Placing itself in question

The European Union often places itself in question. That may happen when the need is felt to redefine the Treatises that form the legal and political framework of integration, or when the question arises of whether the frontiers of the EU should be extended, or when efforts are made to reinforce the internal market or foreign policy. The history of the Community is punctuated with changes in direction, some of them significant, prompted, if not imposed, by political developments of the day (such as those now taking place in North Africa), economic events (the subprime crisis), or military, social or environmental events (the nuclear disaster at Fukushima). Rules and freedom of circulation. One example of Europe “changing its mind”, in response to current affairs, is the case of mobility within the Schengen area. The arrival en masse on the southern coast of the EU of refugees coming from North Africa has opened a dispute that has especially involved Italy and France. An extraordinary Council of EU ministers of the interior has been convened on Thursday 12 May to discuss the question of migration and the application of Schengen. The same question has been discussed in the session of the European Parliament now being held in Strasbourg. The European Commissioners Viviane Reding (Justice) and Cecilia Malmström (Internal Affairs) have recently expressed their views on the subject with a joint statement. After affirming that “internal frontiers belong to the past”, the Luxembourg and Swedish Commissioners declare that “together with the euro, free circulation represents the most tangible right among those won in 60 years of integration”. Europe without frontiers brings with it “enormous economic advantages”, the chance to travel, work and study abroad”. But these achievements cannot be considered won once and for all. Deciding together. The Schengen provisions permit free circulation in 25 countries without a passport, but also permit member states, “in exceptional circumstances” (an international sporting event, a political summit that requires special security arrangements…), “to re-introduce controls over the external frontiers for a limited period”. Reding and Malmström observe: “The recent tensions between France and Italy demonstrate that the regulations must be carefully interpreted” and “calibrated with precision”. They then make a proposal. “Governments ought not independently to define the circumstances in which controls on the frontiers should be reintroduced”. Such a decision would have a wider impact and “that’s why it ought to be approved by the European institutions”. What’s at stake here is “ensuring respect for the EU rules” and “protecting our rights, won at a high price”. It is no accident that the Commission has proposed (with a document of 4 May) to “strengthen the integrity of the Schengen provisions and protect the most significant EU achievement: freedom of circulation”.Well-being, inside and outside the EU. On the occasion of the Festival of Europe, “Europe’s birthday”, on 9 May the President of the European Council, the Belgian Herman Van Rompuy, made a point of underlining the successes of integration between the peoples and states of the old continent. At the same time he spelt out two “important challenges” by which the EU is faced at the present time: “ensuring our citizens well-being” and “spreading stability through the rest of the world, starting with our neighbours in the south and in the east”. In substance Van Rompuy places the emphasis on economic policy (public accounts, euro, GDP and markets, employment) and also on foreign policy, with special regard for North Africa (Libya in the first place) and the Middle East. The President is optimistic and is convinced that the EU27 has the ability to tackle and overcome these challenges, though it has a need – he says so explicitly in a written text – to “reinforce its capacities and means”. As always, therefore, the Community is confirmed as a building yard that still remains open, a construction site in which everyone is called to lay his own brick.Nuclear security. The European Parliament was on much the same wavelength in marking the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl and the more recent nuclear disaster at Fukushima, in Japan. Polish MEP Boguslaw Sonik presented an interrogation to the Commission. It led to a debate in the EP, which placed the need for nuclear security firmly at the centre of attention. “The European Union – maintained Sonik – was the main source of financial assistance for efforts to stem the consequences of the catastrophe” in Ukraine. He then posed a series of questions, which still await not only verbal responses but concrete answers: “with what possible scenarios is the Commission au courant in terms of the consequences of a grave nuclear incident in a particular site (within the EU or in a neighbouring state) on the population of the various member states?”; “what information does it have in terms of the coordination of the actions of civil protection between member states or between the EU and third countries, in the event of a nuclear incident?”.