September 27, 2023 - 10:00am
Freedom of movement, a cornerstone of the European Union, is under threat as countries throughout the bloc scramble to tackle illegal migration. After months of unilateral measures and bitter arguments between central European member states, even Germany — a nation which previously took a leading role in welcoming migrants to Europe — is getting in on the act by putting national border security above Schengen area norms.
Germany will introduce new spot checks on borders with Poland and the Czech Republic in the coming days; cooperation with the Czech authorities was announced after Berlin threatened to unilaterally impose checks “in order to stop smugglers”, but no such co-operation has yet been reached with Poland. Unilateral measures are no longer unusual in the region, though, with various central European states having taken similar steps in recent months.
Germany’s move signals a wider hardening of the EU’s stance — and a tacit admission that freedom of movement is increasingly problematic in an age of mass migration. Also this week, Poland announced new vehicle checks on its border with Slovakia, with Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki declaring that thanks to the checks “no one could accuse us of having a leaky border”.
Weakness on illegal migration isn’t a criticism that many would choose to level at Poland — but such is the potency of the issue that even one of the most openly anti-immigrant governments in Europe is vulnerable to criticism. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz justified his government’s threat to act unilaterally by referring to the “visas-for-bribes” scandal rocking Warsaw, in which Polish officials are accused of handing out visas in exchange for cash at consulates across Asia and Africa. Scholz said he doesn’t “want Poland to simply wave people through and then have a discussion about our asylum policy afterwards”, warning that “further measures may have to be taken at borders”.
The irony of Germany’s criticism is striking given the chasm that has separated the two nations’ rhetoric on migration since the 2015 migrant crisis. For the Polish government, criticisms from Berlin are more than just galling; they’re also seen as an attempt to influence general elections coming on October 15. Morawiecki shot back that “it would be better for you, Mr Chancellor, to inform yourself accurately about the situation and refrain from interfering in Polish affairs”.
The row is the latest instance of hostility between Warsaw and Berlin as Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party bets on stoking anti-German sentiment in its election campaign, accusing leader of the opposition Donald Tusk of being Berlin’s stooge. Morawiecki has claimed that Tusk is behind an overblown international portrayal of the visas-for-bribes scandal, saying inspections only uncovered “irregularities involving several hundred visas”, a drop in the ocean in the context of overall migration flows through the EU.
Yet the idea that Berlin could damage PiS’s credibility by attacking it on migration illustrates just how strongly voters’ desire for an illegal migration crackdown is influencing national politics, including in countries that previously espoused openness. Alarmed by the surging popularity of Alternative für Deutschland, even Germany’s Green Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck urges action, claiming “if we don’t want Right-wing populists to exploit this topic, all democratic parties are required to help find solutions”.
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.
SubscribeProbably the biggest lie of the globalists (in a crowded field) is the slogan ‘free movement of labour and capital’. There can never be free movement of labour. Someone always pays.
Never mind all these high level disputes over illegal migration. We are informed by Sky News and ITV’s Good Morning Britain that Suella Braverman’s Washington speech has earned the disapproval of Sir Elton John (himself). Well, if an ageing pop singer say’s Braverman has got it wrong then world powers must surely take heed.
Whenever the BBC, etc., refer to the “court of international opinion”, they always mean Sir Elton, Bob Geldof and George Clooney’s missus..
And Lineker.
True, though he is a tad parochial to be considered “international”.
And AC Grayling and Gina Miller.
Reg is entitled to his opinion. What is disturbing is that anyone pays any attention to it. This is not, after all, a man who has any experience at all of the reality that the rest of us inhabit.
Exactly, he lives a life of utter luxury and privilege that has more in common with the aristocracy than the ordinary person.
Suella Braverman is the only UK politician (maybe in the world?) who has had the guts to stand up and assert that uncontrolled mass migration represents an existential threat to western civilisation. I think she is superb, even if her Tory colleagues leave her out on a limb by virtue of their deafening silence.
Do you think Mrs Braverman really thinks mass immigration is corrosive for British society, or is she just saying it to tickle the Tory party members? Sunak will almost certainly go back into banking, where the money is, after his election defeat. Suella would be well positioned.
Given that such a large number of Britons really think so, I’d imagine there’s a better than evens chance the she really thinks so too. Even without politicking.
Ms Braverman, like Mr Starmer, is a skilled dresser of windows.
Why would anyone want to be a member of the Conservative Party after the member’s choice of party leader was replaced by the MPs’ favourite and the membership denied a vote so that they couldn’t interfere in the ‘democratic process’?
All these statements relating to immigration are like chaff, the bunches of tinfoil strips that were released from aircraft to confuse the ground radar.
“Oh look! We tried to stop the boats, but it was the courts; they just got in the way. Did we expect our Rwanda scheme to be challenged in the courts? Don’t be daft! As if anyone could say that the Scheme is like the liberal Christians idea of Hell: it exists but there’s no one there. So do carry on voting for us; you know we have your best interests at heart.”
Everybody will be saying it in 2 years or so… the numbers will keep on rising and rising unless and until there is deterrence. I don’t know how the wokey types can even pretend to believe otherwise.
Blimey! And some people who were enthusiastic supporters of Net Zero are having second thoughts, too. And a few people are beginning to think that having beefy penile amputees knocking women about is not exactly sporting.
(Kipling)
Ah, my favourite Kipling.
There was an article in the WSJ yesterday that called these the three crumbling pillars of the New Moral Order:
The article goes on to relate that all three are rapidly crumbling, citing the Lampedusa dinghy invasion last week, Sunak pushing out the deadline for phasing our petrol cars (which both the author and I think is far more important than the modest changes alone suggest – first crack in the edifice etc) and the Aussies vote on extra rights for Aboriginals (‘The Voice’) which is likely to be a rejection.
Once the MSM has cottoned on, I believe the game is up.
“… man’s essential energy-consuming sinfulness can be expiated only by massive sacrifice of economic progress” and by paying grotesquely huge reparations to the ‘developing world’ over and above the gigantic trillions of dollars already donated in foreign aid (to Africa alone!).
It only seems like only yesterday we were writing off 100% of the debts of the 42 poorest countries. Don’t remember getting the thanks for that before we moved onto “climate reparations” and “slavery reparations”. Not to mention truck loads of foreign aid dollars.
Thank you for these thought-provoking comments. I am getting as much out of these comments at times as I am getting from the articles. Please keep up the good work.
I have seen many complacent assertions that Woke has peaked, Woke is finished, go Woke and go broke…
And yet Woke keeps rolling on using its entryist methods to take more and more territory. The Woke colonisation of our institutions is drawing much critical disapproval but meeting little effective restistance – unless you think that grumbling on social media forums amounts to a real fightback.
Arguably the Woke have been pushing against an open door and have been emboldened to propose any number of daft ideas, given the opportunity.
Not a bad thing if the daft ideas are cut back a bit but the Woke are still there pushing for whatever they can get away with.
There has been a quiet rebellion and the Woke have won. Most young people follow fads from the US – they even speak with American accents because most of the Youtube presenters are American. Everything that happens in the US is more extreme than here. We tend to slow things down but we get it in the end.
What will stop Woke but another revolution? Another revolution means another generation. So Woke is here for a while to come.
The biggest problem of all is the Wokeness of the teaching unions. Whatever governments say, the teachers will teach what the unions want them to teach. They will not go against their unions.
Things may not be as grim as you think. Orwell said that ‘all hope lies with the proles’. I had an evening recently with an honorary niece (2nd year undergraduate). While I’m sure she likes to think of herself as a prole (albeit in a privileged, middle-class, second-property-owning, thought leadership at the vanguard of the proletariat sense) she did express the opinion (admittedly after a second large glass of white wine) that biological sex was real and may drive men and women to have different interests, expectations and behaviours. I did point out that this was heresy and would not win her any friends. Hang on in there – we may be saved sooner than you think!
Thanks for trying to cheer us up. You must admit that you were in a strange situation. According to the Wisdom of Crowds Theory, she will not behave in the same way with a group of her friends.
Even if she is resolute and happy to stand out in a crowd, she will represent a very small minority.
Abilene paradoxes everywhere! We should “raise awareness…”
I agree with most things you say, but I’m not sure that the country that shuts down Nigel Farage’s bank accounts and is arresting people for “h*t*” speech has any room to say it’s lagging behind the U.S. on wokeness. Y’all seem closer to Canada levels than we are. With all due respect
They’ll keep on pushing, as they’ve captured institutions. Which pump out people who believe this schlock.
We are destined for an unceasing lowkey battle where elected politicians decline to implement many of the demands, come into power with a mandate to remove them, roll back on them due to fear of defeat, or are actually defeated/removed for not doing so.
Where a change isn’t one required to be done by an elected official, the non-elected will continue to trowel out the arse-gravy, no matter how crazy the reform or how objectional the odour.
*****
One good thing about the battle in 2023 is that it is mostly lowkey. No-one tries to convince anyone on the other side now.
Remember when folk thought you’d believe this schtick ? It could get exhausting.
Believe the Hogwart’s Legacy ‘boycott’ was a defining moment, when even they finally got that no-one was buying their spiel. 80 FB likes vs 8000 laugh-reacts? Those are the kinds of maths that do themselves.
It should be obvious by now that power trumps opinion in our democratic West. The activists aren’t really bothered that a majority of parents object to the ‘queering’ of their children’s education. They can make it happen anyway – and portray their action as a moral necessity. Moralty is of course the best means of social control – people monitor each other.
“…power trumps opinion..”. Agreed and this is because we don’t have free speech, even on UnHerd. It just takes one person to be offended and the plug is pulled. A joke.
“… majority of parents object to the ‘queering’….” Not sure about this. I think the reaction to education depends on the age and education of the people who are objecting.
If you are fairly well educated, you can think and seek opinions from others, you are over 40, say, then you will object. If you are 20-25 years old of normal (poor) education, then you will follow the present trends, assuming that they must be correct.
They’ve done a couple polls in Canada. Support for schools keeping student gender change a secret from parents is less than 20%, while those who oppose it is close to 60%.
That is surely a start. Two things though:
1) These polls are done in private – nobody is listening.
2) The ‘secrets’ bit would offend most people, whatever their level of education. But the ‘secret’ bit is just a part of the whole thing.
If you think that lack of free speech is the problem you have missed the point of my comment. It’s not about whose opinions get marginalised by cancellation. Power trumps opinion however freely that opinion is expressed. What matters is which activist groups have the power and influence to force acceptance of their beliefs via the institutions.
Why do Woke activists never get cancelled?Because they know how to exploit free speech while denying it to their enemies on moral grounds [ie. Our speech protects while your speech harms].
Don’t think the troublesome types have had anything amputated and have no intention of doing so.
I remember when Reg rang Reception, while staying in the penthouse of a very, very high-rise hotel, to ask staff whether they couldn’t do something about the wind.
*****
I declined to help a gay asylum seeker some years ago.
I understand he is nonetheless happily living in the UK.
With his wife, of course.
And five children.
Strange that the article did not refer to Angela Merkel’s decision to admit c. 1 million migrants into Germany several years ago, thereby precipitating a massive crisis throughout the EU (and UK).
It’s probably too late for Europe to stop itself from being overrun and destroyed as a civilized region.
So German politicians are only worried about the issue of illegal immigration because it might empower AfD. If not for that they’d be totally fine with it.
Anybody told the illiberal undemocrats who have been demonstrating their grasp of modern day politics at their annual convention by singing “‘Gold stars on the flag, four freedoms still gleaming, glory years of peace,‘” to the tune of 3 Lions!!!
Reality eh-such a pisser.
Right,this is my two penn’orth. As I understand it the original idea of political asylum is from the circa 1890s in and in reality was only for political activists who were upper or middle class and whose dissent would get them locked up in their own country so they would enjoy the hospitality of educated middle class people in another country. It wasnt available for coal miners,or factory workers,or field labourers etc. After WW2 whole EUROPEAN populations were displaced and the widening of the criteria in 1951 was to more quickly and easily facilitate the replacing of people BACK TO their original place in society far as that could be done. The idea was to rebuild Europe which was done successfully. All the European countries used the USA aid money to rebuild their economies,they built their health systems slowly and carefully in that system. Here in Britain the then establishment having knowingly and callously allowed the perpetration of total war on the civilian population knew that the returning soldiers would kick them out of power,they knew they had to throw the proletariat a shiny toy of distraction,in order to keep things how they like it,so they spent all the USA money on creating the NHS and left private business to rebuild the economy. The NHS,while a wonderful thing,and a wonder at the time,was really a shiny toy to distract the masses and fake the idea that all those conscripted men had died or been wounded and/ or suffered psychological pain for something,the idea of England while actual England was going to be desecrated and destroyed in the following decades. I’ve never read any of the Tolkien books but I recently heard thats how it ends. The heroes leave The Shire,save the planet,lol, and come back to find The Shire is now 1950s suburbia.
The refugee/asylum seeker laws were never intended for WHOLE POPULATIONS. And political asylum was never meant for goat herders or field workers or prawn farmers etc.
Not to say they don’t deserve it but when lawyers get access to funds,grants etc to represent such people the kerching factor is going to kick in. Due to an inheritance situation in my family I have learnt just why the words “criminal” and “lawyer” fit together so well.
The EU grapples with a wicked problem and adopts a different approach to elements of free movement before it undermines other basics. Quite possibly where we are heading and EU quite capable of being self-interested and pragmatic when it needs to be. Almost certainly need to be combined with additional joint action in support of the countries absorbing more of the influx – Italy, Greece etc. Was always a possibility, and begs question whether if UK still a party to this whether a revised approach would be agreed even more easily? Probably IMO.
Free movement goes back to the Treaty of Rome though and certainly reinforced by Thatcher when she championed the expansion of the free market. A free market is just that. But in truth the degree of movement wasn’t predicted, and break-clauses not activated when they perhaps in hindsight should have been.
The refugee/boats crisis though is not really the same, although Author conflates it. Germans putting measures in place for a specific issue related to fraud, not related to Boats, and because don’t like some Poles using dislike of Germany as an electoral card. Importantly the Boats issue isn’t going away whatever EU does on Free movement and without a large wall between countries, that would cobbler trade and create immediate massive recessionary impacts, the problem the Italians and Greeks have will be as much our problem if they give them free passage through – and why wouldn’t they. We would straight away in their position.
Braverman’s comments yesterday, despite the manipulated and misleading stats she gave to play to her ‘base’ all very well but doesn’t actually offer a solution. Just yet more rhetoric. Easy to nod along. The people though trying to get on a boat in Tunisia aren’t listening Suella. They are listening to the traffickers promises. Now we may get a couple of airlifts to Rwanda in early 24, the question is what change in the calculation does a small number sent to Rwanda make? Not sufficient yet for sure, so we need many other responses too.
If Rwandan processing results in the same outcomes as (Australia’s) Nauru processing, then it could be a game changer.