The construction Fortress Europe : to what extent does ‘Fortress Europe’ accurately represent the European immigration and border regime developing since 1970?

The Construction Fortress Europe:

To what extent does ‘Fortress Europe’ accurately represent the European immigration and border regime developing since 1970?

Jonathan Steven Mummery University of Amsterdam

Thesis Supervisor: Darshan Vigneswaran Second Reader: Polly Palmister Wilkins

Completed June 2016 as part of MSc Political Science: International Relations Research Project: Controlling Movement and Settlement: Who Belongs Where?

Contents:

Abbreviations 3

Abstract 4

Introduction 5

Chapter 1: Literature Review & Methods 9

Chapter 2: Early Developments in the European Immigration Regime 1945-74 17 Chapter 3: The European Immigration Regime through the 1980s and 1990s 29 Chapter 4: ‘Fortress Europe’ and the European Immigration Regime Post 1997 47

Conclusion: 61

Abbreviations:

CEAS: Common European Asylum System EAEC: European Atomic Energy Community ECSC: European Coal and Steel Community EC: European Community

EEC: European Economic Community

EU: European Union

EU15: European Union of 15 member states (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom plus Austria, Finland, Sweden)

ENP: European Neighbourhood Policy EPC: European Political Cooperation

JHA: Justice & Home Affairs Pillar created in the Maastricht Treaty SEA: Single European Act

SIS: Schengen Information System UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

Abstract:

Immigration is one of the most prominent items on the political agenda across the European Union and beyond. Questions of the immigration and border regime of the European Union have once more come to the fore in recent years following the onset of the Mediterranean refugee crisis. Throughout the development of European immigration, border and asylum policy, ‘fortress Europe’ has been used as a metaphor for both the description of individual stages in the development and the overall trajectory of the advancement. With the

European Union now experiencing a refugee crisis at its southern borders, it is becoming increasingly important to accurately analyse how Europe reached this point. This thesis, through the construction of a narrative of the development of the European immigration, border and asylum regime, will explore to what extent ‘fortress Europe’ is a useful

metaphor for describing and analysing past and ongoing developments. The thesis will draw on existing literature from across academic, journalistic and official sources in order to assess the applicability of ‘fortress Europe’. Ultimately, the thesis will conclude by stressing the utility of ‘fortress Europe’ possesses as a descriptor of a series of policy measures, platforms and proposals which have been developing since the mid 1970s and have now come together with the moves towards a common European immigration regime.

Introduction

‘Fortress Europe’ has been used as a metaphor to describe a number of developments within the field of European asylum, border and immigration policy across four decades. Over the course of the past few years there has been a renewed intensive focus on the border and immigration regime of the European Union. The events occurring as a result of turmoil in the Middle East have resulted in a substantial increase in the amount of migrants attempting the perilous journey to the southern reaches of the EU. The sheer number of people attempting the journey have made it incredibly difficult to distinguish between genuine refugees and asylum seekers and those attempting to enter the EU illegally. “Europe is facing its second existential crisis in the space of five years. No sooner had European leaders patched together a solution to the Eurozone crisis, than divisions over how to respond to the surge of refugees and migrants arriving in Europe threatened once again to tear the EU apart” (Hampshire, J, 2015: 8). The scale of the crisis is indicated in yearly increase from 2014 to 2015, with 2014 itself marking an all time high for the amount of people crossing the external borders illegally, “In 2015, Member States reported more than 1 820 000 detections of illegal border crossings along the external borders. This never before seen figure was more than six times the number of detections reported in 2014, which was itself an unprecedented year, with record monthly averages observed since April 2014” (Frontex, 2016: 6).

With diverging perspectives on whether to or how many refugees to accept existing, the response to the crossing of the external borders of these migrants and the future of the Schengen zone had caused significant divisions between Member states. “Europe’s refugee crisis initially drove EU member states apart. Confronted in mid-2015 with a mass inflow of asylum seekers that threatened internal political stability, member states returned to the logic of narrow national self-interest” (Lehne, 2016). In a number of cases, this self-interest included the closing of border crossings, the reinstatement of border controls and even the construction of fences along broad stretches of the border. Thus many have accused the EU of reaching a new restrictive consensus with many prepared to construct a ‘fortress’ in order to prevent these flows from reaching the heart of the EU.

“Developments since late 2015 have shown, however, that shared fear might once again facilitate a return to a collective approach, albeit on the basis of a much more restrictive policy” (Lehne, 2016).

The renewed focus of Europe’s borders has occurred in a time when border controls, fences and patrols are being stepped up indicating a hardening of the external borders and a highly restrictive form of collective action perhaps representing ‘fortress Europe’ once more in the making. However, these arguments are far from new. The appeal of the term is evident from its usage across a number of areas over a long timespan within both academic and journalistic literature. The term has enjoyed usage as both a descriptor of current aspects of border and immigration policy as well as a predictor of the future trajectory of policy, with many authors claiming measures taken by European governments represent stages in the construction of ‘fortress Europe’. The continued resurfacing of the term in the field of immigration through the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s poses the question of how suitable the term is for describing the dynamics of the European border and immigration regime. Questions can be raised as to just what constitutes ‘fortress Europe’ following the varied applications in the past.

This thesis will present a narrative of the development of the European immigration regime that has been developing since the 1970s to the present day. based on content analysis and process tracing in order to trace the development of the European border, immigration and asylum regime in order to provide a succinct conceptual definition of ‘fortress Europe’. Through analysis of the key stages in the development of the regime, the series of policy measures and proposals dating back to the 1970s which can be said to constitute ‘fortress Europe’ can be identified. The restrictive practices which have occurred throughout the development look set to continue into the future through further advancement in the European border and immigration regime. Thus, it is important to clarify the term so that ‘fortress Europe’ can be used as a meaningful term of analysis in the coming years.

Rationale and Roadmap

What is Fortress Europe:

The term “fortress Europe” has been used extensively across both academic literature and advocacy literature. “Fortress Europe” has thus seen usage both as a rhetorical tool for the critique of the developing European immigration and border regime and as a descriptive metaphor for a series of policy platforms and proposals dating back to the 1970s, possessing a restrictive element which have come together in recent years and are now collectively termed as “fortress Europe”.

“Fortress Europe” in many instances has been employed as a means to critique and draw attention to an overly restrictive immigration, border and asylum policy which has come to exist in Europe. It is important to separate these uses of “fortress Europe” from those which aim to use “fortress Europe” as a means of analysing the series of policy proposals and platforms developing since. Within much of the advocacy literature, “fortress Europe” has been used as a rhetorical device in order to draw attention to the restrictive practices occurring at the European level within the field of borders, immigration and asylum without the balance of investigating the wider field of European border and immigration policy. While “fortress Europe” is a metaphor, as will be shown through the thesis by indicating how Europe does not represent a physical fortress, the use of the metaphor in this manner is appropriate for analysing a number of policy streams which have now come together, with restriction as a core element. Thus while it is important to be aware of the

metaphorical nature of the term, it cannot be disregarded as a descriptor possessing analytical utility.

Descriptive tool

Throughout the development towards a common European approach to immigration and asylum a number of key areas of policy proposals and platforms can be said to represent “fortress Europe” now that a common approach can be determined. Given that “fortress Europe” has been used as a response to a number of areas including migration policy, border management and asylum procedures, it is appropriate that such areas of policy must

be included in any conceptual definition of “fortress Europe”. The areas included will therefore be analysed in more depth throughout the thesis through the study of official documents outlining or implementing these policies. In some cases, such sources are complemented by secondary sources aimed at showing how “fortress Europe” has been used to describe these policy proposals and platforms throughout the development of the common European border and immigration policy. The core policy areas that can be said to now represent “fortress Europe” are:

 The Schengen Agreement: compensatory measures following the removal of internal frontiers

 Hardening of external border controls through physical infrastructure (surveillance mechanisms, fences and other physical barriers, maritime patrols

 Harmonisation of border management: development of common practices and standards including the growth of new bodies including Frontex and more recently moves towards a common European border guard aimed at implementing this harmonisation

 The gradual culmination of policy streams developing since the restrictive turn in 1970s which have now come together in such a way that it is appropriate to speak of a European approach to immigration and border management.

Critique/ Rhetorical tool:

In response to the seemingly restrictive turn in European immigration, border and asylum policy, a substantial field of literature has arisen from advocacy groups such as Amnesty International. Within this section of the literature the primary function of “fortress Europe” is to draw attention to what many believe to be an overly restrictive set of policy measures in the areas outlined above. While referring to the same policy areas, the use of the term in this manner does not seek to add analytical utility for the examination of European

immigration, border and asylum policy. Instead the term is used to conjure an image of Europe existing as an area surrounded by fortifications, through both physical measures and restrictive policies designed to prevent and/ or deter migrants and refugees from

attempting to access territorial Europe. Prominent international organisations fall within this category of the literature including Amnesty International and the UNHCR.

Through a study of the key stages in the development of the European immigration regime across the four decades in which ‘fortress Europe’ has been used as a descriptive and analytical term, the thesis will trace the development of the aforementioned policy areas and how ‘fortress Europe’ has come to represent a series of measures we see today under the heading of a common European approach to immigration.

The thesis will begin with an account of the existing literature in order to examine the ways in which ‘fortress Europe’ has been applied to the developing European border and

immigration regime. Following the literature review, the thesis will provide a narrative study of the central developments in the European immigration and border regime throughout the period which conform to the policy areas for which ‘fortress Europe’ has been used as a descriptive metaphor. In addition to the substantive measures implemented, the overall trajectory can be analysed through accounting for the core issues and stages across the period of development.

The second chapter begins this narrative by examining issues associated with European immigration occurring throughout the 1970s following the liberal immigration and guest worker policies of the 1950s and 1960s. By providing a description of the migration patterns and issues faced by European countries in the wake of such flows, the chapter provides a background to many of the issues covered in later chapters. Furthermore, the origins of many of the structures influencing the restrictive trajectory of development in later years can be traced to this period.

Continuing the narrative, the third chapter investigates the debates and negotiations over competency for immigration, border and asylum measures occurring through the 1980s and 90s, and the role of the Schengen Agreement. As an idea, ‘fortress Europe’ has often been utilised in a way that associates the process of Europeanisation of immigration policy with ever increasing restriction. The 1980s and 1990s were central in establishing the level and

trajectory for the Europeanisation of immigration policy and, in addition, the 1990s is the decade in which the idea of ‘fortress Europe’ was most heavily applied to measures taken at the European level. By examining the processes occurring through these years, the

applicability of ‘fortress Europe’ as a metaphor for describing these processes can be tested.

The final chapter addresses the stages occurring through the 2000s. Following the

Amsterdam Treaty of 1997, the debate over competency had been largely addressed and therefore, this chapter moves on to addressing the substantive measures taken as a part of the three multi annual plans conceived at Tampere 1999, The Hague 2005 and Stockholm 2010. With many of the substantive measures taken as a part of these plans being described as constituent parts or ‘bricks in the wall’ of ‘fortress Europe’, it is important to examine to what extent ‘fortress Europe’ captures the dynamics of the developments.

Chapter 1: Literature Review & Methodology

‘Fortress Europe’ has been used in literature in the field of migration since the mid 1980s, continuing through to contemporary events, resurfacing in the wake of almost all of the key events throughout the development of the European immigration regime. Throughout its usage, a wide variety of phenomena have been associated with the creation of ‘fortress Europe’ ranging from the management of the physical external borders of the European Union to the harmonisation of asylum processes. The use of the word ‘fortress’ conjures a certain image of Europe existing as a geographical area surrounded by impenetrable

defences and hard physical measures such as high walls or even a moat. While this is not the case, subsequent sections will examine to what extent ‘fortress Europe’ is able to capture the reality of the existing immigration regime. The primary objective of this literature review will be to show that ‘fortress Europe’ exists as a means of describing the current European border, immigration and asylum regime, following the coming together of a stream of policy measures, platforms and proposals running throughout the mid to late 20th _Century.

However, to this point it has been problematic to establish how and where these policy streams were first established. Furthermore, this literature review will show how other uses, such as in the advocacy literature, the term has been deployed as a rhetorical term rather than an attempt to analyse the processes ongoing with European immigration, border and asylum policy.

The first area in which ‘fortress Europe’ had a prominent usage was in relation to the priority attached to combatting illegal immigration, a central aspect of any definition of ‘fortress Europe’. As shown by Albrecht, “in fact, immigration has become a high ranked European concern over the last two decades. This is due in particular to the opening of borders between East and West of Europe as well as to a debate on safety in Europe, the onset of which is marked by the creation and implementation of the Schengen Treaties and the abolition of inner border controls in most of Western Europe. Strengthening control of the external Schengen borders certainly has been at the centre of the attempt to reduce unwanted and illegal immigration” (Albrecht, 2002: 2). Furthermore, Albrecht uses ‘fortress Europe’ to describe the difficulty which such migrants experience when attempting the journey to reach Europe: “incidents like those of the 58 Chinese nationals found suffocated

in a container in Dover or the regular reports on scores of clandestine migrants found drowned on the beaches of Spain and Italy fuel a debate on how best to respond to those enormous risks illegal immigrants evidently are ready to take by attempting to climb over the walls of the fortress Europe” (Albrecht, 2002: 4). The way in which ‘fortress Europe’ is employed here is illustrative of a wider trend in which it is used to describe difficulty encountered by those attempting to enter Europe, that was described as ‘scaling the walls of ‘fortress Europe’ (Broeders, 2007: 71). A further example of how ‘fortress Europe’ has been employed as a metaphor for describing policy measures in this area is in relation to the creation of Frontex, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union. “This is particularly reflected in the practice of EU Member States, which have taken many initiatives in the maritime domain to strengthen the external borders of ‘fortress’ Europe. Lately, this practice is coordinated by a European Agency, commonly referred to as FRONTEX, which was established in 2004 in order to coordinate the operational cooperation between Member States in the field of external borders management”. Furthermore, in the same vein, ‘fortress Europe’ has been used as a descriptor for the surveillance networks

constructed using the Schengen Information System (SIS), the Visa Information System (VIS) and Eurosur. The EU has been labelled as ‘cyber-fortress Europe’ (Guild, Carrera & Geyer, 2008: 154) and even ‘Panopticon Europe’ following the introduction of such surveillance measures (Engbersen, 2001). While it is clear that throughout the period of this study, surveillance measures were substantially increased and continue to be under the second generation versions of the aforementioned systems, the surveillance measures are part of a wider, more complex system going beyond purely migration oriented functions. While aiding restrictive policies by enhancing data collection, the surveillance networks

constructed have purposes going beyond that of enacting a restrictive immigration policy including crime and terrorism prevention Hard physical measures have been taken in an attempt to reduce illegal/ irregular immigration yet Europe has not isolated and insulated itself from international migration flows, and the external borders are not characterized by features suggesting a fortress has been constructed. The ‘fortress Europe’ academic

literature in the area of physical borders often centres on the cases and operations undertaken including the Spanish enclaves of Melilla and Ceuta, Operation Seahorse and other naval/ coastguard operations (Pinos, 2009; Andersson, 2015). The wall in Ceuta

(Melilla should also be included), which was built in order to defend the enclave(s) from migrants seeking their way into the EU, as the best material representation of the idea of Fortress Europe.

Other authors such as Petra Bendel (2005: 30) Andrew Geddes (2008) and S. Sterkx (2008) use ‘fortress Europe’ in general terms as a means of describing a number of policies reflective of the policy streams to be investigated through the thesis: “as we have seen, border control, sanctions for human trafficking and return policies are still the most important bricks in the walls of ‘fortress Europe’, a fortress that seems tempted to extend its walls even beyond its own borders – as in the case of the debate about holding centres in North Africa, opened by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and rewarmed by the German interior minister Otto Schily”. The way in which Bendel uses the term in relation to such a wide range of policies is indicative of its appeal and the utilty the term has come to possess. Further examples following the same usage in general terms came in the years preceding the completion of the internal market and also as part of the so called ‘securitization of migration’, a phenomenon which was seen in the late 1980s and again in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Jef Huysmans, a prominent author in the field of securitization, links the completion of the single market to the trajectory of European immigration policy leading towards ‘fortress Europe’. According to him, “the reasoning can be summarized as follows: if we diminish internal border controls then we must harmonize and strengthen the control at the external borders of the European community to guarantee a sufficient level of control of who and what can legitimately enter the space of free movement” and “those who feared that the development of the internal market would lead to a clamp down on the international free movement warned that a ‘fortress Europe’ was in the making”

(Huysmans, 2000: 759). Huysmans, citing Ireland and Bigo thus associates the ongoing policy developments within a trajectory leading towards ‘fortress Europe’. Such an idea was

furthered by Pinos, again situated in the securitization of migration literature: “what seems clear is that the notion of Fortress Europe confirms a marked trend towards the

A further area to be included when assessing ‘fortress Europe’ is that of asylum procedure and policy. Asylum represents a prominent theme throughout the utilisation of ‘fortress Europe’ and an important part of its early inception. ‘Fortress Europe’ in the field of asylum has remained one of the largest areas of the literature. The thrust of the argument is that there has been a marked emphasis on making it increasingly difficult for refugees and those seeking asylum to be granted protection in Europe. It is commonly concluded in the

literature that European integration in general, and moves towards a common European asylum and refugee policy in particular, are having a negative impact on protection regimes in Europe, making it more difficult for forced migrants to reach Europe and to benefit from asylum. This ‘fortress Europe’ argument is based on the claim that European integration has fostered such restrictiveness through processes such as the curtailing of ‘venue-shopping’, ‘securitization’ and the legitimization of lowest common denominator standards”

(Thielemann, E, and El-Enany, N, 2008). One of the earliest uses of ‘fortress Europe’ came in relation to asylum. Alexander Casella uses the term ‘fortress Europe’ as a way to emphasise the potential trajectory for future European asylum policy if current (mid 1980s) attitudes and policy developments continue. “There is little doubt that if the present situation is permitted to endure, it will threaten Europe's generous tradition of asylum and will further encourage the creation of a 'Fortress Europe' mentality which will become increasingly restrictive to North- South population movements” (Casella, 1988: 190). Casella’s argument is hinged on the premise that Europe is increasingly tightening asylum procedures in a response to the growth in number of extra – European refugees.

“With the issue today being immigration, and governments confronting the refugee question (which many would-be immigrants try to take advantage of) as an immigration question, the real losers are the 'genuine' refugees. They are increasingly denied access to determination procedures. Similarly, the 'good' immigrant, having been accepted through legal channels, also has to pay the price of xenophobia created by the disorderly influx of immigrants-cum-asylum-seekers which governments are incapable of confronting, except by negative action.

The arguments of ‘fortress Europe’ in the field of asylum have been further developed in light of the externalization of EU policy through policies such as the European

Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) and readmission agreements.

“Current EU Member States are very concerned about illegal migration from the East and are putting considerable pressure on candidate countries to set up efficient asylum systems and, more importantly to them, strict border controls” (Phuong, 2003: 641). Therefore, while asylum policy is a constituent part of ‘fortress Europe’ as a means of description, it has also been employed as a means to draw attention to and critique the ‘over restrictive’ turn in asylum policy in the EU. “The immigration and refugee policies currently being developed within the EC and in the separate intergovernmental arrangements attempt to better control external borders and deter new immigrants and refugees, creating what some have called Fortress Europe” (Leitner, 1995: 273). Leitner here suggests that ‘fortress Europe’ has been constructed through the control of the external borders yet also gains longevity through the continuous deterrence of future refugees. While in relation to asylum, ‘fortress Europe’ has often been used as a critique of the resulting difficulty from policy changes, asylum is a core aspect of the European immigration regime and thus must be included in any definition and study of ‘fortress Europe’ as a meaningful descriptor of this regime.

Moving away from the academic literature, ‘fortress Europe’ has received much attention from advocacy groups. In this manner “fortress Europe” has been used as a tool to draw attention to the restrictive practices occurring as part of the development of a common European approach to border management. The advocacy group literature on “fortress Europe” represents a significant piece of of the overall literature yet the uses lack the commonality found within academic literature. The majority of the literature comes in either publicised documents or online articles and newspapers. Prominent groups including Amnesty International and Caritas Europe can be found within the literature along with a number of lesser known organisations. While the usage of “fortress Europe” by these groups has been a long standing phenomenon, a significant amount has surfaced following the renewed focus on European immigration policy following the refugee and migrant crises occurring since 2013 at Europe’s southern borders.

The use of “fortress Europe” within the advocacy literature holds a different function to the usage in academic literature. The objective is not to analyse the policy initiatives and

measures taken at the European level but to use the term to draw attention to a proposed link between European immigration policy, labelled as an “increasingly impenetrable fortress to keep irregular migrants out” (Amnesty International, 2014, 5) and issues of human rights, humanitarian protection and the mistreatment/ poor conditions of migrants. Further examples of this objective can be seen in the article “Seeking False Security at Fortress Europe’s Gates” published on www.truth-out.org citing “More than 100

humanitarian organizations warned in a recent statement that the current border policy "has left thousands of people stranded in Greece in inhumane and degrading conditions ... with many hundreds of unaccompanied children being held in closed detention facilities or forced to sleep in police cells." (Chen, 2016) Furthermore, Caritas Europe uses the headline “Asylum Seekers are not a threat to Europe - our policies are a threat to them” and goes as far as to claim that ‘fortress Europe’ is slowly transforming into ‘undertaker Europe’ (Caritas 2015). The usage in this manner bears some overlap with the previous discussed academic literature in such that it broadly corresponds to the same policy areas identified as the following:

 The Schengen Agreement: compensatory measures following the removal of internal frontiers

 Hardening of external border controls through physical infrastructure (surveillance mechanisms, fences and other physical barriers, maritime patrols

 Harmonisation of border management: development of common practices and standards including the growth of new bodies including Frontex and more recently moves towards a common European border guard aimed at implementing this harmonisation

 The gradual culmination of policy streams developing since the restrictive turn in 1970s which have now come together in such a way that it is appropriate to speak of a European approach to immigration and border management.

However, the overlaps do not go much further. The principle objective of the advocacy literature is not the analysis of the substantive immigration policy but the investigation and attempts to draw attention to the hardship of migrants and refugees in a broader sense. The language of the publications and articles thus draws heavily on human rights, issues of humanitarian protection and the mistreatment/ poor conditions for the arriving migrants. Given the recent events occurring at the borders of Europe and the questionable legality of the border operations mounted by many countries affected, both within and outside of the EU policy framework, the advocacy literature has grown into a rich environment for the use of “fortress Europe” as a rhetorical tool. In the case of this part of the literature, the term “fortress Europe” comes across as a rhetorical tool for a number of reasons. Firstly, the usage in recent years has shown that the term is used to describe a set of short term, reactive measures taken within a crisis environment but following that little detail is given to how the actual policy is reflective of a “fortress”, the term is used in order to draw attention to other issues high on each groups agenda. The academic uses of ‘fortress Europe’ have been most prominent through the 1990s and early 2000s with a few uses of the term occurring more recently. Yet the advocacy literature using the term has blossomed online following the developments in the migration crisis following the turmoil in the Middle East. As such, this difference is highlighted between the two areas of literature. Second, by focussing on certain aspects of immigration policy, rather than a holistic approach, the policy is shown to be overly restrictive. The exclusion of information about the advances in asylum policy shows much of the advocacy literature and thus uses of ‘fortress Europe’ to be a rhetorical tool to highlight a partial picture of European immigration, border and asylum policy. This is contrary to the usage in academic literature as ‘fortress Europe’ has come to represent a distinct series of policy measures, proposals and platforms reaching back to the mid 1970s that have come together in recent years indicating a common approach along restrictive lines while still including and acknowledging other moves in the field of humanitarian protection and asylum procedures beyond the narrow scope of the current migrant crisis. A further trend separating the advocacy literature from the academic is in the scope of the analysis. Much of the academic literature using ‘fortress Europe’ employs the term as a measure of the overall trajectory of European immigration, asylum and border policy over a long period of time, encompassing the development in a number of policy areas which have now come together in recent years as a common European

approach. Conversely, much of the advocacy literature focuses on smaller geographical locations such as the Hungarian border (Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, 2015) or Ukraine (UNHCR, 2006) or as a reaction to certain situations/ events. An example of such is Caritas Europe, who begin their article with “Caritas Europa mourns the loss of 50 lives of asylum seekers in Austria and over 200 off Libyan shore in the last 48 hours. Their death would have been avoided if a common European safe and legal access pathway were in place” (Caritas Europe, 2015).

The use of ‘fortress Europe’ to this point has covered a wide variety of policy areas

reflecting the streams to be investigated in the following chapters. While ‘fortress Europe’ has featured prominently in multiple policy measures, to this point it has lacked the coherence and definition needed to enhance its utility as a useful descriptor of the

contemporary environment. Therefore, this thesis will seek to establish the processes which have been ongoing since the 1970s towards what we now see as a series of policy measures, platforms and proposals spanning a number of issue areas which can be labelled as ‘fortress Europe’. The objective being to bring coherence to a term which, while possessing much rhetorical and metaphorical purchase to this point has not fulfilled its descriptive or

analytical potential. By providing a narrative assessing the origins and processes guiding the development of ‘fortress Europe’ this thesis aims to bring together the various strands of ‘fortress Europe’ providing a succinct conceptual definition which encompasses the dynamics occurring within European immigration, asylum and border policy today.

Methodology

In order to establish and trace the processes ongoing within the various streams of policy proposals, measures and platforms which are said to form the idea of “fortress Europe” as found in the academic literature, the primary methodology of the thesis has been content analysis and process tracing. Throughout the research project a large number of official documents originating both from member state and European institutions were analysed in order to trace the development of the policy platforms so often included in any notion of “fortress Europe”.

As “fortress Europe” is not a term that exists within official policy documents, except for attempts to dispel the label, the analysis was not conducted using a search for the term. Instead, through the analysis of secondary sources for the literature review, a list of key policy platforms, measures and proposals was compiled based on common areas labelled as “fortress Europe”. From this point, a search of the online archives of the European Union for documents relating to these policies was conducted. In many cases snowball sampling was the basis for document discovery using documents found in the initial search for the discovery of further documents. Each document was examined for the policy processes occurring in the areas previously established in the literature review. The methodology was conducting in a temporal manner beginning with the ‘restrictive turn’ of the 1970s following the guest worker policies and then sought to follow these policy trails through to the

common European immigration policy we see today.

The analysis of primary sources covered a broad field of documents including legislative proposals and white papers, implementing accords and implementation documents, communications issued from a number of institutions including the European Commission, the European Council, the European Parliament and the national governments of Member States. Analysis using such documents proved suitable for the project in a number of ways. Firstly, the wealth of source material available meant that a wealth of material existed in each policy area explored. With a variety of sources existing for the majority of policy measures, it was possible to trace the development and processes occurring, leading to the latter stages of implementation and inclusion in European policy. Second, the longevity of online archives, documents from European institutions and member states dating back to many of the primary initiatives taken towards the idea of “fortress Europe”. With

documents existing dating back to these primary moves, the overall trajectory of the

process is more easily established. Finally, the existence of scoreboard documents published at consistent intervals following the implementation of agreements and action plans allow for analysis of how successful the implementation had been, and allowed for comparison with secondary sources seeking to examine the same thing.

The official documents were primarily collected through the Official Journal of the European Union and searching of the European Union website for the collection of white papers, Council and Commission Communications and scoreboard documents. The scoreboard documents were especially useful as they provided retrospective analysis on the success or failure of implementation allowing for comparison against academic sources. In some cases, documents were not available in English or did not appear as part of the search criteria but websites such as Statewatch often contained the required document. In relation to specific policies and areas, individual websites were consulted such as that of Frontex when

assessing the role of the EU in the management of external borders and in the collection of statistical evidence.

The thesis is organised in a temporal manner reflecting the way in which the research was carried out carried out. A temporal narrative is the most appropriate for the study as much of the ‘fortress Europe’ literature points towards a restrictive trajectory and it is important to trace this trajectory through the core stages in the development of the European border and immigration regime. By first establishing how ‘fortress Europe’ had been used as a metaphor, descriptor and term of analysis, and in addition, how widely it had been used, the starting point for the thesis had been established. As stated in the literature review, arguments of ‘fortress Europe’ began with the restrictive turn of the 1970s and so the following chapter investigates the causes and measures implemented giving rise to the claims of ‘fortress Europe’. The subsequent chapter continues the narrative throughout the era in which the debate over competency in immigration was settled. Much of the ‘fortress Europe’ literature closely associates the process of Europeanisation with the restrictive trajectory of European immigration policy towards ‘fortress Europe’. By investigating the core stages in this transfer of competency, the analysis of official documents is able to assess whether such stages are accurately represented by ‘fortress Europe’. The final chapter assesses the developments occurring through the late 1990s and into the 2000s. This period is crucial as it represents the time in which the majority of substantive measures have been implemented, and a substantial amount of these measures are described as contributing to the construction of ‘fortress Europe’. Through the analysis of academic and official sources, the thesis will investigate as to what extent these measures are accurately described by the usage of ‘fortress Europe’.

Chapter 2: Early Developments in the European Immigration Regime 1945-74

The early uses of ‘fortress Europe’ surfaced in the mid 1980s and arose as a response to the restrictive turn in European immigration policy in the mid 1970s. The period prior to this restrictive turn, following the Second World War, is crucial within the development of European competency in immigration, asylum and border policy. Within this period Europe is said to have experienced four major migrations: “the periods of war adjustment and decolonization, labour migration, restrained migration, and finally, dissolution of socialism and afterwards” (Zimmerman, 1995: 46). The early post War period witnessed large migratory flows resulting from the territorial and ethnic shifts following the cessation of hostilities and the beginning of the Cold War. The phase of European immigration from 1945 – 1960 did not cause the kind of debate and division of later immigration issues due to the intra European nature of the flows, with the majority being ethnic Germans leaving eastern Europe. From the 1950s to the mid 1970s, Europe witnessed high levels of labour migration, often encouraged and actively recruited through networks designed to bring in cheap, temporary workers from southern Europe and its fringes to northern European countries, especially Germany. The policies of the guest worker, which were in place in a number of northern European states were to have a profound impact on the future

development and framing of immigration in Europe and is crucial within the development of ‘fortress Europe’ as both an idea and a critique. The politics of the Cold War in Europe have had a decisive impact on the European immigration regime in a number of ways. A further development within this post War environment was that of the globalized refugee crisis. The politically charged environment of the Cold War in Europe led to the asylum seeker being seen as an issue of politics. As argued by Whitaker (1998), the category of the refugee developed into a selective construction of the legitimate refugee in order to strike a moral blow to the Soviet Union while denying access to many caught up in the globalized refugee crisis. Once the globalized refugee crisis began to impact upon Europe, the restrictive turn in response to the overstay of workers was expanded to the asylum procedures of many European countries. Eastern Europe was to have a greater impact beyond the question of asylum seekers. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, European immigration policy and the framing of migration began to be shaped by the fear of large scale immigration from

the East contributing notably to the issues explored in chapter three. These four phases of immigration in Europe have been both crucial in the development of European immigration policy throughout the same historical period, at a European level and at a national level, and in the development of ‘fortress Europe’ as a descriptor of the resulting policy trajectory and measures.

An Overview of European Policies

The European immigration and asylum landscape in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War is far removed from the climate in which the usage of ‘fortress Europe’ is

predominantly found. Nonetheless, the origins of the term, policies and attitudes to which it was a response can be traced to this early period. The immediate aftermath of the Second World War is a crucial period in the development of the European immigration regime. “After the second world war, several countries rapidly introduced systems of temporary labour recruitment to speed up reconstruction and to compensate in part for wartime manpower” (Castles, 1986: 762). From 1950 to 1973 the economies of the OECD countries grew on average 5% per year, indicating why the need for foreign workers became so pronounced in the post War years (Stalker, 2002: 153). While there was no coherent Europe wide system of labour migration, a number of the largest European economies experienced some form of labour migration. As a result of the immigration and guest worker policies of northern European countries, the net immigration for Europe over this period reached ten million in contrast to the period from 1914-1949 which had a net outflow of four million (Stalker, 2002: 153). The experiences of immigration in this period varied widely reflecting the sociohistorical differences existing across European countries. The colonial powers, most notably The United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands received an influx of migrants from former colonial possessions who often filled the low skilled and lower paid positions. The UK especially benefitted from the growth in migration from the former Empire. “The [European Voluntary Workers] system only operated until 1951, mainly

because other labour sources were adequate: first British capital's traditional labour reserve in Ireland, and from the fifties onwards the inflow of black workers from the disintegrating Empire” (Castles, 1986: 762). Despite the largely postcolonial nature of labour immigration to Britain, in all, 600,000 European ‘aliens’ were recruited to work in Britain in the post-war years (McDowell, 2008: 23). The French experience of labour migration is perhaps the most

varied within Europe in this period as a number of differing sources of migrants were utilised. As early as 1945, the Office National d’Immigration was created to organize recruitment of foreign labour and there was a continuous flow of migration until the restrictive turn in the mid 1970s. French labour migration occurred from former colonial possessions including Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, southern, and south eastern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Yugoslavia) (Castles, 1986). Between 1946 and 1970, two million European migrant workers, and around 690,000 dependents entered France. Furthermore, by 1970, there were over 600,000 Algerians, 140,000 Moroccans and 90,000 Tunisians (Castles, 1986: 763-764). The experience of France is characteristic of the issues of settlement associated with large scale labour migration including the provision of welfare and social services, housing and the rise of xenophobia and racism. Such social issues in France are epitomized by the growth in shanty towns or bidonvilles along with killings of Algerians (32 in 1973 alone) (Castles, 1986: 763-764). The Netherlands, similar to the United Kingdom, experienced a growth in migrant labour both through former colonial ties (Dutch East Indies, Netherlands Antilles and Surinam) and through guest worker programmes via recruitment agreements with a number of southern European countries (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Yugoslavia and Tunisia). By 1977, there were 105,000 workers accompanied by 80,000 dependents from the Mediterranean countries; by 1985, official estimates show that 338,000 persons of Mediterranean ethnic origin presided in the Netherlands with the total number of members of minority groups being around 659,000 (SOPEMI Netherlands cited in Castles, 1986:762). Further developments over decades following the labour migration indicated the difficulty which would be found in reversing the effects of guest worker programmes despite the benefits provided to the northern European economies. Finally, the case of West Germany. The German Federal Republic created the most highly organized of all the European guest worker systems, partly due to the lack of former colonial ties (Stalker, 2002: 153). The German system included the provision of housing by the employers and also a complex legal and administrative framework for the recruitment, processing and the awarding of residence/ employment permits (Castles, 1986: 768-769). The extent of the guest worker programmes in Germany is shown by the sharp increase in numbers of foreign workers present in the country: 95,000 in 1956 to 1.3 million in 1966, rising further still to 2 million by 1970 and 2.6 million by 1973, the foreign population peaked in 1982 at 4.7 million (Castles, 1986: 768-769). Yet, by the mid 1970s, as with the other European countries, the

difficulties of integrating the workers, often denied the virtues of citizenship, into society along with family reunification and ethnic divisions were becoming more prominent.

Issues arising from the influx and the Restrictive Turn

The origins of the restrictive trajectory so often hailed in later years by the usage of ‘fortress Europe’ can be traced to the aftermath of liberal policies and high number of arrivals shown in the previous section. The suitability of the policies was derived predominantly from the view that the workers would be temporary and return to their country of origin once the employers’ need of them evaporated yet the complexity involved in such systems was underappreciated. The attitude towards guest workers and subsequent difficulties

associated with the failure of rotation schemes is summed up in the aphorism of Max Frisch: “we asked for workers, and we got people,” people on whom German employers came to rely, and who formed attachments to Germany (Martin, 2001: 3). The issues caused by the guest worker policies continued to develop over time and became evident in a number of areas including citizenship and political rights, settlement, family reunion, and social and ethnic division.

The economic downturn in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis marked a turning point for the liberal immigration policies characteristic of the aftermath of the Second World War. The subsequent recession and the rise in unemployment, from 2% in the 1960s to 8% in the 1980s (figures for the EU15) lessened the demand for foreign workers and the schemes were abruptly halted (Blanchard, 2005: 3). Following the cessation of the programmes, the deep seated issues began to surface. While a substantial amount of foreign workers did indeed only stay for a limited time period, a large proportion had become rooted in the host country and with the processes of family reunion occurring throughout the period, such migrants were set to remain. “The ban on entries of dependents proved impossible to enforce, for both legal and practical reasons. The official belief that many migrants would leave, and thus alleviate the strains of the growing recession, proved false” (Castles, 1986: 764). The temporary migrant worker schemes prior to 1973 lacked the corresponding assimilation policies necessary for the integration of the large amount of permanent migrants received due to the lack of a strict rotation scheme [with Switzerland being the exception] (Zimmerman, 1995: 58).

The foreign workers who entered Europe during this period were limited by a number of practical barriers and legal sanctions in order to maintain the temporary nature of their migration, which ultimately failed. “It testifies to the failure of the whole system of legal sanctions which in almost every country seeks to ensure the temporary character of the immigration - by tying workers to certain jobs, restricting their job mobility, requiring renewal of work and residence permits, inhibiting the reunion of families, etc.” (Böhning, 1974: 158). The desire for temporary labour existed throughout Europe, however, as was the case with the policies and recruitment systems, a high degree of variety existed

between the European states in regards to the restrictive turn in the mid 1970s. Switzerland had perhaps the strictest and most enforceable policy of temporary guest workers in Europe throughout the period of overseas recruitment. Policies ensured rapid rotation in order to avoid long term settlement, in combination with the minimal admission of dependents.

“Since 1970, the policy goal has been to ‘stabilize’ the number of foreign workers, first with respect to the total of established plus controlled annual permit holders, and since July 1973, including the number of seasonal workers as well (but still excluding frontier workers). Here we have a policy of rotation under the name of ‘stabilization’ with the aim of keeping the inflow to zero. Any further immigration of workers requires the dropping out of an established, controlled or seasonal foreign worker” (Böhning, 1974: 161).

Despite the stricter policies in Switzerland, the high number of foreign workers remained fairly constant following the 1970s. The peak number of foreign workers in Switzerland was 897,000 in 1973, declining to 650,000 in 1977 yet increasing again to 738,000 in August 1981, more or less maintained ever since (Castles, 1986: 767).

In the Federal Republic of Germany and the Netherlands, policies aimed at inducing rotation were followed. Such policies included legal frameworks for the deterrence of settlement and in some cases financial incentives for returning to the country of origin. Efforts to reverse the long term impact of the guest worker programmes carried on well into the 1980s. “A [German] law of 1982 emphasized two principles for future policy: integration and return. The return aspect was enacted by another law in 1983. It envisaged three basic

instruments to motivate return: financial incentives, reduction of return barriers and consultation of potential returners” (Dustman, Bentolila & Faini, 1996: 222). The

sociohistorical differences between European countries which led to the divergent policies of recruitment and immigration also led to contrasting approaches to dealing with the complications thereafter. In contrast to the German experience, France was able to launch a return programme as early as 1975 including financial incentives and educational

programmes yet French policy also sought to encourage naturalization (Dustman, Bentolila & Faini, 1996: 222).

In comparison to the other European countries implementing returns and induced/ forced rotation policies, France stands out as markedly different in this manner. In the case of European migrants, France maintained a fairly liberal stance largely leaving the return decision to the individual. In regards to foreign workers from outside the European

Community, they were entitled to claim financial incentives in order to increase the rate of return. While this policy began in 1975, relatively low levels of foreign settlers took the offer until it was expanded in the 1980s in response to developing social problems (Dustman, Bentolila & Faini, 1996: 222). The relationships and experience of France in this respect differ somewhat from that of Germany due to the colonial history of France and the contrasting policies on citizenship and naturalization.

Despite policies aimed at ensuring the temporary nature of the migration and inducing the return of a substantial number of migrants, they ultimately failed and multiple European countries were left with social and political conundrums regarding the status and

integration of the migrant populations. Nonetheless, native employees were able to move up the employment chain into higher paid and higher skilled jobs due to the willingness of foreign workers to undertake the low paid and low skilled jobs. This process resulted in foreign workers becoming indispensable to the European economies, despite the governments’ wishes for their return to the country of origin.

The failure of European countries to develop coherent and suitable integration or

assimilation policies was to have a harsh backlash in the years and decades following the guest worker programmes and immigration from former colonial possessions.

The European societies found it increasingly difficult to reconcile the large numbers of temporary foreign workers turned permanent rooted migrants with the existing values and social structures. With the family reunification occurring in the aftermath of the guest worker programmes, further issues with second and third generation migrants began to surface in the years following the restrictive turn exacerbating social difficulties within European societies. Evidence of this difficulty is found with the issues of racism, xenophobia and the exclusion of migrant communities in France leading to the establishment of social movements and protests among second generation migrants. “A new generation of activists had entered the public sphere, for the most part the children of immigrants, and they drew attention to social exclusion and marginalization. These changes occurred in a political climate that had witnessed not only the first post-war electoral victory for the Socialists but also significant inroads by the Front National” (Boubeker, 2003: 1). France was not an isolated case in this respect, Germany also struggled with the political conundrum associated with the unexpected settlement of large number of foreign workers.

“Indeed, since the end of the 1970s, Germany had changed into a post-industrial society and then been exposed to the impact of globalization. Subsequently, this society is characterized by socio-economic polarization and urban segregation. It is also characterized by increasing cultural pluralization and by a ‘crisis of political representation’, which is accompanied by the formation of new political

cleavages”. (Häußermann and Wurtzbacher 2012, Hradil, 2006, Kriesi, 2008, cited in Loch, 2014: 678).

The restrictive turn in Europe in the 1970s following the economic downturn and the

subsequent development of social complications resulting from the influx of foreign workers is crucial in the historical evolution of ‘fortress Europe’. The early uses of the term existed as a form of description, and sometimes a critique of the moves towards a restrictive

immigration, border and citizenship regime unfolding in Europe as a response to the issues thrown up by post War migration.

Asylum Seekers in Europe

The issues associated with the guest worker and post colonial migrations in Europe were not the only cause of the restrictive turn in the 1970s and 80s. The growth in the number of extra European asylum seekers led to tightening and harmonisation of asylum processes across Europe. “Western Europe has been subjected to an increasing irregular flow of asylum-seekers from the third world. This uncontrolled influx, which has now extended to Canada, has reached such massive proportions that it has triggered a generalised defensive reflex in recipient countries” (Casella, 1988: 187). This occurred both at a national level and later European level through the gradual supranationalisation of asylum policy. The period in which this growth of asylum claimants from the third world is situated is also that in which developments towards European competency for immigration, borders and asylum was developing, culminating with the agreement of the Dublin Convention 1990.

In the years following the oil crisis of 1973, within the same period as European

governments attempted to reduce the amount of foreign workers through return policies investigated in the previous section, the amount of asylum seekers into Europe was gradually increasing (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: Number of asylum seekers in Europe 1972-1987 (data from Casella, 1988: 188). 0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000 250.000 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Asylum-seekers

The shifting of the origins of the refugees and asylum seekers away from being

predominantly European is the principle reason for the difficulties faced in the 1980s. The extra European arrivals required greater resources for support and processing, with

decisions taking a number of years and, following a decision, a lack of cooperation with the country of origin in order to facilitate a return. “Previous asylum-seekers had mainly been either Europeans or residents of Europe. The new wave of arrivals came mostly from the third world - Palestinians from Lebanon, Iranians, or Tamils from Sri Lanka. Their arrival required far more processing than that of the previous groups. National bureaucracies, geared for processing a few hundred asylum-seekers a year, were suddenly swamped by the arrival of thousands” (Casella, 1988: 188). “The real problem of irregular asylum-seekers in Europe, as it is perceived today, actually started in 1982 and 1983. It went undetected at the time because there was no mechanism to enable the European countries to compare data and coordinate policies. Thus, each European government tended to view the problem in a narrow parochial perspective and seek either national or bilateral solutions, often at the expense of its neighbours” (Casella, 1988: 188). Difficulties and competing national interests arose from the lack of a unified regional European response to what had now become a European question. The ramifications of this incoherence is shown by the effects of one country changing its policy on its immediate neighbours. Such an instance occurred between Sweden and Denmark: “to stop the inflow rather than change its asylum legislation, Sweden prevailed on Poland and East Germany to close the transit door by imposing a demand for transit visas These measures - which did not affect direct arrivals by air - proved of no avail, partly due to Denmark's position” (Casella, 1988: 189). While the majority of the issues relating to asylum and the development of European competency in the relevant matters will be included in the next chapter, it is important to state the significance of this early period in the context of the restrictive sentiments prior to

‘Fortress Europe’?

The complications caused by the influx of migrants following the Second World War have had many long term implications and thus the restrictive turn in policies was only a

response to a limited number of concerns. The social issues and questions of citizenship are situated within the wider debates over the integration of European immigration and asylum policy and the development of European citizenship practice developing in the second half of the 20th _{Century. Thus the full extent of the implications of the flows in the aftermath of}

the Second World War also fall within the other historical cases examined in this thesis.

The restrictive turn in immigration policy enacted by northern European countries in the 1970s certainly poses questions in relation to the development of ‘fortress Europe’ as a descriptor for immigration policy. Two crucial points come to the fore within this period. Firstly, the restrictive turn in the admission policies of the former labour and post colonial immigration countries. Second, the denial of rights and virtues of citizenship to the

immigrants leading to future exclusion and marginalisation. The restrictive turn in admission policies, evident in the cessation of recruitment drives and promotion of guest/ temporary worker schemes, certainly points in the direction of the erection of restrictive barriers to the migration of people into northern Europe. The trajectory set in the wake of the restrictive turn is supportive of the idea of ‘fortress Europe’ as attention had turned to limiting the number of arrivals in Europe. While this is a very early stage, it marked the beginning of the restrictiveness that came to dominate the number of policy areas which can now be said to come under the auspices of ‘fortress Europe’.

While the issues faced in regards to social problems and the permanent settlement of who were thought to be temporary certainly impacted on the trajectory of future immigration policy, structures created through bodies such as Trevi were able to guide the debate surrounding immigration policy, linking the debate closely with the field of security, a link which has persisted throughout the late 20th _{and early 21}st _{Centuries. The following chapter}

will continue the narrative of the development of the European immigration, asylum and border regime through the 1980s and assess the accuracy of the claims of ‘fortress Europe’ arising throughout this period.

The focus of the chapter will be on the steps taken towards Europeanisation of immigration policy through the notable treaties and agreements as these represent a central element in the trajectory of European immigration and border policy.

Chapter 3: The European Immigration Regime through the 1980s and 1990s

The development of a European approach through the 1980s was central to ‘fortress Europe’ through the focus of European Member States upon certain policy areas within immigration, asylum and borders, primarily the combatting of illegal immigration. The areas in which action took place reflected prior progress made by Member States, building upon previous intergovernmental cooperative frameworks established in the 1970s through the likes of Trevi and the EPC (European Political Cooperation) in the 1980s (ECSC – EEA – EAEC, 1988). It is important to examine the crucial stages in the Europeanisation of immigration and asylum policy in order to provide an understanding of the context of the growth of ‘fortress Europe’ and in response to which policy measures it arose. The growth of

Europeanisation of immigration policy in this period is central to work towards a coherent conceptual definition of ‘fortress Europe’ as many of the key areas of policy streams came together in this period.

A common theme running through the various strands of ‘fortress Europe’ is the role that the European Community (EC) and later the European Union (EU) came to occupy within the policy making process. The core developments within European immigration policy leading the creation of a ‘fortress Europe’ can be traced through the various European summits, treaties and agreements from the Single European Act in 1986, the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997. These stages established where competency would reside both within the institutional structure of the European Union and under which area of the Treaty framework immigration policy would be determined. In a parallel, yet equally as vital, step is the Schengen Agreement of 1985 outside the EC/ EU institutional and treaty framework and subsequent implementation agreement followed by its incorporation into EU law within the Amsterdam Treaty.

The stages of integration in the field of borders, asylum and immigration leading to a greater role for the European institutions in the policy making process, and the practical matters incorporated in Schengen and subsequent action plans represent separate processes yet both contribute heavily to the debates over ‘fortress Europe’. The debates

surrounding the nature of policy making in these areas so sensitive to national sovereignty caused much difficulty and division within Europe, often resulting in remarkably slow progress. The central developments in this area range from the growth of

intergovernmental cooperation, through the growth of the pillar structure within the Maastricht Treaty to the gradual incorporation of immigration into the community (first) pillar, followed by movement towards the pillar structures’ eventual abolition within the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. The development of the practical side of European cooperation on borders, immigration and asylum is epitomised by the Schengen Agreement and a number of action plans in the years succeeding the Amsterdam Treaty. Schengen is often described as a laboratory for integration and substantive policy separated from the difficulties of the European Community and the division between maximalists and minimalists. The provisions established in the Schengen Agreement and consequent expansion have had a decisive influence on the changes in European and national policy leading to the introduction of a common visa policy, common asylum system, the creation of FRONTEX and more recently, negotiations towards a common European border agency, measures which have often been deemed central to any notion of ‘fortress Europe’.

The period in which the initial movements were being made towards greater cooperation and common policy in immigration were reflective of wider structures developing at the time aiming to enhance political cooperation across the European Community. A prominent example of such developments is the European Political Cooperation, defined in the 1988 document as “the process of information, consultation and common action among the 12 Member States of the European Community ('the Twelve') in the field of foreign policy. Its aim is to maximise the Twelve's influence in international affairs through a single coherent European approach. It is the essential counterpart to progress towards European unity in the Community framework” (ECSC-EEC-EAEC, 1988: 5). The Single European Act 1986 (SEA) in fact put EPC on a treaty basis for the first time albeit removed from the actual procedures of the Community. The globalisation of migration and asylum and its growth as a key policy area within the European community is an important part of the overlap with the existing intergovernmental structures seen in the case of EPC.

Another of the antecedent structures influencing the future development of the European immigration and asylum regime is the Trevi Group established in 1976 in order to promote cooperation in counter-terrorism and police matters between the then 12 EC states, the European Commission and the European Parliament. These existing structures are an important explanatory mechanism for the way in which immigration was framed at the European level, contributing both to the process of expanding European competency and the measures to be implemented. The structures of political cooperation which were closely associated with the areas of foreign policy, justice, home affairs and security impacted strongly on the trajectory of immigration policy, with restriction and the fight against illegal immigration central in determining this trajectory.

The Single European Act

The Single European Act of 1986 is one of the earliest stages in the progression towards European competency in immigration, border and asylum policy. Areas previously deemed quintessentially national, too sensitive for any kind of supranationalisation, were brought into the European fold albeit on an intergovernmental footing. The SEA, while closely associated with the establishment of a deadline for the creation for the single market, consisted of elements of fundamental importance to the ongoing development of European immigration, asylum and border policy. “Particular impetus was given to the creation of an economic space, but this brought with it greater efforts to develop European level forms of cooperation on migration and asylum from outside the EU. The result was that freedom and security became more closely bound in the late 1980s” (Geddes, 2008: 68). Previous steps had been taken towards this point including the 1967 Naples Convention on mutual cooperation between customs authorities of the six EC member states and European Political Cooperation, a form of intergovernmental cooperation in which groups such as Trevi worked through the 1970s towards improved cooperation in the areas associated with security and home affairs.

The SEA defines the European single market as “an area without internal frontiers in which free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with this treaty” (ECSC-EEC-EAEC, 1987: 227).