“Many of the people coming in are refugees, and Europe should not turn its back on them, for obvious humanitarian reasons. Changing the way we conduct our lives, turning away from each other, is exactly what the terrorists want.”
The ability of Europeans to travel the length and breadth of their continent freely, from Bordeaux to Bratislava, Stockholm to Sicily, has been hailed as “Europe’s biggest achievement.” But is it an achievement in peril? The arrival of more than a million people in the past year, many of them refugees, with all the challenges both political and practical, is straining Europe—and it has led to suggestions that Europe’s borderless zone could vanish.
The Schengen Agreement abolished many of the European Union’s internal borders. The utopian optimism of the initial Schengen Agreement, which set up the passport-free travel zone’s initial five-nation core back in 1985 with the idea of borderless, passport-free travel within the EU, seems to be teetering in the balance. It takes its name from the town of Schengen in Luxembourg, where the agreement was signed in 1985. It took effect in 1995.
While the control-free zone now includes non-EU members Norway and Switzerland, it still excludes the UK and Ireland and all of southeastern Europe. To break up this zone with border controls nonetheless works against one of the most important aspirations of the EU expansion project that has dominated the past two decades.
No matter whether it’s for work or pleasure, study or sunshine, whether it’s people or products flowing east and west, north and south, freedom of movement is the lifeblood of Europe’s union. Europe’s tourism industry would suffer too. The European Commission estimates that 13 million tourists’ “overnights” could be lost, with a total cost of 1.2 billion euros to the economy.
To break up this zone with border controls nonetheless works against one of the most important aspirations of the EU expansion project that has dominated the past two decades.
If border controls are reintroduced across the 26 members of the passport-free zone, the region will very quickly feel the pain. The idea of re-sealing national borders has popular appeal on a continent that is managing a refugee crisis and reeling from terror attacks, as well as experiencing an openly racist anti-immigration backlash.
Full border controls would both hinder economic activity and create enormous costs for nation states. The reinstatement of passport checks would lead to delays at borders. That would cost Europe’s 1.7 million cross-border workers or the companies that employ them between 2.5 billion and 4.5 billion euros in time lost. If they return in full, the cost to Europe could be as high as 18 billion euros ($20 billion) per year, the European Commission said.
Economically, however, it’s all but unfeasible. Open borders ease the flow of exports as well as individuals. Every year people make 1.3 billion crossings of the EU’s internal borders alongside 57m trucks carrying €2.8 trillion ($3.7 trillion) in goods. As well as speeding the passage of Greek olives and German dishwashers, borderless travel allows hotels in the east of Germany to have their sheets cleaned in Poland, where wages are lower, and workers in Italy to commute to Switzerland (also in Schengen though not in the EU), where wages are higher.
To give an idea of the potential scale of the disruption, The Economist asserts that full border controls would reduce the Schengen Area’s output by €110 billion Euros ($130 billion) over the next decade. Already, new border controls between Sweden and Denmark have led commuters to sue the Swedish state. Meanwhile, Slovenia is petitioning Austria to drop its border controls because of adverse effects on the Slovenian economy. Multiply this situation to cover the entirety of the Schengen Area’s internal borders, and you have a recipe for economic chaos.
To give an idea of the potential scale of the disruption, The Economist asserts that full border controls would reduce the Schengen Area’s output by €110 billion Euros ($130 billion) over the next decade.
The last thing the Eurozone needs is another economic headache, but the refugee crisis might deliver one if it isn’t fixed soon. Schengen is often criticized by nationalists and Euro-sceptics who say it is an open door for migrants and criminals. So, is a Europe free of internal border checks destined to become a thing of the past? And what are the forces placing such stress on its seams?
Since the beginning of the European refugee crisis in 2015, six nations have temporarily brought back ID controls at some or all of their internal frontiers within the free movement zone created by the Schengen Agreement. The striking thing about these countries—Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Sweden and non-EU member Norway—is that none of them are on the zone’s frontier. But all have apparently lost faith in their neighbors’ ability to manage flows of people.
To slow the influx of migrants, countries are reintroducing border controls in a region used to traveling and trading freely. Hungary’s controls affect its borders with two non-Schengen states: Croatia and Serbia. Last October it also imposed temporary controls on the border with Schengen member Slovenia. The toughest is between Sweden and Denmark, where all travelers have to show identity documents.
Elsewhere, such as between Germany and Denmark, Austria and Germany, and Slovenia and Austria, people still flow freely, although police do spot-checks looking for migrants and smugglers and stop random travelers.
But there are 26 nations in Schengen, so for the vast majority of Europeans traveling around their continent, at present, there’s little change. It’s only along the route taken by refugees heading north through Europe that checks are in place.
In December 2016, the European Commission proposed a significant amendment to Schengen, expected to become law soon. Most non-EU travelers have their details checked against police databases at the EU’s external borders. The main change is that the rule will apply to EU citizens as well, who until now had been exempt.
Non-EU nationals who have a Schengen visa generally do not have ID checks once they are traveling inside the zone, but since the frequent terrorist attacks, those checks have become more common.
The commission has made clear that under Article 26 of the Schengen Borders Code, it could then “recommend that one or more member states reintroduce border controls at all or at specific parts of their internal borders as a matter of last resort, to protect the common interest of the Schengen area.”
So the controls may still endure. But they can only happen where there is an identified threat. That’s only likely to be along the same borders that currently have them unless the refugee routes move.
So are the borders about to go back up?
In response to the refugee crisis, half a dozen countries already have varying degrees of temporary border controls. Further north, the EU’s wealthier countries recognize their obligation to provide asylum to those who need it.
But the countries that have taken the most arrivals don’t want to see the numbers soar again this year. It leaves them with the option of toughening Europe’s welcome and hardening Europe’s borders to migrants and refugees. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel told an audience, “We must find a level of balance and we should not become pessimistic too quickly.” But she said the number of refugees had to be reduced significantly.
Should borders be closed? Those in favor of closing borders are arguing that the climate in which Schengen was made has changed. Refugees and economic immigrants are overwhelming an already stressed system. Schengen and the immigration process European countries have in place right now were not designed to find potential terrorists among thousands of refugees. The terror attacks in Europe are a symptom of a broken system that is allowing threats to infiltrate.
Should the borders remain open? Those opposed to the idea of closed borders say open borders creates a stronger and unified Europe. They argue that the continent is stronger together and should double its efforts to unify in trying times. Stricter borders will not stop terrorists—they’ll find a way in. Many of the people coming in are refugees, and Europe should not turn its back on them, for obvious humanitarian reasons. Changing the way we conduct our lives, turning away from each other, is exactly what the terrorists want.
So the question remains… what kinds of borders are emerging in the European Union? My analysis is that no single model of borders is adequate to explain the complexity of the current geopolitical situation, in which a variety of actors, different processes of integration and disintegration, cultural openness, and anxiety are all at play in this diverse and contested space that is the European Union.
