:00:00. > :00:09.Now on BBC News, it's time for HARDtalk.
:00:10. > :00:16.Much of the momentum in European politics is with the nationalist,
:00:17. > :00:20.Nowhere is that more evident than Denmark.
:00:21. > :00:23.The second-biggest party and the power-broker in parliament is the
:00:24. > :00:33.The DPP is seen by its critics as xenophobic
:00:34. > :00:37.and by its supporters as the home of true Danish values.
:00:38. > :00:39.My guest is the party's deputy chairman and
:00:40. > :01:11.How far will this shift to the right go?
:01:12. > :01:26.Thank you very much. Let's start with a bit of context. Last year
:01:27. > :01:36.your party recorded the best result in its history. Why? Well, I like to
:01:37. > :01:41.think that Denmark is going back to the normal in many ways. We have
:01:42. > :01:49.been objecting to the abolition of the border control. We have been
:01:50. > :01:52.criticising many of the laws and regulations that made it possible
:01:53. > :01:58.for many people to settle in Denmark and I think that we are addressing
:01:59. > :02:03.some of the things and that will be part of our success. I am maybe not
:02:04. > :02:08.the right one to assess that. It is interesting that you put in the
:02:09. > :02:10.context of your strategy, your policy of demanding new controls,
:02:11. > :02:14.much tougher controls, in immigration. Would it be fair to say
:02:15. > :02:22.that you basically believe Denmark is full? You want a stopped
:02:23. > :02:28.immigration in your country? We want a stop to immigration, yes, that's a
:02:29. > :02:31.good way to put it. We have to find ways to do that. Denmark has taken
:02:32. > :02:37.its fair share of the world's refugees throughout the world, this
:02:38. > :02:43.started in 1983 when the new laws were introduced. It is expensive for
:02:44. > :02:46.the country and on a cultural level it is changing the country
:02:47. > :02:54.dramatically. That is the reason we want to reduce it and stop it
:02:55. > :03:00.completely when it comes to refugees and of course illegal immigrants. It
:03:01. > :03:04.seems odd that he is a Denmark is full and can take no more immigrants
:03:05. > :03:09.when there are so many other countries in Europe that have taken
:03:10. > :03:12.many, many more immigrants than Denmark over the last few years.
:03:13. > :03:18.Last year of your neighbours in Sweden took 150,000 asylum seekers.
:03:19. > :03:22.Germany took over 1 million. How can you persuade me that Denmark has
:03:23. > :03:26.such a problem? Sweden is gasping for air at the moment. They had to
:03:27. > :03:30.close their border because they could not take any more. Sweden has
:03:31. > :03:35.taken an enormous amount of refugees and indeed their society is really
:03:36. > :03:41.changing now. We look to Sweden and have done this many years to a
:03:42. > :03:47.country that has legislation that we do not want to come here. All the
:03:48. > :03:52.countries in western Europe, not so much Eastern Europe, but Western
:03:53. > :04:00.Europe is really having a problem, a chaotic situation where hundreds of
:04:01. > :04:04.thousands are streaming to Western Europe and the welfare state. That's
:04:05. > :04:08.a problem. No question, hundreds of thousands are involved in this
:04:09. > :04:13.migrant flow but Denmark itself hasn't received hundreds of
:04:14. > :04:15.thousands. I believe last year it received 120,000 asylum seekers and
:04:16. > :04:19.there is something called compassion. Where is your
:04:20. > :04:26.compassion? You personally have fought to get Denmark to backtrack
:04:27. > :04:28.on even the commitment to take 1000 of the migrants who were flooding
:04:29. > :04:35.into Eastern Europe earlier this year. You said is not any, not even
:04:36. > :04:43.1000 should come to Denmark. -- not any. It is 50,000 that we are
:04:44. > :04:47.calculating will come in 2016. When you talk about compassion, I have a
:04:48. > :04:54.lot of compassion also to the Danish people, who have a culture that is
:04:55. > :05:03.being disrupted and changed over the years by migrants who don't always
:05:04. > :05:07.seem to adapt to our rules and regulations and also has great
:05:08. > :05:10.difficulty integrating. That is an enormous problem. Not only a
:05:11. > :05:15.cultural problem, but an enormous economic problem. If you want to
:05:16. > :05:20.remain -- we want to maintain our welfare state which we have built up
:05:21. > :05:24.over generations there is a limit and we believe that limit has been
:05:25. > :05:30.reached now. We can't go further. You might see an economic picture
:05:31. > :05:34.but it doesn't seem to be relevant to the big picture, for Denmark to
:05:35. > :05:39.decide to strip incomers, migrants, many of whom have risked their lives
:05:40. > :05:44.to leave zones of conflict to get to Western Europe, your government now
:05:45. > :05:49.says it will strip them of all assets over 10,000 kronor. That
:05:50. > :05:54.isn't about economics, it is about a mindset which seems extraordinarily
:05:55. > :05:59.lacking in compassion. I don't think we've used the word strip and
:06:00. > :06:03.stripping, that's your expression and of course you are welcome to do
:06:04. > :06:08.that. B remind you, Denmark is a welfare state. -- let me remind
:06:09. > :06:11.you. When asylum seekers come to Denmark they get housing, clothing,
:06:12. > :06:20.all the necessities, are looked after by doctors and dentists and
:06:21. > :06:24.even have pocket money. In other countries where there is no social
:06:25. > :06:27.benefit like we have in Denmark they don't have to take valuables away
:06:28. > :06:32.from the refugees, they have to look after themselves. We do now to the
:06:33. > :06:36.refugees exactly what we do to Danish nationals when they go from
:06:37. > :06:42.the doll, the unemployment, it into social benefit. -- dole. We ask them
:06:43. > :06:51.if they have any valuables. That's fair. If we start now favouring
:06:52. > :06:59.foreign nationals over Danish nationals and we really have a
:07:00. > :07:05.problem. We treat them exactly the way as we treat Danish national
:07:06. > :07:08.citizens. And you will be judged on the way you treat people. You didn't
:07:09. > :07:11.like my phrase about stripping people of assets. How about these
:07:12. > :07:17.words come up which come from the former chief rabbi of Denmark who
:07:18. > :07:20.said that your government's plan, and of course you were in active
:07:21. > :07:28.supporter of it, had the character of what was enforced during the Nazi
:07:29. > :07:35.persecution of minorities. I disagree and I think that's an
:07:36. > :07:39.insult. He -- I also know this chief rabbi. He knows the Jews were
:07:40. > :07:45.stripped of their assets before they reached Nazi Germany. They had to
:07:46. > :07:48.use their assets when they went abroad, so they could provide for
:07:49. > :07:52.themselves in the beginning. This is a totally different story. These
:07:53. > :07:55.Jews in the Second World War did not come to a welfare state where they
:07:56. > :08:03.were well looked after. We had to look after themselves. I can
:08:04. > :08:08.understand the outrage over the Nazi regime. They came to countries and
:08:09. > :08:12.had absolutely nothing. These refugees that come to Denmark have
:08:13. > :08:18.everything they need in housing, clothing, everything they need.
:08:19. > :08:24.Totally different and I think the ex- chief rabbi should be ashamed
:08:25. > :08:27.with himself to come to such a comparison. You say he should be
:08:28. > :08:31.ashamed, that many people say you and your policy should be ashamed. I
:08:32. > :08:36.wonder whether you care about Denmark's international reputation?
:08:37. > :08:39.The Secretary General of the UN called upon Denmark to show more
:08:40. > :08:45.respect to people who have suffered so much and come to your country. I
:08:46. > :08:48.mean, as I understand it, you, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee,
:08:49. > :08:53.you speak on foreign affairs for your country, you must care about
:08:54. > :09:03.the damage being done to Denmark's reputation? I was happy to see a
:09:04. > :09:07.survey in the Independent in Britain which said an overwhelming majority
:09:08. > :09:12.of readers thought that our laws and legislation is work there and just.
:09:13. > :09:19.-- legislations. I'm not sure the UN Secretary General studied our laws,
:09:20. > :09:31.I don't think he has. A think it is hearsay, which is a shame. Foreign
:09:32. > :09:34.countries look that Denmark broadly based on rumours. You talk about
:09:35. > :09:40.stripping refugees. Those kinds of work set up something that is
:09:41. > :09:43.totally unfair. No, I am not at all ashamed of the laws and legislation
:09:44. > :09:49.is we have in Denmark. Let's explore one more detail. As I understand it,
:09:50. > :09:54.correct me if I am wrong, the plan now is to ensure that even
:09:55. > :10:00.successful asylum seekers cannot achieve family reunification, get
:10:01. > :10:05.dependence to come to the country, for a three-year transitional
:10:06. > :10:08.period. I think taking UN conventions and norms and it is
:10:09. > :10:11.quite clear looking through the documentation that family
:10:12. > :10:18.reunification for refugees is a basic human right. It is enshrined
:10:19. > :10:23.in various international laws and conventions. If you are insisting
:10:24. > :10:27.that people have to wait three years for that basic human right, many
:10:28. > :10:32.around the world will again think you are violating at least the
:10:33. > :10:37.spirit of international law. Not even this period. We are not talking
:10:38. > :10:41.about conventional refugees, they have every right to have family
:10:42. > :10:45.reunification after one year. We are talking about people who are here
:10:46. > :10:50.temporarily and are not conventional refugees. They are not even on the
:10:51. > :10:54.-- we are not even on the edge of violating any of these conventions.
:10:55. > :10:59.You are saying that when it comes to those who have a legitimate claim to
:11:00. > :11:04.asylum, they can immediately bring in their dependence? They can
:11:05. > :11:07.reunify their families? After one year, it has been made this for many
:11:08. > :11:11.years and I believe it is the same in many countries where there are
:11:12. > :11:15.people who are temporarily here. They have to wait three years. The
:11:16. > :11:19.important thing is for us that refugees have asylum while they need
:11:20. > :11:24.it and then they have to go back to their country again when there is
:11:25. > :11:28.peace and quiet and when they are the logger persecuted. It seems like
:11:29. > :11:33.you think it is important that they don't come or go home when they
:11:34. > :11:36.arrive if they happen to be Muslim. -- no longer. You and your party
:11:37. > :11:40.leader and various numbers of your party have said things over the past
:11:41. > :11:43.few months and years which lead me to believe that really your
:11:44. > :11:52.animosity isn't towards migrants per se but Muslims that you are really
:11:53. > :11:58.worried about. It's a matter of fact that the Muslims in many ways are
:11:59. > :12:03.much more difficult to integrate and assimilate in Denmark, and in other
:12:04. > :12:08.Western European countries. It's not something I just invented, it's the
:12:09. > :12:12.way it is. But it depends how you respond to that. One of your party
:12:13. > :12:18.stall warts said, we need to turn around Muslims at the border. He is
:12:19. > :12:22.a member of your party. Is that a legitimate opinion to have? Of
:12:23. > :12:27.course it is. It is turning them back to a safe country, which is
:12:28. > :12:31.Germany. Sweden is doing the same to Denmark. Of course you are allowed
:12:32. > :12:36.to turn refugees back when they come to a safe country. You've got two
:12:37. > :12:40.would-be migrants, refugees, coming into your country. One is Muslim and
:12:41. > :12:43.one is not and you think it is legitimate to turn around the Muslim
:12:44. > :12:49.because he's Muslim? When have I ever said this? You make the most
:12:50. > :12:56.funny assumptions about what I say. Your party... I told you... Your
:12:57. > :13:00.party colleague said quite plainly, we need to turn around Muslims. He
:13:01. > :13:05.didn't say all migrants, he said Muslims at the border. I don't know
:13:06. > :13:13.who that Mr Peterson is, I'm afraid. He's not want in the parliamentary
:13:14. > :13:18.group. What is his name? His name is Holger Peterson on a local official
:13:19. > :13:26.in Denmark. But he is no longer a member of our party. So you do know
:13:27. > :13:30.him. He fired him from the party? I not quite sure when he left the
:13:31. > :13:34.party, but that is sometime ago. I don't want to be responsible for
:13:35. > :13:39.what people say. When it comes to Muslim immigrants, they are harder
:13:40. > :13:43.to integrate than others. This isn't only a Danish problem, this is a
:13:44. > :13:48.problem in all countries in Western Europe, including your own, written.
:13:49. > :13:54.We certainly see problems in neighbouring Sweden. -- Britain.
:13:55. > :13:59.Recently another of your colleagues responded to what has happened in
:14:00. > :14:06.Sweden, several attacks on asylum centres and housing projects,
:14:07. > :14:09.housing Muslim refugees, and we have seen arson attacks which she said,
:14:10. > :14:15.this is the Danish MP, were to be expected. At a certain point, she
:14:16. > :14:20.says, people have had enough when they are not being listened to.
:14:21. > :14:26.Those words to many in Europe are worrying. Did they worry you? Of
:14:27. > :14:31.course they did and that was also why I had her in school and talked
:14:32. > :14:37.to her about it and she apologised for her saying that. We do that, we
:14:38. > :14:38.do take care of it if we hear statements like that. Of course it
:14:39. > :14:51.is not acceptable. Why is it that party members,, MPs,
:14:52. > :14:56.that you have to take them to school over? What is the mindset in your
:14:57. > :15:01.party, is it deeply Islamaphobia? Your question is not fair at all. Of
:15:02. > :15:08.course there will always be members of any political party that state
:15:09. > :15:14.claims that they cannot account for. That's always happening. Then
:15:15. > :15:19.we have to take them to school and we do our best and we expel also
:15:20. > :15:23.members who go over the line. We're doing our best, we hope for many
:15:24. > :15:27.other parties to do the same when some of their members go over the
:15:28. > :15:32.line. I suppose this is about inflammatory language and
:15:33. > :15:37.responsible politics, it's a different subject but related. I
:15:38. > :15:40.want to reflect on your words, when you called upon the coalition forces
:15:41. > :15:48.fighting so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq to bomb civilians.
:15:49. > :15:53.You said that IS hide behind women and children in IS territory and
:15:54. > :15:59.therefore we should bomb civilians, it is time to stop fighting this war
:16:00. > :16:05.like gentlemen? Do you think that was responsible wording? Well, the
:16:06. > :16:12.point is of course that if you want to win a war you cannot beat Islamic
:16:13. > :16:16.State unless you also bombed them where they are. I wouldn't say
:16:17. > :16:21.women, I don't know why women are such a special race that you can't
:16:22. > :16:27.fight women, but children of course, if they shield behind children, how
:16:28. > :16:33.can you ever win that more? It can't happen. This is really important,
:16:34. > :16:37.you knowingly kill children, it is legitimate to knowingly kill
:16:38. > :16:42.children -- war. You're being ridiculous now, I'm sorry, and
:16:43. > :16:46.you're being very offensive. I don't want to kill children. Taiwan asked
:16:47. > :16:53.to stay within the conventions. I'm not saying you want to kill children
:16:54. > :16:56.-- I want us. The Geneva conventions say you have to take all
:16:57. > :17:01.consideration not to kill civilians, all considerations, to do
:17:02. > :17:07.your best to protect civilians, I totally agree with that. If I may,
:17:08. > :17:11.one Danish author and writer filed a complaint with the Copenhagen police
:17:12. > :17:15.after you said what you said about the bombing of civilians, claiming
:17:16. > :17:19.out that you were inciting terrorism. Are the police still
:17:20. > :17:22.investigating new? It's almost like you're not listening what I'm
:17:23. > :17:27.saying, I thought this would be a conversation where you listen to
:17:28. > :17:31.what I said. Everything I have said is within the June the Met
:17:32. > :17:35.Convention. That's not what I'm asking, I wonder whether you're
:17:36. > :17:39.listening to me, you know full well a complaint was issued against you
:17:40. > :17:44.to the Copenhagen police, we checked with the police this morning, they
:17:45. > :17:47.said enquiries are continuing. I'm asking you whether you are aware of
:17:48. > :17:53.the state of that investigation? Not at all, I haven't heard from the
:17:54. > :17:58.police. You haven't heard from the police. Did you not know they were
:17:59. > :18:03.investigating this complaint? I had no idea. It would be very exciting
:18:04. > :18:06.to see what happens, I can't wait. And on reflection, do you think it
:18:07. > :18:14.was wise for you to use the words you used? My expressions on this
:18:15. > :18:20.matter is within the Geneva Convention. That's what I stick to.
:18:21. > :18:24.Of course in any war there will be civilian casualties, it should be
:18:25. > :18:28.avoided as much as you can but you can never, ever launch a war if you
:18:29. > :18:32.will not accept any civilian killings. I'm afraid to say that
:18:33. > :18:37.this is the way it has been throughout the years, that's the way
:18:38. > :18:41.it is. You are indeed the foreign affairs spokesman for the party so I
:18:42. > :18:46.will ask you a couple of foreign affairs issues as well. In recent
:18:47. > :18:52.weeks we have seen unprecedented activity at the border with Sweden
:18:53. > :18:55.and Germany. The Swedes have reinstalled border controls with
:18:56. > :18:59.Denmark and Denmark as a result of that then imposed new border checks
:19:00. > :19:07.on people coming in from Germany. Are you pleased about that? No. We
:19:08. > :19:11.have had a Nordic passport union since 1955, I believe, and it's such
:19:12. > :19:16.a shame that has been ruined now by the Schengen. Schengen has in a way
:19:17. > :19:21.ruined our Nordic passport control. It was naive to think you could have
:19:22. > :19:24.open borders in Europe. It was naive to think that people could walk
:19:25. > :19:28.through five or six different countries without being checked or
:19:29. > :19:33.asked, who are you, where are you going, and so on. So Schengen has
:19:34. > :19:37.really been the big monster in this affair and I hope we will soon go
:19:38. > :19:42.back to the Nordic passport union again. There's a big debate about
:19:43. > :19:45.the future of Schengen, some people think the Schengen freedom of
:19:46. > :19:50.movement principle is dead in Europe, it sounds like you want to
:19:51. > :19:54.see it die. The Germans have said if Schengen dies or fails then the
:19:55. > :19:59.entire Europe project is at risk but you seem to want to celebrate the
:20:00. > :20:03.dying of Schengen? Certainly, it would be a very good idea and I must
:20:04. > :20:11.remind you that Britain is part of Schengen in a way we would like to
:20:12. > :20:12.be, part of Schengen and all the international cooperation between
:20:13. > :20:16.the countries but they maintain border controls with customs and
:20:17. > :20:23.police, that is what we would like to see also introduced in Denmark.
:20:24. > :20:27.You mentioned Britain, and I'm sure you're watching closely the
:20:28. > :20:30.unfolding debate in Britain as we approach our in/out referendum on
:20:31. > :20:36.the future of Britain inside the European Union, and whether indeed
:20:37. > :20:39.we might leave. David Cameron in a renegotiation of Britain's contract
:20:40. > :20:44.with the European Union has tried to win concessions on the payment of
:20:45. > :20:48.benefits to incoming EU citizens, things like that, is it your feeling
:20:49. > :20:53.that what Cameron is doing in Britain, the Danish government will
:20:54. > :20:57.end up doing too, seeking a new relationship with the EU, a looser
:20:58. > :21:04.relationship, and returning more sovereignty to Denmark? That is our
:21:05. > :21:09.hope. We have very much back to David Cameron in his attempt to
:21:10. > :21:16.change the way the union works. He might be our best bet when it comes
:21:17. > :21:20.to turning the course. No longer should it be a federal course, but a
:21:21. > :21:25.much looser connection between countries. We really hope he
:21:26. > :21:30.succeeds, it would be a catastrophe if Britain was no longer in the
:21:31. > :21:33.European Union. The only problem is the more you disassociate yourself
:21:34. > :21:37.from some of the institutions of Europe, there are dangers. I was
:21:38. > :21:42.speaking yesterday on this programme to the head of Europol, the EU
:21:43. > :21:47.policing agency, Rob Wainwright, he said if Britain leaves the EU, it
:21:48. > :21:53.leaves Europol, and that will have a detrimental effect on Britain's
:21:54. > :21:59.capacity with counterterrorism for example. In Denmark you guys voted
:22:00. > :22:03.to retain your opt out for the home affairs and judicial elements of EU
:22:04. > :22:07.cooperation, there is some debate about whether you can stage in
:22:08. > :22:12.Europol. Don't you worry about the security implications of that? I
:22:13. > :22:17.don't know because the whole thing is now in uproar -- stay in. Nobody
:22:18. > :22:20.knows what happens in the British referendum, that could go either
:22:21. > :22:24.way. No one knows what happens to Schengen after all this is going on
:22:25. > :22:29.in Europe, the Dublin Convention is almost out of practice. You see,
:22:30. > :22:35.this year will be very crucial but I don't believe that between countries
:22:36. > :22:40.the police will not work together as they've always done, of course they
:22:41. > :22:44.well, it's in everybody's interest. Last year your party did very well,
:22:45. > :22:49.you won % of the vote, you're the biggest party on the right of Danish
:22:50. > :22:53.politics, you're bigger in terms of seats than the party who holds the
:22:54. > :22:57.premiership right now but your party leader chose not to get involved in
:22:58. > :23:01.government and take cabinet positions, and I wonder why that
:23:02. > :23:06.is. Many are looking at you in Denmark and thinking if the far
:23:07. > :23:10.right is ever to really hold power and make things different then we
:23:11. > :23:14.should be starting in Denmark where you're so very popular, but you
:23:15. > :23:22.opted not to do that. Is it because, without wishing to sound rude, you
:23:23. > :23:28.and your fellow party leaders lacked the cajones to take power in Denmark
:23:29. > :23:32.gradually Danish politics is very hard to describe and I can't do it
:23:33. > :23:35.in a few minutes. We have many parties in Denmark and we always
:23:36. > :23:41.have my governments with supporting parties. We looked at what was best
:23:42. > :23:45.for our party and where we would have the most influence. You didn't
:23:46. > :23:52.want the responsibility of power and cabinet posts? That's not true. For
:23:53. > :23:55.ten years we were taken a lot of responsibility in all different
:23:56. > :24:00.political aspects. We are also doing that at the moment. We can just see
:24:01. > :24:05.that in this position it wouldn't be a good idea for us to join a
:24:06. > :24:08.government. We were asked very kindly by the Liberals if we would
:24:09. > :24:14.join a government but we decided not to. We're out of time but Soren
:24:15. > :24:17.Espersen, thank you very much for joining me on HARDtalk. Thank you.