Europe’s centrists are flocking to the right on migration. For some, it may be too late
One year after his election victory sparked a rare round of relief and optimism among Europe’s establishment, Poland’s leader made a startling announcement.
Donald Tusk, a former European Union Council president whose longstanding ties to Brussels have cast him as both a savior and a scapegoat in Poland’s toxic political landscape, said on Saturday he planned to temporarily halt the right to claim asylum in Poland – adding he’d fight the EU on the matter if he needed to.
“It is our right and our duty to protect the Polish and European border. Its security will not be negotiated. With anyone,” Tusk wrote on social media, in language more typically associated with the authoritarian populist bloc he defeated one year ago this week.
The move, unleashed for maximum impact on that anniversary, came in response to an intractable crisis at the Polish border with Belarus, which Europe says is fueled by Russia. At the same time, it seemed to fly in the face of one of the EU’s founding principles – and Tusk’s uncompromising tone took Europe by surprise.
But perhaps it shouldn’t have. Increasingly, Europe’s centrist figureheads are dropping their once-high-minded rhetoric on irregular migration, reaching instead for positions that were previously the preserve of the continent’s populist rabble-rousers.
Border checks at all of Germany’s frontiers were introduced last month. France’s new interior minister has hinted that immigration curbs are imminent. Both countries have been unsettled in recent months by high-profile murders in which migrants were identified as suspects, and by a surge in support for far-right parties.
Across the continent, countries are looking with serious interest at Italy’s controversial new agreement to ship migrants to Albania, which began this week.
And while European leaders expressed a catalog of competing concerns about a tenuous EU migration pact during a summit in Brussels on Thursday, those advocating for a more welcoming approach – like Spain’s Pedro Sanchez – were conspicuously outnumbered.
Tusk has the political capital in Europe to push the issue, and is keenly aware that the question of illegal migration can sink a centrist government if ground is ceded to the far-right. French President Emmanuel Macron narrowly avoided that outcome this summer and Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz is slipping behind the far-right AfD in opinion polls.
In Poland, like in much of Europe, “voters across the board expect that border security and migration controls are the priority,” Kucharczyk said. “There is very little room for maneuver for any politician.”
A Russia-fueled crisis
But later that day, leaders instead expressed “solidarity” with Poland, and paved a path towards tougher bloc-wide measures, writing: “Exceptional situations require appropriate measures.”
The Belarus situation is certainly exceptional. Belarus has long been accused of encouraging migrants to reach the Polish border, at the behest of its ally Russia, in the hopes of exposing cracks in the EU’s border-free principles and common asylum system.
But Thursday’s victory for Tusk in Brussels underscores a broader, rightward shift across Europe on the issue of irregular migration. The continent’s new vocabulary includes concepts like external “return hubs” to which asylum seekers are sent – a fringe idea just two years ago that now holds serious weight.
EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Scholz, as well as Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer – the continent’s centrist flagbearers, each at one time hailed as counterweights to anti-migrant populism – have scrambled over each other to emphasize the consideration and thought they are giving to Italy’s arrangement with Albania.
Its architect, Italy’s right-wing leader Giorgia Meloni, was expected to be something of an outcast on the European stage when she took office two years ago. Now, more and more leaders are sounding more and more like Meloni.
European arrivals are in fact coming down; there have been around 140,000 this year, compared to a seven-year high of around 275,000 last year.
But instability and displacement in the Middle East, the success of populist parties in virtually every part of the continent this year and a number of violent attacks allegedly committed by migrants – which have been quickly pounced upon by right-wing politicians, sometimes aided by a flow of misinformation – mean that the potency of the topic is only mounting.
Scholz looks on enviably as the far-right surges
Still, if Europe is heading in the same direction on illegal migration, it remains disunited.
A long-awaited new EU migration pact, aimed at sharing the burden of processing asylum claims more evenly across the bloc, has been picked apart from various angles by the 27 leaders. Some want it implemented sooner; others, including Tusk, have said they won’t accept relocated asylum seekers.
There is an evergreen issue at the heart of Europe’s latest divide; it is made up of 27 leaders who each have their own, domestic audiences at the front of their minds. But all of them have learned by now that public anger towards increasing legal and illegal migration is an indelible political force.
In Poland, Tusk is attempting to bend it towards his will. The veteran of centrist politics has banked some credit with voters one year after his election victory, but the populist Law and Justice (PiS) party he ousted last October remains a dangerous force, and its attacks on Tusk are primarily two-pronged: that he is a stooge of Brussels, and weak on the border.
There are caveats to Tusk’s plan. It is more targeted towards the Belarus border crisis than the initial language suggested; it is not immediate and its path to becoming law is tenuous. It is not entirely new – Finland has pursued a similar plan this year – and it is an escalation of, not a break with, Tusk’s stance on border security, which has always centered on efforts to repel the massing crowds in Belarus.
But tellingly, most of those details were missing from the prime minister’s initial announcement. “Tusk amplified the message (on asylum) on purpose to get attention,” Kucharczyk said. “The migration and security narrative was something that PiS has been using very successfully over the years; now Tusk has stolen it from them, and turned it against them.”
Tusk will hope this gambit sets the table for May’s election to succeed Poland’s PiS-aligned, veto-happy president – a contest that is absolutely pivotal to the government’s legislative hopes. “It’s an existential issue for this coalition, and they don’t want to take chances on issues like migration,” Kucharczyk said.
Scholz may be looking on enviably. Tusk has staked out a hardline position on the border before the issue tanks his popularity, but for the German leader, it may already be too late.
Scholz, whose SPD party is on course to lose power next year, has been slow to react to public anger, ignited most recently by a fatal stabbing in the western city of Solingen. The suspect was identified as a 26-year-old Syrian man with alleged links to ISIS, who had been due for deportation.
Days later, the AfD scored the first far-right state election victory in the country since the Nazi era – a breakthrough that spooked Europe.
That context informed Scholz’s sudden move to introduce checks at Germany’s western borders, in addition to checks that had already existed on its eastern flank. Hungary and Slovakia have made similar moves.
The wider question is whether the longstanding principles of the border-free Schengen Area can survive an enduring era of rising migration and populist subversion.
Its answer may depend, in part, on how successfully Europe’s current crop of centrists can take the fight on migration to their populist rivals – and whether they can maintain a reputation for moderation while doing so.
On that, Tusk seems willing to chart the course. But from the left, there are risks. “Tusk’s voters may applaud the security dimension (of his asylum plan),” Kucharczyk said. “But they will also want to see how (he) is different from the hard right.”
