The 1990 Schengen Convention provides for the free movement of citizens of the European Union and third countries within the area of the 26 signatory members. Basically it is nothing more than the abolition of borders between the member states.
The agreement implies two great axioms: in a predefined geographical space there is free movement of people; everything that circulates in a member country automatically circulates in others as well.
This second step involves huge accountability. As on few other occasions in the history of the European Union, the concept of union between peoples has had the opportunity to take shape from a political, economic and social point of view: what concerns the humanity of a Member State has repercussions on the neighbor, with to which it shares not only an idea but also a defined physical space.
Unlike other mergers derived from the process of European integration, overcoming borders has been the test of highest maturity in common management, because it has had immediate repercussions in our habits. Being able to go and return from a country without being controlled has changed the psychological approach to the movement of European citizens in just a few years. Given the historical past of the Continent, at least on paper it would not be a small thing.
The cases of temporary suspension (foreseen by the Convention due to exceptional causes) have been multiple and almost always for security reasons linked to important events (political summits, sporting events, etc.).
Starting from the 2005 however (the first case is France) and with an acceleration in the last two years up to the case of Austria, the “tears” to the Convention have multiplied due to other three factors: crime, terrorism and illegal immigration . The suspensions, although foreseen as temporary, are no longer implemented on the principle of the exceptional nature of an event, but rather on the exceptionality of a threat. In the first case it is easy to predict the duration of the provision, in the second no.
Hence the decision of Vienna to provide for the repositioning of infrastructures (barriers, signs and control spaces) along the border with Italy. In other words, Austria has decided to put a filter with the Bel Paese and it has sparked controversy.
In reality the debate on the "fortification" of the Brenner seems mostly pretentious and ideological. Vienna would like to point out that with the exception of the sacrosanct right to safeguard its territory, it defends itself from the bad application of the others (us ...) of the Schengen Convention, born on trust between signatory States.
European countries are like rooms in an apartment. Regardless of prestige, each is positioned according to the plan. However, only a few rooms have a door to the outside. Italy is one of these.
The responsibility linked to Schengen is all here: the greatest burdens fall on those which, as in our case, have a strong exposure to countries outside the Convention, to the Union and even to the continent.
Among all the member states, Italy is among those with the largest access gate given the vastness of the coasts and automatically among the most committed not only with themselves, but with the whole system to which there are no more filters.
Austria essentially does not deny Schengen, but places the filter that Rome has removed towards the outside in the only geographic point where it can place it: the border with Italy.
All the rhetoric from the dull titles like "the Brenner returns to divide ..." is pasture for fake conscientious people.
Assuming that the current model is the model of Europe on which to build a future, it is clear that in order to have one there are rules to be respected. If Schengen were to jump, the fault would not therefore lie with Austria, but with Italy which has kept faith only in the first of the two commitments: opening the borders with the countries adhering to the Convention; close them better with all the others.
The ideological burden placed in the polemic against the Austrian "wall" appears not only hypocritical, but also difficult to understand especially if the detractors of economic globalization are the spokesman.
The process of cultural globalization is presumably a support not indifferent to the unification of markets on a global scale. If it makes sense the equation same culture = same needs, it is not difficult to understand that the same widespread socio-economic model on a large scale is suitable for large global interest groups.
It will not be the Brenner customs that will prevent the approval of future generations towards the simple relationship between supply and demand, this is evident; the removal of every filter between State and State, however, increases its speed with certainty.
So a doubt arises: is the ideological rejection of the frontier really the best solution to a world that is flattened by the logic of the multinationals or is it one of the access gates?
The reflection is necessary.
In any case, regret remains for a missed opportunity. If the dreams of a family of peoples united in a single block have gradually been debased in the gray corridors of the buildings of Brussels, the disputes over condominiums due to incompetence and bad management are their saddest continuation. Italy in this sense has very serious faults.
(Photo: DO)
