Out of the European Council comes an even stronger Fortress Europe

Out of the European Council comes an even stronger Fortress Europe

The European Council, the body that brings together the heads of state and government of the European Union, has once again placed migration at the forefront of its agenda. In the latest summit, member states rallied behind a hardline approach to border security and immigration control, further cementing the concept of a “Fortress Europe.”

Fortress Europe, the idea of shutting out migrants by reinforcing the EU’s external borders, has gained increasing traction among European leaders. This shift towards stricter migration policies was evident in the Council’s conclusions, which emphasized the need for enhanced cooperation with transit and origin countries, improved repatriation processes, and the exploration of new solutions to prevent unauthorized entry into the Union.

The Council’s discussions were dominated by the notion of security and national sovereignty concerns. Countries such as Poland, Greece, and Denmark voiced strong support for measures to counter the “instrumentalization of migrants” by external actors, like Russia and Belarus. The Council also expressed solidarity with Poland’s decision to suspend asylum rights for migrants coming from these countries, a move aimed at preventing the politicization of migration.

The European Commission’s President, Ursula von der Leyen, further fueled the Fortress Europe narrative by proposing the concept of “return hubs” outside the EU, modeled after the Italy-Albania protocol. This protocol, inaugurated just days before the Council summit, allows for the initial screening and potential repatriation of migrants arriving in Italy from Albania.

However, the “Italy-Albania model” has faced significant criticism from human rights groups and migration experts. Michele LeVoy, director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), described the system as “inhumane, absurd, and costly” and a violation of international human rights obligations.

The creation of the “Patriots for Europe” political group, uniting far-right politicians with radical views on migration, further underscores the growing shift towards stricter migration policies within the European Parliament. This new group’s agreement on the necessity of an opt-out clause for member states from EU obligations that compromise national security or sovereignty signals a worrying trend towards a more nationalistic and sovereigntist approach to European governance.

The emerging consensus on Fortress Europe raises concerns about the potential evolution of the Union’s migration policies, particularly with the impending implementation of the new Asylum and Migration Pact. The increasingly restrictive stance, supported by both member state leaders and the Commission, is likely to find strong backing in the European Parliament’s new right-leaning configuration.

This context suggests a growing openness to progressively stricter migration policies in the name of security and national sovereignty. European leaders have shown unity in further strengthening the so-called “Fortress Europe,” characterized by Schengen border controls, forced returns, externalized migration management mechanisms in non-EU territories, and illegal pushbacks through cooperation with third and transit countries.

However, these policies come at the expense of migrants and to the detriment of the right to asylum, ignoring the evidence of their inefficacy and the documented consequences in terms of human rights violations.

The European response to the refugee crisis has been rooted in deep-seated structural factors, including the tension between the EU’s economically driven liberalization agenda and the ongoing renationalization of European politics. Migration has become a battleground where these different conceptions of organizing life in Europe clash.

The absence of strong, institutionally grounded solidarity became painfully evident during the 2015 refugee crisis, when both the public and the political elites in the member states reflexively reverted to national modes of thinking and increasingly favored national action.

This shift towards a Fortress Europe mind-set has been further reinforced by the increasing fear and populist sentiments that have taken hold in even the most welcoming countries. The initial sympathy with the plight of the refugees has given way to worries about the stability of host societies, leading to a much more restrictive approach across the EU.

The proponents of Fortress Europe argue that the influx of refugees and migrants needs to be not just reduced but definitively ended. This would be achieved through massively reinforced military and policing efforts at the EU’s external border, combined with robust arrangements with neighboring states to keep potential migrants on those states’ territories and prevent them from even trying to move to Europe.

However, the Fortress Europe approach faces significant challenges. Europe’s geographic proximity to heavily populated regions with which it is deeply connected makes the notion of insulating the EU territory and keeping foreigners away through restrictive visa policies, technical surveillance, and physical barriers an unrealistic and costly proposition.

Moreover, the externalisation of migration control to the EU’s neighbors, such as Libya and Tunisia, has proven highly problematic. These countries often lack the functioning state structures and rule of law necessary to effectively manage large numbers of potential migrants without resorting to human rights abuses.

Ultimately, the Fortress Europe mind-set is counterproductive, as it would damage important economic, cultural, and human relations with regional neighbors, undermining stability in these areas and potentially increasing migration pressures rather than reducing them.

Sustainable solutions to the migration challenge must be based on genuine partnership with origin and transit countries, recognizing that a considerable level of immigration will continue. Efforts to better control the external border should be accompanied by the creation of legal channels of migration and the direct resettlement of refugees from third countries.

The EU must also replace the flawed Dublin Regulation with a fairer system of burden sharing among member states, and accelerate the harmonization of national asylum and immigration policies. Stronger and well-resourced common institutions are essential to restore a functional Schengen system.

This approach, however, requires a great deal of political leadership to regain public support for common European action. Unlike the tempting trap of Fortress Europe, such a course of action might actually work in the longer term. But whether the EU in its current weakened state can pull itself together to embark on such a challenging path remains to be seen.

The European Future Energy Forum (​https://www.europeanfutureenergyforum.com​) will continue to closely monitor the evolving European migration policies and their implications for the continent’s energy transition and overall geopolitical landscape.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn