European solidarity at risk as 10 countries restore border checks

Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.

The recent border restrictions imposed by Italy on travelers arriving from Spain, and Madrid’s immediate retaliation, due to the migration crisis in Ceuta, a Spanish exclave in North Africa, bring into question the viability of Europe’s common area, known as Schengen, and whether European solidarity is collapsing. These restrictive measures are becoming more frequent across Europe. Of the 29 countries that belong to the Schengen Area, ten currently request restrictions along a route that is supposed to be open.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni ordered the restrictions in late July after tens of thousands of people crossed from Morocco into Ceuta within hours. She called the step an “extraordinary measure” to protect national security, block possible onward travel by non-EU nationals, and rule out terrorism risks posed by uncontrolled flows. Italy and Spain share no land border, so the controls applied to air and sea arrivals and targeted third-country nationals rather than EU citizens.

Critics argue that Ceuta already sits outside Schengen, that most of those who entered soon returned to Morocco, and that Italy faced no realistic risk of a mass arrival. According to critics, Meloni used dramatic images from the enclave to harden her government’s anti-immigration message at home and to pressure Spain over its more open stance on migration.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has already said that 500 minors are slated for relocation from Ceuta to mainland Spain to relieve pressure on local reception facilities. With up to 10,000 illegal immigrants still in the enclave and local services overwhelmed, there are fears that thousands more will be relocated to the mainland.

The European Commission’s official Migration and Home Affairs portal reports that Germany, Austria, Denmark, Spain, France, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden have reintroduced temporary internal checks. EU countries may maintain border controls for up to three months, but these measures typically last only a short time. After three months, countries can claim that a threat remains and request a renewal. This exception mechanism, used by countries such as the Netherlands to temporarily restrict free movement within the Schengen Area, should be reserved for extreme cases. However, in practice, local authorities increasingly use it in a trivial manner.

The Schengen Agreement contains provisions that allow the rules to be suspended and for migratory and border controls to be reinstated in cases of serious crisis, public security, and public order. However, countries have invoked these exceptions more frequently with increasingly weak reasons.

Domestic political considerations drive restrictions on free movement within European countries. For example, in Germany, there is significant public support for an anti-immigration position. Italy’s recent actions and the increased assertiveness in Denmark, Greece, and other European countries are also connected to internal political dynamics. Nonetheless, opposition to open borders is not a recent development. The most notable example is the United Kingdom, which has never participated in the Schengen Agreement.

Italy used the migrant influx into Ceuta to justify halting free travel with Spain. There was no genuine threat of large-scale migration from that flow. Yet Rome decided to retaliate against Spain to boost anti-immigration sentiment among its own people, prompting an immediate response and counter-retaliation from Madrid.

While Meloni rhetorically opposes illegal migration to Europe, Sánchez supports mass migration to address Spain’s rapidly aging population, low birth rates, and severe labor shortages. For this reason, Madrid plans to legalize approximately 500,000 undocumented migrants. However, by the time the application window closed, nearly 1.2 million undocumented migrants had applied for legal status, far exceeding the Spanish government’s original expectations. Many countries, such as Germany, Denmark, and the UK, fear that many of the illegal immigrants in Spain could end up in their countries.

One of the pillars of the European Union was supposed to be a liberal ideology, culminating in the free movement of people. Free movement across European territory was meant to be an important mechanism for stimulating economic growth and integrating diverse cultures into a European monoculture. However, successive restrictions on the Schengen Area have gradually weakened that fundamental principle.

This is another sign that the European integration project is in crisis. The foundation of the entire European integration process is solidarity, but it has been exposed as a farce. Solidarity was supposed to mean that a shock in one part of the EU would be absorbed by the whole bloc. Instead, Madrid cannot count on Rome in a border emergency, and Rome will not accept Madrid’s plan to legalize hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants. With Spain mostly left-wing and Italy mostly right-wing, the ruling governments of the respective countries now prioritize their own electorates, while Schengen becomes a suspended convenience as competing ideas over migration to Europe collide.