It has been a very busy and intense week for Minister for Immigration and Integration Morten Bødskov already, from the controversial decision to reintroduce L98 to a messy case about four mysterious past naturalisations.
Now, another case is brewing which has seen some opposition politicians call for Bødskov’s resignation, with others suggesting he be officially reprimanded.
The case revolves around some specific data that the Danish People’s Party’s spokesperson on immigration, Mikkel Bjørn, had requested from the minister in connection with an article in Politiken.
Now, four opposition parties are requesting an official reprimand of the minister: the Danish People’s Party, Liberal Alliance, the Conservative People’s Party (Det Konservative Folkeparti), and the Denmark Democrats (Danmarksdemokraterne).
Starts with an article in Politiken
The story starts with debates this summer following the migrant crisis in Ceuta, where 80,000 migrants entered the Spanish exclave from Morocco.
The Danish People’s Party proposed a Danish exit from the Schengen area agreement altogether.
The government’s policy was instead to be open to a suspension of cooperation with Spain, while still remaining part of the Schengen Agreement.
In an article in Politiken, Bødskov suggested that the Danish People’s Party’s policy would lead to an increase in asylum seekers in Denmark. He provided the newspaper with a memo from the ministry that had found this.
This memo contradicted previous calculations that the Danish People’s Party had used, which piqued the party’s curiosity. Its spokesperson on immigration, Mikkel Bjørn, was handed some of the data from Politiken.
Tried to get the memo
Bjørn also sought to get the memo that Bødskov had used for the article in Politiken through parliamentary procedures.
However, the process of getting the memo handed over from the minister was difficult and is what the opposition parties now point to as problematic.
In Bjørn’s first attempt, through a written question, he was sent an interview briefing instead, which did not include the data that Bjørn knew the minister had shown to Politiken.
Bjørn tried twice more in written questions to the minister and once in the Folketing’s chamber, without any luck.
Notably, in the answer to the third attempt, Bødskov said, “No additional material has been prepared for use in my interview in Politiken.”
It wasn’t until the Immigration and Integration Committee sent a letter to the minister, signed by Chairman of the committee Mohammad Rona of the Moderates (Moderaterne), that Bødskov responded with the relevant data.
“He should have gotten the right answer from the start”
Jyllands-Posten, which has been covering this story closely, has spoken with professor of administrative law Sten Bønsing, who told the paper, “It’s completely obvious what Mikkel Bjørn is asking about. He should have gotten the right answer from the start.”
He goes on to note that “The minister has broken the rules”; however, he stops short of acknowledging that the minister lied: “There is no doubt that it is wrong and that it is misleading.
“But if I am to say that something is a lie, I need to know the intention behind it. And I don’t know whether those in the ministry deliberately sat with the note in hand and said that it doesn’t exist, or whether they simply didn’t have their paperwork under control.”
Critique from the opposition
Mikkel Bjørn has been very critical of Bødskov’s actions, calling for the minister’s resignation: “It cannot be right that as a minister one can misinform and lie to the Folketing in that way. Then I do not believe one can remain as minister for that area.”
Other right-of-centre parties have also been critical of the minister, calling on the Folketing to give him a “næse” (literally: a nose; which is a formal reprimand of a minister). These parties are Liberal Alliance, the Conservative People’s Party, and the Denmark Democrats.
The Conservatives’ spokesperson on immigration, Christian Vigilius, has said, “It is our right as members of the Folketing, and particularly as members of the Immigration and Integration Committee, to gain insight into these matters. That is the parliamentary scrutiny we are here for.”
He notes that “this calls for a reprimand” and also suggests that he “cannot rule out that it may have further consequences”.
However, for the minister to receive one of these formal reprimands, there needs to be a majority in the Folketing behind it. That is currently not the case. Venstre has not yet called for this, and the government and its confidence-and-supply parties still back Bødskov.
The defence
In a written comment to Jyllands-Posten, Bødskov himself has said, “Mikkel Bjørn has on several occasions asked me to forward the note mentioned in Politiken’s article, and other material for use in the interview, which concerns, and this is important, the consequences of Denmark’s withdrawal from the Schengen cooperation. I have of course done so.
“Subsequently, the committee asked me to send all material that was handed out in connection with my interview with Politiken. I also complied with that.
“In this context, it is important to say that this material does not specifically concern the consequences of Denmark’s withdrawal from the Schengen cooperation, which is what was otherwise inquired about. Therefore, this material was not forwarded earlier.
“That said, I of course always take criticism from the parties in the Folketing seriously. That also applies in this case.”
Spokesperson for the Social Democrats, Rasmus Stoklund, has also defended Bødskov, saying, “There is nothing to suggest that the Minister for Immigration and Integration has violated any rules. The papers that were requested have been handed over.”
Peder Hvelplund of the Red-Green Alliance, one of the government’s confidence-and-supply parties (which would need to back the opposition for them to be successful with their reprimand), told Jyllands-Posten, “Now the note has been handed over, the case is closed, and I assume that the minister has learned from it.
“When the Folketing asks for a note, the minister should of course hand it over. But he has also done so, and therefore there is nothing more to it for us. As I see it, there has also been doubt about exactly what kind of note it was.”
