Connect with us

Europe

Germany’s new migration policy draws fire from neighbors

Published

on

Concerns are mounting that the new measures implemented by Germany’s federal government to deter asylum seekers from entering the country could escalate into conflicts with its neighbors.

Berlin’s decision to completely prevent asylum seekers from entering Germany is facing scrutiny at the EU level. Legal proceedings are anticipated against these German measures, with predictions that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is likely to rule against Berlin.

Last week’s introduction of stricter border controls, aimed at identifying potential asylum seekers, triggered protests both within Germany and abroad. For instance, the mayor of Kehl asserts that these controls undermine the carefully cultivated cooperation with the French city of Strasbourg.

Neighboring governments are equally incensed. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated, “We will not accept those who send groups of migrants to Poland.” Chancellor Friedrich Merz, however, has declared that Germany will not compromise.

Given that permanent border controls within the Schengen area are incompatible with EU law, the federal government justifies its actions under Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This article permits EU member states to invoke national laws, rather than EU laws, if it is necessary to “protect public order” or “protect internal security.”

The national legislation currently invoked by the federal government is Article 18(2) of the German Asylum Act. This article unequivocally states that “foreigners shall be refused entry if they enter from a safe third country.” Notably, all of Germany’s neighboring countries are officially classified as “safe third countries.”

Berlin is now adopting a policy of generally refusing asylum applicants, with exceptions solely for children and pregnant women. Furthermore, the procedure is stipulated to be “proportionate.”

This approach clearly contravenes the Dublin Agreement, which permits asylum seekers to be returned to the EU member state through which they initially entered, while also requiring the identification of their country of origin. Berlin, however, argues that the Dublin Agreement can be disregarded because it is “not functional in practice.”

Widespread skepticism exists regarding the legal defensibility of the framework the federal government is using to legitimize its actions.

The European Commission is also reportedly taking a “critical” stance on this entire process. It is suggested that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen did a “favor” to Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who visited Brussels on Friday, by refraining from publicly disclosing the “legal skepticism” prevalent within the Commission.

Nevertheless, this does not imply that the skepticism has dissipated. Legal action against this move appears certain. Observers suggest that Berlin will then be compelled to clarify why it perceives the acceptance of asylum seekers as a severe threat to “internal security,” particularly considering the “decreasing numbers of asylum applications” currently observed.

Merz has thus far attributed this decision to “overcrowded asylum seeker accommodations, overburdened schools, and violence.” It remains uncertain whether the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will deem this sufficient justification, especially in light of the current “decreasing numbers of asylum applications.” However, it is also noted that a ruling could take years.

The federal government hopes that by then, the influx of migrants into Germany will have significantly diminished. Berlin is likely attempting to gain time, recognizing the contentious nature of its current approach.

Beyond the doubts concerning the legal validity of these measures, there is substantial political criticism of the federal government’s actions.

These criticisms originate from directly impacted municipalities such as Kehl in the state of Baden-Württemberg, which shares a very close collaborative relationship with the French city of Strasbourg.

Wolfram Britz, the independent mayor of Kehl, explains that they have consistently been urged to undertake “common projects” in the name of Europe, and now they have “a common tram, common bridges, and a common kindergarten.”

Britz is quoted as stating, “People from Strasbourg work in Kehl, and people from Kehl work in Strasbourg.” The substantial increase in border controls has resulted in prolonged traffic congestion between the two cities. It is also highlighted that these controls have disrupted tram services in Strasbourg.

Britz further asserted, “We can strongly condemn this action. We feel as though we are reverting to times we believed we had long since overcome.”

Growing dissatisfaction is also evident in neighboring countries. Luxembourg’s Minister of the Interior, Léon Gloden, last week voiced his opposition to Germany’s border controls, noting that approximately 52,000 people commute daily from Germany to Luxembourg for work.

Gloden had requested the “prevention of unnecessary disruption to cross-border traffic.”

Protests are also emerging from Switzerland. According to statements issued last weekend, even though the new controls have not yet caused significant traffic jams, fundamental objections persist.

Justice Minister Beat Jans declared, “Germany’s planned systematic rejections at the border, from Switzerland’s perspective, violate existing laws,” and alluded to possible “measures” against Berlin’s practices.

Austria has also expressed its criticism. The Austrian Ministry of Interior stated last Wednesday, “We assume that Germany will comply with European law in all measures it takes. Any measure taken by German authorities that deviates from this will not be accepted.”

However, Vienna also articulated its willingness to further tighten border controls through a common EU-wide effort.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk offered particularly sharp criticisms when he hosted Chancellor Merz, who made his inaugural visit to Warsaw on Wednesday evening.

Among other points, Tusk highlighted that approximately 95,000 people currently reside in Poland and commute to Germany for work every day.

Noting that long waiting times at the border are already a significant daily annoyance and should be reduced, Tusk affirmed, “I will be very insistent on this.”

Warsaw also objects to the unilateral refusal of asylum seekers by German border authorities. Tusk emphasized that he “attaches great importance” to ensuring that no country, including Germany, creates the impression or situation that they intend to send migrant groups to Poland anymore, and he underscored that Poland would not accept this.

Merz’s response indicates a hardening of the dispute over Germany’s new border policy.

According to reports, the chancellor defended the right of all EU member states to “regulate entry into their own territory” and consequently asserted that a compromise with neighboring countries was unnecessary.

In Brussels on Friday, Merz reiterated that Germany would continue to turn back asylum seekers, but that this would be conducted “in accordance with European law.”

The chancellor argued, “Germany is not acting alone on this,” claiming that its European neighbors were “fully informed” about Berlin’s actions.

Europe

Fico accuses Merz of blackmail over threat to veto EU budget

Published

on

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico has hit back after German Chancellor Friedrich Merz threatened to veto the EU budget unless funding for Ukraine is secured.

Merz said he would block the EU’s seven-year budget if no agreement is reached on financial assistance for Ukraine.

The chancellor’s intervention has angered Central European leaders who are net beneficiaries of EU funds but do not want to take part in the next round of funding to support Ukraine’s war effort.

“What the chancellor is doing is typical blackmail, and I will not bow to it,” Fico told reporters in Bratislava.

Fico spoke alongside his Czech counterpart, Andrej Babiš, whose government has refused to participate in a future loan to Ukraine.

“I do not know why he said this,” Babiš said, referring to Merz’s stance.

Merz wants EU leaders to discuss Ukraine’s financing needs at a summit in Dublin on Friday.

In a letter to European Council President António Costa, who will chair the meeting, obtained by The Guardian, Merz wrote:

“We must maintain our support for Ukraine in its struggle to defend itself. This is our shared vital interest. Yet bilateral aid provided to Ukraine is distributed unevenly, with the burden shouldered mostly by only a few member states.”

The EU agreed last year to provide a €90 billion loan to Ukraine, intended to cover two-thirds of its military and civilian spending for 2026 and 2027.

Since then, however, Russia’s relentless bombardment has placed a heavier financial burden on Kyiv, prompting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to ask for €70 billion to plug the budget deficit.

The EU has endorsed Zelenskyy’s figures and pledged to find €45 billion. Ukraine’s other allies, such as Britain and Canada, are expected to cover the rest.

Last year, Merz launched an initiative to tap €210 billion in frozen Russian state assets held in the EU, but the plan fell through due to opposition led by Belgium, which holds most of the funds in Brussels.

The €90 billion loan was the backup plan. Having opted out of that loan, Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia indicated that they would not take part in the next round either.

Bulgaria joined these three member states following the election of Prime Minister Rumen Radev last April.

The question of funding for Ukraine is now spilling over into the fraught negotiations on the 2028-34 EU budget.

Germany, the largest net contributor, wants substantial cuts to the proposed budget and opposes the EU providing generous funding to member states that refuse to contribute to Ukraine’s financial needs.

Merz states in his letter that a “collective commitment without exceptions” is a “fundamental prerequisite” for closing Ukraine’s financing gap and for “discussing other matters, particularly those with financial implications.”

He also notes that, in the context of the EU’s next seven-year budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework, all member states must contribute to a “robust” financial perspective for Ukraine from 2028 onwards.

A German government official said:

“For the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) to be successfully concluded, it is vital that all EU member states provide financial support to Ukraine.”

Berlin is also aiming to shift decision-making on funding for Ukraine from unanimity to qualified majority voting, in an effort to prevent a single government from blocking EU decisions.

The letter reflects mounting frustration among the EU’s northern member states, Ukraine’s most generous backers, over lower contributions from other EU countries in Central and Southern Europe.

The task of brokering an agreement on the budget falls to Costa, the former Portuguese prime minister.

Costa wants a deal by the end of the year, ahead of elections in France, Poland, and Italy in 2027 that could complicate the process.

A spokesperson for Costa confirmed receipt of the letter without elaborating on details. “President Costa will dedicate time to the Ukraine issue at the informal European Council meeting in Dublin this week,” the spokesperson said, adding that funding for Ukraine would be addressed at a dedicated summit on the EU budget scheduled for 26-27 November.

Continue Reading

Europe

EU expects next Israeli government to adopt less aggressive posture

Published

on

The EU expects the next Israeli government to mend its “difficult relationship” with Brussels and adopt a more constructive approach toward Gaza and illegal settlements.

Israeli President Isaac Herzog tasked Gadi Eisenkot, the leader of the anti-Netanyahu bloc, on Sunday with forming a government.

Eisenkot stated that the country faces a “catastrophic diplomatic crisis” as traditional allies begin to reassess their relations with Israel.

Speaking to Rapporteur, several European diplomats stationed in Tel Aviv said they expect ties to get back on track.

“Whatever government comes in, we can try to revitalize relations because Israel is clearly a very important partner,” one European diplomat said, adding that Brussels expects the next administration to be “less aggressive”.

The diplomat noted that relations with Europe are currently “not very good”.

Israel cut off communication with Kaja Kallas, the EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, after Rapporteur revealed in June that she had compared Israel to apartheid-era South Africa during a visit to Mexico.

The diplomat stated that this decision, taken ahead of elections, was political in nature. A second European diplomat based in Brussels explained that the announcement came only a few days before an official visit by Dubravka Šuica, the European commissioner for the Mediterranean.

“This could have been interpreted as a tactic to divide Europe, but Israel had asked Kallas to deny the report; she did not do so,” the second diplomat said.

Brussels has repeatedly voiced its frustration with Israel over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the expansion of West Bank settlements.

However, EU governments blocked almost all sanctions proposed by the European Commission.

A third diplomat said opposition parties would “almost certainly take the issue more seriously” when it comes to tackling violence by West Bank settlers:

“We see Palestinians being expelled from their homes and new illegal settlements being built in the West Bank. There is a reluctance on the part of the current government to address this issue, which causes problems in our relations.”

The new government is expected to ease pressure on Palestinians and halt construction of the E1 settlement project, a controversial plan to build settler housing in the West Bank east of Jerusalem.

“They will probably try to deal with the problem of extremist settlers in the West Bank,” the diplomat added.

On Gaza, the diplomat described the situation as “a complete nightmare”, with two million Palestinians crowded into an area that accounts for roughly 35% of the territory.

“There are not enough tents for the winter, and not enough vaccines are reaching the area despite an increase in diseases,” the diplomat said.

The European official argued that Donald Trump’s peace plan met all the conditions for Europe. Although the EU had much to offer, neither the US nor Israel appeared interested in EU involvement in the process.

“We are currently training Palestinian police in the West Bank, and if permitted, we could do the same in Gaza,” the diplomat said.

The diplomat disclosed that Israel had agreed with Šuica that Europe would finance two projects aimed at improving sewage and water infrastructure in Gaza, continuing:

“However, none of these projects has started yet because there is a serious problem with dual-use goods. Getting materials into Gaza is very difficult because the Israelis say they could be misused if they fall into the wrong hands of Hamas.”

Israel insists that Hamas must be disarmed before subsequent phases of Trump’s plan can proceed.

With disarmament unlikely to happen in the near term, the EU argues that certain measures can be carried out in parallel.

“We can begin rebuilding sanitation systems in Gaza. We can start building desalination plants. We can begin providing energy and water to Gaza,” one diplomat said.

While Brussels hopes for progress on Gaza and the West Bank, it maintains that expectations regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state need to be “managed”.

The EU continues to advocate a two-state solution, yet most leading Jewish parties oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.

The diplomat noted that the next Israeli government will likely have “a very slim majority and not much room for manoeuvre”.

There is also a “major misunderstanding” between the EU and Israel that must be addressed. According to the diplomat, Europeans fail to recognize the “psychological impact” of 7 October on Israelis.

“This event changed the country and made the two-state solution even more distant than before,” the diplomat said.

In return, some Israeli politicians believe Europe has betrayed Israel despite what they view as a fight against “Islamist terrorism”.

“Their argument is that European politicians are somewhat afraid of the Muslim population in Europe,” the European diplomat said.

Europe strongly opposes Iran and the possibility of Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons, imposing sanctions in response.

However, the diplomat argued that the EU would not participate in a war because it lacks a common army:

“We are a diplomatic and economic power, which is why we resort to sanctions and diplomacy. The expectation that we would take part in a military operation is unrealistic.”

Continue Reading

Europe

Germany threatens EU budget veto over long-term Ukraine aid

Published

on

Germany has threatened to veto the European Union’s joint budget for the 2028-2034 period, which is currently under negotiation, unless every member state commits to providing financial support to Ukraine in 2027 and subsequent years, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned.

According to a report by the Financial Times (FT), Chancellor Merz set out Berlin’s condition for the budget talks in a letter addressed to European Council President António Costa.

In his letter, Merz wrote: “A collective commitment that every single one of us, without exception, will make a fair contribution to closing Ukraine’s budget deficit is an indispensable prerequisite for resolving this budget issue and, in particular, for addressing subsequent matters that carry financial implications.”

The German Chancellor stressed that a formula backed by all member states must be established to provide Ukraine with a reliable, multi-year financial perspective starting from 2028.

Merz also insisted that any agreed solution must cover the interest payments on debts incurred to finance the assistance provided to Kyiv.

Conversely, several countries within the bloc have cut financial aid to Ukraine, and the number of capitals adopting this stance is projected to rise next year.

In December 2025, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic approved the EU’s 90 billion euro loan package for Kyiv only on the condition that they would not contribute to its costs themselves.

Alongside these three countries, Bulgaria has also stated that it does not plan to participate in subsequent financial assistance packages for Ukraine.

In France, far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who could potentially win the presidential election scheduled for spring 2027, recently told the FT that Paris has run out of funds.

Le Pen assessed: “The honest approach is to tell Mr Zelensky clearly, and even warn him: ‘Look, we cannot do more. We have already allocated the 90 billion euro EU loan, in which France’s share amounts to 18 billion euros. 18 billion euros is genuinely a huge amount of money.'”

The EU’s 90 billion euro loan, covering the 2026-2027 period, aims to meet two-thirds of Ukraine’s financing requirements.

Brussels expects the remaining 45 billion euros to be covered by other partners, including Canada, the UK, Norway, Japan, South Korea, and Australia.

Germany remains the largest net contributor to the EU budget.

In contrast, the four Eastern European countries seeking to avoid financing Ukraine rank among the largest net beneficiaries of the bloc’s budget.

Leveraging this balance, Chancellor Merz aims to use his influence in the EU budget negotiations to secure uninterrupted support for Kyiv in 2027 and the years beyond.

According to the FT, Berlin is also demanding that future aid packages be decided by qualified majority voting rather than unanimity, which is required under the current system.

A German government spokesperson told the newspaper:

“The issue of Ukraine’s financial needs must be resolved within the framework of the next EU budget. Financial support for Ukraine from all EU members is decisive for the successful conclusion of the budget talks.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey