After Amsterdam
The meeting of EU-28 Interior Ministers in the Dutch city ended with a stalemate. The refugee-emergency was bypassed by North-European countries – calling for a suspension of free movement at internal level -, dumped on Mediterranean and Balkan Countries. The Juncker Commission plan continues being disregarded, while political integration gives way to escalating nationalisms.
If Schengen teeters Europe risks falling backwards. Not only the Europe of community institutions – the vituperated “Brussels bureaucracy” – not only the one which Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orban, Alexis Tsipras and copy-cat nationalisms of every Country inveigh against on a daily basis, also the Europe of the single market, of the euro currency, of the protection of fundamental rights, of Erasmus and, obviously, of the free movement of people, goods, services and capitals, bastions of a continent had that freed itself from the Iron Curtain and from age-long fears of the post-war years.
Amsterdam, new walls. The Schengen Agreement, whose primary nucleus dates back to 1985, descends from a different Europe that envisaged the end of the Cold War at internal level along with the incoming challenge of globalization, which required closing ranks and teaming up.
Contemporary Europe, besieged by the barges in the Mediterranean, by the bombs in Paris and by Isis militia that plague the Middle East, conceives one possible answer: bar the doors and erect new walls.
This was the outcome of the summit of the summit of EU-28 Interior Ministers, held January 25 in Amsterdam. There are concrete reasons for concern: in a climate such as this one, the case of Alexandra Mezher, 22-year old social worker killed in Sweden by an adolescent refugee, apparently for a trivial disagreement, is enough to make feelings run high and reinvigorate timeworn slogans: stop immigrants and shut down the borders.
Positions charged with risks. The political position that came to the fore in Amsterdam, albeit somewhat understandable, is also a risk, namely, Schengen and the free movement of EU citizens within the EU can be suspended by the Treaty’s signatory Countries, via a simple advance notice, for a two-year period. The course is yet to be defined: it is necessary that the Commission draws up a “legal framework” to be approved by the European Council (in February or later) before being became operational. One such request was received by the Dutch rotating presidency of the EU Council of Ministers from Austria, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, France and Norway (which is not an EU Member Country but adheres to Schengen).
Discordant notes. Indeed, in the past ten days the issue has triggered a veritable cacophony on this issue at European level. European Council President Donald Tusk and the President of the EU Council of Ministers Mark Rutte underlined: “The EU has a few weeks to save Schengen and free movement.” Austrian Interior Minister Johanna Mickl-Leitner, said: “Schengen is on the verge of collapse.” Her German counterpart Thomas de Maizière, boomed out: “We will pressurize Greece to face its responsibilities” by guarding the borders. “We want common European solutions, but time is running out.” EU Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos (Greece) tried to be reassuring: “There is full agreement among all on the need to save Schengen”, “no one has proposed the exclusion of Greece”, but “border Member countries face greater challenges and we are here to help them.” Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has aptly observed:
“Questioning the idea of Schengen means killing the very idea of Europe. We fought for decades to tear down walls: thinking of reinstating them today would be like betraying ourselves.”
In the meantime the island of Lampedusa and the Island of Lesbo are struggling to handle the flow of migrants arriving by sea; refugees from the “jungle” camp in Calais have tried to storm the Channel tunnel allured by England’s mirage; customs guards between Sweden and Denmark, and between the latter and Germany, meticulously control European passports; Denmark has even approved legislation envisaging confiscation of goods and money to the refugees, while barbed wire stretches for miles in Macedonia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia …
An effective response. Moreover, there are two certainties. First of all, the “temporary” suspension of Schengen obstructs free movement inside the EU – with unimaginable consequences on the economy of the single market and on the “European project” – whilst failing to solve migratory pressures towards Mediterranean and Balkan Europe. Second, the wound inflicted on freedom of movement is but a messy expedient to not adopt the articulate plan drawn up by the Commission on the tangled issue of migration, which envisages the strengthening of external borders (hotspots, identification of migrants, establishment of EU Border and Coast Guards); redistribution of refugees among all member Countries; financial aids to Countries exposed to the south and east of Europe; repatriation of migrants failing to meet the requirements for asylum; agreement with Turkey (that includes 3 billion euro promised to Ankara to “keep” Syrian refugees); concerted action with Libya and other third countries in order to effectively counter the trafficking of human beings; revision of the Dublin Regulation; development cooperation to address the root causes of the migration phenomenon. Amsterdam has tried to sketch out the most simplistic – yet short-lived- answer: will the EU manage to conceive a truly effective and genuinely “European” solution?
