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

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

Euronews2 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

Cruel summer turns up heat on Ursula von der Leyen's second mandate
Cruel summer turns up heat on Ursula von der Leyen's second mandate

Euronews

time2 hours ago

  • Euronews

Cruel summer turns up heat on Ursula von der Leyen's second mandate

It's fair to assume Ursula von der Leyen will be looking forward to her summer break. This July, typically a month of low-intensity in Brussels politics, has been nothing short of a whirlwind for the president of the European Commission, with consequential decisions and pivotal moments that could reshape the trajectory of her five-year mandate. Nobody expected her second term to be an easy ride, certainly not after the electoral victory of Donald Trump, a man whose beliefs are directly at odds with the bloc's defence of predictable rules, open markets and international cooperation. Still, the events of the last five weeks, a powerful blend of domestic bickering, global turmoil and personal scrutiny, crack the president's tightly controlled image and leave her vulnerable to a sort of stinging criticism she had previously avoided. Here's how von der Leyen's summer got crueller and bleaker. First, the motion Von der Leyen never enjoyed hugely harmonious relations with the European Parliament. MEPs have routinely complained about the president's well-known preference for engaging with member states, the real holders of political power, and her perceived tendency to treat the hemicycle as a second-rate legislator. Tensions and discontent had been simmering for months when a hard-right lawmaker, Romania's Gheorghe Piperea, drafted a motion of censure against the European Commission and managed to secure the necessary 72 signatures to put it to a vote. Piperea's motion, which combined the Pfizergate scandal with conspiracies about electoral interference, never had a realistic chance of succeeding. The far-fetched move was ultimately rejected with 360 votes against and 175 in favour. But the arithmetic was not the point. The motion put von der Leyen in a rare position of defiance. The Commission chief was forced to address, one by one, the accusations that Piperea had levelled against her, rejecting them all as "false claims" and "sinister plots". Socialists, liberals and greens, all of whom backed her re-election last year, seized the moment to air their pent-up frustration and run through a shopping list of recriminations, raising serious questions about the viability of the centrist coalition. "I will always be ready to debate any issue that this house wants, with facts and with arguments," she said, offering an olive branch for "unity". The saga polarised the Parliament and weakened von der Leyen. Crucially, it proved how relatively easy it is for MEPs to file a motion of censure at any point. Manon Aubry, the co-leader of The Left, has begun collecting signatures for a fresh attempt. Then, the budget Bruised from the motion of censure, von der Leyen shifted gears to focus on what was expected to be her biggest announcement of the year: the Commission's long-awaited proposal for the bloc's next seven-year budget (2028-2034). It was the perfect opportunity for von der Leyen to showcase her political gravitas, reframe the conversation and turn a page on the acrimonious vote. As it happened, the proposal was marred by internal fights over the total size of the budget, the restructuring of programmes and the financial allocation for each priority. Her novel idea to merge agricultural and cohesion funds into a single envelope leaked in advance and prompted immediate criticism from the powerful farming lobby. Her cabinet's penchant for secrecy left other Commissioners in a scramble to figure out how much money they would have in future for their portfolios. By the time von der Leyen unveiled the €2 trillion budget, the largest ever put forward, attention was split between her ground-breaking blueprint and the behind-the-scenes drama, which stretched through the night until the final meeting. During the press conference, the president was asked the awkward question on whether she had treated her 26 Commissioners with fairness and respect. "Not everyone was satisfied," she said, explaining the one-by-one consultations. "There's strong support. The collegial decision is taken. And now we have to fight to bring this budget further in the next two years." Later, the summit "Unsustainable." That is how Commission officials had described the state of EU-China relations in anticipation of a high-stakes bilateral summit in Beijing. China's generous use of state subsidies to boost domestic production despite lacking the internal demand to absorb it has provoked the fury of Brussels, which fears the intense race-to-the-bottom could decimate European industry. Beijing's decision to curb exports of critical raw materials, hinder market access for foreign firms and continue its "no-limits partnership" with Moscow added to the piled-up tensions. Despite the urgent need for tangible change, Ursula von der Leyen left the summit with little to show. There was a new commitment to address bottlenecks in the supply of rare earths and a joint statement on climate action. Beyond that, no progress was achieved, and the main points of friction were left conspicuously unaddressed. "We have reached a clear inflection point," von der Leyen told reporters. "As we said to the Chinese leadership, for trade to remain mutually beneficial, it must become more balanced. Europe welcomes competition. But it must be fair." The underwhelming summit suggests EU-China relations will remain confrontational for the foreseeable future, trapping von der Leyen between two perilous avenues: retaliate and risk facing Beijing's wrath or offer concessions that might not be reciprocated. "With its rare earth controls, China has given Europe a glimpse of the havoc it can wreak if the trade battle gets hot," Noah Barkin, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, wrote in his latest newsletter. "But if Europe fails to push back forcefully, throwing all the defensive trade tools it has at China, the long-term damage to its industrial base is likely to be profound." And finally, the deal Ursula von der Leyen's admiration for the transatlantic alliance faced its most gruelling test on 2 April 2025, when Donald Trump unveiled his contentious "reciprocal" tariffs to single-handedly redesign the economic order built at the end of World War II. That fateful day triggered frantic negotiations to spare the export-oriented bloc from Trump's sweeping duties. His ultimatum to apply an across-the-board 30% rate, made in a letter addressed to von der Leyen, caused palpable panic across Brussels. With the deadline of 1 August looming ever closer, the Commission chief flew to Scotland and met Trump in a last-ditch attempt to seal a deal of sorts. What emerged from those talks was an agreement to apply a 15% tariff on the majority of EU products and a 0% tariff on the majority of US products. Additionally, the bloc made tentative pledges to spend an astonishing $750 billion on American energy and invest $600 billion in the American market by the end of Trump's mandate. The outcry was loud and fast: critics spoke of capitulation, humiliation and submission to decry the extremely lopsided nature of the deal, which codifies the highest tariffs that transatlantic commerce has seen in over 70 years. Von der Leyen, who had just stood firm against Beijing's demands, struggled to explain why she had offered such far-reaching concessions to satisfy Trump. "15% is not to be underestimated, but it is the best we could get," she said. The deal, factually disadvantageous for the bloc, takes the shine off von der Leyen's reputation as a reliable manager-in-chief and threatens to become a painful thorn in her second term, which is meant to prioritise competitiveness and growth. If anything, she might take comfort in the fact that none of the 27 EU leaders appear to have the stomach to tear the deal apart and start negotiations from scratch. "Europe does not yet see itself as a power," said French President Emmanuel Macron. "To be free, you must be feared. We were not feared enough."

French wine industry warns of ‘brutal' impact from US tariffs
French wine industry warns of ‘brutal' impact from US tariffs

Local France

time4 hours ago

  • Local France

French wine industry warns of ‘brutal' impact from US tariffs

Brussels and Washington struck a trade deal at the weekend which will see most EU exports including France's cherished wines and spirits face a 15 percent US levy. 'The impact of this duty will be all the more brutal as it goes hand in hand with the decline of the US dollar in the United States,' Gabriel Picard, president of the French wine and spirits exporters' federation FEVS, said in a statement. He estimated that the combined effect 'could lead to a 25 percent reduction' in wine and spirits sales in the United States, representing a loss of €1billion. A drop in exports would also affect 600,000 jobs in the wine and spirits industry in France, the statement said. 'Negotiations must continue,' Picard said. 'The situation cannot remain as it is.' Jean-Marie Fabre, president of the union of independent winegrowers of France, urged France to continue negotiations. 'We hope to be granted an exemption,' he told broadcaster RMC. Advertisement The tariffs could reduce consumption of French champagne in the United States, warned Maxime Toubart, the co-president of the Interprofessional Champagne Wines Committee (CIVC). This would impact employment both in the United States and in France, he added. The EU said Thursday it expected its wine sector to be hit along with most European products, but negotiations were ongoing to secure a carve-out. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said on Thursday that France wanted to obtain 'guarantees' for its wines and spirits.

EU artificial intelligence regulation takes effect, sparking new Europe-US clash
EU artificial intelligence regulation takes effect, sparking new Europe-US clash

LeMonde

time4 hours ago

  • LeMonde

EU artificial intelligence regulation takes effect, sparking new Europe-US clash

Despite provoking the ire of the Trump administration and many large companies on both sides of the Atlantic, European legislation affecting the tech sector has continued to move forward − for now. This is the case with the regulation on artificial intelligence (AI), some of whose central provisions take effect on Saturday, August 2, a little more than one year after the final adoption of the bill – one of the world's most ambitious in this field. This applies in particular to the governance component; the 27 member states must inform the European Commission about which national authorities will be responsible for ensuring the proper enforcement of the rules. Service providers will therefore be subject to closer scrutiny – though that remains mostly theoretical in some member states, which have yet to designate the relevant bodies. In France, the Directorate General for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control, the French Data Protection Authority, and the Defender of Rights have been chosen for this role.

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