Brussels, 19/09/2011 (Agence Europe) - The reaction of MEPs to European Commission proposals on Schengen governance (EUROPE 10454) has been quite positive. The EPP and ALDE groups are quite satisfied, while MEPs from the S&D and Greens/EFA groups expressed some criticism.
The EPP Group at the European Parliament considers that the Commission proposal is well balanced. In a press release the group said that it “positively welcomes” the proposals on reform of the Schengen rules. The vice-chair of the EPP, Manfred Weber, and a spokesperson for the EPP Group on legal and home affairs, Simon Busuttil, stated: “It is vital that member states do not 'go it alone' in the future. Today's proposals provide for a more coordinated approach and can help save the freedom of movement and respect the member states' needs at the same time.” They consider that “the Commission's proposals are a solid basis for the reform of the present Schengen rules”. The two MEPs assert that “it is the interest of the EU and its citizens that the application of the common standards will become more reliable in the future”. They also explained that “crucially, an EU right such as free movement should not be taken away by unilateral decision of individual member states”. The two EPP members conclude: “We are confident that a sound balance can be found that leaves the member states enough room for manoeuvre in unforeseen events whilst ensuring a uniform application throughout the Schengen area.”
Sylvie Guillaume (S&D, France) welcomes the proposal to reform Schengen governance which, “by proposing to put an end to the intergovernmental system, is encountering sharp criticism from three member states” (France, Germany and Spain). The MEP explains that “since France's decision to go solo last April with the unilateral reintroduction of controls at its border with Italy, a decision to do likewise was made by Denmark at its German and Swedish borders and a European proposal is not before time. In a difficult economic context, which is producing an inward looking attitude with each country looking out for itself, this proposal is definitely going in the right direction.” She considers that the mechanism proposed is based on a well thought out logic of preventing possible crises and that “it is not encroaching on national sovereignty at all, despite what the French government would try and have us believe”.
In a press release the S&D Group said that the European Commission and the European Parliament should have the right of veto on countries unilaterally deciding to close off their borders. Claude Moraes said that “freedom of movement across EU countries is not a national right. It is a fundamental right guaranteed to EU citizens by the Treaties, which prevails over temporary national interests. Accordingly, no national government alone can take decisions affecting that right without them first being agreed at EU level.” The S&D Group thinks that “there is good news and bad news in this proposal. On the one hand, the Commission has answered the irresponsible and unilateral actions of Italy and France in closing their borders at the height of the Mediterranean refugee crisis. Schengen will now be fully monitored by the Commission and legally enforced at the EU level”. It added that “the introduction of a new safeguard clause allowing for the reinstatement of passport controls can only be accepted as a last resort and on three non-negotiable conditions: it must be for a very limited period of time; due to an urgent and serious threat for citizens; decided in agreement with both the European Commission and Parliament”. The S&D Group says that “new references in the proposals to serious deficiencies of a member state in managing its own external borders are very worrying”. It concludes that “European governments cannot expect the EU to authorise them to seal their internal borders whenever they are faced with a concentrated influx of migrants from third countries. Migration is not a national threat but a challenge which requires a common approach and solidarity at EU level.”
The ALDE Group welcomed the Commission proposals. Guy Verhofstadt believes “recent events in France and Italy have shown that the current intergovernmental peer review system in Schengen does not work. What we miss is a proper evaluation mechanism and some sort of “Schengen policeman” who can intervene in case a member state does not live up to its obligations.” Verhofstadt denounced the fact that although the threat to public policy or internal security allows member states to introduce border controls, “in practice, they are free to do what they want, for instance, to label some migration flows, even relatively insubstantial ones, as a threat to public order or to national security”. According to the MEP, “what we need is to limit as much as possible the possibilities of unilaterally re-establishing controls at the borders”.
Timothy Kirkhope from the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists) considers that “national governments asked the commission to come up with proposals that would allow them to manage major migratory pressures on their borders. Instead they get a proposal for the full Europeanisation of all decisions regarding reintroducing controls.”
“The Community change in course should not be used to stigmatise migrants”, explained the Greens/EFA Group. The Commission “is in fact responding in this way at the request of the member states, following the Franco-Italian spat on the arrival of Tunisian migrants on French soil, who had Italian work permits, as well as the unilateral reintroduction of border controls by Denmark last spring”, explained Hélène Flautre. She also explained that the Commission is proposing a Community mechanism for introducing internal border controls in the Schengen area. She said that “it is a good thing that the Commission is taking things in hand. Nevertheless, this reintroduction should only be considered in completely exceptional and last resort scenarios. The spirit of Schengen and the foundations of the Union should not be sacrificed on the altar of alarmist rumours at a national level”. By admitting, in addition to the motives of serious threats to public order and national security, “the mass influx of migrants”, the Commission is not helping to clarify anything but is actually stigmatising immigrants. On the other hand, this notion of “serious threat” should be defined in Community legislation in a stricter away, without leaving room for interpretation as member states see fit, explained the Greens. Flautre concluded that “this is why MEPs from the Greens/EFA will use their parliamentary prerogatives to the full, particularly with regard to committee procedures and demand the withdrawal of such border controls when the system is being abused”. (LC/trans.fl)