Free movement without internal borders is one of the most recognizable and valuable symbols of the European Union.
The Schengen area, unites 29 European countries, embodied the idea of an open and integrated Europe.
However, in recent years, this system has come under serious pressure.
The temporary reintroduction of border controls, increased security measures, and the migration crisis call into question not only the technical but also the ideological future of Schengen.
Temporary Controls: an Exception or a New Reality?
According to the Schengen Borders Code, member states can temporarily introduce internal controls in the event of serious threats to public order or internal security.
However, what was once an exceptional measure has now become almost routine practice.
Germany, Austria, France, Norway, Sweden and other states have repeatedly reintroduced controls, citing terrorist threats, migration flows and, in recent years, the epidemiological situation.
These measures are often extended for months or even years, causing concern among human rights activists and MEPs.
A worrying doubt arises: temporary measures are becoming de facto permanent. The European Commission has repeatedly called for deadlines and transparency, but national interests are increasingly taking precedence over pan-European commitments.
Illegal Migration: Ongoing Challenge
Illegal migration remains one of the main pressures on the Schengen area.
After the 2015 crisis, when Europe was engulfed by refugee flows from Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, trust in the external border protection system was undermined.
The frontline countries – Greece, Italy, and Spain – were overwhelmed.
At the same time, the states of Central and Northern Europe began to perceive the lack of internal borders as a threat to their stability.
This has intensified the political discourse around the “protection of Europe” and the “need for control”, prompting a flood of populist support in CEE states. Viktor Orban's successive popularity in Hungarian politics came off the back off illegal migration through transit states like Hungary.
Against this backdrop, proposals to reform asylum policy and create a pan-European mechanism for the distribution of refugees are encountering strong resistance.
Although the EU has taken steps to strengthen the Frontex Agency, implementation remains fragmented.
The Terrorist Threat and Its Political Consequences
The terrorist attacks of recent years, especially in Paris, Brussels and Vienna, also prompted a review of the principles of the Schengen area.
Politicians emphasise that freedom of movement should not mean freedom for criminals and radicals.
A number of countries have tightened controls on transport, entry of persons from third countries, and on EU citizens suspected of links with extremist groups. Security is becoming a key talking point for expanding the powers of law enforcement agencies at the borders.
However, critics warn that a excessive tightening of controls could lead to the erosion of human rights, selective discrimination, and the growth of xenophobia.
The main concern revolves around security and freedom; balancing both ideals is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.
A United Europe or a Europe of Two Speeds?
The current situation has also revealed another threat: the asymmetry within the Schengen area itself.
CEE countries, like Poland and Hungary, are actively strengthening their borders, not always in coordination with Brussels. Others, such as Italy or Greece, feel abandoned in the fight against migration challenges.
This stratification leads to the idea of a “two-speed Europe”, where the Schengen area could become a more closed and exclusive club.
In this context, countries waiting to join Schengen (Romania and Bulgaria) face additional barriers, even if they meet the technical criteria.
Collapse or Adaptation?
The future of the Schengen area depends on the EU’s ability to reform and compromise.
It is clear that the old model of “absolute trust” between countries no longer works. Europe is facing new realities; it needs to adapt its instruments of freedom to these challenges.
The solution could be the development of smart border control, including biometric systems, increased exchange of information between states, unification of migration policies, and a fair distribution of responsibilities.
Political unity is also important: protecting Schengen requires not only legal efforts from member states, but also the preservation of a common identity based on the principles of solidarity, openness , and human rights.
The Schengen area faces challenges that require a balance between security, freedom, and solidarity.
Stay tuned to Daily Euro Times for the latest insights!
Explore more articles:
You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat it, Meghan
