As the novel coronavirus spread through Europe, heads of government quickly began to close their national borders in an attempt to reduce movement and the spread of the disease. These hasty measures threatened one of the fundamental tenets of the European Union: the freedom of movement, and the Schengen Zone, which guarantees visa and border-free travel in 26 states.
The reinstatement of border checks has led to claims by pundits and journalists that the Schengen Agreement, which underpins the freedom of movement between its signatories, is dead. These arguments were at least partially echoed by French President Emmanuel Macron, an ardent supporter of the European Union.
However, the death of the Schengen Agreement, along with the demise of the European Union itself, has frequently been proclaimed amid crises, yet the agreement and its implications still stand. The 2015 refugee crisis brought the issue of borders to the forefront as around 1.3 million asylum seekers and migrants traveled through border-free countries to reach wealthy, Western European countries. The reinstatement of some border checks to stem the flow of people led to presently familiar comments from another French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. At the time, the Austrian government even built a fence on its border with Slovenia, another Schengen country. Even before migration-related border checks in Denmark and Sweden, France reinstated some checks after the Paris attacks. Think-tank pieces and op-eds discussed the possibilities of reinstated borders in Europe and the need to save the Schengen Agreement.
So, has the coronavirus pandemic led to a new, credible threat against border-free Europe, or is current alarmism simply déjà vu? According to pro-Kremlin disinformation sources, its death has either already occurred or is imminent. However, the importance of the Schengen Area to the EU and to Europeans means that its death is unlikely but reinstating it will certainly be a challenge for its institutions and the member states.
In order to better understand the current situation, it is important to look at the actual stipulations of the Schengen Agreement. Under EU law, member states may reinstate border controls, including checks and closures, for no more than 30 days or for the “foreseeable duration of the serious threat.” Certainly, the current crisis meets the criteria of being a threat to security under the law, so at least in the legal sense, the regulations governing the Schengen Area have not been compromised. Border checks have been primarily used to limit movement deemed non-essential while allowing the movement of goods and some commuters.
EU leaders endorsed a Commission proposal on March 17 to close the external Schengen border to visitors and non-essential travel for at least 30 days. On April 8, the restriction was recommended for extension until May 15. The decisions made so far about Schengen internal and external borders have occurred within the powers of the member states, according to EU law. Thus, national decisions, like reinstating border checks or closing outside borders, are well within the EU-wide legal framework and do not challenge the legal status of the Schengen Area. However, these legal restrictions on movement within EU law have not been without significant challenges.
The introduction of internal border checks and travel limitations has meant that seasonal, transnational workers and commuters have struggled to go to work, leading to labor shortages. Germany requires more than 300,000 workers, often from Eastern European countries, to pick asparagus between April and May. Despite efforts to recruit domestic workers, the government agreed to fly thousands of Romanian (non-Schengen) workers, who have much-needed experience, to cover the shortage. Both the problem and its temporary solution show the degree to which the freedom of movement in Europe is entrenched in the economies of member states.
The Schengen’s zone survival is not only rooted in economic interests, but also a deep culture of free movement and the exchange of goods, people, and ideas. Stories from a generation of Europeans accustomed to “cheap Ryanair flights,” nostalgic for the freedom to travel through Europe, fill newspapers and magazines with accounts of cross-border friendships and romance and of Erasmus Programme-funded studies abroad.
A 2018 Eurobarometer survey shows the degree of understanding and support for the Schengen zone, something that member state governments will have to take into account as reopening plans begin to take effect. Two-thirds of Europeans are aware of the Schengen Area and almost 60% travel to countries within it. Furthermore, 75% of those surveyed saw it as good for business in their country, and 68% saw it as one of the main achievements of the EU. While there is no way to know yet how public opinion will be affected by the COVID-19 outbreak, the data from a few years after the migration crisis can serve as evidence for the durability of favorable attitudes towards the Schengen Area.
In a broader sense, recent pessimism about the Schengen Agreement has been rooted in two factors: general skepticism about the EU’s ability to respond to the pandemic and the reinstatement of border controls. Compounded, these effects lead to an obvious, yet flawed, conclusion: that the Schengen Agreement is dead. However, this repeated inference seems to be based on the terrorism and migration crises experienced in previous years than a novel threat. From Euroskeptic figures, ready to pounce at every instance of what appears to be EU institutional dysfunction to tabloids promoting soundbites about the end of the freedom of movement, predictions more often reflect the bias of the author than the situation on the ground. Increasingly, the EU has been seen as a mechanism for the economic recovery needed after lengthy lockdowns, and the freedom of movement will certainly facilitate that recovery. There is little evidence so far that member-state governments will not gradually loosen both restrictions on travel within and from outside of the EU as the spread of COVID-19 plateaus and the need for economic recovery becomes increasingly dire.
Of course, the fact that member states were quick to close interior borders without working at the EU-level raises some obvious, broader questions about European integration. As the EU celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Schengen Agreement under lockdown and it is posed to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Schuman Declaration on May 9, it is an important time to reassess the EU’s role in crisis, not just prosperity. However, speculating the demise of border-less Europe will likely prove as foolish as all other doomsaying at the beginning of each new crisis.
Image Credit: Flickr // Marcin Monko
