“A sovereign Europe is first of all – this is the first aspect for me – a Europe capable of controlling its borders”. With these words, President Emmanuel Macron opens his press conference on the program of the French presidency of the European Union (EU), on December 9th. The color is announced. Almost two months later, the Head of State unveiled his plan to reform the Schengen area during a trip to Hauts-de-France on February 2.
In its arsenal of measures: the establishment of a Schengen steering committee, the establishment of a solidarity and rapid intervention mechanism in the event of border crises and a strengthening of Frontex. The overhaul of the Schengen area has as its backdrop the question of immigration, a subject very present in this presidential campaign. According to Matthieu Tardis, researcher at the French Institute of International Relations and migration specialist, the area of free movement has suffered a few cuts, the fault of the pandemic and not of immigration.
While Emmanuel Macron makes it his priority, is the Schengen Area broken down?
Matthew Tardis: I don’t know if it’s Schengen that’s broken down or the governance of the European Union. We have seen a number of failures in the Schengen area over the past few years. It is more linked to the pandemic than to the migratory issues which have called into question the functioning of Schengen. Let’s go back to 2015: there were significant arrivals of refugees on the territory of the European Union. At that time, the question of secondary mobility arose strongly. At the time, we already had the possibility of re-establishing internal border controls – this had been done at the request of France in 2011. As a reminder, these controls fall within the framework provided for by the Schengen Code and they have also been used in 2015.
This year, Schengen has shown that it is resilient or at least flexible enough to respond to this type of exceptional situation. But at the time, these controls continued beyond the duration provided for by the treaties. This is a first notch in Schengen. During the pandemic, in March 2020, the internal borders almost all closed within a week. This was done in a disorderly manner, without warning the European Commission or the neighbours. From there, we can consider that the functioning of Schengen has not been respected by the Member States.
What do you think of the reforms unveiled by Emmanuel Macron?
It’s difficult. There are several degrees of analysis. Certainly, there is a very Franco-French reading linked to internal politics, but I do not want to go into this area. We understand that there is a more global political issue: to give more substance to European policies, which is often an aspiration of French political leaders. For almost a year, the European Commission has made a whole series of proposals – whether in June or on 14 December. The European Commission has created the “Schengen Forum”, a meeting of the ministers concerned which is held every six months. This initiative apparently resembles the Schengen Council proposed by Emmanuel Macron. Another proposal he mentioned: a rapid force mechanism that already exists through Frontex. We have the impression of an announcement effect to show public opinion that actions are being taken. But most of these reforms are already underway.
To hear Emmanuel Macron, he advocates a policy of firmness at the external borders, is this the priority in your opinion?
First of all, there is one thing: I think that the Schengen area – created in 1995 – as we have known it for the past three decades, is over. In other words, this almost total circulation is over. For me, what is at stake is more the internal borders than the external borders. Attention, I am not saying that there are no reforms to be made at the external borders – there is a better balance to be found on the question of refugees. The main danger for the Schengen area is not immigration. Those who say this are not looking reality in the face. From the end of 2016, migratory pressure fell sharply. In 2021, there are 120,000 irregular immigrants arriving on European coasts. We are not dealing with excessive arrivals. This is not what constitutes the main risk for the European Union.
To come back to what happened at the Belarusian border – a migration crisis that took place last November – it is sad and damaging, but it is more a geopolitical issue than a migration one. In total, we are talking about 7,000 people who crossed the borders of Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. When you read the evaluations of the European Commission on Schengen, the difficulties lie more at an operational level between the services and police forces of the Member States. There is the question of the interoperability of European databases – a subject which is also part of the European Commission’s proposals. We note that it is rather at the level of field cooperation between the police forces of the Member States where the European Commission identifies difficulties. The question is also to see how Frontex and the Member States bring the information up to the most supreme decision-making level, that is to say the governments, so that they can take the most informed decisions. This is also where you have to think.
Does the establishment of a steering committee indicate the will of States to regain control of the migration issue?
They never lost control of this immigration file. The return to intergovernmentalism is a movement that has been observed in European states since 2005 (since the referendums on the Constitutional Treaty), which constitutes a step back from the objectives of the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997. , President Emmanuel Macron mentioned a piece of advice that would allow “to anticipate”. In saying this, he was referring to two points: the question of the landing of migrant boats and that of Belarus. However, I do not see how the European Union could have anticipated the instrumentalization of migrants by Minsk with which we are very cold. That there is a need to improve the piping between the Member States, the European institutions… It is possible and probable. Do I need to create more instances? I’m not sure.