As border controls are back to an unprecedented degree in Covid-ridden Europe, alarmism reigns over the future of Schengen. In this post, prof. dr. Marie De Somer highlights why the real challenges are still ahead.
The Schengen Zone, Europe’s free movement area, recently celebrated an important anniversary. 25 years ago on 26 March, internal border controls were lifted by all participating states to the Schengen Convention.
The circumstances of this birthday could hardly have been sadder.
As the COVID-19 pandemic holds Europe in its grip, internal border controls have resurfaced to an unparalleled degree. No less than 14 out of the 26 Schengen states have currently reintroduced such checks. Moreover, the controls are enforced in previously unseen ways, leading to long queues for lorries at border crossings and preventing returning EU citizens from reaching their homes. Almost overnight, we seem to have wound the clock back on decades of European integration and free movement rights.
COVID-19: a death sentence for Schengen?
Unsurprisingly, alarmism reigns. The end of Europe’s borderless area has been declared by many. Among them was French president Emmanuel Macron who, when addressing his fellow European leaders on that downcast anniversary on 26 March, proclaimed that the death of Schengen was in sight.
Yet, Schengen’s fate is not decided now. The real test is still to come.
Extraordinary times, extraordinary measures?
Let us first consider the here and now.
The sense of fighting a viral infection through the re-establishing of border controls and travel restrictions can, of course, be questioned. For instance, if the spread of the virus is mostly localised, then internal border controls across Europe can only achieve so much. They may, in fact, end up doing more harm than good, e.g. by hindering the transport of essential goods, as has already been observed.
On the other hand, limiting cross-border travel is also a way of limiting social interaction. To some degree, and certainly in the eyes of the public, these controls do not appear disproportionate when judged against the unparalleled restrictions on mobility now in place within almost all European states.
The real test is still to come
The actual resilience of Schengen will only become apparent later, once border checks need to be lifted again. Past experience has shown, time and again, that lifting controls can be hard, certainly harder than re-introducing them.
From the very beginning, when controls were first meant to be lifted, in 1995, France -for instance- dragged its feet for more than three years, only abolishing them in 1998. More recently, and more problematically, the border controls that were reintroduced in response to the arrival of large numbers of refugees and migrants in 2015 and 2016 have not been lifted by six states (Germany, France, Austria, Norway, Sweden and Denmark) even though arrivals have decreased significantly since then. In essence, Europe’s border-free area has not been border control-free for over four years now.
There is hope however. As border controls are back, a generation of young Europeans are discovering borders they never knew before, and those that knew these borders are reminded of a Europe before Schengen. The revaluing of Europe’s free movement area that comes along with this may, and should, inspire European leaders to properly reboot Schengen this time after its slow, and still incomplete, recovery from the last crisis in 2015 and 2016.
As has been argued for other domains as well, the COVID-19 crisis may serve as a chance to tackle several issues jointly and become a turning point towards the full restoration of the Schengen zone. In line with a recent statement by European Commissioner for Home Affairs Ylva Johansson on the occasion of Schengen’s anniversary, let these times also serve as a reminder of the importance of freedom.
An earlier version of this post appeared as an op-ed on Euronews.
Any views or opinions represented in this blog post are personal and belong solely to the author of the blog post. They do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the blog or author may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated.
Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.
All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.
The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.