Starmer Taking A Leaf From Mette Frederiksen's Book.
British Prime Minister Studying Danish Prime Minister's Policy on Illegal Migration.
Denmark is the happiest country in the world. The country has a cosy reputation as the home of hygge and Lego. It is known for the idealistic fictional detective Sarah Lund and the wonderful life of fictional PM Birgitte Nyborg.
Conversely, that warmth does not carry to asylum seekers. The country, over recent years, has developed the toughest illegal migration policy in Europe. The Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, has said the Danish policy on illegal migration is "zero". In fact, the number of successful asylum claims has dropped to 40% from 95%. Failed claimants are deported, no ifs, no buts.
Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour administration are plummeting in the polls because of growing public anger over illegal migrants. Uncontrolled boat crossings and asylum hotels are a real bone of contention for many Brits. Sir Keir Starmer and his Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood (ironically a Pakistani-Brit) are desperate to get to grips with this situation. To learn from Mette Frederiksen, who has faced down her right-wing opponents with her tough policy on asylum seekers. Sir Keir here in the UK is facing a similar situation with Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
Sir Keir Starmer and Mette Frederiksen are close politically. For example, they are part of the Coalition of the Willing in supporting Ukraine in its struggle with Russia. No doubt, Mr. Starmer is hoping that by repeating Denmark's lead, he might reverse the growth of Reform UK.
Many other European countries are looking at the Danish model. Is the Danish model of dealing with illegal migrants workable across the whole of Europe? Yes, one would think so if governments of all hues are open to the possibility of coming down hard and repatriating failed asylum seekers.
Countries like Poland and Hungary have refused to take in migrants. Their levels of immigration favour European migrants rather than non-Christian and non-European migrants. At first, this may come over as racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic; however, it makes sense. Take the case of the UK, a country I live in and know. Whole parts of our cities and towns no longer look British. Areas of London, Manchester, and Birmingham have been taken over by Pakistanis, Indians, and Bangladeshis. Many of these are Muslim and non-Christian. Unfettered migration from these areas of the world has created an environment where, if you see a Native Brit (in the inner cities), it is a miracle. As these people have moved in and created a home from home, Native Brits have moved out or died off.
Walk around these areas, and you will see mosques, temples, shops selling their clothes, food, culture and beliefs. Any residue of what was once a Native Brit area has gone. Houses, flats, etc, that once housed Native Brits have been taken over by these people.
On top of this, we have whole swathes of African and Caribbean people. We have Turkish and Kurdish barber shops by the score. We have people from Afghanistan and Syria. Yes, we have Eastern Europeans too, and yes, they are foreign. However, they blend in not only because they look like us, but also culturally and religiously, they fit in. This is not a racist rant; it happens to be true. Cultures that come to your country that have a different set of principles from ours are like fitting a square peg into a round hole.
For me, multiculturalism has failed. People coming to our country should be encouraged to swear allegiance to the country's flag, integrate, assimilate, and marry into the Native population if possible.
That way, people realise they are part of the new country they have moved to. They become citizens of that country, they pay into the system, they integrate, assimilate, and their children grow up knowing they are citizens of that country. That doesn't mean they have to be Christian, though it helps; they don't have to forget their old country, however, their modus operandi should be for the country and culture they have moved to.
Legal controlled immigration is fine, as long as those people are fully committed to the country they have moved to. However, illegals should be discouraged from coming. Yes, the Danish model should be adopted because it is obviously working in that country, where applicable. The Polish and Hungarian model is certainly worth considering.
Finally, the Australians got it right, as they, too, once upon a time, faced what Europe is facing now.
About the Creator
Nicholas Bishop
I am a freelance writer currently writing for Blasting News and HubPages. I mainly write about politics. But have and will cover all subjects when the need arises.
Keep reading
More stories from Nicholas Bishop and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
$6 Billion U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier ‘Sunk’ by $100 Million Diesel AIP Sub: A Lesson in Modern Naval Warfare
In a stunning reminder of how modern technology can upend traditional military assumptions, reports have emerged that a $100 million diesel-electric air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine effectively neutralized a $6 billion U.S. Navy aircraft carrier in a recent simulated naval exercise. While no lives were lost and the carrier remained physically intact, the exercise served as a stark wake-up call for naval strategists and defense planners worldwide. The Exercise That Shocked the Navy The event occurred during a routine war-gaming exercise designed to test the vulnerabilities of aircraft carriers and their battle groups. These carriers, often described as floating cities and the backbone of American power projection, were assumed to be nearly invincible thanks to advanced radar, escort ships, and multi-layered defense systems. However, the diesel-electric AIP submarine, smaller, quieter, and far cheaper than its nuclear-powered counterparts, demonstrated that stealth and strategic maneuvering could overcome sheer size and firepower. Using its near-silent propulsion system, the sub reportedly penetrated the carrier group’s outer defenses and “struck” the vessel in a simulated attack scenario. The exercise’s outcome has been described as both “surprising” and “unsettling” by military analysts. Why the Cost Difference Matters One of the most striking aspects of this scenario is the enormous discrepancy in cost. A U.S. aircraft carrier can cost upward of $6 billion, with each accompanying ship in the carrier strike group adding billions more. In contrast, modern diesel-electric AIP submarines can be built for a fraction of that—around $100 million in this instance—yet they can threaten the most expensive naval assets in the world. This disparity has fueled debates within defense circles about cost-effectiveness and vulnerability. It highlights a broader lesson in military strategy: expensive and powerful assets are not automatically invulnerable, and smaller, well-deployed systems can deliver disproportionate impact if used strategically. The Rise of Diesel AIP Submarines Diesel-electric submarines equipped with air-independent propulsion have become increasingly attractive to nations seeking potent yet affordable deterrents. Unlike traditional diesel submarines, AIP-equipped vessels can operate underwater for extended periods without surfacing, making them harder to detect. Their quiet operation allows them to move undetected in littoral and coastal waters, where large carriers often operate. For many nations, these submarines represent a low-cost way to challenge superior naval forces, create area-denial capabilities, and protect strategic waters. The recent exercise illustrates that even the most advanced naval superpowers must consider these asymmetric threats in their planning. Lessons for Naval Strategy The simulated “sinking” of a $6 billion aircraft carrier carries broader implications for naval strategy. It underscores the importance of adapting to technological advancements and reevaluating assumptions about force protection. While aircraft carriers remain central to U.S. naval doctrine, exercises like this highlight the need for layered defenses, rapid anti-submarine warfare (ASW) tactics, and improved detection systems. Additionally, the exercise demonstrates that smaller navies with modern AIP submarines can challenge even the most formidable fleets. This shift may alter how naval powers approach fleet composition, deployment strategies, and international maritime deterrence. Global Reactions Analysts around the world have taken notice. Defense experts in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East have emphasized that this scenario is not hypothetical but a reflection of current capabilities. Countries investing in quiet, low-cost submarines may see them as key assets in modern naval conflicts. Meanwhile, traditional naval powers face the challenge of ensuring that their high-value platforms remain relevant and secure in an era of asymmetric warfare. Some observers suggest that the exercise’s outcome should serve as a catalyst for innovation. Future carriers may need enhanced anti-submarine systems, smarter escort strategies, and integration with unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) to counter the growing threat of diesel-electric AIP subs. Conclusion The dramatic juxtaposition—a $6 billion aircraft carrier neutralized by a $100 million diesel-electric AIP submarine—serves as a powerful lesson in modern military strategy. It reminds us that technological advancements can shift power balances, rendering previously “invincible” platforms vulnerable. While the U.S. Navy continues to dominate the seas in terms of global reach, the exercise underscores the fact that even the most expensive and powerful assets are not immune to innovation-driven threats. Small, stealthy, and strategically employed platforms can deliver outsized effects, compelling military planners to rethink traditional assumptions about cost, size, and survivability. In the evolving world of naval warfare, the balance of power is no longer dictated solely by money or firepower. Intelligence, stealth, and strategic deployment are now equally, if not more, decisive. The recent exercise serves as a stark reminder that no matter how advanced or costly a platform may be, it is only as strong as the strategies and systems protecting it.
By Fiazahmedbrohi 6 days ago in The Swamp
FPS: The Last Flame Challenge Winners
Welcome to our first Winners Announcement of the year and to the final challenge in the Fall Poetry Series. The Last Flame invited writers to sit with endings, using fire as a central image to consider what remains when something burns out: ash, warmth, memory, silence, or the faint promise of what comes next. The strongest pieces treated endings as gradual rather than sudden, allowing them to flicker, dim, and linger.
By Vocal Curation Team5 days ago in Resources
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.