The Dismantling of Borders in the EU
The Schengen Agreement guarantees freedoms for EU citizens – yet crises are resurrecting old nationalist ghosts. Cherished freedoms should never be taken for granted. By Stefan Haböck, International Officer of the Paneuropa Movement Austria.
The setting was the Moselle ship MS Marie-Astrid, on 14 June 1985, near a tranquil little town in Luxembourg. Here, leading European politicians signed the Schengen Agreement, which provides for the dismantling of controls at shared borders and the introduction of the free movement of persons and goods. A milestone in the history of a Europe that was – at that time – still divided into freedom and oppression by the Iron Curtain.
Although only five of the then ten EC member states were involved in the signing, it was an important step, not only legally but also politically, towards creating further freedoms for citizens within this community. A signal that states intend to deepen their cooperation.
It is not passport-free travel, as is often suggested. Naturally, one must always carry an identity document when crossing state borders. However, it was the abolition of stationary controls at the borders between these states. And even if its advantages are praised especially during holiday seasons, it is too superficial to view Schengen merely as a measure for stress-free excursions. It is unimaginable what it would mean to constantly check the millions of daily or weekly “cross-border commuters”, such as workers.
Artificial borders – historical ties
The borders between most regions in the EU are – not legally, but historically – fluid. Anyone who claims that the people in Kehl are superior to or totally different from those in Strasbourg (or vice versa) simply because they lie on the “right side” of the “border” can only be an ignoramus or an incorrigible national chauvinist. Anyone who has spent a day at this crossing between states and seen the brisk exchange of goods, people, and services (as has historically always been the case – when wars were not destroying everything) cannot advocate for an artificial separation through stationary controls.
Schengen is not just a symbol for travelling on a whim (which, fortunately, is possible for many thanks to the prosperity generated in Europe), but is also of great importance for the economy.
Free internal market instead of protectionism
Until 1918, Central Europe enjoyed a free internal market reaching from present-day Ukraine to the Adriatic. This was carved up by national customs barriers. National protectionism, however, made the economic situation worse. After the Second World War, the lesson was learned. The goal was now to enable a free exchange of goods within the EEC, and later the EC.
The Single Market was – rightly – made the core element of European integration. Economics is not everything, but without a functioning economy, there is no prosperity. Every single step in the implementation of the Single Market and the four fundamental freedoms, right up to the overcoming of the Iron Curtain 30 years ago, has benefited all the countries of Europe.
The longing for national borders in Europe becomes truly curious when one considers that citizens used to be able to travel between Chernivtsi (modern-day Ukraine) and Sarajevo (Bosnia-Herzegovina) completely without border controls, and Kosovars with Yugoslav passports were also exposed to less bureaucracy when travelling than they are today.
Cooperation strengthens states
It is, of course, a myth that Schengen means everyone can do anything completely unchecked. The system is far more complex. Schengen is part of the “Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”. Judicial work in the EU has been successively strengthened, which is to be welcomed. And naturally, deepened cooperation in the field of security is a vital point. Schengen includes a uniform system, the SIS (Schengen Information System), which contains entry requirements. Citizens from outside the Schengen area require a Schengen visa. Entry bans are recorded throughout the entire Schengen area.
It must be noted that the Schengen Agreements and all associated regulations also relieve the burden on states. For example, if a Schengen state rejects someone, they are rejected in all member states of the agreement. This makes states equal, as the decision of a small country counts just as much as that of a larger one. Furthermore, it facilitates manhunts, rejections, and entry bans for criminals; it creates opportunities for cross-border and joint surveillance and improves the exchange of information. However, a Schengen visa does not automatically apply to all Schengen states. For Kosovars, for instance, the Schengen visa does not apply to Spain. They are not permitted to enter there.
This exchange of information is a vital approach, as security is a basic human need. The state has the task of providing security. The fact that these powers of the state are limited by civil liberties and fundamental rights – by the citizen’s right of defence against the state – is one of the most important achievements in free Europe following the fall of dictatorial systems. Yet even here, one must always critically question the balance between security and freedom. Increasingly, the surveillance of citizens by the state is being pushed under the guise of security.
Among other things, “free travel” in Europe brings with it biometric passports and the comprehensive recording of data on blameless citizens. The ever-increasing surveillance of citizens should certainly be of much greater concern to people.
Regardless of the criticism of many state measures, it is clear that “the state” has a definite interest in knowing who is present on its territory. This is especially true against the backdrop of a strong welfare state, such as exists in the EU. For one thing must be clearly stated: the freedoms of EU citizens and residents of the Schengen area go hand in hand with a comprehensive set of rules, many agreements, and the data collection of these citizens. This plays a non-negligible role in the topic of migration to Europe and its control.
State failure endangers freedoms
The Schengen system and the associated freedom for citizens have been exposed to criticism and attacks long before the events of 2015. But 2015 revealed the fragility of freedoms in Europe when, in crises caused by state errors, politicians resort to symbolic politics and populism. Schengen – and this is not often mentioned – includes one vital condition: the abolition of controls at the internal borders of participating states mandates improved protection of the external borders! In short: every state with an external border has a duty to control it.
For years, states have abandoned one another in this regard. Responsibilities were offloaded. Let “the Greeks”, “the Italians”, and so on deal with it themselves. Lampedusa? None of our business, even though it has been known since the 1990s that there could be hotspots of migration movements here in the future. Yet it was believed that everything was settled with payments to the affected countries.
Great danger at the Walserberg
In 2015, the system practised until then crumbled. Populists and nationalists sensed the chance to prune back the unloved system of citizen freedom. While the dirty work at the south-eastern external border was outsourced to autocratic regimes and poorer states – accompanied by moral lecturing – borders were erected at the Walserberg. Anyone wanting to get to Lake Chiemsee finds themselves in a traffic jam. This is possible because the Schengen system allows border controls in critical situations. Temporarily. And upon application by the member state. To this day, the danger at the Walserberg appears to be very high.
Controls in the middle of Europe between friendly states are justified by the claim that external border protection is not guaranteed. One wonders, of course, why 34 years after Schengen-1, which cites external border protection as a condition for the abolition of internal borders, the external border is not sufficiently protected. It was a failure after the introduction of Schengen not to build a common European border guard due to national egoisms and petty sensitivities. Dividing the burden only among the border states instead of all, especially in an expanding EU, was unsolidary and short-sighted. With Frontex, an agency was indeed created to “look after border protection”. But only in a supporting role for national authorities. And even here, it was not fully equipped.
While the European Commission and the European Parliament (i.e. directly elected MEPs from the member countries) campaigned for an increase in Frontex staff and a robust mandate, some states blocked this logical development. “No foreign officials on our soil,” some governments said. By “foreign”, they incidentally meant nationals of friendly EU states. Yet even 2015 could not bring the states to finally act together. Frontex was supposed to be expanded by 2027 (now 2024) – a decade after the event that supposedly shook Europe so much. The reason: no money. No personnel. And small-minded insistence on alleged sovereignty. That is how important the issue of border protection is to some states.
To illustrate the personnel situation: 500 police officers of the newly founded Bavarian Border Police control the border crossings from Bavaria to Upper Austria. By 2023, there are to be 1,000. In addition to the Federal Police. For Frontex, 28 states were supposed to provide 10,000.
Great Britain did not join in
The issue of sovereignty also played an important role before the debate surrounding Brexit. The nationalists around the Leave campaign loudly lamented the loss of sovereignty of the – albeit much shrunken – Empire within the EU. Schengen and its associated freedoms often had to serve as examples for this. One does not even need to go into the distasteful, racist, and xenophobic campaigns against “Eastern workers” (in the form of Polish plumbers) played by nationalists mourning the colonial era when they still ruled the waves.
It is enough to refer to other immigration. For thanks to the EU, it was supposedly no longer possible for the United Kingdom to be master of its own borders. This was, of course, false. The United Kingdom is not even a full member of the Schengen system. It participates in it to a limited extent, mainly in the form of police and judicial cooperation. Naturally, the United Kingdom controlled its borders even during its membership in the EU. Heathrow visitors will be familiar with the long queues at the airport.
Through many opt-outs, Great Britain is permitted to carry out border and customs controls, including of traffic from other EU member states, into British sovereign territory. Responsible for this is the Home Office, the interior ministry of the United Kingdom, so to speak. Responsible for the borders of the Kingdom from 2010 to 2016 was a certain Theresa May. After 52 per cent in a referendum felt that, among other things, the UK’s border protection was not perfect, she became the new Prime Minister.
EU border protection is subsidiarity
It would be a sensible implementation of the principle of subsidiarity to organise border protection at the European (= EU) level and to finance it with sufficient funds from the EU budget. But the member countries do not want to pay more EU contributions; the problem is further exacerbated by Brexit. This is understandable on the one hand, but on the other, it then counteracts the call for subsidiarity (see above) and the will for efficient border protection.
Small-scale internal borders are, in any case, a contradiction to the fundamental freedoms. These fundamental freedoms, however, are the basis of success, prosperity, and freedom in a democratic, peacefully united Europe. Anyone who attacks the fundamental freedoms is attacking the very foundation of the EU.
