Schengen-EU marriage not so convenient

Date: 06/02/1997

By Mark Turner

DUTCH calls for the Schengen free movement zone to be brought closer to the European Union could provide one of the first examples of how 'flexibility' might work in practice.

Under proposals to be discussed by Intergovernmental Conference negotiators next week, Schengen staff could be housed in EU buildings and the convention's provisions gradually incorporated into Union law.

But continued British opposition to abandoning frontier controls means that complete free movement within the EU's borders will not be achieved for the foreseeable future.

This kind of cooperation within Union structures, but only implemented by some member states, is what flexibility is all about.

The move is being contemplated as part of the ongoing debate on the future of European justice and home affairs policy - in particular visa, asylum and immigration procedures - within the IGC.

The Schengen Convention, which allows for free movement between its active members, is at present a purely intergovernmental instrument.

Applied by seven countries, and signed by a further eight (including Scandinavian countries outside the EU), the convention includes a wide range of measures designed to guarantee security without internal border controls. These include provisions on external borders, visa and asylum policy, and information exchange between authorities.

Those in favour of bringing Schengen under the EU umbrella argue that if all 15 member states can agree on at least some of these rules, they should be absorbed into EU law as they do so.

That could lead to the gradual dissolution, and eventual disappearance, of Schengen as a separate instrument.

But experts warn that the proposals raise a large number of difficult questions.

Although most of the ground covered by Schengen fits well within the 'third pillar' - the Union's justice and home affairs arm where intergovernmental cooperation is currently the norm - it also contains many provisions where supra-national EU legislation would be more appropriate.

Unless a specific Schengen pillar were created, bringing the convention into the Union would mean a difficult and complex process of dividing it into its constituent parts.

More symbolically, a problem could be posed by Norway and Iceland, which signed special cooperation agreements with Schengen last year.

Should the convention be subsumed by the EU, two non-member countries might consequently gain unprecedented influence over Union policy.

Potential developments have created an air of uncertainty within the Schengen secretariat, amid fears that if it were to be absorbed into the Union, jobs could be put at risk. Existing staff are concerned that EU officials might be tasked with taking on some of the functions currently in the hands of Schengen officials.

“My primary concern is what happens to the staff,” said coordinator Wouter van de Rijt. “There are many questions left unanswered.”