The meetings of the EU’s heads of states and governments, a.k.a. The European Council, are always held in the well-known “Europa building”, or the “beating heart of Europe”: an unmistakable Brussels landmark with its lantern-shaped construction.
More specifically, the most important events of those meetings are held in the “Europa Room” or the “Room of the Heads of State and Government”. This iconic room features a large oval table to facilitate all those high-level discussions.
It was not the first, and likely not the last time that this power centre was loud with heated discussions about migration, the more so as more and more countries have enough of mismanaged entries, failed integrations and the enormous financial burden placed on them by having to provide support for millions of migrants. While, at the same time, trying to bring this to balance with the EU’s desperate need for more work force given its current situation and its demographic outlook.
As these meetings are, in general, strictly confidential, the public mostly doesn’t get informed about what their politicians talked about – thus it is a safe place to express opinions and debate freely. The press statements and published documents give us some clues, though.
As it happened, this meeting saw Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky trying to convince the EU’s leading politicians about the sustainability of his “victory plan”, but migration took much of the floor, from Italy’s recently opened new pet project (an asylum seekers’ centre in Albania) to Poland’s decision to suspend the right to seek asylum on its eastern border.
“We are in a deep trouble”, “this is an uncontrolled and unregulated process” and it “can destabilize governments, countries and the whole European continent. We need a strong and clear-cut answer”, or “they are victims … but considering them victims does not mean we must make ourselves victims.”
It could have been said by Donald Tusk, lamenting about the difficulties Warsaw facing on its borders. Only it was not.
These are excerpts from a speech Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán held nine years ago, in 2015.
Back then, Orbán took the stage at the European People’s Party Congress and delivered what felt, at the time, like a doomsday prophecy. He warned that uncontrolled migration could destabilize Europe, undermine national cultures, and put societies at risk. Orbán wasn’t exactly greeted with applause from his fellow EU leaders. In fact, he was labelled an alarmist, a nationalist, and even a scaremonger. He had the audacity to suggest that opening Europe’s doors wide to migrants might not go as smoothly as everyone hoped.
Then European Council President Donald Tusk expressed his views that “we cannot give into populism and xenophobia”.
Fast forward to 2024, the very same Donald Tusk made the EU accept that Poland suspended the right to seek asylum. Speaking in Brussels on October 17, 2024, Tusk sounded less starry-eyed than his 2015 self. Now, he warned of the dangers migration poses to the stability of EU countries.
There’s a kind of full-circle irony in the air.
Back in 2015, Tusk was part of the EU chorus that believed in “European solutions” to the migration crisis. Now, after years of struggling with waves of migration, his tone has shifted dramatically.
In Tusk’s view, migrants are tools in the hand of Russia in a hybrid war, a difference of course.
But all in all, the situation wasn’t that different in 2015 when the mass of struggling people found its way (was directed) towards Europe. The migrants are mostly with the same background: Syrian, other Middle Eastern and North African as back in 2015.
Only, that time Tusk had a different position and all the migration routes avoided Poland.
And what fallout it has been.
Over the past ten years, the EU’s open-door policies have been tested to their limits.
And while migration brought skilled workers and cultural diversity, it also brought along significant problems—some of them made global headlines.
Public confidence has been shaken by several crimes that could be directly linked to (illegal) migrants – think the Cologne New Year’s Eve assaults in 2015, the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017, the terrorist attacks in France, and more recently, rising concerns about gang violence in Sweden. These events triggered outrage, fear, and, probably naturally, a surge of far-right rhetoric across Europe, along with a heated debate about migration.
The latest elections around Europe proved that people finally had enough.
Those accused of fearmongering just a few years ago, could lean back with a “told you so” smirk, watching as the EU swifty changed its stance.
The once idealistic “Willkommenskultur” approach has cooled significantly.
Now, the focus is on securing borders, screening applicants more carefully, and doing everything possible to prevent irregular migration. Fences and border controls are “going up” all around Europe in the once free Schengen Zone, too.
Frontex, the EU’s border and coast guard, has become Europe’s most popular defender, patrolling the Mediterranean and guarding entry points with increasing vigilance. What was once unthinkable—tightening borders and toughening asylum rules—has become a new reality.
Tusk himself admitted as much, suggesting that a fragmented, piecemeal approach to migration simply won’t cut it anymore.
Back in 2015, many in the EU brushed off Orbán’s hardline stance as undemocratic, even cold-hearted. But as migration continues to stir unrest and fuel political polarization across the continent, the conversation has changed.
The current EU debate on migration reflects the changing positions within the bloc, with several plans and proposals emerging.
The Portuguese government, for example, has recently announced a new package for migration with complete actions, such as expelling undocumented migrants
Meanwhile, the EU has intensified efforts to curb migration through external deals, including agreements with Tunisia and Turkey to stop migrants before reaching Europe. Italy is trying a new solution by establishing asylum processing centers in Albania, aiming to manage migration flows away from its shores.
This multifaceted approach shows the complex nature of Europe’s ongoing migration debate and the struggle to find solutions for the controversial issue.
While Tusk hasn’t quite embraced Orbán’s fortress Europe vision, yet, the tone of European leadership has certainly toughened. The message is clear: it’s time to rethink how Europe handles migration before it destabilizes the very foundations the EU was built on.
Perhaps what’s most ironic in all of this is how the EU, once so critical of Orbán, now finds itself making decisions that, in hindsight, seem eerily close to what he had proposed.
