Main Edition
US
FR
September 20, 2024 - 10:00am
The European Union is a limited entity. Much to the chagrin of dedicated bureaucrats in Brussels, the EU is less like a federal state and more like a federation of states. Its institutions must constantly balance the interests of individual member states with the often more ambitious goals of the European Commission. Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than on the issue of migration. Officially, the EU is sticking to its migration pact, but a closer look reveals at the same time cracks in the current agreement and a slow shift towards a new reality.
This week, the Netherlands — at the insistence of anti-immigration Geert Wilders, who leads the largest party in the country’s coalition — made a point of requesting an opt-out agreement from the EU’s migration rules if and when the bloc next renegotiates its treaties. Although there is no renegotiation happening any time soon, it is indicative of the new fault lines that re-elected EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will have to deal with in her second term.
During her first term, von der Leyen was often in conflict with Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who steadfastly refused to adhere to EU asylum procedures — and the antipathy is unlikely to fade. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ordered Hungary to pay an upfront €200 million and a daily fine of €1 million until Budapest follows EU regulations. The ECJ’s main claims are that Hungary has been depriving migrants of their rights to apply for asylum and has “restricted access to international protection, unlawfully detained asylum applicants, and failed to observe their right to stay while their applications were processed”.
Despite the EU’s haughtiness towards what it perceives as anti-immigration nationalist sentiment, it appears that both the European Commission and individual member states are moving closer to the Hungarian position. Ursula von der Leyen just nominated former Austrian finance minister Magnus Brunner as Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration. This is remarkable because Austria has taken a similarly hardline approach on migration to Hungary, and Vienna was also found guilty of violating EU rules with extensive border checks.
Replicating Hungary and Austria’s tough stance on immigration is Denmark — often considered a Left-of-centre, social-democratic haven. Its relatively strict policies may be a reason why — unlike almost every other European country — it has not experienced a significant populist backlash. Elsewhere, just this week British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited his Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni for tips on how to stop the Channel small boat crossings. In the last year, Meloni’s government has reduced small boat arrivals by 60%.
As for the Dutch request to get an exemption from the bloc’s migration policies, the government has cited concerns that the country is currently not in a position to accommodate any more asylum seekers without causing undue burdens on the housing supply and social services. Seeing this as a political opportunity, Hungary has announced its intentions to make a similar application. One wonders how many exemptions it will take for the EU to abandon its migration pact, but there is little doubt that should the Dutch request be granted, others will follow.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe ECJ’s main claims are that Hungary has been depriving migrants of their rights to apply for asylum and has “restricted access to international protection, unlawfully detained asylum applicants, and failed to observe their right to stay while their applications were processed”.
Violating their right to stay while their claims are processed? You’re having a laugh, aren’t you? Plenty of migrants go straight through HU without even registering themselves as they should according to Dublin – either covertly or because Hungary just waves them through (quite sensibly in my opinion). Plus, those who do register tend to clear off before their claims are processed anyway (this is certainly what I’m hearing from my friends in CZ and SK) so what is Hungary supposed to do? Close the Western border and provoke a Schengen spat? Keep migrants in detention? It’s so ridiculous, no wonder everyone is just doing their own thing and playing a game of damage limitation.
Just more proof, if any were needed, that the EU is a totally rotten institution that does not actually care about the well being of the peoples of Europe. I am still glad we left. All we need in UK now is a government that is prepared to exploit the benefits of leaving in the best interests of the UK people, ie like we hoped Boris would when we elected him in 2019 and he promptly turned round and kicked all the hard issues into the all too difficult pile, which his successors then transferred to the round filing cabinet.
The irony might be that the UK under Starmer might be the only European country that still thinks open borders are a good idea.
Another one who still clings to the mirage that is Brexit. It’s made us poorer, increased net migration, distracted us from our real issues, sown division, and if you go to our borders slowed everything down. Well done.
Brexit has substantially failed, not because the concept was inherently flawed – to the contrary. It failed because of the actions of people and institutions in the UK who were determined to undermine, discredit and destroy it from the outset – e.g. Theresa May, John Major, Sunak, Starmer, the BBC, and countless others. And, hey, ‘Progressives’ like you have largely succeeded in destroying what a significant majority of the UK electorate wanted when they voted for Brexit in 2016. Your triumph will be complete when Starmer brings us back into the EU orbit. Well done!
Add Ireland to the last sentence
According to supposed insiders it is unlikely that the Dutch request will be granted. On the other hand, the very discussion might be a significant cause for concern for Brussels. Perhaps also because it’s no longer the net recipients on the periphery who are rebellious and anxious, the pressure is now coming from the bloc’s very core. The political situation for Denmark is quite a bit different because they negotiated several opt-outs from the relevant Maastricht Treaty in 1992 already.
It is probably too late to discuss this problem as Europe to overseas eyes is overrun by illegal immigration. The conversation should be about expelling illegals and a no entry policy without exceptions.
Ok, let’s pick one – expelling illegals. We agree if no overwhelming reason to conclude asylum warranted. Now how and where? Fine if diplomatic relations with their home state. And if not?
Gets trickier doesn’t it when one has to engage with practicalities.
Couple of thou to likes of a Rwanda won’t stem the tide either. Needs much more strategic and unified thinking.
Then please share your percieved wisdom with the current Prime Minister and do something about the issue.
Hitting the criminal gangs much harder with concerted anti-terrorism laws being extended makes sense. Supporting the European border states much more too and sharing the cost. I suspect, painful as it may be, and difficult no doubt, we’ll have to find some way to reinstate diplomatic relations with likes of Assad but with guarantees he doesn’t murder returnees. We have to go to the source of the problem and not the symptom though. It is not easy to solve and telling people otherwise does not help.
Now controlling legal migration more in our ‘gift’ with better training/skills/technology investment. It would help us all if we more clearly differentiated between legal and illegal migration. The problem is the racial reflex that lumps them together too easily.
Who cares? The EU is a dead thing still walking…just…but in economic and geopolitical terms it is already finished The economy is failing rapidly and it is a mere vassal of the USA, ignored by anyone else of consequence.
No doubt the bureaucracy will survive for another twenty to thirty years ( they always do, long after their purpose has gone…eg the British Empire) believing it is important and can influence real events…but it isn’t and can’t.
Whatever the many faults of the EU, it is ridiculous to say it is just a “vassal” of the US when it has just introduced swingeing penalties against US Tech giants. Economically the EU without doubt makes decisions which affect many other states. You may consider them poor decisions, but they are impactful nonetheless. You might well wonder why the UK bothered to leave the EU if its decisions were of such little consequence!
When most of the member states blatantly ignore EU rulings, at that point you might be correct. But we are a very long way from that situation at present. Ask Yanis Varoufakis about the Greek experience not so many years ago.
As ever, the temptation for hyperbole knows few bounds!
You may consider them poor decisions, but they are impactful nonetheless.
Is that supposed to be a good thing? Sure, poor decisions can have an impact; that’s one way of learning that they are poor decisions.
The EU was complicit with the USA in overthrowing the elected Ukrainian president…supported sanctions which damage itself and support the military help to Ukraine despite the risks.
And it’s not a vassal…?
The point is that the EU doesn’t have a constitutional right to impose these decisions re illegal immigration on its members.
One should wonder how many of the swingeing tech policies were initiated by US politicians, unable to impose them in US.
It’s difficult to see any of your posts these days not through the prism of support for Putin given how characteristic and consistent that’s been. Undermining Europe and how it can coalesce together all part of his dream.
I suspect you lack considerable historical perspective. Go and ask a range of eastern European nations, even likes of Spain, Portugal, Greece, if they’d like to go back to pre EU dictatorships. While a bit of rose tinted silliness might tug at a few, most appreciate how transformed things have been.
Ah! The old “you are a Putin bot/troll” ad hominem one…again! Presumably you consider Kennan, Mearsheimer, Matlock etc to be “Putinbots” too…rather than realistic analysts of the geopolitical situation.
Yet again, I do not “support” Putin. What I support is the UK having peace and prosperity, rather than its leaders pretending it is still a world power and they are Churchill. The UK isn’t, they aren’t and the pretence otherwise risks serious damage to the UK and its people…for no benefit whatsoever. Britain is not a “world policeman” and should never have sought to be so. It only ever lost by doing so…both treasure and blood…some of it my family’s.
As for historical perspective, Spain, Portugal and Greece and the others became democratic before they joined the EEC. Your comment implies that the EU somehow precipitated the fall of the dictatorships. It didn’t.
The USSR collapsed economically and just went home from Eastern Europe…nothing to do with the EU. The Fash ist dictatorships likewise were no longer economically viable, and after some violence those countries became democracies…again nothing to do with the EU.
Of course possibly some of those countries may like to go back to being non EU democracies…
We are witnessing the birth of a new EU migration system, one that is likely to be a patchwork of exemptions, special rules, and border controls.
Sounds like a bureaucrat’s dream. You can only imagine how many will be needed to manage whatever new regulations come from this.
Maybe that’s the best tactic for dealing with the EU. Side-line them by flattering them with busy work.
Regulations for Slovakian submarines and protections for Portuguese glaciers…
Europe needs to address its parasitical “asylum” seekers problem by addressing its parasitical EU dictatorial bureaucrat problem. The very idea of fining a sovereign nation for – gasp – managing its own borders.
That’ll get a few cheers, but actually do nothing practical to stop the illegal migration. It’s far too parochial even if something in it. At some point we need to turn our eyes to what stops the transit at the border with Europe.
European nations need to all rally behind protecting the border in the Med and on the Bosphorus. Article hardly mentions the European nations struggling with this.
More collective action against the criminal organisations too.
And more joined up strategy on how we collectively tackle the ‘desire’ to come at source.
This trend is not going abate. Even a few thousand shipped somewhere like Rwanda a drop in the ocean. Much more collective strategic thinking needed. Beggar thy neighbour will not get far.
Can you point to any clause, item, or stipulation in any of the treaties that requires member states to open their borders to people from outside the EU. Hungary has every right to operate an immigration policy based on the mandate of its voters.
Missing the point HB. Everyone adopting that approach leads to every border needing a massive fence and border check-points, generating a huge cost to business, recession etc. We have to all rally to help with the solutions/responses downstream.
In 2016-2017 Turkey built a 900km wall along its border with Syria, helped by EU funding!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria%E2%80%93Turkey_barrier
There are none but it is irrelevant.
Remember treatment of Poland over judicial appointments?
There is nothing in EU treaties about it being within remit of EU.
Problem is not what illegality you comit but if you agree with direction of travel.
So Germany and EU gaulaiter of Poland, Tusk, sacks judges, replaces directors of TV stations with the blessing of EU.
Poland builds huge border fortifications in the East, no problem because it is done by EU man.
Hungary however and Polish PiS government before are fined for the same actions.
That is Fourth Reich for you.
Solution is obvious to anyone serious about stopping illigal invasion of Europe.
Sink the boats in the Mediterranean.
I guess after dozen were sunk, they would stop coming.
But main problem is legal migration.
Over 1 million came into uk in one year.
Why do wee need that many every year?
All this claims of care homes and NHS shortages are just nonsense.
Just issue temporary visas, as Switzerland does.
Only after maybe ten years of paying taxes and obeying the law you get residence and then citizenship after another 10 years.
Any support for terrorism and foreign powers hostile to the West and you are out.
I am sure Two Tier Kier is supportive of these ideas.
Keyboard warrior that you are I doubt you have the faintest idea what would happen if you asked a Naval officer to sink an unarmed boat full of people. The stupidity in your suggestion shows why we have a problem.
Nonetheless it’s helpful you get us back to legal migration – the temp visas not without some validity. The question is whether we’d get the uptake we need short term, but it is worth testing. I’m ‘for’ a clearer and firmer naturalisation process. That needs some more thought and practical detail. More broadly our over-reliance on cheap imported labour a symptom of our terrible investment and training culture and that’s where more policy analysis and response needed.
I agree with you that that UK has a “terrible investment and training culture”. There were almost 1.44 million unemployed people in the United Kingdom in the three months to July 2024. It is scandalous that we have such a high unemployment rate, and yet we are admitting c.1 million legal migrants into the UK each year. No wonder our public services are broken. A “clearer and firmer naturalisation process” won’t address the fundamental dynamic of too many additional people swelling the UK population (c.50 million in 1980, c.75-80 million 2024 – a gigantic increase not matched by corresponding increases in public service resourcing).
Every illegal migrant arriving in the UK by whatever means should immediately be deported back to their country of origin; or if that is impractical for whatever reasons, then to somewhere like Rwanda where there has been investment in appropriate facilities to receive them and contain them. If we don’t defend our borders and respect our own citizen population, nobody else will.
The EU imperial bureaucrats are despicable.
Maybe. But it’s their ocean-going incompetence that’s the real problem.
The European Union is a limited entity. —–> Do the people in the EU know this? Because their actions suggest a group that sees itself as god-like on its worst day. Just ask Viktor Orban about the bureaucrats who believe it is their place to fine Hungary for not accepting large numbers of illegals, as if that is part of the price of membership.
The final destination for migrants seems to be Britain. ‘You’ll never leave.’
Federation showing its limits. Will Europe move to “a more perfect union”? Or regress to petty states?
Just like the United States, the EU can’t take in tens of millions of people. I truly feel for many of these people, many of whom just want a better life. They come from war torn countries and totalitarian regimes. And unfortunately, some of them are hardened criminals. But the US and Europe are already overwhelmed by migrants (see: New York City). We can’t do it.
Interestingly the medium term population modelling in Europe shows a decline even with significant immigration. Birth rates are falling everywhere across Europe. So we may get a shift in the population make up but overall the number is not going to grow. How we pay and look after an increasingly aged population going to be challenge of the mid to late 21st Century
Every Member State for itself.