This House would dissolve the Schengen Agreement

As new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the area, they are free to move within almost the entirety of Europe. The same applies for traffickers of people, drugs and arms. This was the rationale behind the blocking of Romania and Bulgaria from entering the zone at the same time as they entered the EU[1]; they failed to curb organised crime before their accession and if they were join access routes would be opened to the whole of Europe.

This means that all countries are dependent on the security forces of countries monitoring external borders. It is key that Member States with an external EU frontier have a responsibility to ensure that proper checks and effective surveillance are carried out at the EU's external frontiers. It is vital that checks and controls at the EU's external frontiers be rigorous enough to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling and other unlawful activities[2]. Given the different enforcement abilities of different member states, the security of one state is often not protected because of the carelessness of another. Dissolving the Schengen area gives countries responsibility for the protection of their own borders and thus makes Europe safer as a whole.

[1] Kelly, Tom, ‘EU borders will stay shut to influx from Romania and Bulgaria over fears of crime flood’, The Daily Mail, 23rd December 2010, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340772/Germany--France-block-Bulgaria--Romania-visa-free-travel-zone.html

[2] The Schengen Convention: Abolition of internal borders and creation of a single EU external frontier, eurotool, http://www.eurotool.net/info/papers/doc2.htm#internal 

The expanding Schengen area does not make it more difficult to police due to the lack of border controls. Anyone attempting to enter the Schengen area will be checked at least once, this is exactly the same as anyone entering an individual country. Americans do not consider themselves less safe because they do not have border posts between Maryland and Virginia. The key therefore is not to dissolve Schengen but to ensure that all countries border police are of equally high quality and that they share information as is being done through the Schengen Information System (SIS)[1] and Europol.

[1] Schengen Information System, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Information_System

The borderless nature of the Schengen Area makes it increasingly difficult to track and detain illegal immigrants. It is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through countries such as Italy or Greece (and, as is feared when Bulgaria and Romania eventually join, Eastern European countries) and then continue on to countries like France and Germany[1]. For example, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's decision to grant temporary residence permits to more than 20,000 Tunisian migrants fleeing the violent uprisings in April, was made in the knowledge that many of the migrants would end up travelling to France, the former colonial ruler where many of the migrants have relatives[2]. France accused Italy of abusing the Schengen Agreement.

[1] Lipics, Laszlo, ‘Focal points on the external borders of Schengen’, AARMS, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2010 pp.229-239,  http://www.zmne.hu/aarms/docs/Volume9/Issue2/pdf/03.pdf has a map of focal points of pressure of illegal immigration, all of which are in Eastern Europe

[2] ‘France and Italy call for tighter border controls’, theparliament.com, 27th April 2011 http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/france-and-italy-call-for-tighter-border-controls/

Through the SIS the Schengen Area has been able to streamline immigration and asylum policy, thus making it easier to manage immigrants in a consistent manner across Europe[1]. However, countries are not wholly dependent on external borders for security and immigration checks, and so immigrants approaching from external countries can still be caught by individual countries within the Schengen area. Police are allowed to conduct random identity checks throughout the territory of any particular member state: travel advice for Schengen countries warns that while there are no longer any land border checks, you should not to attempt to cross land borders without a valid travel document because it is likely that random identity checks will be made in areas surrounding the borders[2].

Fears over immigration and the Schengen area seem to be actually more an issue of perception than flows of people; the economic crisis has heightened anti-immigrant feeling across Europe. For example, the actual number of refugees arriving in southern Europe as a result of the 2011 Arab Spring has been fewer than expected: “Out of more than 700,000 migrants displaced by events in the western Arab states of North Africa, around 30,000 (4-5%) have attempted to reach Europe,” according to demography expert Philippe Fargues[3]. The other 95% have headed mainly for African and Asian destinations[4].

[1] ‘Legal instruments governing migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II’, Europa, 13 July 2010 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/jl0010_en.htm 

[2] ‘Advice for travel to the Czech Republic’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 6 February 2012, http://fco.innovate.direct.gov.uk/countries/czech-republic/travel_advice_full 

[3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refugees-not-reality.html 

[4] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refugees-not-reality.html

The Schengen Area, adopted by some countries in Europe but not others, will create a difference of interest which will irrevocably divide the EU over time. The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided in two areas: one in which the free movement of people is achieved and one in which it is not. This threatens to create two different ways of approaching the questions of justice and security within the EU: one that is managed through the SIS system and Europol, and one that is managed through the traditional justice and home affairs legislation within the Union framework itself. This could turn out to be a particularly divisive force within a Union that is already faltering having failed to sign a common Constitution and settled for a watered down treaty instead.

While the EU is indeed a union, it is also a union of states with recognized rights to shape their own security and justice affairs. Unlike the continental members of the EU, Britain and Ireland have traditionally looked at borders not as sources of conflict but rather as natural mechanisms of defence, because of their position as islands. The Schengen agreement has allowed them to also collaborate within the SIS and EUROPOL, thus complementing the traditional framework of the Union, of which, ultimately, the Schengen Agreement is a part[1]. This means that Britain and Ireland are as included as they wish to be. The split in the Schengen agreement will not result in any new differences of interest between Britain and Ireland and the rest of the EU.

[1] Select Committee on European Union, ‘Schengen Information System: New Functions’, www.parliament.uk, 9 April 2003, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeucom/196/196132.htm

The Schengen agreement has opened internal borders within Europe, but externally the opposite is true. Thus, while citizens of the belonging countries enjoy complete freedom of movement, citizens of non-member countries find that it is more difficult to receive entry visas to enter the Schengen area. As the Schengen area continues to expand, it enforces more and more restrictions on countries that lie outside its borders, turning borders that have historically been open into real fortresses and thus significantly affecting the political and economic relations between long-term allies. For example, the eastern borders of East European States that already enjoy some Schengen privileges are hardening in order to be allowed fully into Schengen as the existing members need to agree that they are implementing border controls satisfactorily.[1] The result is that they are cutting their inhabitants off from neighbours such as Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in order to give them better access to western Europe. Former members of Yugoslavia that before Schengen was implemented could travel to all the members of the EC (such as Macedonia) have had travel restrictions imposed and this burden has been increasing as more of their neighbours, such as Slovenia,  join the zone or make free travel arrangements with it (such as Serbia and Croatia).[2]

[1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118, http://www.cespi.it/STOCCHIERO/Ascod-Adriatico/chai64e.pdf p.106

[2] Reactor, Taking Down the Schengen Wall, April 2009, pp.1-2,  http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/schengen_white_list_project_reactor_taking_down_the_schengen_wall_24april2009.pdf

While having to get a Europe wide visa can be a problem for the countries that newly border the Schengen there are also benefits. The Schengen agreement often favours those who apply for Schengen visas since once a visa is granted, they can easily travel throughout all the countries that have signed the Agreement. This process not only saves money but it also allows for more freedom of movement for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. Countries are free to choose whether they want to become part of the Schengen regime or not, and are thus making a rational and informed decision on whether the Schengen agreement serves them better than maintaining open borders with traditional allies that are not part of the Schengen area.

Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury the EU can no longer afford. September 11^th has created a preoccupation with the security of the Union’s external borders.[1] Even before September 11th 2001 the drawbacks of open borders in terms of crime were obvious - which is why Paris controversially imposed stricter checks against drugs flowing into France from the more relaxed regime in the Netherlands using a broad interpretation of the rules for temporary issues of public order.[2] Since 9/11 there is a pressing need for stricter border controls to catch international terrorists and prevent the movement of dangerous materials which could be used in terror attacks.

[1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118, http://www.cespi.it/STOCCHIERO/Ascod-Adriatico/chai64e.pdf p.104

[2] Easton, Susan H., ‘Honor Thy Promise: Why the Dutch Drug Policies Should Not Be a Barrier to the Full Implementation of the Schengen Agreement’ Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.23., Issue 1., (12-1-1999), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=iclr&sei-redir=1#search=%22France%20schengen%20drugs%20Netherlands%22P.128

See also the Text of Schengen Agreement, especially Article 2.2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:42000A0922(02):EN:NOT

Scrapping the Schengen Agreement in the face of terrorism would be to give in to the terrorists. The Agreement is part of the open, free society which the extremists are attacking, with its aim of cooperation between different nationalities and the development of a peaceful European identity. Retreating behind national borders would only encourage them in their attacks, and would be ineffective in seeking to prevent future violence. Investigation of attacks in Madrid, London and Paris have all revealed that the terrorists were legal residents, free to come and go regardless of border restrictions. Rather than dissolving Schengen the solution to terrorism lies in better intelligence gathering and cooperation between states (not likely to be encouraged by a retreat behind national borders), and by addressing the problems of alienation and poverty within our societies which serve as breeding grounds for extremism.

As new members are accepted and the Schengen area expands, it becomes more and more difficult to police. For example, once terrorists have gained access to the area, they are free to move within almost the entirety of Europe. The same applies for traffickers of people, drugs and arms. This was the rationale behind the blocking of Romania and Bulgaria from entering the zone at the same time as they entered the EU[1]; they failed to curb organised crime before their accession and if they were join access routes would be opened to the whole of Europe.

This means that all countries are dependent on the security forces of countries monitoring external borders. It is key that Member States with an external EU frontier have a responsibility to ensure that proper checks and effective surveillance are carried out at the EU's external frontiers. It is vital that checks and controls at the EU's external frontiers be rigorous enough to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling and other unlawful activities[2]. Given the different enforcement abilities of different member states, the security of one state is often not protected because of the carelessness of another. Dissolving the Schengen area gives countries responsibility for the protection of their own borders and thus makes Europe safer as a whole.

[1] Kelly, Tom, ‘EU borders will stay shut to influx from Romania and Bulgaria over fears of crime flood’, The Daily Mail, 23rd December 2010, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340772/Germany--France-block-Bulgaria--Romania-visa-free-travel-zone.html

[2] The Schengen Convention: Abolition of internal borders and creation of a single EU external frontier, eurotool, http://www.eurotool.net/info/papers/doc2.htm#internal 

The expanding Schengen area does not make it more difficult to police due to the lack of border controls. Anyone attempting to enter the Schengen area will be checked at least once, this is exactly the same as anyone entering an individual country. Americans do not consider themselves less safe because they do not have border posts between Maryland and Virginia. The key therefore is not to dissolve Schengen but to ensure that all countries border police are of equally high quality and that they share information as is being done through the Schengen Information System (SIS)[1] and Europol.

[1] Schengen Information System, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Information_System

The borderless nature of the Schengen Area makes it increasingly difficult to track and detain illegal immigrants. It is often easier for illegal immigrants to enter through countries such as Italy or Greece (and, as is feared when Bulgaria and Romania eventually join, Eastern European countries) and then continue on to countries like France and Germany[1]. For example, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi's decision to grant temporary residence permits to more than 20,000 Tunisian migrants fleeing the violent uprisings in April, was made in the knowledge that many of the migrants would end up travelling to France, the former colonial ruler where many of the migrants have relatives[2]. France accused Italy of abusing the Schengen Agreement.

[1] Lipics, Laszlo, ‘Focal points on the external borders of Schengen’, AARMS, Vol. 9, No. 2, 2010 pp.229-239,  http://www.zmne.hu/aarms/docs/Volume9/Issue2/pdf/03.pdf has a map of focal points of pressure of illegal immigration, all of which are in Eastern Europe

[2] ‘France and Italy call for tighter border controls’, theparliament.com, 27th April 2011 http://www.theparliament.com/latest-news/article/newsarticle/france-and-italy-call-for-tighter-border-controls/

Through the SIS the Schengen Area has been able to streamline immigration and asylum policy, thus making it easier to manage immigrants in a consistent manner across Europe[1]. However, countries are not wholly dependent on external borders for security and immigration checks, and so immigrants approaching from external countries can still be caught by individual countries within the Schengen area. Police are allowed to conduct random identity checks throughout the territory of any particular member state: travel advice for Schengen countries warns that while there are no longer any land border checks, you should not to attempt to cross land borders without a valid travel document because it is likely that random identity checks will be made in areas surrounding the borders[2].

Fears over immigration and the Schengen area seem to be actually more an issue of perception than flows of people; the economic crisis has heightened anti-immigrant feeling across Europe. For example, the actual number of refugees arriving in southern Europe as a result of the 2011 Arab Spring has been fewer than expected: “Out of more than 700,000 migrants displaced by events in the western Arab states of North Africa, around 30,000 (4-5%) have attempted to reach Europe,” according to demography expert Philippe Fargues[3]. The other 95% have headed mainly for African and Asian destinations[4].

[1] ‘Legal instruments governing migration from SIS 1+ to SIS II’, Europa, 13 July 2010 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/jl0010_en.htm 

[2] ‘Advice for travel to the Czech Republic’, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 6 February 2012, http://fco.innovate.direct.gov.uk/countries/czech-republic/travel_advice_full 

[3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refugees-not-reality.html 

[4] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refugees-not-reality.html

The Schengen Area, adopted by some countries in Europe but not others, will create a difference of interest which will irrevocably divide the EU over time. The fact that not all the EU members are part of the Schengen agreement means that the EU is divided in two areas: one in which the free movement of people is achieved and one in which it is not. This threatens to create two different ways of approaching the questions of justice and security within the EU: one that is managed through the SIS system and Europol, and one that is managed through the traditional justice and home affairs legislation within the Union framework itself. This could turn out to be a particularly divisive force within a Union that is already faltering having failed to sign a common Constitution and settled for a watered down treaty instead.

While the EU is indeed a union, it is also a union of states with recognized rights to shape their own security and justice affairs. Unlike the continental members of the EU, Britain and Ireland have traditionally looked at borders not as sources of conflict but rather as natural mechanisms of defence, because of their position as islands. The Schengen agreement has allowed them to also collaborate within the SIS and EUROPOL, thus complementing the traditional framework of the Union, of which, ultimately, the Schengen Agreement is a part[1]. This means that Britain and Ireland are as included as they wish to be. The split in the Schengen agreement will not result in any new differences of interest between Britain and Ireland and the rest of the EU.

[1] Select Committee on European Union, ‘Schengen Information System: New Functions’, www.parliament.uk, 9 April 2003, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldeucom/196/196132.htm

The Schengen agreement has opened internal borders within Europe, but externally the opposite is true. Thus, while citizens of the belonging countries enjoy complete freedom of movement, citizens of non-member countries find that it is more difficult to receive entry visas to enter the Schengen area. As the Schengen area continues to expand, it enforces more and more restrictions on countries that lie outside its borders, turning borders that have historically been open into real fortresses and thus significantly affecting the political and economic relations between long-term allies. For example, the eastern borders of East European States that already enjoy some Schengen privileges are hardening in order to be allowed fully into Schengen as the existing members need to agree that they are implementing border controls satisfactorily.[1] The result is that they are cutting their inhabitants off from neighbours such as Ukraine, Belarus and Russia in order to give them better access to western Europe. Former members of Yugoslavia that before Schengen was implemented could travel to all the members of the EC (such as Macedonia) have had travel restrictions imposed and this burden has been increasing as more of their neighbours, such as Slovenia,  join the zone or make free travel arrangements with it (such as Serbia and Croatia).[2]

[1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118, http://www.cespi.it/STOCCHIERO/Ascod-Adriatico/chai64e.pdf p.106

[2] Reactor, Taking Down the Schengen Wall, April 2009, pp.1-2,  http://www.esiweb.org/pdf/schengen_white_list_project_reactor_taking_down_the_schengen_wall_24april2009.pdf

While having to get a Europe wide visa can be a problem for the countries that newly border the Schengen there are also benefits. The Schengen agreement often favours those who apply for Schengen visas since once a visa is granted, they can easily travel throughout all the countries that have signed the Agreement. This process not only saves money but it also allows for more freedom of movement for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. Countries are free to choose whether they want to become part of the Schengen regime or not, and are thus making a rational and informed decision on whether the Schengen agreement serves them better than maintaining open borders with traditional allies that are not part of the Schengen area.

Since the Schengen Agreement was first designed and implemented the world has moved on and become a much more dangerous place. The war on terror has already brought bombings to a number of European cities, and this changed circumstance makes Schengen a luxury the EU can no longer afford. September 11^th has created a preoccupation with the security of the Union’s external borders.[1] Even before September 11th 2001 the drawbacks of open borders in terms of crime were obvious - which is why Paris controversially imposed stricter checks against drugs flowing into France from the more relaxed regime in the Netherlands using a broad interpretation of the rules for temporary issues of public order.[2] Since 9/11 there is a pressing need for stricter border controls to catch international terrorists and prevent the movement of dangerous materials which could be used in terror attacks.

[1] Batt, Judy, ‘The enlarged EU’s external borders – the regional dimension’, Partners and neighbours: a CFSP for a wider Europe, (September 2003), pp.102-118, http://www.cespi.it/STOCCHIERO/Ascod-Adriatico/chai64e.pdf p.104

[2] Easton, Susan H., ‘Honor Thy Promise: Why the Dutch Drug Policies Should Not Be a Barrier to the Full Implementation of the Schengen Agreement’ Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Vol.23., Issue 1., (12-1-1999), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1203&context=iclr&sei-redir=1#search=%22France%20schengen%20drugs%20Netherlands%22P.128

See also the Text of Schengen Agreement, especially Article 2.2 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:42000A0922(02):EN:NOT

Scrapping the Schengen Agreement in the face of terrorism would be to give in to the terrorists. The Agreement is part of the open, free society which the extremists are attacking, with its aim of cooperation between different nationalities and the development of a peaceful European identity. Retreating behind national borders would only encourage them in their attacks, and would be ineffective in seeking to prevent future violence. Investigation of attacks in Madrid, London and Paris have all revealed that the terrorists were legal residents, free to come and go regardless of border restrictions. Rather than dissolving Schengen the solution to terrorism lies in better intelligence gathering and cooperation between states (not likely to be encouraged by a retreat behind national borders), and by addressing the problems of alienation and poverty within our societies which serve as breeding grounds for extremism.

The Schengen Agreement has been supported by the majority of EU members since its inception in 1985 (it covers all the continental states of the EU) and has not caused any of the feared divisions in the 20 years of its existence. Indeed, the idea of freedom of movement creates a united Europe. Most EU leaders, together with a majority in the European Parliament, oppose any major restrictions to Schengen, which they see as a core value of European integration – both as a potent symbol (ranking close to the euro) and a fundamental reality of European solidarity. European Parliament negotiator Carlos Coelho said "Schengen is free movement and, like the euro, is one of the symbols of Europe"[1]. There is thus little reason to believe that major divisions will occur any time in the future. Italy and France’s disagreement actually produced a unified response about how to reform the Schengen Agreement for the good of all within it[2].

[1] ‘EU warned against changing Schengen deal on borders’, BBC News, 3rd May 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13266402

[2] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682

Far from being a unifying force the Schengen Area has already led to disagreements between individual countries. Italy and France were involved in a major political dispute after Italy abused the spirit, if not the terms, of the Schengen Agreement to offload thousands of North African migrants onto France. In April 2011, French police even went so far as to stop an Italian train carrying migrants and prevent it from crossing the border[1].  France took the rare decision to temporarily re-establish border controls, adding more than 300 police to patrols monitoring roads and foot trails that lead into French territory, along with inspecting rail traffic[2]. It issued instructions stating that an immigrant who wishes to cross the French border must “hold a valid travel document recognised by France” and a “valid residence document,” “show proof of having sufficient resources—that is, €31 per day if the person has accommodations, and €62 otherwise[3]. France’s unilateral decision to restore border controls and stretch the boundary of the Schengen Agreement underlines the extreme fragility of the legal basis of the European Union. Further, Romania was angry at attempts to exclude them from the Schengen area, a move led by France and Germany, after accessing to the EU and technically meeting all the border conditions for the passport-free zone, calling it “discrimination”[4].

[1] ‘France and Italy push for reform of Schengen treaty’, BBC News, 26th April 2011, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13189682 

[2] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml 

[3] Ira, Kumaran, ‘France re-establishes border controls with Italy amid dispute over African migrants’, World Socialist Website, 11th April 2011, http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/apr2011/fran-a11.shtml 

[4] Waterfield, Bruno, ‘Romania accuses France and Germany of discrimination over Schengen exclusion’, The Daily Telegraph, 22nd December 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/romania/8219933/Romania-accuses-France-and-Germany-of-discrimination-over-Schengen-exclusion.html

The freedom of movement of goods and people is a fundamental aspect of the European Union[1], and the Schengen Agreement is a crucial part of making that a reality. This is not just useful in terms of cutting the cost of conducting business across Europe; it also makes it easier to have holidays too. The Schengen Agreement paved the way for the Schengen visa[2] to come into being, which is what actually makes the EU free movement policy a reality; visitors to the 25 countries above now only need one visa to visit all of them. The Schengen visa also gives non-members of the European Union the ability to travel unimpeded through all of the countries that take part in the program. Obtaining the Schengen visa is the same as any visa process: you apply, send in your passport and then receive a stamp in it if you are approved. This process not only saves money – as you do not have to pay and apply for a visa for every country - but it also allows for more freedom of movement even for those who enter the Schengen area under a visa regime. All members of the EU believe that “the free movement of people is one of the Union's key achievements and we have to maintain and safeguard this”[3].

This is only a single point in favour of the Schengen area, but the freedom of movement clause is the very essence of the EU. Without the Schengen Agreement the most basic tenet of the European Union would cease to be. This far outweighs many of the technical disadvantages.

[1] ‘Free movement of persons, asylum and immigration’, Europa, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/index_en.htm

[2] ‘The Schengen Agreement: History and Information’, ACS, 2011, http://www.acs-ami.com/en/travel-articles/schengen-agreement.html

[3] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refugees-not-reality.html

Losing Schengen would have little impact on the goals of the European Union. The Schengen agreement is not necessary for economic or monetary union as goods will still be able to travel around the EU. Ireland by not being part of Schengen but very much a member of the European Union and Eurozone has shown that not being a part of the passport free area does not have any negative effects.

Criminality has become globalized, particularly in areas such as drugs that have long supply chains. The response to these threats has to involve large numbers of countries as well and Schengen has provided the impetus for such cooperation. The Schengen Information System (SIS) has been a very successful tool for managing and curbing crime and illegal immigration in the Schengen area[1]. Between August and November 2008, in the first months since the introduction of the SIS database in Switzerland, Swiss authorities queried it about 130,000 times a day[2]. Of an average 30 hits a day, the SIS has found 25 people wanted by another European country in connection with serious crimes[3]. About 900 hits have been for people who have been denied entry into the Schengen area, while another 500 hits have been for missing persons[4]. The database produced about 600 hits for stolen property within its first few months in operation[5]. The Schengen members are now working on developing the SIS II system which will make it easier to manage a constantly expanding Schengen area[6].

In addition, with the creation of a parallel European wide criminal intelligence agency, Europol, information can now be easily exchanged and tracked throughout the different member states, making it easier to catch and keep track of criminals across the Schengen zone[7]. Integration and unity is a better way of dealing with a global threat such as terrorism and trafficking[8] than unilateralism and nationalism. It must also be noted that countries are allowed to re-assume control of their own borders if there is a “grave threat to public order or internal security”[9].

[1] ‘New functions for the SIS in the fight against terrorism’, Europa, 22 August 2006, http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/free_movement_of_persons_asylum_immigration/l33198_en.htm 

[2] Brooks, Robert, ‘Schengen Information System proves its worth’, Swiss Info, November 15th 2008 http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/specials/switzerland_schengen/Schengen_Information_System_proves_its_worth.html?cid=653810 

[3] ibid 

[4] ibid

[5] ibid

[6] Schengen Information System: SIS II, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Information_System#Evolution_towards_SIS_II  

[7] Europol Public Information, ‘EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment’, Europol, 28 April 2011, http://migrantsatsea.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/octa_2011-11.pdf

[8] Norwaygrants, ‘Schengen Co-operation and Combating Cross-border and Organised Crime, including Trafficking and Itinerant Criminal Groups’, European Economic Area, December 2010, http://www.eeagrants.org/asset/3501/1/3501_1.pdf

[9] European Affairs, ‘EU haunted by fear of refuges, not reality’, The European Institute, June 2011, http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-June-2011/eu-haunted-by-fear-of-refugees-not-reality.html

Pan European crime fighting efforts would have occurred anyway. It was the increasing globalization of crime that has forced combined crime fighting efforts not the Schengen agreement. The first moves towards creating Europol came in the 1970s with the setting up of the Trevi group by the then European Communities’ interior and justice ministries. This was long before Schengen was created.[1]

[1] Europol, ‘About Europol’, https://www.europol.europa.eu/content/page/history-149