Søren Espersen - Deputy Chairman, Danish People's Party HARDtalk

Now on BBC News, it's time for HARDtalk.

Much of the momentum in European politics is with the nationalist,

Nowhere is that more evident than Denmark.

The second-biggest party and the power-broker in parliament is the

The DPP is seen by its critics as xenophobic

and by its supporters as the home of true Danish values.

My guest is the party's deputy chairman and

How far will this shift to the right go?

Thank you very much. Let's start with a bit of context. Last year

your party recorded the best result in its history. Why? Well, I like to

think that Denmark is going back to the normal in many ways. We have

been objecting to the abolition of the border control. We have been

criticising many of the laws and regulations that made it possible

for many people to settle in Denmark and I think that we are addressing

some of the things and that will be part of our success. I am maybe not

the right one to assess that. It is interesting that you put in the

context of your strategy, your policy of demanding new controls,

much tougher controls, in immigration. Would it be fair to say

that you basically believe Denmark is full? You want a stopped

immigration in your country? We want a stop to immigration, yes, that's a

good way to put it. We have to find ways to do that. Denmark has taken

its fair share of the world's refugees throughout the world, this

started in 1983 when the new laws were introduced. It is expensive for

the country and on a cultural level it is changing the country

dramatically. That is the reason we want to reduce it and stop it

completely when it comes to refugees and of course illegal immigrants. It

seems odd that he is a Denmark is full and can take no more immigrants

when there are so many other countries in Europe that have taken

many, many more immigrants than Denmark over the last few years.

Last year of your neighbours in Sweden took 150,000 asylum seekers.

Germany took over 1 million. How can you persuade me that Denmark has

such a problem? Sweden is gasping for air at the moment. They had to

close their border because they could not take any more. Sweden has

taken an enormous amount of refugees and indeed their society is really

changing now. We look to Sweden and have done this many years to a

country that has legislation that we do not want to come here. All the

countries in western Europe, not so much Eastern Europe, but Western

Europe is really having a problem, a chaotic situation where hundreds of

thousands are streaming to Western Europe and the welfare state. That's

a problem. No question, hundreds of thousands are involved in this

migrant flow but Denmark itself hasn't received hundreds of

thousands. I believe last year it received 120,000 asylum seekers and

there is something called compassion. Where is your

compassion? You personally have fought to get Denmark to backtrack

on even the commitment to take 1000 of the migrants who were flooding

into Eastern Europe earlier this year. You said is not any, not even

1000 should come to Denmark. -- not any. It is 50,000 that we are

calculating will come in 2016. When you talk about compassion, I have a

lot of compassion also to the Danish people, who have a culture that is

being disrupted and changed over the years by migrants who don't always

seem to adapt to our rules and regulations and also has great

difficulty integrating. That is an enormous problem. Not only a

cultural problem, but an enormous economic problem. If you want to

remain -- we want to maintain our welfare state which we have built up

over generations there is a limit and we believe that limit has been

reached now. We can't go further. You might see an economic picture

but it doesn't seem to be relevant to the big picture, for Denmark to

decide to strip incomers, migrants, many of whom have risked their lives

to leave zones of conflict to get to Western Europe, your government now

says it will strip them of all assets over 10,000 kronor. That

isn't about economics, it is about a mindset which seems extraordinarily

lacking in compassion. I don't think we've used the word strip and

stripping, that's your expression and of course you are welcome to do

that. B remind you, Denmark is a welfare state. -- let me remind

you. When asylum seekers come to Denmark they get housing, clothing,

all the necessities, are looked after by doctors and dentists and

even have pocket money. In other countries where there is no social

benefit like we have in Denmark they don't have to take valuables away

from the refugees, they have to look after themselves. We do now to the

refugees exactly what we do to Danish nationals when they go from

the doll, the unemployment, it into social benefit. -- dole. We ask them

if they have any valuables. That's fair. If we start now favouring

foreign nationals over Danish nationals and we really have a

problem. We treat them exactly the way as we treat Danish national

citizens. And you will be judged on the way you treat people. You didn't

like my phrase about stripping people of assets. How about these

words come up which come from the former chief rabbi of Denmark who

said that your government's plan, and of course you were in active

supporter of it, had the character of what was enforced during the Nazi

persecution of minorities. I disagree and I think that's an

insult. He -- I also know this chief rabbi. He knows the Jews were

stripped of their assets before they reached Nazi Germany. They had to

use their assets when they went abroad, so they could provide for

themselves in the beginning. This is a totally different story. These

Jews in the Second World War did not come to a welfare state where they

were well looked after. We had to look after themselves. I can

understand the outrage over the Nazi regime. They came to countries and

had absolutely nothing. These refugees that come to Denmark have

everything they need in housing, clothing, everything they need.

Totally different and I think the ex- chief rabbi should be ashamed

with himself to come to such a comparison. You say he should be

ashamed, that many people say you and your policy should be ashamed. I

wonder whether you care about Denmark's international reputation?

The Secretary General of the UN called upon Denmark to show more

respect to people who have suffered so much and come to your country. I

mean, as I understand it, you, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee,

you speak on foreign affairs for your country, you must care about

the damage being done to Denmark's reputation? I was happy to see a

survey in the Independent in Britain which said an overwhelming majority

of readers thought that our laws and legislation is work there and just.

-- legislations. I'm not sure the UN Secretary General studied our laws,

I don't think he has. A think it is hearsay, which is a shame. Foreign

countries look that Denmark broadly based on rumours. You talk about

stripping refugees. Those kinds of work set up something that is

totally unfair. No, I am not at all ashamed of the laws and legislation

is we have in Denmark. Let's explore one more detail. As I understand it,

correct me if I am wrong, the plan now is to ensure that even

successful asylum seekers cannot achieve family reunification, get

dependence to come to the country, for a three-year transitional

period. I think taking UN conventions and norms and it is

quite clear looking through the documentation that family

reunification for refugees is a basic human right. It is enshrined

in various international laws and conventions. If you are insisting

that people have to wait three years for that basic human right, many

around the world will again think you are violating at least the

spirit of international law. Not even this period. We are not talking

about conventional refugees, they have every right to have family

reunification after one year. We are talking about people who are here

temporarily and are not conventional refugees. They are not even on the

-- we are not even on the edge of violating any of these conventions.

You are saying that when it comes to those who have a legitimate claim to

asylum, they can immediately bring in their dependence? They can

reunify their families? After one year, it has been made this for many

years and I believe it is the same in many countries where there are

people who are temporarily here. They have to wait three years. The

important thing is for us that refugees have asylum while they need

it and then they have to go back to their country again when there is

peace and quiet and when they are the logger persecuted. It seems like

you think it is important that they don't come or go home when they

arrive if they happen to be Muslim. -- no longer. You and your party

leader and various numbers of your party have said things over the past

few months and years which lead me to believe that really your

animosity isn't towards migrants per se but Muslims that you are really

worried about. It's a matter of fact that the Muslims in many ways are

much more difficult to integrate and assimilate in Denmark, and in other

Western European countries. It's not something I just invented, it's the

way it is. But it depends how you respond to that. One of your party

stall warts said, we need to turn around Muslims at the border. He is

a member of your party. Is that a legitimate opinion to have? Of

course it is. It is turning them back to a safe country, which is

Germany. Sweden is doing the same to Denmark. Of course you are allowed

to turn refugees back when they come to a safe country. You've got two

would-be migrants, refugees, coming into your country. One is Muslim and

one is not and you think it is legitimate to turn around the Muslim

because he's Muslim? When have I ever said this? You make the most

funny assumptions about what I say. Your party... I told you... Your

party colleague said quite plainly, we need to turn around Muslims. He

didn't say all migrants, he said Muslims at the border. I don't know

who that Mr Peterson is, I'm afraid. He's not want in the parliamentary

group. What is his name? His name is Holger Peterson on a local official

in Denmark. But he is no longer a member of our party. So you do know

him. He fired him from the party? I not quite sure when he left the

party, but that is sometime ago. I don't want to be responsible for

what people say. When it comes to Muslim immigrants, they are harder

to integrate than others. This isn't only a Danish problem, this is a

problem in all countries in Western Europe, including your own, written.

We certainly see problems in neighbouring Sweden. -- Britain.

Recently another of your colleagues responded to what has happened in

Sweden, several attacks on asylum centres and housing projects,

housing Muslim refugees, and we have seen arson attacks which she said,

this is the Danish MP, were to be expected. At a certain point, she

says, people have had enough when they are not being listened to.

Those words to many in Europe are worrying. Did they worry you? Of

course they did and that was also why I had her in school and talked

to her about it and she apologised for her saying that. We do that, we

do take care of it if we hear statements like that. Of course it

is not acceptable. Why is it that party members,, MPs,

that you have to take them to school over? What is the mindset in your

party, is it deeply Islamaphobia? Your question is not fair at all. Of

course there will always be members of any political party that state

claims that they cannot account for. That's always happening. Then

we have to take them to school and we do our best and we expel also

members who go over the line. We're doing our best, we hope for many

other parties to do the same when some of their members go over the

line. I suppose this is about inflammatory language and

responsible politics, it's a different subject but related. I

want to reflect on your words, when you called upon the coalition forces

fighting so-called Islamic State in Syria and Iraq to bomb civilians.

You said that IS hide behind women and children in IS territory and

therefore we should bomb civilians, it is time to stop fighting this war

like gentlemen? Do you think that was responsible wording? Well, the

point is of course that if you want to win a war you cannot beat Islamic

State unless you also bombed them where they are. I wouldn't say

women, I don't know why women are such a special race that you can't

fight women, but children of course, if they shield behind children, how

can you ever win that more? It can't happen. This is really important,

you knowingly kill children, it is legitimate to knowingly kill

children -- war. You're being ridiculous now, I'm sorry, and

you're being very offensive. I don't want to kill children. Taiwan asked

to stay within the conventions. I'm not saying you want to kill children

-- I want us. The Geneva conventions say you have to take all

consideration not to kill civilians, all considerations, to do

your best to protect civilians, I totally agree with that. If I may,

one Danish author and writer filed a complaint with the Copenhagen police

after you said what you said about the bombing of civilians, claiming

out that you were inciting terrorism. Are the police still

investigating new? It's almost like you're not listening what I'm

saying, I thought this would be a conversation where you listen to

what I said. Everything I have said is within the June the Met

Convention. That's not what I'm asking, I wonder whether you're

listening to me, you know full well a complaint was issued against you

to the Copenhagen police, we checked with the police this morning, they

said enquiries are continuing. I'm asking you whether you are aware of

the state of that investigation? Not at all, I haven't heard from the

police. You haven't heard from the police. Did you not know they were

investigating this complaint? I had no idea. It would be very exciting

to see what happens, I can't wait. And on reflection, do you think it

was wise for you to use the words you used? My expressions on this

matter is within the Geneva Convention. That's what I stick to.

Of course in any war there will be civilian casualties, it should be

avoided as much as you can but you can never, ever launch a war if you

will not accept any civilian killings. I'm afraid to say that

this is the way it has been throughout the years, that's the way

it is. You are indeed the foreign affairs spokesman for the party so I

will ask you a couple of foreign affairs issues as well. In recent

weeks we have seen unprecedented activity at the border with Sweden

and Germany. The Swedes have reinstalled border controls with

Denmark and Denmark as a result of that then imposed new border checks

on people coming in from Germany. Are you pleased about that? No. We

have had a Nordic passport union since 1955, I believe, and it's such

a shame that has been ruined now by the Schengen. Schengen has in a way

ruined our Nordic passport control. It was naive to think you could have

open borders in Europe. It was naive to think that people could walk

through five or six different countries without being checked or

asked, who are you, where are you going, and so on. So Schengen has

really been the big monster in this affair and I hope we will soon go

back to the Nordic passport union again. There's a big debate about

the future of Schengen, some people think the Schengen freedom of

movement principle is dead in Europe, it sounds like you want to

see it die. The Germans have said if Schengen dies or fails then the

entire Europe project is at risk but you seem to want to celebrate the

dying of Schengen? Certainly, it would be a very good idea and I must

remind you that Britain is part of Schengen in a way we would like to

be, part of Schengen and all the international cooperation between

the countries but they maintain border controls with customs and

police, that is what we would like to see also introduced in Denmark.

You mentioned Britain, and I'm sure you're watching closely the

unfolding debate in Britain as we approach our in/out referendum on

the future of Britain inside the European Union, and whether indeed

we might leave. David Cameron in a renegotiation of Britain's contract

with the European Union has tried to win concessions on the payment of

benefits to incoming EU citizens, things like that, is it your feeling

that what Cameron is doing in Britain, the Danish government will

end up doing too, seeking a new relationship with the EU, a looser

relationship, and returning more sovereignty to Denmark? That is our

hope. We have very much back to David Cameron in his attempt to

change the way the union works. He might be our best bet when it comes

to turning the course. No longer should it be a federal course, but a

much looser connection between countries. We really hope he

succeeds, it would be a catastrophe if Britain was no longer in the

European Union. The only problem is the more you disassociate yourself

from some of the institutions of Europe, there are dangers. I was

speaking yesterday on this programme to the head of Europol, the EU

policing agency, Rob Wainwright, he said if Britain leaves the EU, it

leaves Europol, and that will have a detrimental effect on Britain's

capacity with counterterrorism for example. In Denmark you guys voted

to retain your opt out for the home affairs and judicial elements of EU

cooperation, there is some debate about whether you can stage in

Europol. Don't you worry about the security implications of that? I

don't know because the whole thing is now in uproar -- stay in. Nobody

knows what happens in the British referendum, that could go either

way. No one knows what happens to Schengen after all this is going on

in Europe, the Dublin Convention is almost out of practice. You see,

this year will be very crucial but I don't believe that between countries

the police will not work together as they've always done, of course they

well, it's in everybody's interest. Last year your party did very well,

you won % of the vote, you're the biggest party on the right of Danish

politics, you're bigger in terms of seats than the party who holds the

premiership right now but your party leader chose not to get involved in

government and take cabinet positions, and I wonder why that

is. Many are looking at you in Denmark and thinking if the far

right is ever to really hold power and make things different then we

should be starting in Denmark where you're so very popular, but you

opted not to do that. Is it because, without wishing to sound rude, you

and your fellow party leaders lacked the cajones to take power in Denmark

gradually Danish politics is very hard to describe and I can't do it

in a few minutes. We have many parties in Denmark and we always

have my governments with supporting parties. We looked at what was best

for our party and where we would have the most influence. You didn't

want the responsibility of power and cabinet posts? That's not true. For

ten years we were taken a lot of responsibility in all different

political aspects. We are also doing that at the moment. We can just see

that in this position it wouldn't be a good idea for us to join a

government. We were asked very kindly by the Liberals if we would

join a government but we decided not to. We're out of time but Soren

Espersen, thank you very much for joining me on HARDtalk. Thank you.