In the end, the German state of Thuringia did not fall into the hands of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). The party won the most votes in the recent election but was unable to form a coalition, meaning that Björn Höcke will not be the state’s minister-president. This is ideal for him: he can cry foul, claim to represent the true voice of Germany and point to a conspiracy to keep him out of power. His incendiary strain of politics proved more popular than the more moderate version of the AfD in Saxony, which held elections the same day. These will all be lessons taken into consideration ahead of Brandenburg’s state elections in two weeks’ time.
The growing strength of the AfD has sent mainstream parties scurrying to respond to public concerns. Border checks are being instigated in Germany for six months, relying on an EU law which allows member states effectively to suspend free movement. This is, of course, more of a token gesture. Germany’s problem is how to settle the three million refugees who have arrived since Angela Merkel’s Willkommenskultur policy.
Brexit showed what happens when politicians demand radical powers but don’t know how to use them
Friedrich Merz, who leads Merkel’s CDU, wants the government to go further. He is refusing to co-operate with the ruling coalition unless it agrees systematically to turn away illegal migrants at the border. Meanwhile, the idea of processing asylum applications in Rwanda, so firmly rejected by Keir Starmer in one of his first acts as Prime Minister, is alive and well in Germany. Joachim Stamp, an MP from the Free Democratic party, a junior member of Scholz’s coalition, has suggested that Germany might be able to make use of the facilities in Rwanda which were funded by UK taxpayers but will no longer be used by Britain.
There are three ways to resist populist-right parties. One is to call their members Nazis, bar them from debates and try to keep them out of power. The second is to give them power, in whole or in part, and watch their vote share decline as they make no more progress than the parties they criticise. In Poland, Sweden and Hungary recent European parliament voting confirmed this. The third way is to ask why so many voters feel compelled to support such parties and respond to any legitimate concerns.
If established parties do not control their country’s borders, voters will start to turn to parties which promise to do just that, no matter what the European Court of Human Rights has to say about it. The advance of Reform UK in July’s election was largely due to voters feeling ignored on immigration. Time and time again, all across Europe, controlling migration turns out to be a concern shared by the majority.
Rishi Sunak was right in his Rwanda policy, but ought to have made a wider argument. The basic problem is that more of the world is on the move. Deportation is a vital tool which can thwart people-smugglers but the laws governing it were written in the postwar years. The UN Refugee Convention, obliging signatories to offer sanctuary to anyone ‘with a well-founded fear of persecution’, is unsustainable. It robs countries of their ability to control their own refugee system.
All of this explains why many Tories want the party’s next leader to pledge to pull Britain out of the ECHR. Without such a move, they argue, border control will always be impossible. Some see it as Brexit Mk II, a chance for the Tories to reprise the arguments that won the 2019 election. It may be a tempting idea, but it is also dangerously simplistic. The Tories must break their addiction to drama.
If the Rwanda policy had not been blocked under the ECHR it would have fallen foul of other treaties, such as the UN Convention. The problem is not any one convention but the way that ever-growing laws prevent ministers from being able to govern. The test of good government is the ability to disentangle these laws. Sweden, for example, is considering introducing a controversial policy of voluntary repatriation, not just for those who arrive illegally but for naturalised citizens too. It has sharply tightened visa rules (especially for families) and has put its migration agency under new leadership. A few weeks ago, it became the first country in Europe with net migration falling below zero.
The Conservative leadership candidates should not be competing to see who can sound the most radical. Nor should they be using ECHR withdrawal as a test of political virility. Instead, they should instead be visiting Stockholm to see what lessons can be learned.
Brexit showed what happens when politicians demand radical powers but then don’t know how to use them. To repeat the trick – demand ECHR withdrawal without any serious plan for overcoming the many legal obstacles that would remain – would denote an unserious political party.
The visa tightening that Sunak forced through in his final year should soon see UK net migration fall below half of its peak, although it is still expected to level out at about 300,000 (a city the size of Nottingham) every year. If Starmer fails to respond accordingly, there will be many voters looking for plausible alternatives. If none are forthcoming, then Germany offers a taste of what could await.
Comments