Fortress Europe ON JUNE 3, 1990, the French parliament passed, by a large majority, the June 19,1990 convention on the implementation of the Schengen agreement. This convention clarifies the terms of the original agreement signed on June 14, 1985, between representatives of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, the German Federal Republic (FRG) and France'. Italy joined this initial "Schengen group" of countries on November 27, 1990, after five years observer status, while the Spanish State and Portugal are to adhere on June 25, 1991. The agreement will come into effect when the convention has been ratified by all the member countries, probably in the latter half of 1992.
BEATRICE RAYMAN BEATRICE RAYMAN W HILE envisaging the disappearance of the borders between the signatory states, the Schengen agreement also involves the establishment of draconian frontier controls on the external border, the stepping-up of cooperation between police forces and the creation of a gigantic computerized information bank, the Schengen Information System (SIS)?. Charged with the task of finding "compensatory meas ures" for the abolition of internal frontiers, the agreement will lead to the building of a formidable repressive apparalus.
The text's main provisions concern the creation of highly restrictive immigration legislation for the Europe Community. Thus people coming from non-EC states will be unable to penetrate the walls of the Schengen fortress without "thorough controls". In the context of the creation of an EC-wide visa, the signatories have drawn up a black list of 104 countries for which possession of such a visa will be required.
This list is to have the force of an instruction and it can only be changed if all the member states agree. Thus, to come into line, since summer 1990, Italy has required people coming from north Africa to have such a visa. On May 15, 1991, the Spanish state followed suit. On the other hand, on the request of the Germans, visa requirements have been abolished for Hungarians, Polcs, Czechs and Slovaks.
Anyone who may be considered as presenting a "threat to public order, national security and international relations" will be refused entry into the Schengen arca - thus opening the door to all manner of arbitrariness.
To "efficiently" control the right of entry, the agreement envisages the creation of files on "undesirables". The foreigner who has been designated a persona non grata in the SIS files will be forbidden to stay in any of the signatory countries, except in exceptional circumstances. The text considers that, even when residence has been permitted, this can be withdrawn. To get put on the "undesirable" list it is enough to have been found guilty of any crime that carries a sentence of more than a year. The discrimination will not stop at the outer borders of the Schengen area. While people from member states will be able to circulate freely, foreigners residing in any one of these states who want to visit another will have to register with the local police.
Even more seriously, the agreements only cover the metropolitan area and thus do not apply to people from overseas territories. In the Schengen area, people from, for example, Guadelupe, Martinique or New Caledonia are considered as foreigners.
Carriers to be made responsible
Another part of the agreement undermines the traditional right to asylum. Thus, it will be impossible for an asylum seeker refused asylum in one country to seck it in another of the signatory coun tries. Furthermore, as has already been the case in Germany, Belgium, Britain and Denmark, the carrier will be made responsible for the arrival of foreigners without the right papers and will face a fine.3 Police cooperation is to be stepped up. The creation of an "observation law" will
TERRE D'ASILE! allow police officers from a signatory state to pursue their inquiries in another country, establishing a new cross frontier "right of pursuit"
Worked out with the utmost discretion, more or less beyond the control of formal European bodies and international humanitarian organizations, this text is certain to result in terrible legal imbroglios. To whom is someone to appeal against an unjust decision taken in the name of all the member states given that national law courts will not be competent where super-national decisions are concerned?
Agreement not open to amendment
While it is in some respects incompatible with existing community law, the agreement is also not open to amendment. Those national parliaments that were not involved in drawing it up can only take it or leave it. The Dutch State Council recommended against ratification, considering that the convention is incompatible with community legislation, and a threat to the right of asylum and the right to privacy.
The Schengen convention is a declaration of war on foreigners. All democratic organizations in the member countries have a duty to mobilize to prevent Europe 1993 being fortress Europe. * 1. See International Viewpoint, no. 189, July 16, 1990. 2. This enormous computer file is to be constructed in Strasbourg. All member countries will have access to it. It will contain details of, among others, "undesirable" foreigners, extradition candidates, missing persons, people summoned by courts and those who are to be the object of "discreet surveillance or specific checks" 3. This attitude is a clear expression of a political objective of the European govemments, whose countries currently take in only 6% of the world's refugees. On the pretext of chasing out "economic refugees" these countries are trying to reduce as much as possible the protection for asylum seekers laid down in the Geneva Convention.
WESTERN EUROPE
EUROPE 19921
A SYMBOLIC DATE, but in fact it looks as if 1991 will be the year in which the ture is decided. Firstly, there are the two inter-governmental conferences, one on political union, the other on economic and monetary union (EMU), which are due to complete their labours. There will be compromises, but also important commitments for the coming years. The Schengen convention ( see accompanying article) has already been ratified by eight of the twelve member untries of the European Community. The agreement of the Twelve over the ualization of VAT rates (Value Added Tax - that is, tax directly added to the prices of goods and services) at 15% is also an important step forward for number of governments will try to deal with by squeezing the incomes of work-
None of the compromises and difficulties ahead over the speed of monetary union will be able to check the imperious necessity of each country converging around "key financial equilibria". Austerity, and attacks on the wage earners, drives for profitability and reductions in social expenditure will thus be the flavour of the coming years. Some countries will be required to show that they have learned their lessons, if they want to have the chance to get in among the front runners of the EMU hardcore.
Britain, Italy and Spain still have a chance, if they can cut inflation, reduce the public deficit, squeeze wage costs and so on. Spain's economy minister, Carlos Solchaga, has proposed a social pact to enable that country, which currently has an inflation rate of 6.5%, unemployment at 16% and a trade deficit of 6.5% of Gross Domestic Product in 1990, to catch up with the economic performance of its partners. Whether the unions accept the pact or not, there will certainly be a serious attempt to apply it.
The entry of the British pound into the European Monetary System and the "normalization" of the Italian lira into a narrow permitted fluctuation of 2.25%, will both translate in terms of domestic policy into attacks on the wage earners. In Belgium, the road to EMU goes via a reduction in the public debt (which stands at 132% of GNP); the same is true of the Netherlands (84% of GNP). In the latter country, this year a three-year budget reduction plan envisages cuts of 17.7bn florins and a reduction in public employment. Between now and 1994, social security spending is set to fall by 3.8bn florins.
In France workers' social contributions are to go up by 0.9%, while the German government is to raise taxes to avoid the failure of unification.
This year is thus a decisive one for the next stage of European integration. The press focuses on the magic date of 1992 and chews over all the details of the complex negotiations over the structures being created. But while this is going on, outside of the debate on the institutions, the governments are together implementing policies that each day push back social gains and the workers' movement. Even according to EC Commission president Jacques Delors himself, the "Social Charter" is seriously behind schedule and is not following the rhythm of the economic changes. How surprising! Is the European trade union movement really aware of what is now happening? It too seems to accept the polarization of the debate around the form, the structures and the institutions -as the recent congress of the ETUC (see /V 208) showed - instead of concerning itself with the basic question, that is the relations of force between classes on which the whole project of capitalist integration rests.
There are of course many difficulties in coordinating economic and monetary union, foreign and security policy, and the project for the "internal security" of the community. The preliminary discussions in Luxemburg employ a partial separation of these three areas and aim to establish an independent set of rules for each. Thus integration will take place on three different levels. Added to this are the differences between countries dictated by their needs and capacities; some have not signed the Schengen agreement, integration into the single central bank system is delayed for others and so on.
For a period this will produce an extremely complicated system with a hierarchy. This makes all the more important the juridical discussions on the respective prerogatives of the Brussels Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Each day brings forth new revelations on the new Franco-German dispute, the sudden disagreement between Paris and The Hague, the tension between Bonn and London.
All this is not without interest. The social and political issues involved are important enough for such official debates and contradictions to be worth watching. But they should not allow us to overlook the main thing: the compromise will be found, and new steps taken towards integration, and the bill will be presented to the workers of both Europe and the dependent countries. Six months from 1992 it is time to start paying attention. - Claude Gabriel. * 10
BRITAIN DDITAIN Undermining the right to strike THE British trade union movement - numerically still very powerful - is taking a beating. Unemployment has been increasing at a record rate with no significant resistance. The employers feel their strength and have launched a new offensive. Restructuring schemes are underway in a range of industries. Wage settlements in the engineering industry are the lowest for many years. The number of employers negotiating collective agreements is declining and the withdrawal of recognition from trade unions is strongly on the increase. Behind this bleak picture is a collapse of confidence amongst the rank-and-file of the unions which is difficult to reverse.
ANTHORNET legalizes the sacking of unofficial strikers and makes it illegal to take any, even official, action in defence of those sacked in this way.
Lawyers determine union strategy
The effect of these laws, and the attitude of union leaders, has been to drag the unions into a legal morass. In most unions, lawyers control every move towards possible industrial action right from the early stages. They set the parameters of what the leadership union can or cannot do. They often interpret the law even more strictly than the courts, and many union leaders are happy for them to do so.
These laws, particularly in the absence of any positive rights for trade unions, are a formidable weapon in the hands of the employers and the government. The responsibility for this dire situation rests entirely with the new realists. Right from 1980, they have been determined to avoid any confrontation with the government. any confrontation with the government. The Trade Union Congress (TUC — the single union confederation) initially declared that they would fight the laws but dropped their opposition and by 1983 began insisting that the law must be complied with. This helped to defeat the miners, the printers, the seafarers and the dockers and acted as a direct encouragement for more laws to be introduced stage by stage. The defeat of the miners in 1984-85 was the decisive turn, strengthening both the Tory government and the new realist right.
This situation is compounded by political decisions of both the TUC and the
Kinnock leadership of the Labour Party.
Last year's LP conference, with the backing of the TUC, voted to keep the whole range of Tory anti-union laws, with only slight modifications. This indicates the extent of the shift to the right by the
Labour leadership; last time Labour came to office, in 1974, they were forced to repeal all the anti-union laws enacted by the previous Tory government of Edward
Heath - and this despite the fact that