Brussels, 28/06/2011 (Agence Europe) - EP political group leaders will be particularly alert when it comes to future reform on Schengen area governance. This reform is planned for September and some MEPs are already threatening not to support some of the measures included in the reform, such as the safeguard clause, which would allow internal borders between member states to be set up again. This message was sent to the presidents of the Council and the Commission, Van Rompuy and Barroso, on Tuesday during the special political group presidents' conference examining the results of the 23-24 June summit.
During the summit, the EU27 agreed to work towards strengthening the EU's external borders, through the Frontex agency. It was also agreed that if a Schengen member state fails to perform its responsibilities with regard to common borders, a specific safety mechanism would be implemented, which could involve the reintroduction of borders temporarily. A proposal in this connection was requested by the Commission.
For certain political groups, however, this reform does not go far enough. Martin Schulz, the head of the S&D at the EP, said that the European summit had not really solved any of the questions. The German MEP deplored the fact that “the Council does not have a coherent approach” on the subject. The future Polish Presidency, for example, is committed to defending the principle of free movement at any price, whilst the French president has said that he would in fact like to control this free movement. Schulz explained that in the current context of Schengen, everyone appears occupied with their own problems.
Guy Verhofstadt, the leader of the ALDE Group, said on Tuesday that this Schengen reform includes the danger of causing the EU to implode. He said that he did not understand this request made to the Council at all. He pointed out that at the moment, member states can already re-establish controls at their borders if public order or national security is threatened. “Why do we need a third case, then?” asked the Belgian leader, who thought that “the link with immigration will kill Schengen”. He said that on this question, the EP is united and they would not be voting for new modalities now or ever.
Joseph Daul, the head of the EPP at the EP said that such reform could possibly be justified, particularly for “strengthening mutual trust between member states”, which had indeed become crucial because of the abolition of national borders. On the other hand, this French leader has never hidden the fact that until now he did not advocate the Community method (but rather, the method advocated by the Council) if changes have to come about. His group has always warned against any backtracking with regard to the Schengen acquis.
Barroso and Van Rompuy again attempted to dissipate these concerns. “I heard all the different views on Friday at the summit and I did not get the impression that 27 assassins were about to murder Schengen” Van Rompuy stated. He added that “what we had was a balanced package… which aims to preserve the Schengen system… and prepare it for new challenges”. This will not be exclusively piloted by member states but also by the European Commission, explained the president of the European Council. He also called on the EP to assume its responsibilities in the context of co-decision.
Similarly to his declaration on 24 June, Barroso indicated that the summit conclusions on Schengen and immigration were, on the contrary, “very positive” because they tackle the problem within the Community system when a member state had previously decided whether to unilaterally establish controls at its borders. The president welcomed the common assessment that will frame the reintroduction of border controls. He promised: “We are trying to create a European mechanism… and the Commission will be part of this exercise.” (S.P./transl.fl)