The European Union has to find more robust ways of dealing with sudden surges in illegal immigration: that was the consensus view of interior ministers after a special meeting to discuss migration last Thursday (12 May). 

The ministers agreed that the freedom to travel across most of the Union without encountering customs or passport controls – the core achievement of the Schengen agreement – is worth preserving. They also agreed that the Schengen system needs a safeguard mechanism for situations in which large numbers of illegal migrants gain entry to the area of border-free travel, which encompasses most EU member states.

That, however, is where the agreement ends. Divisions have emerged over the specifics; above all, under what circumstances the member states of the Schengen area are allowed to re-introduce their own checks at internal borders. Do they have to have the support and involvement of the European Commission or can they do so on their own independent initiative?

Closing loopholes

The Commission believes that before introducing additional rules governing Schengen the existing rules ought to be clarified because, as one official put it, they are “open to unilateral interpretation by member states”. Cecilia Malmström, the European commissioner for home affairs, is seeking to “close the loopholes” through a series of authoritative interpretations, he said. The Commission is looking for political guidance from member states’ leaders, who are supposed to discuss migration at their European Council meeting of 23-24 June. It will then make a proposal for how a temporary reintroduction of border checks would be co-ordinated.

Demands to change to the Schengen system were prompted by the arrival of 25,000 Tunisian migrants in Italy this spring after the popular uprisings in north Africa. The Italian authorities gave many of the migrants temporary residency documents, which, in principle, entitled them to travel on to France and other Schengen member states. France responded by reintroducing border checks that pushed the Schengen rules to their limit.

This, in turn, angered many MEPs, who last week held their first debate on Schengen since the Tunisians’ arrival. The mood in the European Parliament – whose endorsement is needed for any Commission proposal to become law – was hostile to the idea of border-checks. This complicates matters for the national interior ministers, who, before the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon took effect in December 2009, used to take decisions on Schengen without needing the consent of MEPs.

Opposition from the Parliament might push the member states to pursue an alternative route instead of a proper legislative proposal – setting out their own interpretation of the Schengen rules in a formal statement that would not involve the Commission or the Parliament. Officials said that this option was still being considered. Interior ministers are scheduled to meet again on 9 June, to prepare for the summit of 23-24 June.

Fact File

Enlarging schengen

Bulgaria has met the technical requirements for joining the Schengen area, a working group of EU member states’ experts has found in a report that is currently being finalised. Romania, the other country seeking to join, received a positive technical assessment in January.

The two countries had hoped to be given the green light to join Schengen this spring, but their admission was delayed by opposition from other EU states led by France and Germany. The opposition is still there – but with Bulgaria’s technical readiness confirmed by member states’ experts, a decision on admission might be taken later this year.

Hungary, the current holder of the rotating presidency of the EU’s Council of Ministers, is pushing the member states to take formal note of the evaluation when national interior ministers meet in Luxembourg on 9 June.

Visa Safeguards

The European Commission will next week (24 May) propose a mechanism temporarily to reintroduce visa requirements for people arriving in the Schengen area from certain countries, primarily from the western Balkans. The proposal is a response to complaints from some member states about a spike last year in asylum-seekers from Serbia and Macedonia, whose citizens have been able to travel to the Schengen area without visas since December 2009.

Danish border-checks

Just how much room for interpretation is left by the current Schengen rules was demonstrated last week by a spat between the Commission and Denmark. On the eve of Thursday’s special meeting of member states’ interior ministers, the Danish government announced that, within weeks, it would reintroduce permanent border-checks. The measures were part of an agreement with the anti-immigrant Danish People’s Party, whose support the minority government needs.

But on his arrival in Brussels for the interior ministers’ meeting, Søren Pind, the Danish minister responsible for immigration, denied that the new measures would involve systematic passport checks of people entering the country. The new checks were aimed at cross-border crime and tax evasion, not illegal immigration, he said, and concerned only areas that are not regulated by the Schengen agreement.

The Commission was clearly irritated by this development. On Friday (13 May), José Manuel Barroso, the Commission president, sent a letter to Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Denmark’s prime minister, seeking assurances that Denmark’s plans were within the boundaries set by the Schengen rules. In the letter, which has been made public, a sceptical Barroso voiced “grave concerns” about the proposed measures and wrote that they appeared to “put into question the smooth functioning of Europe’s single market and the benefits that an integrated area without internal borders brings for both businesses and citizens”. Barroso stressed that it was up to Denmark to prove its compliance with EU law and asked for “constructive and open co-operation” with the Commission. He announced that the Commission would take “all necessary steps” to ensure that Denmark stayed within EU law.

A general election is expected in Denmark before the summer and the Danish government was evidently playing to the gallery with its “reintroduction” of border checks and its subsequent temporising.

Domestic concerns

Electoral politics also played their part when Italy and France invoked the need for a safeguard clause to keep out Tunisian migrants. Silvio Berlusconi’s fractious coalition government is in permanent crisis, and Nicolas Sarkozy faces a tough challenge from the far right in next year’s presidential election in France. Similar domestic concerns motivate a group of member states led by France and Germany, which opposes expanding the Schengen area to Bulgaria and Romania (see box). Delaying the admission into Schengen of Bulgaria and Romania will hurt the governments in Sofia and Bucharest. But the use of the safeguard clause appears to be a piece of political theatre. It is probably not the serious threat to the Schengen area that many MEPs diagnosed.

Click Here: cheap nrl jerseys

However, the consensus about the value of Schengen is fraying and is vulnerable to the vagaries of national politics. The Commission will be hoping that it can iron out the disagreements swiftly, before another incidence of large-scale migration.