“A la carte” Europe returns for Schengen and Brexit. A feeble possibility in place of a strong EU.

It’s the usual litany. “We need a European solution.” But as soon as Europe proposes a comprehensive strategy to address migratory pressures member Countries pull back. Every Country is busy defending national interests and protecting (with poor results) national borders. Each government is at the mercy of national public opinion, worried about “migratory invasions”: an ever-present front-page news item, in many cases presented with excessively dramatic tones by media outlets in France, Britain, Slovenia, Italy, Spain and Germany.

Thus, instead of joining forces for a common response, the EU breaks apart erecting new walls

and by opposing those very rules that the same EU member Countries have written and ratified. Hungary fenced off the frontier with barbed wire, Croatia and Slovenia followed in its wake. Greece and Italy – left alone to face the refugee crisis – are struggling to handle landings from sea and inflows of migrants from Africa, Syria and Turkey. France, scarred by the attacks of November 13, is afraid of the new terrorism that is reportedly recruiting new followers in districts densely populated by migrants. In Belgium, overcome by fear, police forces patrol the streets. East European Countries, notably Poland, carefully avoid extending a helping hand, mindless of the fact that after the fall of the Iron Curtain hundreds of thousands of people left Eastern Europe headed towards western countries. And while Denmark and Sweden – sister countries since the post-war period – have restored border controls, Germany, the Country that put major efforts in the reception of migrants, has discovered that German citizens are starting to be afraid of “the foreigners”, and the recent episodes in Cologne seems to substantiate the claims of those who are sounding the alarm. The meeting in Brussels, urgently convened on January 6 by the Commission to put Denmark, Germany and Sweden around the same table, failed to deliver concrete results, but the parties reiterated that

restrictive measures and checks at the frontiers “must be considered temporary”, to be “removed as soon as possible”, while highlighting the founding principles of the Schengen agreement, namely, the free circulation of European citizens inside the EU.

Dimitris Avramopoulos, High Commissioner for Immigration, has reminded those present – as well as all Member Countries – of a set of priorities that include respect of common treaties and regulations; control of external borders (the message is mainly addressed to Italy and Greece, to make hotspots operative and for the recognition of incoming migrants); the details of relocation measures. As for the latter, it is evident that the “European” agreement signed by heads of Government and State, to be implemented under the auspices of the Commission, is not operating as intended. In fact, only 272 out of 160 relocations promised to Athens and Rome have been implemented, in particular, 82 from Greece and 190 from Italy. Such relocations are supposed to take place on a voluntary basis but those EU countries that are less exposed to the inflows of migrants by sea or by land show no solidarity with the European countries bordering on the Mediterranean. It thus happens that a fundamental agreement like Schegen is being called into question, while the Dublin Regulation (whereby the Country of arrival is responsible for the asylum request of migrants) a deficient mechanism for handling the current situation, is not being reviewed in the light of the latest developments in Southern Europe and in the Balkans.

If treaties and agreements are at the mercy of governments’ political affiliation and of the moods of the public at large, the “European dream” is hard to uphold, while, in concrete terms, every single common action aimed at facing the major challenges of the present time turns into a distant mirage.

If Europe is absent in the area of migration, it will also be a ghost when it comes to creating an advantageous single market capable of creating wellbeing and employment, responding to the economic competitiveness of major global players, closing ranks against ISIS and terrorism, protecting consumers, creating state-of-the-art “energy union”, negotiating an advantageous trade agreement with the United States, providing young people with modern, international cultural and professional training, and so on. In these terms, negative examples abound, one of which is English Premier Cameron’s haggling over a “reform” of the EU and its treaties, demanding they incorporate the demands imposed by London. The national referendum called by the Tories, on whether to remain in the EU or leave the “common home” (Brexit), could also act as a thrust to reconsider a set of Community inconsistencies; but the chess game imposed by Cameron appears to proceed in the direction of  “à la carte” Europe, which, in fact, betrays the entire integration process and risks triggering additional disruptive processes. But most of all, it apparently fails to live up to the prevailing economic and political scenarios of 2016, in all likelihood, a problematic year.