Per Clausen, Member of the European Parliament for Danish left-wing party Enhedslisten looks at the programme of Denmark’s EU-Presidency, which begins on July 1. What are the prospects, priorities and problems of the upcoming Presidency, and what does it mean for progressive policies in Europe and the interests of the working class? At first glance, the prospects are grim: a deliberate lack of leadership; an accommodation to the centre (and far) right; and a prioritisation of business interests over social justice and the environment.
What does Denmark hope to achieve during its imminent turn at the helm of the EU? And what use – if any – could be for left wing forces in Europe? These questions have been occupying my mind and political discussions for months. After all, Denmark only holds the rotating Presidency of the EU once every 13 years or so. So, when on June 19, the Danish Government finally presented its programme, we were ready and eager to analyse its contents.
As it turns out, the excitement was unnecessary. The programme released last week was underwhelming – essentially a rehash of vague signals the Danish government has been sending through the EU institutions for months. Throughout those months, many – including myself and my team – had been pressing the Danish government to spell out clearly and concretely its plans for the Presidency. For all the briefings and meetings – including with the government itself – the official response remained disappointingly vague.
Priorities – but whose?
The incoming presidency programme has finally been presented, and its priorities can be summed up in just one simple slogan: A secure Europe and a competitive and green Europe. This slogan is accompanied by a short text, full of platitudes like “The Danish EU Presidency will work for a strong and resolute EU that takes responsibility for its own security and for strengthening its competitiveness”.
If this sounds familiar, that’s because it closely mirrors the rhetoric of conservative European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen. This raises the question: why is a Social Democrat-led Danish government echoing conservative policy lines, rather than pursuing a progressive course on workers’ rights, the climate and social justice? If this is an accurate indication of what the Danish Presidency might entail, it will not be pretty.
The “Metteloni” Factor
While the Presidency remains vague on many issues, in one regard at least – migration – it is crystal clear, and deeply troubling. The term “Metteloni” has been coined to describe the striking friendship and policy alignment between Denmark’s Social Democrat Prime Minster, Mette Frederiksen, and her far-right, anti-migrant Italian colleague Giorgia Meloni. The two have become vocal proponents of a harsher immigration stance, co-leading a small group of Members States that is engaging in an unsavoury push for the EU to adopt more restrictive and punitive migration policies.
When the programme speaks of “security” and the need for a “secure Europe”, it is partly in reference to Russia’s unjust war in Ukraine, and the associated fear of a Russian threat to the EU itself. But it also evokes another, uglier side to the “security” debate, casting refugees and migrants as a “threat”. It seeks to deal with them – not with compassion or incentives not to flee or migrate in the first place – but with brute force, pushbacks, and a policy of appearing “tough” on foreigners. In March, the Danish Prime Minister said she considers “mass migration into Europe as a threat to the daily life in Europe”, admitting that US Vice Pent Vance “had a point” in his comments on migration at the Munich security conference. We can therefore expect that controversial plans to build offshore deportation centres outside the borders of the EU and deny people the right to claim asylum will be enthusiastically welcomed by the incoming Presidency.
Competitiveness – at what cost?
When it comes to the new EU buzzword of “competitiveness”, it is clear that Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s agenda during the Danish Presidency will also be more in line with the pro-business views of the likes of von der Leyen and Meloni than with most members of her own European political family, the Party of European Socialists. While references to “decent jobs” are mentioned in the programme, they – tellingly – come a poor second to talk of deregulation and expansion of the Internal Market. If workers’ rights were to square off against business interests under this Danish Presidency – as we may indeed see in several mandates up for negotiations – it certainly won’t be the working class that would come out on top.
This section also lists “green” in its title, and with Denmark’s well-known (if highly contradictory) green credentials, one could – and indeed should – have expected more on this front. Yet, as with the European Commission itself, the programme of the Danish Presidency reduces the green transition to the role of a mere support act to enhanced “competitiveness”. The sequence of words and the language used throughout is very telling: The “green” might be there, but only playing second (or even third) fiddle to the voice of businesses.
This, sadly, reflects the severe downgrade in status that almost all environmental action has suffered at the EU level over the past couple of years. With an anti-environmental right and far-right majority in the European Parliament, and a European Commission currently making a bonfire of its own Green Deal policies, it is clear that we can expect the EU’s green action to continue to fall short under the Danish Presidency, even if the official targets remain the same.
The Programme: Fluff over substance
The official programme for the EU Presidency, “A strong Europe in a changing world”, turns the 9-word slogan into a 47-page document, but expands little on it. Policy specifics are scarce, and those that are mentioned have obvious limitations. The programme is full of fluffy words about wanting to “shape” or “advance” discussions – but contains almost nothing about how those discussions should be shaped, or in which direction they should be advanced. Where legislation is mentioned, the proposals are often a copy-paste of the European Commission’s own work programme, underlining the Danish Presidency’s high degree of rhetorical alignment with von der Leyen’s conservative agenda.
The first section, unsurprisingly, focuses on “security”, and looks at both the situation in Ukraine and the transatlantic dimension. It also features lines on migration that could have been lifted straight from of the party manifestos of the extreme right: “The flow of irregular migrants towards Europe must be reduced and the EU’s external borders must be secure. Irregular migration cannot be allowed to threaten European cohesion.” Only at the very end, almost as an afterthought, does “economic security” get a mention – but without any acknowledgement of poverty, social policy, or Europe’s millions of workers struggling with precarious employment. While the section on a competitive and green Europe (where the first concept takes a clear priority), does include promising lines about job creation, free and fair movement, decent work, and safe working conditions. But these are drowned-out by business-friendly proposals, such as reducing regulatory burdens and strengthening the Internal Market.
This is also true when it comes to the well-recognised issue of social dumping. Denmark itself has seen a range of scandals involving large and unscrupulous contractors importing workers, then mistreating and underpaying them. In fact, a recent report lists no less than 41 percent of companies in Denmark’s construction sector as being at high risk of social dumping. Yet once again the Danish Presidency’s approach is to make it cheaper, faster, and easier for companies to post workers to other EU countries, rather than to ensure enforcement of the law and combat social dumping.
Policies missing in action
The obvious gaps in the programme speak volumes. Take PFAS, the toxic “forever chemicals” plaguing Europe. Banning them has long been an objective of the Danish left – and one that I have championed ever since I became a Member of the Danish Parliament 20 years ago. For just as long, I have encountered the argument that “this is an issue we need to solve at the EU level”. This is the second Danish Presidency in that time, and during neither of them has any real effort been made on the issue. This in spite of studies showing that inaction on PFAS could very soon end up costing Europe 100 billion euros in related costs every year, and all for an industry whose annual global turnover is about a quarter of that amount.
Likewise, the Public Procurement Directive, which accounts for roughly 14 percent of the EU’s GDP, is briefly mentioned, but without any clear proposals for reform. Trade unions and progressive politicians across Europe have laboured for years to revise this outdated directive to allow the blacklisting of companies who abuse workers or hide profits in tax havens, and even Commission President von der Leyen has finally accepted that revision is needed. Crucially, however, her proposal has an entirely different focus, aiming – once again – to ease perceived burdens the Directive imposes on companies. A Social Democratic government shaping the Council’s position on the topic could have been very helpful in achieving a progressive reform, but sadly it seems we might end up with the opposite.
There are many more such issues, for instance the REACH chemical reform, or the long-promised-but-still-missing asbestos screening directive, that could be mentioned in the programme but were not. In general, the pattern is clear: business friendliness and “competitiveness” over workers’ rights and the environment, combined with open hostility to refugees and migrants rather than long-term humanitarian solutions.
Choosing not to lead
Yet another truly disappointing aspect of the Danish Presidency – based both on its written programme as well as the meetings I’ve had with the Danish government – is its apparent refusal to use its agenda-setting power for shaping future policies of the EU. In one telling moment, during a meeting of several Danish MEPs with a Danish minister, I asked – thinking of the Danish fondness for the welfare state – what plans the Presidency had to engage with the battle around the upcoming EU anti-poverty strategy. The minister looked surprised, checked with one of the civil servants, and then replied that since that strategy is only expected in early 2026, they had no plans to engage.
I was shocked. You don’t need to have been in politics long to realise that one of the most effective ways to impact policies is to do so before the texts have been finalised, shaping them as they are being written. Yet here the Danish government’s choice was to do nothing at all. Of course, this could be an exception, but I fear this approach will be emblematic of the coming Danish Presidency, and that the Danish government has chosen to opt-out of the possibility of using its role and influence to quietly yet effectively shape upcoming EU policies, not least when it comes to progressive issues. That’s not just a missed opportunity; it’s a deliberate choice to abstain from leadership.
What it means for the Left
So, what does such a disappointing and unambitious Danish Presidency mean for the Left in Europe, and progressive politics? Firstly, don’t expect renewed climate ambition. The European Commission’s work programme is already lacking any kind of meaningful foresight in the green sphere, threatening climate action with a particularly rough ride, and putting protections for the environment under immense pressure. Denmark’s programme offers little sign of resistance.
Secondly, there is also the risk that an (at least nominally) Social Democratic Prime Minister leading the Presidency may blunt criticism from the broader European Social Democratic family, making it harder to push back against harmful right-wing initiatives, not least in the European Parliament. On the contrary, it risks laying the groundwork for even more anti-worker policies to be pushed through, and for the mantra of simplification to reign supreme over workers’ rights and environmental protections. Thirdly, the “Metteloni” dynamic, and the EU’s ongoing march towards a much more hardline and far less humane policy framework for people seeking asylum and a better life in Europe, will build the walls of “Fortress Europe” ever higher. Worse yet, it could push the EU’s asylum boundaries far beyond the actual borders of the bloc, at the expense of the most vulnerable.
With all of this in mind, it is hard to be hopeful about the outcome of Denmark’s EU Presidency. Of course, such misgivings may be unfounded, but the weak, conservative, and deferential programme that the Danish government has just presented is a clarion call. It underlines just how important it is for left and progressive forces in Europe to step up: to work ever-closer together to both challenge regressive policies, and to identify every possible opening to push for a progressive alternative. We need to take every opportunity to call out the Danish Presidency’s shortcomings – not least its ugly anti-refugee alliance. Such inhumanity should never be EU policy, nor should it be allowed to be the legacy of Denmark’s EU Presidency – even if a government might wish otherwise.
Dette indlæg er oprindeligt bragt hos Rosa Luxembourg-stiftelsen, og kan findes der, via dette link.
