Before 1914 a European could cross most of the continent without showing a document to anybody. France, Germany and Italy made passports compulsory that year as a war measure, and Spain, Denmark and Switzerland followed, all three of them neutral.
The war ended in 1918. The measure did not.
Rome notified Brussels on 30 July that it was reintroducing controls on arrivals from Spain, in force from 1 August and expiring on 1 September. The checks fall on third-country nationals and on air and sea traffic alone, since the two countries share no land border. The stated ground, in the Commission’s own words, is a threat to public policy, internal security and the management of migration flows after the large-scale irregular entries at Ceuta, with a risk of secondary movements inside the Schengen area.1
Ceuta is real. More than 60,000 people crossed from Morocco into the Spanish enclave, between three and five thousand remained after most were returned, and at least 72 died getting there.
Ceuta is also the occasion rather than the subject.
The subject is what happens to a guarantee once one member of it discovers that suspending the guarantee against another member costs nothing. Every state inside Schengen now holds a worked example: the emergency clause can be aimed sideways, at a peer, over a pressure that peer did not create, and the aiming produces no penalty, no compensation and no expiry that anyone enforces.
That is the thing being learned this month, and it does not unlearn.
The precedent worth having is 1920, when the League of Nations convened at Paris on passports and customs formalities with the explicit purpose of clearing away the wartime restrictions, having recognised that they obstructed the resumption of normal intercourse and the economic recovery of the world. The delegates concluded that security concerns prevented total abolition.
So they standardised the thing instead: a uniform international passport, valid for a single journey or for two years, exit visas abolished, entry visa fees trimmed. The body convened to abolish the wartime passport gave it a format and a validity period instead.
Every attempt to reverse an emergency control by committee has run into the same arithmetic, and the arithmetic is the deep variable here.
A control costs the state that imposes it almost nothing, and its costs land on people who do not vote in the capital that imposed it.
A control costs the state that imposes it almost nothing. A few dozen officers at a gate, a line item, a fortnight of complaints. Its costs land on freight schedules, on commuters, on firms with staff in two countries, on tourists, on the exporting economy of the state being checked, which is to say on people who do not vote in the capital that imposed it.
Removal, meanwhile, has no constituency. Nobody’s career is built on lifting a check, and the official who lifts one owns every consequence that follows.
The body convened to abolish the wartime passport gave it a format and a validity period instead.
Which is why the checks introduced across Europe in 2015 are still running. Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway and Sweden have held theirs for eleven years, and nine member states carried internal controls through 2025 alone. The word temporary has now survived a decade of continuous use without being asked to mean anything.
So the forecast, and it is checkable. Italy’s controls on arrivals from Spain will still be in force, by extension or by re-imposition, on 1 February 2027, five months past the expiry Rome has published.
The load-bearing assumption sits somewhere other than Italian intent, and naming the wrong hinge is how a column fools itself. The call rests on the absence of a price: that neither the Commission’s enforcement powers nor the Court produces a ruling inside the window that makes an internal control expensive to its author. Should Brussels find a way to charge for one, the reading breaks, and it breaks on the mechanism rather than on the politics.
Southeast Asia sits on the other side of this arithmetic, and looks careless until it does not. The six-nation common visa Thailand floated for Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar has never cleared negotiation, held up by mismatched systems, thin issuance capacity, and home ministries unwilling to trade border control for arrivals.
Read as tourism policy, that is a decade of failure.
Read as structure, it is an immunity. A region whose freedom of movement is a mesh of bilateral waivers has no single guarantee any member can suspend, and therefore no single afternoon in which every member learns that the guarantee is suspendable. Singapore prices its arrangements one counterparty at a time, which is slower, and which is why nothing Rome did last week teaches anybody anything about Changi.
The passport was meant to expire in 1920.
Footnotes
-
The Commission’s own justification names the risk of secondary movements, which is the tell. The measure is aimed at where those people might travel next rather than at the crossing itself, and a destination is a category no expiry date can close. ↩