Alejandra and Paul interview Adalbert Jahnz , European Commission (EUC) spokesperson for home affairs, migration and citizenship.
On 17 March 2020, EU leaders agreed on a coordinated temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU that was enforced until 30 June 2020, to slow the transmission of the virus. However, this adversely impacted couples and families who do not fit into conventional definitions of these terms. With restrictions in place once again to curb the spread of new variants, Jahnz explains the processes behind the travel restrictions, reflects on those they have impacted negatively, and how the EUC has recommended amendments.
On 17 March 2020, EU leaders agreed on a coordinated temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU that was enforced until 30 June 2020, to slow the transmission of the virus. However, this adversely impacted couples and families who do not fit into conventional definitions of these terms. With restrictions in place once again to curb the spread of new variants, Jahnz explains the processes behind the travel restrictions, reflects on those they have impacted negatively, and how the EUC has recommended amendments.
Alejandra and Paul interview Adalbert Jahnz , European Commission (EUC) spokesperson for home affairs, migration and citizenship.
On 17 March 2020, EU leaders agreed on a coordinated temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU that was enforced until 30 June 2020, to slow the transmission of the virus. However, this adversely impacted couples and families who do not fit into conventional definitions of these terms. With restrictions in place once again to curb the spread of new variants, Jahnz explains the processes behind the travel restrictions, reflects on those they have impacted negatively, and how the EUC has recommended amendments.
On 17 March 2020, EU leaders agreed on a coordinated temporary restriction of non-essential travel to the EU that was enforced until 30 June 2020, to slow the transmission of the virus. However, this adversely impacted couples and families who do not fit into conventional definitions of these terms. With restrictions in place once again to curb the spread of new variants, Jahnz explains the processes behind the travel restrictions, reflects on those they have impacted negatively, and how the EUC has recommended amendments.
A&P:
How does the EUC acknowledge the desperation and mental health of the many couples who remain separated. How are you actively addressing mental health issues in your policies or recommendations when people are still apart?
AJ:
We are one step removed from what happens on the ground, and that’s because when it comes to enacting travel restrictions, we rely on the national governments to do it. They choose how they do it. What we are doing is guiding with our recommendations.
Right from the start, the way we designed the travel restrictions was not a blind travel ban, but something that considered the impact of this restriction on people’s lives. We sought to strike a balance between addressing the health emergency and allowing people to carry on with their lives and travel when necessary. When we looked at the list of essential travel we had the economic situation in mind. But also mental health. And the practical ability of people to get on with the essential aspects of their lives, like reuniting families, or allowing students to come to Europe, and not delaying their education. So I’m not sure if you can say that it’s a consideration driven-specifically by concerns about mental health. But, we’ve been concerned about the practical impact on people’s lives. And not only on economic livelihoods but also on people’s wellbeing.
Right from the start, the way we designed the travel restrictions was not a blind travel ban, but something that considered the impact of this restriction on people’s lives. We sought to strike a balance between addressing the health emergency and allowing people to carry on with their lives and travel when necessary. When we looked at the list of essential travel we had the economic situation in mind. But also mental health. And the practical ability of people to get on with the essential aspects of their lives, like reuniting families, or allowing students to come to Europe, and not delaying their education. So I’m not sure if you can say that it’s a consideration driven-specifically by concerns about mental health. But, we’ve been concerned about the practical impact on people’s lives. And not only on economic livelihoods but also on people’s wellbeing.
“We didn’t have a pre-prepared plan for shutting down EU borders to non-essential travel in case of a pandemic. It’s something that we decided was necessary at a certain point in March. We designed it very quickly to react to the circumstances. And how we did this was, when it comes to the definition of essential vs non-essential travel, more a political than a scientific process.”
“We didn’t have a pre-prepared plan for shutting down EU borders to non-essential travel in case of a pandemic. It’s something that we decided was necessary at a certain point in March. We designed it very quickly to react to the circumstances. And how we did this was, when it comes to the definition of essential vs non-essential travel, more a political than a scientific process.”
A&P:
There is a level of subjectivity when trying to define what a stable relationship is. How does the EUC in their recommendation define a stable relationship, and how should member states consider those relationships?
AJ:
This is tricky because it’s about striking a balance between having something that member states can enact and allowing sufficient flexibility to accommodate people’s different circumstances. On this, the practical side is with the member states. They are supposed to find a way to do this on the ground. We have made a series of recommendations, which are not binding. And include several examples of documentation people can show to prove they are in a stable relationship and qualify for a travel exemption. This is meant to be applied flexibly, and so it does, in some instances, involve an element of subjectivity.
A&P:
Have the restrictions come about as a reactive process, or did the EU already have a framework? And has the EU worked with specialists in mental health? In other words, have humanitarian considerations been taken into account?
AJ:
We didn’t have a pre-prepared plan for shutting down EU borders to non-essential travel in case of a pandemic. It’s something that we decided was necessary at a certain point in March. We designed it very quickly to react to the circumstances. And how we did this was, when it comes to the definition of essential vs non-essential travel, more a political than a scientific process.
But this has been a relatively successful exercise because the definition of essential travel hasn’t moved very much since March when we set it up. There hasn’t been a big debate about it, apart from indeed the issue of reuniting couples and there again, from the Commission's perspective, we have given guidance to member states.
But this has been a relatively successful exercise because the definition of essential travel hasn’t moved very much since March when we set it up. There hasn’t been a big debate about it, apart from indeed the issue of reuniting couples and there again, from the Commission's perspective, we have given guidance to member states.
A&P:
Does this highlight a rupture between the bureaucratic and the humanitarian? In the future, would it be important to create a link between these two areas in politics?
AJ:
We try to be responsive to people’s concerns. We try to be a good administration, which takes in all the available data that is there. But also thinks about the impact of what we decide and responds to the public's concerns. We try to listen, then react. I think at the core of it, that’s what good government is about. It is democratic legitimacy through elections and this everyday responsiveness. And that should be the ideal of all governments.
The beauty of Europe is that every member state has its own constitutional government democracy setup. And they deal with these things differently and they find an equilibrium. But this story has also shown that there is room for member states to learn from each other and keep improving and to be more responsive to citizens’ needs for sure.
The beauty of Europe is that every member state has its own constitutional government democracy setup. And they deal with these things differently and they find an equilibrium. But this story has also shown that there is room for member states to learn from each other and keep improving and to be more responsive to citizens’ needs for sure.
A&P:
The EUC supports these exceptions on travel in essential circumstances for unmarried couples. But only about half of the EU member states have adopted these measures. And many people feel that the countries that have adopted these exceptions have not done so clearly. Why has the EUC not been heavier-handed in making recommendations and passing stricter regulations that the EU member states will follow? How does the EUC propose to resolve these inconsistencies within the member states who have adopted the new measures?
AJ:
We were in a health emergency where every day counted. We opted for an approach that’s maybe less robust when implemented on the ground. But it was quick and allowed us to remain flexible and make quick adjustments to situations, like the emergence of the new variants.
In an ideal world, we would like to have maximum consistency. And to give citizens maximum predictability and clarity. When I say citizens, I mean everyone who has a stake in what we do, residents who are not citizens, and people who want to come to the EU for different reasons.
But with the instruments we have, we are where we are. We don’t have a legal instrument at our disposal to change the situation. In the end, all of our member states are democracies. And therefore, they also have political responsibilities towards their citizens and their ways of reacting to their concerns.
In an ideal world, we would like to have maximum consistency. And to give citizens maximum predictability and clarity. When I say citizens, I mean everyone who has a stake in what we do, residents who are not citizens, and people who want to come to the EU for different reasons.
But with the instruments we have, we are where we are. We don’t have a legal instrument at our disposal to change the situation. In the end, all of our member states are democracies. And therefore, they also have political responsibilities towards their citizens and their ways of reacting to their concerns.
“When we came up with our idea of what essential travel is, we tried to balance several considerations and tried to find a certain amount of fairness in this whole story. Specifically, not focusing only on the economic side but also account for the impact on people’s lives. And on their ability to continue having a decent experience during this pandemic. Even with the difficulties that it creates.”
“When we came up with our idea of what essential travel is, we tried to balance several considerations and tried to find a certain amount of fairness in this whole story. Specifically, not focusing only on the economic side but also account for the impact on people’s lives. And on their ability to continue having a decent experience during this pandemic. Even with the difficulties that it creates.”
A&P:
So what happens when a member state doesn’t follow the EU recommendations to make exceptions on travel for special cases? Nothing?
AJ:
The reason we made these recommendations is because the travel restrictions only work in Europe if applied consistently. If a member state decides to open their borders to anybody then anyone could enter through that member state and could travel elsewhere in Europe, the whole thing wouldn’t make sense.
Governments recognise that, they recognise that each member state has a responsibility towards the whole. Therefore when there are issues we raise them with that specific government and transparently with everybody else. These issues by and large get corrected, especially if these are issues that would very strongly affect everybody else. But it’s not a legally binding process so this means that in the end if hypothetically we had an extremely stubborn government, we would not be able to force their policy.
Governments recognise that, they recognise that each member state has a responsibility towards the whole. Therefore when there are issues we raise them with that specific government and transparently with everybody else. These issues by and large get corrected, especially if these are issues that would very strongly affect everybody else. But it’s not a legally binding process so this means that in the end if hypothetically we had an extremely stubborn government, we would not be able to force their policy.
A&P:
How does the EUC justify countries making exceptions to the restrictions. For example, travel exceptions for movie productions, or sports teams, or the organisation of public events. But, not allowing couples to reunite even when they commit to following the strictest of protocols?
AJ:
When we came up with our idea of what essential travel is, we tried to balance several considerations and tried to find a certain amount of fairness in this whole story. Specifically, not focusing only on the economic side but also account for the impact on people’s lives. And on their ability to continue having a decent experience during this pandemic. Even with the difficulties that it creates.
I think this is where your work is so interesting because you are, through the wedge of what seems a pretty specific issue, also shining a light on the conundrums of government. The questions of how to make these choices, balance these considerations, and ensure people remain convinced you are acting in good faith. We have been trying to do that, but then every government has its responsibility in this situation.
I think this is where your work is so interesting because you are, through the wedge of what seems a pretty specific issue, also shining a light on the conundrums of government. The questions of how to make these choices, balance these considerations, and ensure people remain convinced you are acting in good faith. We have been trying to do that, but then every government has its responsibility in this situation.
“I don’t think that beyond the pandemic there is really going to be an issue to the same extent, because people will just be able to travel much more easily again, at least one would hope so. Therefore this issue of people being separated in this insurmountable way will not occur to the same degree. When it comes to the issue of transnational couples, as such, I’m very much hoping that the issue will simply go away because restrictions will go away.”
“I don’t think that beyond the pandemic there is really going to be an issue to the same extent, because people will just be able to travel much more easily again, at least one would hope so. Therefore this issue of people being separated in this insurmountable way will not occur to the same degree. When it comes to the issue of transnational couples, as such, I’m very much hoping that the issue will simply go away because restrictions will go away.”
A&P:
Is there also an economic argument for allowing couples to reunite? For example, is there an economic value that we can append to a relationship for it to be considered in a different way, not just in a humanitarian respect but also as a contributor to a national economy. Is that something you have thought about?
AJ:
I’m sure you could do it, but I’m not sure it would be all that helpful. I don’t think that we build an economy for the sake of it, we build an economy that works for the people. The reason why we insisted on trying to keep the flow of goods going and the economy functioning in general is not out of some sort of abstract devotion to GDP, but is because it has a very tangible impact on people’s lives.
A&P:
Do you think it’s time that we reconsider what it means to be in a relationship beyond the pandemic?
AJ:
I don’t think that beyond the pandemic there is really going to be an issue to the same extent, because people will just be able to travel much more easily again, at least one would hope so. Therefore this issue of people being separated in this insurmountable way will not occur to the same degree. When it comes to the issue of transnational couples, as such, I’m very much hoping that the issue will simply go away because restrictions will go away.
A&P:
Beyond the pandemic, there are cases of couples who still have difficulty and have to go through a lengthy bureaucratic and often dehumanising process to reach their loved ones. The world is more connected than it ever has been, and people can meet online. How can the EUC address this world and the changing nature of relationships?
AJ:
On the practical side, it’s true that immigration processes are not always the most citizen-friendly. That’s the art of euphemism, but this is also something that we recognise. For example last year we had a reform of the visa code, to make short term visa applications a little bit more citizen-friendly and give a little more flexibility and create a better process. And we're working now on the issue of digitising the visa process.
In terms of definitions of family, and looking at the cultural revolutions, one issue, outside of my portfolio, but very close to President Von Der Leyen, is LGBTQI equality. The president has said that she would push for a recognition of family relations everywhere in the EU, so when you cross an internal border in the EU, from one member state to the other, you don’t suddenly legally stop being a family. Of course, this could eventually also have an impact on immigration law into the EU.
So these things are evolving, but I’m not sure this links to the pandemic. We’re just hoping that the pandemic will shed light on certain things that previously weren’t so visible and might accelerate these movements.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
In terms of definitions of family, and looking at the cultural revolutions, one issue, outside of my portfolio, but very close to President Von Der Leyen, is LGBTQI equality. The president has said that she would push for a recognition of family relations everywhere in the EU, so when you cross an internal border in the EU, from one member state to the other, you don’t suddenly legally stop being a family. Of course, this could eventually also have an impact on immigration law into the EU.
So these things are evolving, but I’m not sure this links to the pandemic. We’re just hoping that the pandemic will shed light on certain things that previously weren’t so visible and might accelerate these movements.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
