Brussels, 02/02/2012 (Agence Europe) - The future of the Schengen area was at the heart of discussions at the Brussels Think Tank Dialogue, which was held with the support of Agence Europe on 31 January. Current and former Commission and Council experts and representatives of civil society debated recent developments in the Schengen area, which the Commission, at the request of the Council in 2011, has proposed to reform. Following the events of the Arab Spring and the arrival of thousands of migrants on Lampedusa and Malta, the Council wanted to make sure that all the Schengen area states were abiding by the rules and called on the Commission to draft a text. This text was initiated effectively by France and Italy, which had disagreed over the Tunisian migrants who arrived in France thanks to residence permits, valid under the Schengen Code, issued to them by Italy.
In September of last year, Commissioner Cecilia Malmström duly provided the text, broaching the issue of re-introducing internal border controls within Schengen, and proposing, at the same time, that the assessment mechanism be overhauled.
On Tuesday, several speakers were critical of these new steps, taking the view that they were somewhat unnecessary. Charles Elsen (Luxembourg), who was formerly responsible for Schengen matters at the Council, argued that the passport-free area, which he had helped put in place in 1985, is still up to the job and that the reactions of last April, those of France and Italy, were “over the top” - as, indeed, was that of the Commission. He said that the Commission proposals were only a response to “French problems” and the EU should have asked itself the proper question: how can countries that have taken in so many migrants be helped? The right answer “is solidarity”, Elsen said, arguing that this solidarity requires, in addition to support from the Frontex Agency and improving the resources of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO), genuine commitment on programmes to relocate/re-settle refugees, as was the case in a project in Malta. “That is how we ought to be moving if we want to keep Schengen as it is and for it to be effective”, he went on. Tony Venables of the European Citizen Action Service (ECAS) expressed his belief that the Schengen system was working “rather well”. “Let us not try to do too much”, he warned, however, as this could turn out to be “counter-productive”. He felt, too, that the current safeguard clause in the Schengen Code was also working rather well, in that it allowed member states, under certain specific conditions, to reinstate controls at their borders, for example, where there is a threat to public order or when major sporting or diplomatic events, for instance, are taking place. Proposals for tightening up Schengen should, he felt, consist of increasing Commission capabilities to monitor whether member states are infringing current rules (the Commission proposed this in September in its text on the assessment mechanism). A crisis unit within the Commission could also be set up in case a crisis, of the same type as that between France and Italy, developed. European Parliament (EP) rapporteur Carlos Coelho (EPP) said it had to be recognised that mutual confidence among the Schengen states had to be improved, but this must be done without undermining the passport-free area. “There has been a call from some for a total revision of the rules”, Coelho said, “but that's not the right way forward”. He said there should be action on two fronts: improving the assessment mechanism and finally putting in place the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II) which will increase the aforementioned confidence. More weight, he argued, must be given to the Community at the expense of the inter-governmental, and the EP must have a real role. The Council is currently looking to amend the legal basis of the Commission proposal and has come out in favour of one which would erase co-decision and leave the EP with no more than a consultation role. If the Council were to continue along that route, that would be “unacceptable”, Coelho added. (SP/transl.rt)