Schen-gone: Raising Barriers within Europe

Ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and weak governments offering few opportunities to citizens in parts of Africa continue to drive asylum seekers and migrants to Europe. In 2015, as many as one million refugees and economic migrants applied for asylum in Europe. The influx is not expected to abate any time soon, with conservative estimates placing the number of refugees entering Europe in 2016 at 1.5 million. 

In light of growing pressures posed by migration, the European Commission (EC) has introduced a procedure through which countries that have reintroduced border controls can extend them for up to two years. Germany and Austria, which have already resumed border checks since September 2015, are first in line for extensions if the flow of refugees and migrants continues to come in from Greece along the Western Balkan route. 

This measure has prompted other European Union (EU) states to pre-emptively tighten control over their borders. For example, Sweden has extended identity checks on all travellers, whilst Austria, the final pit-stop for migrants headed for Germany, has implemented a daily cap on the number of migrants and refugees allowed to enter the country. Austrian authorities will only allow 80 asylum applications per day now. This limit is likely to cause significant backlogs of migrants in Slovenia, which in turn is also expected to raise border controls, marking the beginning of a domino effect in Europe, where unilateral action by one state is likely to ripple throughout the region. 

The Schengen Agreement, one of the EU’s flagship initiatives for regional integration, is therefore under tremendous strain. Ratified in 1985 and later implemented in 1995, the agreement abolishes passport and any other type of border control at signatories’ borders. The agreement initially involved seven EU states, but has since expanded to comprise 26 European countries. However, the possibility that the suspension could be extended for two years would represent significant backpedalling on the original intent behind the agreement. European media outlets have already begun to publish ominous headlines regarding the future of Schengen, while continued concerns over the matter have shaken confidence in the region. 

There is significant uncertainty over the full impact of a long-term suspension of the Schengen Agreement. However, there is general consensus over certain issues. The imposition of controls is likely to spark chaos at Europe’s internal borders, and is likely to heavily inconvenience over 700,000 people who cross borders on a daily basis for employment. As Europe has enjoyed more than two decades of visa-free internal travel, delays and increased business costs are a likely by-product of a Schengen Agreement suspension. 

Staggering trade and industry revenue losses for the EU are also anticipated in the event that the Schengen Agreement is suspended. According to a study by France Stratégie, widespread border controls would decrease trade by 10 to 20 percent. In France alone, this decline would translate into a loss of half a percentage point in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) within a year, which is equivalent to over EUR 10 billion. Moreover, it is estimated that the EU’s collective GDP would decline by more than EUR 1.4 trillion, or approximately the GDP of Italy, over the first decade. A significant decline in tourism is also a likely outcome in former- Schengen states; for example, France would lose between EUR 500 million and EUR one billion in tourism revenues if border controls are indefinitely increased. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) would further be negatively impacted; although, the extent of the effect is difficult to accurately quantify. 

More widely, the suspension would erode confidence in the EU model. The EU is currently facing a confidence crisis given concerns over Greece, terrorist attacks across Schengen borders, and the UK debate on the value of staying in the union. Even the act of considering an extended suspension of the Schengen Agreement indicates that the EU is in decline and overall support for the EU has waned significantly. 

European leaders are acutely aware of what is at stake. French President François Hollande has asserted that the termination of the agreement would mean “the end of Europe in the sense of free circulation among Europeans.” With increasing numbers of refugees lining up to enter the region, EU states are running out of time to come up with alternative options. While the EU adopted a quota scheme in September 2015 to relocate 160,000 refugees in Europe, progress on implementing this plan has been slow: only 497 refugees have been relocated thus far. This is largely a result of resistance to adopting the plan by other EU members. Furthermore, this plan fails to address the problem of new asylum-seekeAside from this plan, the EU is relying on a deal with Turkey reached in November 2015 to reduce pressure on Europe. The agreement aims to limit the number of migrants and refugees in Europe by enticing the Turkish government into accepting more migrants. In exchange, the EU has offered Turkey EUR 3 billion as well as visa-free access to Europe for Turks. The deal also fast-tracks Turkey’s EU accession process by unblocking five chapters in Turkey’s EU membership negotiations. Nevertheless, thousands of refugees are still entering EU states via Turkey on a daily basis. Although Turkey has taken several measures to ensure the implementation of the plan, a recent EC report states that “Turkey needs as a matter of urgency to make significant progress in preventing irregular departures of migrants and refugees from its territory to the EU, notably by stepping up land based operations.” The EU and Turkey are scheduled to hold a migration summit in early March to streamline implementation of the plan. rs anticipated to arrive in Europe this year. 

Given the predicted costs associated with scrapping the Schengen Agreement, member states are unlikely to rescind their support in 2016. However, the migrant crisis in Europe has exposed several weaknesses within the EU and has eroded members’ commitment to the notion of a continent without barriers. For now, the EU is likely to work on reforming the Schengen system. Over the coming year, member states are likely to lobby for more power and discretion when it comes to reintroducing border controls. Northern EU members are also likely to call for the suspension or even the expulsion of countries along the region’s external borders that are seen as failing to effectively control their borders. For example, Greece has already been rebuked for failing to control the flow of migrants, with the EC giving the country three months to improve its border controls. Going forward, new EU member states are also expected to struggle to enter the Schengen zone, as existing members will resist accepting new entrants.