Europe is undergoing changes, some of them barely reported in Britain

By Claude Moraes MEP

We can all see how Europe is undergoing changes. Concerns over European sovereign debt has meant very public and dramatic fiscal worries, and the lingering effects of the wider recession are still very much present in most European countries. But not all our problems are making the sorts of headlines they deserve, something true of one very important debate currently under way in Europe. The debate is very simple: at a time when new countries are due admittance to the Schengen zone, the concept of free movement in Europe is under threat.

The underlying cause of this debate is also very straightforward. In recent years, centre and right wing governments in Europe have responded to recessionary pressures with an old school anti-immigrant rhetoric. In recent months, this has defined much of Europe politics, and I’ve written on LabourList before about how Sarkozy and other European politicians made the decision to scape-goat Islam and other minorities in 2010.

But it was the Arab Spring, early this year, that caught us all by surprise. Such surprise has caused new problems: with anti-immigrant rhetoric taking root in 2010, the new migratory wave of 2011 can only encounter a very unfavourable political climate in Europe. We allowed ourselves to establish anti-immigrant rhetoric as the norm last year. During hard economic times, it seemed easy and natural for many centre right governments. Now, however, as anti-immigrant rhetoric has become normalised, it seems that a new wave of concrete anti-immigrant policy will also become the norm.

What are the practical concerns for Europe?

Our first concern must be for any people feeling North African regimes, for their safety and their human rights. Already, many people have tragically died. In March, just off the Italian coast, an inadequate boat capsized and scores of people drowned. Much more must be done to prevent this kind of heartbreaking outcome ever occurring again.

But to do so, we must also understand how this tragic event is symptomatic of a wider turn in Europe. This development, if allowed to grow, can only result in similarly chaotic scenes. We are facing a potential distortion of Europe’s most basic social contract – the free movement of people.

Under migratory pressure, Italy and France are calling for a recasting of the Schengen agreement, including reinstating internal EU borders. This move is a reaction to higher immigration flows, and the arguments between the two countries that have resulted. But is also of a suspiciously authoritarian bent. The Schengen agreement provides for the free movement of people in and across Europe. Freedom of movement is at the heart of a progressive and prosperous Europe, and overdue expansion. Bulgaria and Romania are candidates for entering Schengen, the deadline was March 2011. As S&D Group Spokesperson on the European Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee, I encouraged our vote to approve the two nations’ entrance to Schengen. I am therefore particularly concerned by any move, by any Member State, to damage free movement in Europe.

We have to be clear about what is at stake. Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum, the free movement of people in Europe is something almost all concerned parties can agree is beneficial. Over the last decade, there have of course been concerns over EU immigration, especially from within the UK. But there have also been incredible benefits, for travellers, business people, families, companies and individuals. These are benefits we cannot allow to become a casualty of the changes in North Africa and the Middle East. Europe must be unified in finding an answer to how we cope with North African immigration to Europe, the trend will in any case continue without reference to our internal political debates. On this basis, re-instating border controls is not an answer. The idea quite simply fails to tackle the main issue at hand. For example, limiting free movement in Europe will not mitigate the problem on Lampedusa in Italy. If anything, it will simply encourage the problem of over crowding on that island – and make it worse.

There is an alternative. Rather than attack Schengen – the basic social contract in Europe – we need to unblock a burden sharing asylum package that I and Labour have been calling for from the European Parliament. As ever more migratory pressures mount, we have a choice. Mend the way in which we receive desperate people from the third world, share the burden among Member States and preserve the economic and social edge granted us by Schengen, or back track on free movement, in the process caving in to reactionary and illiberal visions of a bordered Europe.

We should protect and promote Schengen. The alternative would be a severe blow to Europe’s economic recovery, a clamp down on our fundamental rights, and no solution at all to migration from the troubled nations of North Africa and the Middle East.