A historical turn with a flavor of political opportunism
Ah, Brussels. Or Strasbourg. Or wherever the enlightened ones gather this week to decide the fate of others. It turns out that European leaders, in a fit of exemplary coordination, agreed to consider some wonderful changes. The goal? According to human rights pessimists (also known as activists), weaken those protections for migrants that have worked so well to avoid repeating the horrors of World War II. But of course, those are details. The important thing is consensus, that magical agreement that arises just when the traditional parties, seeing how they are being robbed of votes, decide that the best defense is a good attack… against the most vulnerable.
The narrative is deliciously absurd: adopt harsher immigration policies to “stop the momentum” of the far right. That is, to fight the monster, they decided to dress in its skin. A lesson in principles. And all this, pay attention to the data, while the numbers of illegal border crossings decrease. Because there’s nothing like tightening the screw more when the cover no longer has any strength, right?
The “living instrument” that some want to see a little more… still
The 46 countries of the Council of Europe (no, it is not the EU, it is that larger club that everyone forgets until it is convenient) recognized the “challenges” of migration. What a kind word for such a thorny topic. They reaffirmed their eternal love for the European Convention on Human Rights and its jealous guardian, the European Court of Human Rights. But, and there is always a “but” in these declarations of love, they also remembered that states have the sacred responsibility to “safeguard vital national interests such as security.” A knowing nod to countries like Italy, Denmark or the United Kingdom, which have been complaining for some time that the agreement ties their hands when it comes to deporting people. Imagine, having to respect basic human rights when what you want is a quick and forceful solution. A real nuisance for modern governance.
So the plan is clear: debate a political declaration and a recommendation to deter trafficking. Because the problem, they want us to believe, is not the root causes of migration, but the evil traffickers. An impeccable logic, if it were not for the fact that legal migration is the majority route. But who is going to talk about visas and contracts when we can talk about ships and mafias?
The chorus of “flexible interpretation” and other hypocrisies
While Secretary General Alain Berset tried to paint the issue as unified, 27 nations signed a paper on their own asking for a “less restrictive interpretation” of the law. That is, they want the same rights, but applied in a different way. Like when you order a pizza without cheese but with mozzarella. Andrew Forde of the AGORA initiative nailed it: for the first time, states are singling out a specific group (surprise, migrants!) to give them less protection. A milestone in the defense of human rights, without a doubt.
And for a touch of intellectual glamour, the prime ministers of Denmark and the United Kingdom, Mette Frederiksen and Keir Starmer, published an article in The Guardian calling for tightening controls to deny entry to those seeking “better economic opportunities.” Because, let’s be serious, who has gone to another country looking to improve their life? An unprecedented audacity. His “progressive” solution seems taken from the most stale right-wing manual, but with better vocabulary.
Meanwhile, in Brussels, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, fervently promised to “ruin the business” of trafficking networks. A laudable goal, no doubt, and one that sounds great in a speech. But reality is stubborn: Frontex reports 22% fewer irregular crossings. The EU spends billions paying countries in Africa and the Middle East to intercept migrants, while its own members, with labor shortages and aging populations, desperately search for foreign workers. Political coherence at its finest.
In short, a show where electoral fear wins over data, where they want to reinterpret the history of human protections because they get in the way, and where the solution to a diminishing problem is to make everything harder. A script so predictable that it is sad, but that, yes, keeps the political class very busy giving press conferences and signing statements.
Are you surprised by this turn in European migration policy? Share this analysis full of irony on your social networks and help us focus on the contradictions of power. Explore more content about the twists and turns of international politics on our website.
