Commentary | The Freedom of Movement in Post-Pandemic Europe
Europe needs a new crisis travel policy to safeguard the freedom of movement in the event of a future pandemic.
While many countries continue to struggle with the COVID-19 pandemic, the reinstatement of the freedom of movement of EU citizens within the Schengen zone in a post-pandemic Europe remains uncertain. The implementation of temporary travel restrictions throughout Europe has left an open question hanging over the EU: will the suspension of the freedom of movement be lifted, and when? The failure to react swiftly to the spread of the virus in Italy and Spain resulted in strong criticism of the EU by several member states. Nevertheless, the EU maintains that the solidarity of its member states remains steadfast as it continues to address an array of complex transnational challenges brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet whether EU member states are ready to put aside their political differences to achieve a stable state of travel across the Schengen area in the wake of the public health crisis remains to be seen.
The high death tolls observed from COVID-19 should urge EU member states to develop new travel policies to avoid future public health crises within the border-free area. Member states will likely practice border controls to prevent the outbreak of a future pandemic that spreads in a similar fashion as COVID-19. Health security measures including widespread testing and tracking should also be applied in the future to isolate cases and prevent cross-border spreading. Just like the anti-terror policies enacted in the United States in the wake of 9/11 (e.g. the creation of the Transportation Security Administration, enhanced background checks, and airport security measures), these health measures ultimately aim to protect and facilitate cross-border travel for EU citizens. Policymakers could introduce new parameters that allow EU citizens limited travel during a public health crisis for employment purposes, education, or in exceptional cases of emergency.
Article 21 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) guarantees EU citizens the rights to travel, work, and reside in any EU country — collectively referred to as the freedom of movement. In other words, EU citizens are exempt from travel restrictions and border controls within the Schengen area. The freedom of movement creates benefits, not just for EU citizens, but the European Union as a whole, stimulating economic growth and innovation across the wider European community and promoting a collective multicultural European identity.
As the number of cases affected by COVID-19 began to surge in Europe, nine member states (Hungary, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Spain) closed their borders to non-nationals. While this move contradicts the principle of freedom of movement, it was nonetheless a necessary, temporary control implemented to prioritize public health and slow the spread of the virus. While imposing border controls does not guarantee the containment of the pandemic, it most definitely limits the spread of the virus across national borders. In reaction to the border closures, French President Emmanuel Macron warned that this particular act could lead to an increase in divisive nationalism.
As if on cue, far-right political parties in Spain, Italy, and France seized the opportunity to lambaste the EU, blaming Brussels for a perceived lack of material support for member states, citing the lack of protective equipment and funding to properly fight the pandemic. They also predictably seized upon the opportunity to criticize migration policies in a broader sense, falsely claiming that migrants were uniquely responsible for introducing the disease to Europe.
The post-pandemic inter-state disagreement with the European Union could destabilize the functioning of the freedom of movement. Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz insisted that Austria’s borders would only reopen to “safe countries” such as Germany. It is, of course, only reasonable that as long as many new cases continue to surface, that member states continue to insist upon keeping their borders closed, in an attempt to minimize the risk. At the end of the day, these policies are meant to protect European lives in the presence of a real and credible threat to public health.
However, the imposition of border controls also questions the essence of Europe’s “ever closer union”, and enables Euroskeptic political parties to further their nationalistic and xenophobic agendas at the national and European level. Viktor Orban’s purportedly temporary rule by decree in Hungary during the pandemic is an undeniable example. Given Orban’s history of authoritarian behavior and conflict with Brussels over migration, the expulsion of the Central European University from Budapest, and media and academic censorship, he presents a clear threat to a return to the normal functioning of the freedom of movement within Europe. To address this, Brussels should take a firm stance by creating a new EU travel policy and pandemic response plan for during major pandemic and future crises. In doing so, the European Union would remove any excuse for authoritarian measures in response to a similar crisis in the future and weaken the Euroskeptic case for the unilateral imposition of border controls.
In the wake of COVID-19, the European Union should emphasize cooperation and mutually-beneficial response planning. A new emergency travel policy crafted with active engagement and input from all member states would serve to promote European unity, and if successful, guarantee the future of the freedom of movement. States most affected by the pandemic would likely champion its enactment, as it could serve to protect and provide for them in the future. States most concerned with the economic fallout from the pandemic — among them, Germany, France, and Greece — are likely to support it as well, as it minimizes the chances of a similar economic downturn in the future.
However, it is difficult to predict the response that countries like Poland and Hungary would have to such a proposal. On the one hand, it provides for the closure of borders in times of health crises — something that Euroskeptic governments in Warsaw in Budapest would no doubt welcome. The fact that it would be codified in EU law and accompanied by a collective response, however, would likely wrinkle the brow of those opposed to greater integration in the European Union.
In order to augment the new policy, the European Union should guarantee greater cooperation on pandemic preparedness within its member states. Greater cooperation and preparedness could help convince reluctant member states to remain committed to the freedom of movement, as pre-existing and comprehensive plans to fight future pandemics would be built into the new crisis response system. The absence of a collective European approach to solving the health crisis could still keep the borders closed. The question remains when and how the reopening of each state’s internal borders will be considered safe.
Any principal solution should include medical check-ups while crossing borders. Placing medical teams on the borders and checking travelers would severely limit the risk of a new, uncontrolled spread of the virus while still allowing the freedom of movement. Accompanying this policy, states could impose a daily quota on the number of people allowed to cross borders based on rigorous metrics on the contagiousness of a future disease and the rapidity of its spread. These measures would improve governments’ control over the movement of the people to protect public health while still enabling limited cross-border travel. Newly-developed vaccines and diagnostic equipment could be provided to border checkpoints to further limit the spread of dangerous contagions.
The European Union must also insist that member states fully and accurately report health metrics, in particular, the number of positive cases identified and projected to the European Union through official and transparent means for effective collective response. For the EU to respond to future pandemics, providing transparent and timely access to reliable and accurate information will be crucial to rapid national government responses and policymaking — particularly regarding the movement of people — and will require the consent of all member states. Any attempt to unilaterally impose these measures on member states would not only represent an over-step of the EU’s legal authority, but also a serious breach of European Civil liberties.
Regardless of the particular steps that Brussels takes next, it must nevertheless address the breaches of one of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the European Union to its citizens. Without reinstating the freedom of movement and fortifying EU laws and policies to guarantee its integrity, Brussels risks yet another major crisis of confidence in the future of the European project.
Edited by: Cameron Vaské, Daniel Shaw
All views expressed in this article are solely those of the author, and do not represent the views of The International Scholar or any other organization.
Photo credit:
European Union Flags 2 by Thijs ter Haar, Flickr
https://tinyurl.com/yb85fkcp
