The Demise of Schengen

One consequence of the mass immigration of refugees that Europe is experiencing is the demise of the Schengen treaty. The Schengen treaty is one of the most effective instruments in realising the concept of the Single Market. It is important as it puts into practice one of the basic principles on which the Single Market is based – the free movement of people and products. It is because of Schengen that we do not need passports as long as we travel inside the Schengen Area. Moreover, transportation of goods is also without hassle.

The first is advantageous to people as they would not need to experience the long queues to have their passport checked. This is particularly an advantage when one is travelling for a holiday as such delays are very irritating and tend to be viewed negatively as it is another administrative hurdle to your holiday. For businesses it is also advantageous as cross border trade is usually much simpler, thus less costly both in terms of money and also in terms of time. Time is particularly important as good planning would enable a just-in-time system to be put in place saving large storage expenses of goods.

The present crisis that Europe is facing re immigration is nowadays many a time also attributed to the Schengen treaty by countries that are facing large inflows of immigrants through their country. But is this a fair assessment?

I believe that the crisis is not due to Schengen but to the lack of preparation on the part of the EU to face large inflows of immigrants. One need not have a long memory to remember that as long as these immigrants were only affecting a small number of countries – the countries of the Mediterranean – the other countries were not much interested in this issue as they used to view it as a sub regional problem.

Once it hit the Central European countries, suddenly the same problem became a European one. For example, the Hungarians are blaming Schengen as the problem whereas the free movement provided by Schengen provided the means for the inflow to be spread easily. One only needs to imagine if the same shameful attitude that the Hungarians are taking were to be adopted. The whole downpour of immigrants would have not only hit Greece but Greece would have had to deal with the whole problem by itself.

Personally, I find the attitude of the ex-communist bloc countries to this problem disgraceful. Hungary, for example, should know better as one only has to remember the 50s when thousands flew to Austria to escape the Soviet tanks. Would they have been happy and understanding if during that time Austria took the same attitude and built up a wall to prevent the Hungarians from entering Austria? The same applies to Poland and the other Baltic region states. These, apart from the UK, are the countries who are opposing fervently the allocation of these migrants through a quota system.

One point that is also being missed out in the discussion of this problem is the involvement of the Arab states. One question that needs to be asked is why these immigrants are not seeking asylum in the Arab countries? But this question leads to others which for many are more vexatious to answer especially since these are considered as pro Western. The answer is simply that these Arab states are more radical in their attitude and endeavour to implement the Sharia in their country similar to what ISIS is doing.

The problem that Europe is facing today is not the Schengen treaty but the lack of preparedness of the European Union, extreme nationalism (See Facebook), the abandonment of the peace process (see inews), continuous supply of arms and the abandonment of the peace process in the Middle East.

Pharmacies and competition

Will we ever see a Single Market in this sector and thus more competition in Europe? Basically, I do not think that this would happen soon as the Pharmacies’ lobby is very strong both in the EU and in most EU countries. Just as the Single Market has not been achieved in other areas, it is still a very long way off in this sector. On the other hand, are consumers to simply accept this as a fact and accept the status quo as their destiny?

Again, I do not think so. The reason is that there are other forces at work which cannot be stopped. Globalisation of trade and the permeability of this phenomenon down to the single individual consumer through online shopping are forces which no single national lobby, even one as strong as the Pharmacies' (inews blog ), would be able to stand against for a long time.

The writing has been on the wall for a long time, even in Malta. I still remember when the GRTU tried to stop consumers from buying books at a cheap price from visiting vessels. Its lobby against change also extended to online shopping but it knows that this position will not stand the test of time and they will have to change their position just as they did on Sunday shopping. Presently, the number of online shopping of medicines is small but it is increasing as it deals, even in an indirect way, to the problems consumers are facing in this sector (Facebook).

Taking the average consumer, I believe there is still quite a lot of hesitation to buy medicines and other health care products online. The reason for this reluctance is that this area concerns their health. Consumers are still cautious though people feel the need for a wider choice and lower prices of medicines.

The prices of medicines for a time was a hot issue especially since Maltese were realizing that the prices that they had to pay in Malta were high. A regulatory process was introduced to control prices. The process introduced, surveys medicines’ prices and where it is found that these are disproportionately high, through this mechanism, prices are reduced. This mechanism started during the last legislature and is still operational. It is operated by the MCCAA. Though this mechanism has been successful in reducing medicines’ prices, it is bureaucratic by its very nature and only aims at pressuring prices towards the average European price.

Online shopping is the answer and several European markets are opening up. Just as Uber has caused an earthquake in the taxi sector of most European markets, two firms have shaken the two most conservative countries in this area – Germany and France. Doc Morris had shaken the German market some years ago while 1001Pharmacies has started shaking the French pharmacies sector. Their business model is similar to Amazon.com and the transfer of this business model to the pharmacies’ sector looks very promising both to consumers and the business sector.

As I already indicated the most important factor holding back development in this sector has been consumers’ reluctance into diving into this sector. The reason is that the shadow of online pharmacies’ unsavoury beginnings still hangs over the business due to the chance of consumers receiving counterfeits which at one extreme can be ineffective while on the other, could be fatal.

However, there is hope on the way. Many countries are rising to this challenge and are providing websites where consumers can check the reliability of the supplier. Most are making it mandatory that websites providing online shopping for pharmaceuticals should also have their registration showing so as consumers can be sure that those supplying the medicines are reliable.

On the European level, things are also moving in this direction. As from this July, online pharmacies in the EU should have a special logo. Unfortunately though mandatory it is still missing from most online pharmacies websites. The logo will have the national banner and once clicked on it will direct you to the national website where one can check whether the site is registered and thus reaches mandatory standards. For Maltese online pharmacies there are two such logos – one in Maltese and the other in English since the two languages are both Malta’s official languages.

Thus the way is open to offer such a service by local pharmacies. Till present there are no local pharmacies. Will the local business sector rise to the occasion or shall Maltese consumers continue to rely on overseas online pharmacies as we do rely in most other sectors?

The United States and Russia are still at it. The cold war may have ended with the end of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Russia. However, certain factors are still important and both countries have the will and the power to safeguard their interests.

The Greek Saga re Bailout (inewsmalta) presented an opportunity not only for Germany (Facebook ) but also for Russia to get a better balance of the situation in the Balkans. One of the main concerns of Russia is its defence. Russia has got the longest border with other countries and its defensive strategy which was evolved in 1945 collapsed with the foundering of the Soviet Union. The policy was to have buffer states throughout this border and thus ensure a certain amount of security at the expense of others.

However, with the internal turmoil which it experienced with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia could not ensure its strategic defence policy. It was only with the emergence of Putin that Russia attained a certain internal stability and thus could give the importance that was due to defence. Russia, up to a certain extent, could tolerate that the Baltic States would change their role from Russia’s buffer states to the Western European Powers’ buffer states against Russia. But it could not tolerate that it would lose its only secure port for its Mediterranean Navy. Russia made that point clear with the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. Russia gave a warning signal that it was not going to tolerate any other strategic changes some years ago when Georgia created troubles on Russia’s border.

Greece offered an opportunity to Russia. Greece was the only country in the Balkan states where Russian influence was at a minimum. The visit of Tsipras to Russia when Greece was still hoping of a better deal with its creditors provided that opportunity. Both Tsipras and Putin were very careful to indicate that a Russian bailout to Greece was not on the table indicating that it was.

The United States countered this move by officially insisting that there will be no Grexit. Officially the USA took the position that this was a European internal affair. But pressure was exerted especially on Merkel to find a solution. So much so that the German Finance Minister is quoted to have said that Europe was ready to exchange with the USA the Greek problem with the Costa Rica problem. In fact the way the USA handled the Costa Rica bailout problem contrasted very much with how the EU tackled Greece. Very few know that the USA had a similar problem with Costa Rica whereas very few if any, have not heard of the Greek bailout and Grexit.

The USA has a vital interest in the EU as the EU is acting as a proxy for the USA’s interests. With the EU there is no need of USA military presence in Europe – note the great reduction of US military basis in Europe. As already noted above, the USA through the EU already succeeded in turning the Baltic States and Poland as a buffer zone for the Western powers. One has to note how the EU membership card was played in Ukraine in an attempt to turn Ukraine into a buffer zone for the West while denying Russia of a strategic naval port. The geopolitical interests in this area are great and I am convinced that the cards are already on the table to have the EU accept, in spite of all problems, Turkey – an essential chip in the geopolitical USA-Russia chess game.

Unions

The Danish village (see facebook and Zvilupp Sostenibbli)   In the late 70’s the unions were at their heyday in most countries.  They were the main force behind social change and they wanted to establish the welfare state as a permanent structure and were forming the idea that the man is holistic and one cannot see the worker as extraneous to the same worker when s/he is part of the family.  This concept was underpinning the concept of a sustainable workforce.  They were a strong social force that could oust a government.  This occurred in many countries. 

 

In the UK, after the winter of discontent they ousted the Labour government.  Little did they realize that their apex of power was also their ‘eve of their destruction’.  With the advent of Margaret Thatcher the Right in many countries took control and the first thing they did was to curb the powers of trade unions and castrate them. 

But Rightists governments were not the only force.  There were other forces at work.  The main one was that the world had changed under their feet without them realising it. 
 
There were two main forces at work.  The first was globalisation which at that time, due to technological advancement, created one global labour market.  A national union can fight successfully in a closed national labour market but could never have any effect on a globalised labour market unless ‘the workers of the world unite’.

The second factor was labour itself.  Education changed labour itself.  Whereas before, workers could only identify themselves through groups, with their higher educational status could identify themselves on their own.  They believed that they could make it on their own without the help of others and thus solidarity dwindled.  This was the case of certain occupations especially highly technical and professional.  Little did they realise that globalisation affects all.  Whereas in previous times, these workers could use their political power to corner a market and thus ensure high wages and superb conditions of work, the opening to globalisation increased supply.

This reminds me of Niemöller, a German pastor who after being imprisoned for eight years in concentration camps, he penned these infamous words:

First they came for the Socialists,
and I did not speak out –
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionist,
and I did not speak out –
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I did not speak out –
because I was not a Jew.
And then they came for me –
and there was no one left to speak for me.”

It is still too early for people to realize the great limitations of individualism.  Hopefully, the times of solidarity among people will again be considered as a vital social value.