Imagine a world where powerful nations start cutting off essential resources to countries that don't comply with their demands. Sounds harsh, right? Well, the European Union is considering doing just that. They're contemplating a major policy shift: link trade benefits to cooperation on migrant readmission. If developing countries refuse to take back their citizens who have been denied asylum in the EU, they could face the loss of preferential trade deals. This could have huge implications for global relations, and it's a move that's sure to spark debate. Buckle up; we're diving in.
DRIVING THE DAY: A HARD STANCE ON MIGRATION
The EU is potentially taking a much tougher line on migration. Camille Gijs and Gabriel Gavin report that the bloc is exploring the possibility of removing trade benefits from developing nations that don't cooperate with the return of migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected. This is a significant hardening of policy, and it could reshape the EU's relationship with many countries.
Making the Link: According to a document obtained by Gabriel, the EU might review preferential trade terms for developing countries based on their willingness to readmit their own citizens identified as "irregular migrants to the Union." In simpler terms, if a country doesn't take back its citizens who are in the EU without permission and whose asylum claims have been turned down, the EU might rethink its favorable trade agreements with that country.
Prepare for Possible Economic Pain: The document states that if the European Commission believes a country isn't cooperating sufficiently on readmission, those trade benefits "may be withdrawn temporarily." This isn't just a warning; it's a clear signal that the EU is prepared to use its economic power to enforce its migration policies. But here's where it gets controversial… Is this a fair use of power, or is it a form of economic coercion?
POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT
(Advertisement content about ACEA and the EU auto package is included here as in the original text.)
Toughening Up: These potential measures, which are on track to become law after negotiators from the EU's core institutions reached an agreement on Monday night, demonstrate Brussels' increasingly firm position on migration. This shift comes amid growing support for right-wing parties across Europe and under the leadership of the Danish EU presidency.
Danish M.O.: Denmark has been a vocal proponent of strict migration policies, even offering financial incentives for migrants to return to their home countries. Now, some aspects of Denmark's robust approach to deporting migrants are being integrated into mainstream EU policy. And this is the part most people miss… This represents a significant shift in the EU's overall approach to migration, moving away from a more lenient stance towards a more enforcement-focused one.
The Trump Aspect: This deal emerges just days after former U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed American diplomats to pressure host countries on the issue of "mass migration." While the EU deal was in development before Rubio's directive, the broader context is clear: Brussels is facing pressure from both within the EU and from its key ally, the United States, to adopt a tougher stance on migration. Think about it: are these policies truly addressing the root causes of migration, or are they simply shifting the problem elsewhere?
Leading by Example: The American stance isn't entirely new. During his term, President Trump threatened Latin American countries with trade tariffs if they refused to accept deportation flights. The EU's potential approach could mirror this strategy.
The Fine Print: Modifying complex trade agreements to the disadvantage of a non-EU partner would require the consent of the countries involved. It's suggested that these measures are being considered as part of a wider overhaul of the Generalized Scheme of Preferences, a 50-year-old program that enables less wealthy countries to export goods to EU members at lower tariff rates. This is significant because it shows that the EU is willing to reconsider long-standing agreements to achieve its migration goals.
Changing Tack: The EU has historically resisted using punitive measures against countries that refuse to take back migrants, largely due to opposition from the European Parliament, the European Commission, and certain member states. However, the political landscape is changing, with right-leaning factions gaining influence in the Parliament. This shift in power is driving the change in policy. Will this new approach be effective, or will it simply create more tension between the EU and developing countries?
PUSHING BACK AT BELGIUM
"BLANKET GUARANTEES" ATTRACT FRIENDLY FIRE: EU countries are hesitant about providing unlimited financial guarantees to Belgium in exchange for an agreement on using Russia's frozen assets to support Ukraine, Gregorio Sorgi reports. This is a critical issue that could impact the EU's ability to aid Ukraine.
No Blank Check: Four diplomats revealed that while their countries might agree to a fixed amount to support Belgium, they oppose an open-ended commitment that could lead to years of payments beyond the Russia-Ukraine war. The core concern is the potential financial risk to their own economies.
To Infinity and Beyond: The diplomats told Gregorio that fully agreeing to Belgium's demand could expose them to billions of euros in repayments. "If [the guarantees] are infinite and without limits, then what are we getting ourselves into?" one diplomat questioned. This highlights the tension between supporting Ukraine and protecting national interests.
SPEAKING OF BELGIUM… During a press conference, top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas addressed Belgium's claim that accepting the reparation loan from seized Russian money would be an "obstacle to peace," as Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot stated.
The Kallas Take: Kallas argued that the loan would hinder Russia from achieving its preferred outcome. Agreeing to it would "definitely strengthen Europe's position vis-à-vis Moscow… I don't in any way diminish the risks or the worries that the Belgian government has… but we need to move on," Kallas said. This shows a clear disagreement among EU members on the best approach to dealing with Russia.
Moscow's Marathon: Kallas warned that Russia would exploit Europe's hesitation and division over financial aid to Ukraine. "If I [were] Russia, I would also try to outlast, to see if we get the funding for Ukraine defense or not. In the short term, I would come back to the negotiation table and ask even more," she added. This underscores the urgency of the situation and the potential consequences of inaction.
FOR YOUR RADAR TODAY: Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner will reportedly meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. This meeting raises questions about potential backchannel negotiations and the future of the conflict. How might these discussions influence the EU's approach to the war?
POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT
(Advertisement content about ACEA and the EU auto package is included here as in the original text.)
RUSSIA'S MONEY, CONT.
U.S. OBJECTED TO EU'S FROZEN ASSETS PLAN: Belgium's opposition to using €170 billion in frozen Russian assets is well-known. However, Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever might have allies in Donald Trump's administration.
Scoop: When EU sanctions envoy David O'Sullivan visited Washington, U.S. officials stated that their plan was to return the assets to Russia after a peace agreement, according to two diplomats. This revelation indicates a potential rift between the EU and the U.S. on how to handle Russian assets.
Undeterred, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen proceeded with plans to use the assets to fund Ukraine. In her State of the Union address on Sept. 10, she announced the EU's intention to fund Ukraine via a reparation loan. This was seen as an effort to assert European control over the assets.
Not a Fan: The U.S. might never have supported the idea. Trump's original peace plan included investing $100 billion of the assets in American-led "efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine," with the remainder going to a "separate US-Russian vehicle." This plan raised concerns about the U.S. potentially sharing the assets with Russia.
Money Grab: This point caused tension after the plan was leaked, with EU officials objecting to the U.S. taking part of the assets and sharing the rest with Russia. This shows the distrust and competition among global powers regarding the management of Russian assets.
In the Dark: Belgium is now echoing the American view that seizing assets would hinder peace. While the EU has discussed the plan and potentially rejected the contentious point on the assets, EU officials are unsure about the latest version of the plan. A Commission spokesperson declined to comment. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the decision-making process.
ALSO PUSHING BACK: The European Central Bank has stated it won't support the planned reparation loan, further complicating the EU's plan, according to the Financial Times. The ECB concluded that the Commission's proposal violated its mandate. This adds another layer of difficulty to the EU's efforts to fund Ukraine using Russian assets.
MAKE OR BREAK FOR RUSSIAN ENERGY BAN: Energy Commissioner Dan Jørgensen is emphasizing the importance of upcoming talks on phasing out Russian energy imports, stating that officials have a chance to "make history tonight and change the course of our energy future."
Big Picture: The Danish commissioner framed the proposed phaseout as a "chance to choose independence over blackmail, and to show our unwavering support to Ukraine. Europe must not hesitate. Let's make it happen, together." This highlights the political and strategic importance of reducing Europe's reliance on Russian energy.
Step Back: Officials, diplomats, and lawmakers are finalizing the RePowerEU plan, which aims to address criticism that Europe has spent more on importing Russian energy than on helping Ukraine since the invasion. The plan is set to be implemented from the start of next year. This is a crucial step towards energy independence and supporting Ukraine.
Down to the Wire: This is the third set of inter-institutional talks, and Jørgensen hopes it will be the last. However, a fourth trilogue may be necessary if the more skeptical group prevails. The outcome of these talks will determine the future of Europe's energy policy and its relationship with Russia.
PARLIAMENT'S CORRUPTION WIN
DEAL EXPECTED ON ANTI-CORRUPTION BILL: The European Parliament is expected to reach an agreement with national capitals on an anti-corruption directive that would increase scrutiny on public officials abusing their power.
Italian Pushback: Parliament and the Council have disagreed, with countries led by Italy questioning the need for an EU law forcing member countries to address "abuse of office" by public officials as a crime.
Danes Clinch It: Parliament is poised to accept a compromise from the Danish presidency that would require countries to ensure that "at least certain serious violations… by a public official… are punishable as a criminal offense." This is a significant step towards combating corruption within the EU.
"The Council didn't want this bill," Renew negotiator Raquel García said. "They have been fighting every inch of terrain." German Greens MEP Daniel Freund called the bill a victory because the Commission now has a legal basis to hold accountable those who don't follow the rules.
Capital Concerns: Some Council members were unhappy, arguing that the directive would be the first EU-wide anti-corruption measure creating definitions and minimum sanctions, requiring countries to report corruption cases to Brussels.
Kettles and Pots: The measures EU capitals have resisted are similar to conditions Brussels imposes on countries applying to join the bloc, such as Ukraine. "How can we push Ukrainians to make their anti-corruption body independent if we do not require the same inside the EU?" asked ECR lawmaker Mariusz Kamiński. This raises questions about the EU's credibility in promoting anti-corruption efforts internationally.
IN OTHER NEWS
TOP EU OFFICIALS' ARMENIA PILGRIMAGE: Kaja Kallas and Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos are visiting Yerevan, Armenia, as part of Europe's effort to strengthen its influence in Central Asia and encourage countries to distance themselves from Moscow.
Find a Friend: EU officials stated that Armenia is seeking geopolitical alternatives to Russia, and Brussels is willing to help. The country is located along the Middle Corridor linking Europe to Central Asia's energy and trade routes, making it a key geopolitical player.
The Kos Play: "We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to support the normalization of relations in the South Caucasus and work toward a much closer partnership with Armenia. We are fully seizing the moment," the commissioner stated. This highlights the EU's strategic interest in the region.
Roll Call: Besides Kallas and Kos, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan will also be present.
SUSTAINABLE FUTURE SUMMIT: Questions about Brussels' commitment to addressing the climate crisis will dominate Day 1 of POLITICO's Sustainable Future Summit. EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra will discuss the EU's progress on its climate journey.
O CANADA! Canada has reached an agreement to join the EU's €150 billion Security Action for Europe program, marking the first time a third country will formally participate in the bloc's joint procurement initiative.
FIGHTING THE FAR RIGHT: My Paris-based colleague Victor Goury-Laffont examines the emerging battle between the French left's main contenders for the 2027 presidential election: Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Raphaël Glucksmann. Unless one dominates, the left will likely be locked in a civil war.
(Agenda, Brussels Corner, Birthdays, and Thanks To sections are included here as in the original text.)
POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT
(Advertisement content about ACEA and the EU auto package is included here as in the original text.)
(Subscription information is included here as in the original text.)
So, what do you think? Is the EU right to use trade as leverage to enforce its migration policies? Will these measures actually solve the problem, or will they create new ones? And what about the tensions surrounding Russian assets – can the EU and the U.S. find common ground? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
