Brussels, 10/05/2011 (Agence Europe) - Does the European Commission simply want to clarify and beef up current Schengen area rules or does it want to put in place a completely new mechanism that might potentially endanger the Schengen acquis? That was the question, seen by the European Parliament (EP) as crucial, put by several MEPs in Strasbourg on Tuesday 10 May. During the debate on the Commission's recent proposals on immigration, they were concerned about possible obstacles to free movement.
On 4 May, Commissioner Cecilia Malmström spoke in her communication on migration, responding to the essentially French demands on Schengen, about a possible Community mechanism that would allow internal border controls to be restored, subject to new conditions, such as extraordinary pressure at EU external borders or the failure of one member state to control external borders. ALDE Group leader Guy Verhofstadt said on Tuesday that this section was incomprehensible and called on the Commission to make its position clear. “Is it about tightening current provisions? If that is the case, then our group could perhaps back you”, he said. “But if it is about putting in place a new system, Parliament will fight such a move”, he warned, calling on the Commission to re-draft this passage.
Martin Schulz, leader of the S&D Group, said that the present discussion on the “reform” or recast of the Schengen rules was “excessive and misplaced”. He stated that “the arrival of 25,000 people in the EU is not a crisis”, compared, for example, with the 400,000 refugees that Tunisia has taken in since the start of the war in Libya. He said that there could be no justification for putting the Schengen acquis into question, “giving in to the populist tendencies of two leaders”. He pointed out that the current rules of the Schengen area already allowed internal border controls to be re-established and also mentioned the notion of “pressure brought to bear on one or more member states”. The Commission, he said, should never have agreed to open this debate.
Manfred Weber, speaking on behalf of the EPP, said: “Sweden alone has taken in more migrants (Ed: than the 25,000 in Italy) and no one asked for Schengen to be changed at that time”. He said it was a great pity that this debate was taking place at the moment, and he also called on the member states of the Schengen area not to sideline the applicant countries - Romania and Bulgaria. “If all the criteria are OK, they have to join”, he opined.
The Greens/EFA Group takes the view that this debate on Schengen is quite simply “propaganda”, as Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who leads the Greens/EFA, put it, saying: “25,000 people are arriving and they speak to us of insecurity!” He believes that the EU member states could very well share out those 25,000 people amongst themselves, and he went on to call for the Tunisian migrants to have valid temporary permits giving them freedom to move throughout the EU.
Carlos Coehlo, of the EPP, who is rapporteur for the EP on Schengen, considers the current problem lies less in the “failings of the system itself” than in the fact that the “states do not shoulder their responsibilities” and “the Commission should be working along these lines”. Cohn-Bendit refuses all back-pedalling or weakening of the area for the free movement of citizens.
First and foremost, President Barroso and then Commissioner Malmström sought to appease such fears. After the debate, Malmström even seems to state her preference for “guidelines” or recommendations allowing interpretation of the rules to be clarified. However, she assured, “the point of departure will be the legislation in force”, a legislation that provides, moreover, for possible checks to be made at internal borders. She said the fact of setting in place a European mechanism to activate them would be progress, as it would put an end to the unilateral practice of states.
To date, however, the Commission has not yet decided what form this “mechanism” should take and the meeting of home ministers in Brussels on Thursday is expected to be along these decisive lines. Several options are possible: - simple interpretative lines, non-legislative activity; or review of the Schengen border codes and of its Article 23 on the safeguard clause or the addition of changes to legislative work already submitted in November 2010 on the Schengen assessment system. These two last courses of action would require co-decision of the EP, which is particularly vigilant with regard to the legal form the mechanism should take.
In the meantime, although the Commission assured MEPs yesterday that it would not follow orders either from Paris or from Rome, it would still have to contend with the first tendencies arising from the meeting of 12 May. On Tuesday, the German home minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich, gave his (considerable) support to France just two days from the session. In an interview granted to Le Figaro, the minister thus said it was appropriate to adapt Schengen which has a failing - it does not provide for the case of a member state failing in its obligation to protect its external borders. He went on to say that they support France's initiative aimed at filling this gap. (S.P./transl.rt/jl)