Improving Schengen: Parliament stands firm against lowering of standards

Europe was founded by tearing down walls. We fought for openness, free movement of people and goods. Now, with the economic crisis as a backdrop, we are at a cross roads and the main question is: have we learnt from the mistakes of the past?

It looks like we haven't. A Europe without borders: the dream of the EU's founding fathers is now called into question. A few decades ago Member States took important Community decisions - for example, creating the Schengen Area, the Euro, and the Single Market. Now, when, more than ever, we need increased coordination, it looks like we are slipping into disintegration.

Immigration is a very sensitive topic. We should provide responses to the many concerns related to this issue, but we must be careful to avoid solutions that are too easy out of fear and prejudice. The economic and social crisis we are facing requires us all, national and European leaders, to show a spirit of solidarity, of responsibility and a spirit of respect.

But our Member States, by withdrawing their confidence in the European Parliament, are taking an opposite direction to that required to overcome the crisis.

The importance of the Community Method

On 7 June 2012, the Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs decided unanimously, against the advice of the European Commission, to change the legal basis of the Schengen evaluation mechanism, which monitors application of the Schengen acquis, or rules. In doing so, they made a decision to exclude the European Parliament from the decision-making process and to reinforce national competencies, taking a nationalist, intergovernmental and populist approach oriented towards a further strengthening of the security apparatus of Schengen. This is a huge step backwards and is absolutely unacceptable to the Group of the European People's Party. In proposing this initiative, the Danish Presidency has broken a bond of trust with this Parliament, because it has recklessly departed from the fundamental principle of the Community method.

This principle exists for a reason. It ensures that the larger Member States do not impose their will on smaller ones; it ensures that the general European interest outweighs national interests. The European Parliament, the elected voice of European citizens, together with the European Commission, is the guarantor of the Community method and we have no intention of abandoning it.

The failure of the existing system of peer-to-peer monitoring

The EPP Group strongly believes in the urgent need to improve the transparency, objectivity and quality of the evaluation of the practical implementation of the Schengen acquis and EU border law. It is important to ensure the existence of a higher degree of legal, democratic and judicial accountability and transparency in the way that the Schengen rules are being implemented and applied by the Member States, in order to guarantee that those rules are respected.

The change of legal basis adopted by the Council will maintain the peer-to-peer evaluation which already exists. But this system has proved ineffective at identifying possible violations of the Schengen rules - whether illegal controls are being made at internal borders or whether there are security problems at external borders, for example - with Members States protecting each other by hiding the reality of the problems existing at external borders.

The change of legal basis will also prevent the establishment of an efficient and transparent EU-based Schengen Evaluation Mechanism, which would be more effective, guarantee a consistent implementation of the Schengen acquis and guarantee some follow-up through the adoption of procedures necessary for allowing a rapid and appropriate response, as well as the support needed to remedy weaknesses when they are identified.

Lowering existing standards: the reintroduction of border controls

In parallel, through changes to the Schengen Borders Code, the Council foresees the reintroduction of border controls, based on a decision by the Member States, for a period of 6 months up to 2 years.

The European Parliament would only accept any option to reintroduce border controls as a last resort, and as a consequence of an efficient and transparent evaluation process. One is not possible without the other, and the revision of the current Schengen rules should by no means lead to any lowering of existing standards and guarantees already foreseen in European border law.

The benefits of increased political integration

What is needed is political integration between EU countries. The solution to our problems is not to close our borders. The solution is instead shared sovereignty; it is the joint management, in a spirit of mutual trust, of that which we hold most dear: our freedom.

Freedom of movement is a fundamental right of European citizens and one of the main pillars of the EU. The Schengen agreement provided for more than just the abolition of internal frontiers for our citizens. It gave us common rules governing our external borders, harmonized visa rules and enhanced legal and police cooperation. It also gave us the Schengen Information System, a shared database which provides for increased security in our common home called the European Union.

Schengen is, without any doubt, a European concern

It is not the intention of Parliament to call into question the competencies of the Member States when it comes to guaranteeing public safety and order. However, closing borders that have, until now, been open is a question that concerns Europe as a whole. So EU Institutions must be included in the decision-making process. Otherwise, we are throwing the doors wide open to populism, as has already happened in Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Germany. On substance, Council and Parliament have already approached common ground.

We are also not challenging the fact that control of external borders is still a responsibility of the Member States. We are challenging those who are trying to argue that Schengen is not a matter of common concern. Schengen is, without any doubt, a European concern, in which all the European Institutions should play an active role, not only in terms of monitoring its functioning, but also in being able to respond to any challenges that might arise.

The European Parliament has the right to be associated to this legislative process. Until this happens, the European Parliament will not be willing to restart the dialogue on strengthening Schengen governance that the Council have just broken.