The Schengen Agreement at 40: Will free movement in Europe endure amid rising migrant antipathy?
BRUSSELS – Few people – even in Europe – know where the real Schengen is; it's a tiny community in southeastern Luxembourg, one of the continent's smallest states.
But everyone in Europe and almost everyone coming to the continent from elsewhere around the world has personally experienced what the village's name has been synonymous with: the free movement of people and goods between the member states of the area of the same name.
Or, simply put, a border-free Europe, where people travel without having to produce any document or explain the purpose of their journey. In many countries, even the physical location of national borders is no longer very obvious; markers for borders that once people fought and died for are now just historic curiosities.
On June 14, Europe will mark with pride the 40th anniversary since the signature of the Schengen Treaty.
All opinion surveys indicate that the border-free benefits of the agreement brought to the continent are still considered the most significant and popular achievement of European integration.
Still, the celebrations will be muted. For although Schengen remains highly popular – there was joy in Romania and Bulgaria when these two nations joined the Schengen area last year – European officials are debating whether the arrangement, as originally conceived and currently applied by its 29 member-states, can survive in an age of heightened international security threats and massive migratory pressures.
The story of the Schengen Agreement is a classic example of both the excellent and infuriating aspects of Europe.
One of the original principles of the European Union (EU) since its foundation in the late 1950s was the idea of the free movement of people and goods. But for many decades after the EU came into being, border controls were still enforced.
These were not very onerous, and increasingly, EU citizens could travel by just showing an identity card rather than a passport. Still, people had to queue at border points, and travellers from outside Europe who required visas had to apply for travel permits to each individual EU state they wished to visit.
Pressure to do away with the internal EU border controls has been building up since the 1970s, but no consensus could be achieved inside the Union.
On June 14, 1985, a small group comprising only five EU countries – Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands – gathered and signed a separate treaty abolishing their immigration controls.
That agreement was outside the EU structures but – as its signatories hoped – it eventually caught on as other nations joined the arrangement.
This gradual approach offered maximum flexibility.
As everyone knew from the start, Britain was never likely to join Schengen. But Ireland also did not join because it was impractical to do so without the British, and Cyprus did not join because the island is part-occupied by Turkey.
However, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland which are not in the EU did become Schengen members, as did the continent's smallest states of Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City.
Schengen is now the world's largest association of independent states operating a complete freedom of travel.
Still, Schengen was conceived for a continent that no longer exists. When the original five countries put their signatures to the deal, Europe was still divided by the Cold War and the eastern half of the continent was hermetically sealed with electrified barbed wire, machine guns and minefields.
And while immigration pressures on Europe were already evident, most were confined to Britain and France and their former colonies.
Yet only five years after the treaty was concluded, communist regimes collapsed in eastern Europe, enabling tens of millions of relatively poor east Europeans to travel.
Subsequently, all European countries were hit by waves of migrants from the Middle East and Africa.
And if this was not enough, terrorist attacks swept across the continent, with both criminals and weapons moving freely across borders.
The ghastly terrorist November 2015 attack on the Bataclan nightclub in Paris, in which 130 people perished, was perpetrated by terrorists who lived in Belgium, and bought their weapons and explosives from traffickers across the continent. Most were known to police forces; all arguably escaped detection because of Europe's open borders.
According to the Schengen Borders Code, it is within the competence of member states to reintroduce border controls for a limited period of time, but only as 'a last resort in an exceptional situation'.
In 2006, France was the first country to temporarily reintroduce border controls, supposedly in response to demonstrations by Basques, an ethnic group straddling the borders of France and Spain.
This pattern continued for years in France for major sporting events, political summits, or sensitive political rallies.
The major turning point came in 2015 – the year in which around two million migrants flocked to Europe. Schengen states introduced border controls in droves. And then came the coronavirus pandemic.
Countries got more innovative in the way they justify their 'exceptional' circumstances.
Norway, for instance, once cited 'threats to critical infrastructure' to reimpose border controls. And Slovenia, a south-eastern EU nation, simply cited the 'increased global terrorist threat' to do the same.
According to the available statistics, between 2006, when France pioneered the move, and 2015, there were 36 recorded cases when countries reimposed border controls.
But between 2015 and 2024 – a comparable period – the number of such 'exceptional' border controls jumped to 405. It's an exception which threatens to become a rule.
Yet most of these measures are ineffective because European countries no longer have the border forces or the required logistics to close their borders completely, so the moves were symbolic and of short duration.
That was certainly the case with Germany in September 2024, when the country reintroduced border controls at just certain points, announced well in advance.
This gave plenty of time for those trying to cross the frontiers illegally to find other routes.
Still, it is remarkable that despite all these tensions and the broad political backlash against migrants throughout Europe, the Schengen arrangement has survived essentially unchanged.
That's largely because it remains a powerful symbol of European integration. The reimposition of border controls would also snarl up transport and trade throughout Europe.
All this discussion is largely irrelevant for the community of Schengen, now decked up with flowers and flags for the grand anniversary on Saturday, June 14.
A 'Europe Museum' is operating in Schengen, telling the continent's history of border-free travel.
And Princess Marie-Astrid, the boat on which the original treaty was signed, will also be on call for this weekend's celebrations.
Even though the necessary land docking facilities planned to accommodate the boat were completed far too late.
Some things never change in Europe.
Jonathan Eyal is based in London and Brussels and writes on global political and security matters.
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
UK is not currently providing support to Israel as Iran retaliates, local media reports
Smoke rises from a damaged building in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS UK is not currently providing support to Israel as Iran retaliates, local media reports LONDON - Britain is not currently providing military support to Israel to defend against Iran's retaliation to overnight Israeli strikes, two British media outlets reported on Friday. The Times newspaper cited defence sources as saying that Britain was not providing support to Israel on Friday morning. Sky News separately reported that British warplanes were not currently involved in helping to defend Israel's skies, but that this could change as the situation develops. In October 2024, when Iran fired a salvo of ballistic missiles at Israel, Britain said two of its fighter jets and an air-to-air refuelling tanker played a part in attempts to prevent further escalation, but that the jets did not engage any targets. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged both sides to use restraint and return to diplomacy, and Britain was not involved in Israel's strikes against Iran overnight. Britain's foreign office and Ministry of Defence did not immediately respond to a request for comment on any potential British involvement in protecting Israel. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
Britain will not protect Israel as Iran retaliates
Smoke rises from a damaged building in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS LONDON - Britain will not protect Israel as Iran retaliates against overnight Israeli strikes, the defence editor of the Times newspaper said on X, without citing sources. In October 2024, when Iran fired a salvo of ballistic missiles at Israel, Britain said two of its fighter jets and an air-to-air refuelling tanker played a part in attempts to prevent further escalation, but that the jets did not engage any targets. Britain was not involved in Israel's strikes against Iran overnight and Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged both sides to use restraint and return to diplomacy. Britain's foreign office and Ministry of Defence did not immediately respond to a request for comment on any potential British involvement in protecting Israel. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

Straits Times
9 hours ago
- Straits Times
Israel launches attack on Iran as Tehran scrambles jets
WASHINGTON - Israel attacked Iran early June 13 morning, Israel's defence minister said, raising fears of an all-out war between two of the most powerful militaries in the Middle East. Neither the scale of the attack nor the damage it caused was immediately clear. The strike was expected to prompt swift retaliation from Iran, likely involving a large barrage of ballistic missiles comparable to that Iran fired during similar escalations last year. Residents of Tehran, the Iranian capital, reported hearing huge explosions and an Iranian senior official said fighter jets had taken off to intercept the Israeli warplanes. The attack came as the United States is leading efforts to negotiate an agreement with Tehran that would limit Iran's ability to produce nuclear weapons and a day after the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, censured Iran for not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The Israeli strike followed months of disagreement between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel over how to handle Iran. Netanyahu has long proposed using military force to derail Iran's nuclear ambitions. On June 12, Mr Trump said again that he did not want Israel to launch an attack, predicting that doing so would scuttle the chance of a diplomatic solution. 'I think it would blow it,' he said. Then he added a nod to the other side of the equation, saying that an attack 'might help it actually, but it could also blow it.' Several months ago, Mr Trump waved off an Israeli plan to strike at Iran, insisting that he wanted a chance to negotiate a deal with Tehran. Two weeks ago, Mr Trump said that he had warned Netanyahu against launching a strike while the United States was negotiating with Iran. Those talks faltered in recent weeks, however, and it was unclear how much effort Mr Trump had made to prevent this latest attack. The strike did not come as a surprise. The Israeli government damaged the Iranian air defence system during its attacks on Iran last year and had planned for months to take advantage of Tehran's weakness to mount further attacks. Anticipating a regional escalation, the United States withdrew diplomats from Iraq on Wednesday, and authorized the voluntary departure of families of US soldiers posted elsewhere in the Middle East. A British government agency also warned Wednesday of an escalation that could pose greater risks to ships in the Persian Gulf. The attack was among the most brazen moves in a decades-long struggle between Israel and Iran that, until last year, was usually conducted through covert and undeclared operations. For years, Iran has funded regional militias that oppose Israel's existence and has carried out clandestine attacks on Israeli infrastructure and interests. Israel, which is believed to be the Middle East's only nuclear-armed nation, sees Iran's nuclear program as an existential threat and has long carried out its own covert attacks on Iran's nuclear program, scientists and other infrastructure. The shadow war spilled out into the open after the Iran-backed armed group that has long ruled the Gaza Strip, Hamas, attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, leading to both the war in Gaza and a broader regional confrontation pitting Israel against Iran and its proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, armed groups in Iraq and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Israel's strike on an Iranian-controlled compound in Syria in April 2024 prompted Tehran to fire a huge barrage of missiles at Israel. Iran launched a similar assault last fall after Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader, as he visited Iran last summer, and then killed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.