled then higher tariffs will click back in. The EU has been approached for comment. The Commission on Tuesday suspended a package of trade countermeasures targeting €93 billions' worth of American goods which was scheduled to take effect on 7 August, as it continues to negotiate a joint statement formalising the agreement struck by von der Leyen and Trump in Scotland.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store