European Parliament opposes Schengen Agreement
01 May 1991
The European Parliament has again voiced its disapproval of the Schengen Agreement and its effects on immigration and policing. In a resolution passed on 22 February the Parliament complained that its previous resolutions on the subject of November 1989, March 1990 and June 1990 had been ignored. The Agreement covers the abolition of border controls co-operation on visas, immigration and police policies.
Georges Wohlfart, representative of the Council of Ministers, said in the debate that the Schengen Agreement was "an inter- governmental agreement and thus outside the scope of the Community". Rinaldo Bontempi (Italy European Unitarian Left) complained in the debate that the negotiations were in secret and not subject to parliamentary controls; Claudia Roth (Germany Greens) expressed concern about the impact on refugees and asylum policy; Karl von Wogau (Germany European People's Party) supported the Schengen Agreement on the grounds that it was a serious attempt to tackle the problem of crime in an open Europe; Lode van Outrive (Belgium Socialist) sought unsuccessfully to get clarification on which aspects of the policy on free movement came under the EC's auspices and which were left to governments to agree amongst themselves; Glyn Ford (UK Socialist)said that the knock-on effect of the work of the Schengen group and the Trevi group on immigration were to actually exacerbate racism inside the European Community .
Commissioner Martin Bangemann replying to the debate said: "The Community cannot afford to take on board a huge influx of new immigrants from Eastern Europe and North Africa". As to the Schengen Agreement he said there was still a problem with the four other states who did not accept that the Single Act contained a binding agreement to completely abolish internal border controls. The resolution adopted by the EP attacked the undemocratic nature of the Schengen Agreement and its effect on immigrants and asylum-seekers. It went on to say that under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol on political refugees that the illegal crossing of frontiers by political refugees cannot be treated as a criminal offence (para 7) and that neither the Schengen Agreement nor the Convention on the Right to Asylum (signed by all of the 12 EC countries except Denmark) contained any guarantee that confidential information on an application for asylum would not be passed back to the authorities in the country of origin (para 8).
The Commission's President Jacques Delors responded by defending the "pragmatic" approach of member states. He described the Schengen measures on migration and refugees as a source of inspiration for the activities of the Twelve.
On 15 April 1991, the Dutch government's supreme advisory council, Raad van State (RvS) a body that comments on the constitutional aspects of every bill stated that the Netherlands government should not ratify the Schengen Agreement. The RvS feels the agreement gives other states opportunities to withdraw from obligations they would otherwise have under the refugee treaty of the U.N. According to the RvS the "Schengen" agreement conflicts with many other treaties. It is the first time in Dutch history that the RvS has advised the government not to ratify an international agreement. However there is little chance that the government will follow the council's advice. State Secretary Kosto reacted by saying that Holland would probably not be allowed to withdraw from the treaty it has already signed.
European Parliament resolution 22.2.91; The Week 12-15 February 1991; Migration Newssheet March 1991.