Knife attack in Rotterdam and Netherlands calls for asylum opt-out

The attack happened on Thursday just before dusk: right next to the famous Erasmus Bridge, a man with a long knife apparently attacked passers-by at random. A 32-year-old inline skater was fatally injured, a 33-year-old man sustained injuries. It is remarkable that there were not more victims, thanks to the courageous intervention of a personal trainer who happened to be present. He kept the attacker at bay with a fitness stick.

The injured man is a Swiss citizen, as the Dutch police announced. They initially spoke of serious injuries, but the Swiss Foreign Ministry (EDA) corrected this on Friday. The man was only slightly injured and was able to leave the hospital.

Little is known about the perpetrator, who was also injured. He is 22 years old and comes from the city of Amersfoort. The authorities have not yet commented on the motive. Joint Dutch media reports based on eyewitnesses say that the man shouted “Allahu akbar” (God is disgusting) during the attack. The new Prime Minister Dick Schoof said before a government meeting that the attacker may be mentally disturbed.

“Islamization of the Netherlands”

For Geert Wilders, whose Islamophobic Party for Freedom won the parliamentary elections last November by a clear margin, the knife attack is a major concern despite all the uncertainties. On Friday, he shared an article on the subject on the X platform and wrote only: “Allahu akbar – Islamization of the Netherlands.”

Wilders is currently driving the Dutch government forward in its immigration policy, even though he himself is not in the cabinet. Back in May, when four right-wing parties had agreed on a coalition, Europe's most famous critic of Islam announced “the strictest asylum policy we have ever had.”

This week, words have become actions – but they are based on shaky foundations. Wilders' placeholder Marjolein Faber, the Minister for Asylum and Migration, wrote a letter to Brussels on Wednesday and called for an exit from the EU asylum system. This is enshrined in the European Treaty.

The number of asylum applications in the Netherlands has been fairly stable in recent years and is in line with the average for EU countries. According to Faber, however, the tightening is necessary in order to be able to fulfil the “constitutional tasks such as providing housing, healthcare and education”. Wilder subsequently spoke of a “mini-Nexit”.

Unity among EU states is needed

But it is not that simple, as the EU Commission immediately informed The Hague: such an opt-out is only possible in the event of a treaty change – and such a change is not currently in sight. In fact, reforming the legal basis is an extremely lengthy procedure. If at all, an opt-out is granted to member states upon accession or during an impending revision. This applies to Denmark, for example, in the case of the common asylum rules. All 27 EU governments must agree.

In the case of the Dutch asylum request, this is extremely unlikely – which the government of course knows. In the same letter, Asylum Minister Faber wrote that – as long as there is no opt-out – they consider “the rapid implementation of the migration pact to be central”, which was agreed last December after years of negotiations. Among other things, it provides for stronger protection of the EU's external borders and a solidarity mechanism.

Is it an acute crisis?

A week ago, Faber announced that he wanted to declare a national “asylum emergency” and thereby repeal parts of the asylum law. The return of rejected asylum seekers is to be made easier and family reunification is to be made more difficult. Although asylum migration only accounts for around ten percent of total net immigration, the Netherlands is to be made as unattractive as possible for asylum seekers.

However, resistance is now brewing in parliament, as has been shown this week: the issue is less about the tightening of migration law than about the constitutionality of the planned measure. Emergency legislation can only be activated in the event of an acute crisis such as a pandemic, a natural disaster or warlike events. According to the opposition, these conditions are currently not met due to the stable asylum numbers. Even the coalition party NSC doubts the legality of the plans.

Heavy fines against Hungary

While other EU states are concerned about the stability of the common treaty, Hungary is applauding the Dutch announcements. European Affairs Minister Janos Boka announced at X that he also wants to withdraw from the European asylum and migration rules if an amendment to the treaty makes this possible. However, the country will remain a “committed member” of the Schengen zone.

It is doubtful that a possible formal application from Hungary will be more successful than that of the Netherlands. In fact, Hungary, which currently holds the EU presidency, has long since withdrawn from the European asylum system. It consistently rejects migrants at the border and has even temporarily detained asylum seekers in closed transit camps on the Serbian border.

Because Hungary committed an “unprecedented and extremely serious breach of Union law”, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) imposed a minimal penalty just this June: a fine of 200 million euros plus a penalty payment of 1 million euros for each additional day that Hungary waits to implement an earlier judgment.

Hungary refuses to pay

But Budapest apparently has no intention of giving in to Brussels, as an EU Commission spokesman announced this week: No payment had been received by September 17, which is why they are now starting to deduct the 200 million euros from pending transfers to Hungary.

The fine does not seem to have deterred Viktor Orban's government either: the more than 90 million euros that would have been due in the three months had not arrived in Brussels by Wednesday. “We will now send an invoice to Budapest,” said the spokesman. Payment deadline: 45 days.