Brussels – Third countries and free movement in the EU: goodbye to visa exemption. In case of security threats, the European Commission may require the document to be presented again, even for those intending to make short-term stays (up to 90 days). This mandate was given by the European Parliament, which finally approved the change of pace by a large majority—518 in favour, 96 against, 24 abstentions.
The new system provides that any new visa requirements for third-country nationals entering the Schengen area of free movement may at first be temporary (such as waiting for investigations or institutional talks to take place) and then become definitive should the problems persist.
Immigration and, above all, hybrid threats: the EU is “locking down”
The principle behind these legislative changes is the need to respond to threats to internal security, a cornerstone on which the European People’s Party (EPP) has insisted, at a time when the European Union is living in a renewed climate of increasing fear. Barriers to entry may be reintroduced in the event of a significant increase in serious crimes committed by nationals of the country concerned, a substantial rise in rejected asylum applications, denials of entry, or the number of people overstaying their visas. The threshold for calculating a lower recognition rate of asylum applications will be set at 20 per cent of nationals of a non-EU country.
The reform then introduces new “reasons'” to trigger a suspension of the visa-free regime, starting with hybrid threats (such as the instrumentalisation of migrants by the state), citizenship programmes for investors (better known in Europe as schemes for ‘golden passports’), failure to align with EU visa policy, violations of UN Charter of international human rights law or humanitarian law, and failure to respect the decisions of international courts and tribunals.
There will also be a clampdown on foreign civil servants and diplomats, to whom the same restrictions will apply.
EU between fears and hypocrisy
If the rapporteur of the text, the Slovenian socialist Matjaž Nemec, presents the outcome of the vote as “a mechanism that strengthens our commitment to human rights and international law,” the People’s Party negotiator, Ana Miguel Pedro, frames it in a completely different way: “These changes send a clear and firm message to third countries that, despite being considered partners, do not cooperate sufficiently with the EU and its Member States in addressing security threats and irregular migration.
It is the European Union that struggles to say how things really are, talking about rights while thinking about something else. It is the EU that closes its doors in the face of asylum seekers and potentially dangerous people. It is the EU that closes in on itself and on others, and that prefers exclusion to inclusion disguised as a threat posed by enemies that the EU of today feels it is surrounded by. Drone airspace invasions by third countries is probably the last piece in that sense of insecurity that animates and agitates the Europe of states today.
The warnings of Luc Frieden, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, one of the founding countries, were of little or no use. An hour before the vote, during his speech in plenary, he had emphasised to all MEPs that “a lastingreintroduction of border controls would not only be a burden on our economy, but also a step backwards for the entire European project and the values it represents.”
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
