Schengen thirty years later: ” ” a lot remains to be learned

When the Schengen agreement was signed, June 14, 1985, there were five players around the table, more precisely: three plus two. In 1984 a memorandum set the guidelines to three Benelux countries for progress towards greater freedom of circulation and closer cooperation between customs and police forces. Moreover, the Sarrebruck agreement between Germany and France, signed in July 1984, envisaged the gradual abolition of border controls. Today, 26 Countries are members of the Schengen area, enshrined in the EU Treaties. According to historic accounts, it all began because of a very concrete problem, namely, the long delays of truck drivers at Kehl’s customs, which triggered the reaction of the then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. As it often happens in the European construction, a specific problem was to prompt the first step towards extended integration. However, the Schengen agreement and the important Convention on its implementation signed five years later, June 1990, would never have come about without a deep, twofold intuition by Europeans. First of all there was the olden militant dream of a Europe without border crossings. This dream had already brought popular adhesion to the 1957 Treaty of Rome, but in reality, European spirits were animated by the possibility of travelling without having to show one’s identity card to customs officers and policemen, in the framework of a large common market. Since then, ensuing the period of the 1981-1983 martial law in Poland, there was a widespread need to progress in the direction of free circulation to highlight the lack of freedom and the respect of the dignity of peoples in central and eastern Europe in the grips of the Communist regime. Moreover, since the beginning Schengen represented the quest for a balance between security and freedom. The removal of internal borders control required a set of common regulations on transit across external national borders; asylum and migration; and visa release. Enabling free circulation among member Countries also envisaged strengthened cooperation between the judicial and police forces. Harmonised regulations on external borders, on migration procedures and asylum inside the Schengen area remained, while the number of countries signatories to the Schengen agreement rose from 5 to 26. But many Member countries are anchored to their prerogatives. They are mistrustful. For this reason, in the recent past Denmark furthered a proposal of restoring border controls. In the same year the French government decided to close its borders to north-African migrants in response to the Italian government’s unilateral decision to release six-month residence permits to 25 thousand Tunisian migrants. Some EU countries participate in the Schengen area in a limited manner: they decided in favour of an opt-out clause with the possibility of an opt-in. This situation often resembles a tug of war that causes misunderstandings or even refusal. But Schengen is – and is bound to remain – a gift to European people, who freely circulate in a large area. However, also thirty years later, Schengen is still a rough diamond that needs being perfected. The question of asylum is a powerful example. Today, Dublin 2 regulations require processing such requests in the Country of arrival within the territory of the European Union, but it is based on the good will of all the Countries. Now, this system has stopped working. We need to make another step forward. This is why the European agenda on migrations proposed by the European Commission a month ago, which is currently being examined by European governments, deserves special attention. Its basic purpose is to respond to a situation of emergency – as it happened in Kehl in 1984 – and certainly there isn’t an answer to all the questions, but it carries the potential to go a long way. It will enable to identify an approach based on greater solidarity to respond to the requests of reception. This falls within Schengen’s criteria and that is why – in all likelihood – the heads of government and State will positively receive it.