The EconomistMarch 21st 2020 Europe 471T
wo hundredkilometres of glistening
slopes, a gorgeous Alpine setting and a
boisterous après-ski scene make Ischgl, a
resort in the western Austrian state of Ty-
rol, one of Europe’s livelier winter play-
grounds. It has also turned out to be one of
its worst coronavirus hotspots. Hundreds
of European cases, especially in the Nordic
countries and Germany, have been traced
to Ischgl, many of them to a bar renowned
for its crowded, dancing-on-tables parties.
Air, road and rail links from Austria to oth-
er countries have been cut, and govern-
ments have quarantined visitors returning
from the now-shuttered resorts.
The speed with which the virus has
raced from country to country has driven
several European governments to adopt a
familiar remedy: border controls. In the
past week, as governments woke up to the
scale of the pandemic, several began limit-
ing entry to outsiders, albeit in haphazard
and un-coordinated fashion. Central Euro-
pean and some Scandinavian countries
moved first, sealing off entry to most for-
eigners. On March 16th Germany imposed
controls at most of its land frontiers, citing
the need to stop the spread of the virus but
also to limit cross-border panic-shopping.
Goods transporters and commuters were
exempt, but for the first time in years they
needed to show uniformed officials docu-
mentary proof of their right to cross the
border. Hiccups were inevitable, especially
at Poland’s tightly controlled frontiers.
There were reports of 18-hour traffic jams at
one crossing with Germany. Some 21,000
people were turned away in two days.
Such measures contradict the spirit, if
not the letter, of the European Union’s
Schengen zone. Schengen is meant to guar-
antee document-free travel across the bor-
ders of its 26 member-countries (four of
which are not in the eu). It has provisions
for emergencies. But the speed with which
governments erected checks revived un-
happy memories of the crisis in 2015-16,
when migrants poured across Schengen’s
external border into Greece and internal
controls went up as far away as Sweden. Six
Schengen countries have had partial con-
trols in place ever since, making a mockery
of what are supposed to be strictly time-
limited exemptions. Now the virus is en-
couraging the barrier-builders.
The European Commission, as the body
charged with keeping goods and services
flowing across the eu’s single market, frets
more than most. On March 17th European
heads of government approved a proposal
from Ursula von der Leyen, the commis-
sion’s president, to block foreigners from
entering the eufor 30 days, with excep-
tions for legal residents, medical and
health workers, and citizens of Britain plus
the four non-euSchengen members. Ms
von der Leyen hopes that tough action at
the external border will soothe leaders’
nerves enough to ease the internal ones,
which she fears could hold up the cross-
border provision of food, medical supplies
or transport workers. But there is little sign
of that yet.
Around 80 countries have restricted tra-
vel in some way since the outbreak began,
including America, which has imposed a
travel ban on Europe and closed its land
border with Canada. At the start of an out-
break, when a place has few or no infec-
tions, such controls can buy time for gov-
ernments to put in place social-distancing
measures. They might also reduce the like-
lihood that infections will resurge once a
country has got its internal situation under
control, as China and South Korea appear
to have done.
Yet most experts think border controls
are largely useless for protecting areas in
which infected people are already mingl-
ing. “From an epidemiological point of
view border controls are a distraction, and
potentially a damaging one,” says Christo-
pher Dye of Oxford University. In a study in
2014, five analysts found that internal and
international travel restrictions imposed
during influenza outbreaks cut the number
of new cases by less than 3%. During the
Ebola crisis in west Africa, controls may
have made things worse by encouraging in-
fected people to sneak across borders,
evading health checks.
There may be a case for governments tointroduce checks as part of a suite of ac-
tions to convince citizens that the threat is
serious enough to warrant adjusting their
behaviour: border controls as theatre. But
that must be set against the costs of such
measures, from the risk of blocking goods
transport to shoving airlines into bank-
ruptcy. Ultimately, says Dirk Brockmann at
Humboldt University in Berlin, the effect
of closing borders is marginal next to so-
cial-distancing measures designed to limit
interpersonal contact. That lesson may be
getting through. Five European countries,
including Austria, have now introduced
draconian rules banning citizens from
leaving home under most circumstances.
The new coronavirus will be defeated in-
side borders, not at them.^7BERLIN
Controls are going up across Europe. It
is unlikely to help much
Europe’s borders
Frontier theatre
The end of the dreamA
n eerie silence descended on the
French capital at noon on March 17th.
In a city famed for its café culture and street
life, policemen with megaphones were on
patrol, checking papers and ordering those
still out without permission to go back in-
doors. All residents countrywide were told
to stay at home, unless they need to shop
for food or medicine, attend medical ap-
pointments, or go to an essential job. Yet
just two days earlier the same government
had urged the French to vote in the first
round of the municipal elections in the
country’s 35,000 cities, towns and villages.
As the country adjusts to the drastic
new regime, questions are inevitably being
asked. The week before confinement, may-
oral candidates were still holding rallies,
though with a cap of 1,000 people. On
March 12th President Emmanuel Macron
announced that the situation was worrying
enough to close all schools and universi-
ties from March 16th. His prime minister,
Edouard Philippe, introduced stage three
on March 14th, shutting all cafés, restau-
rants, non-food shops, hairdressers, cine-
mas and sports centres. The elections, they
said, would go ahead.
There followed surreal scenes on voting
day. Polling stations were organised to en-
sure that staff and voters remained at least
a metre apart. Returning officers counted
the vote wearing masks and gloves. Official
results were declared, showing, broadly, a
strong Green vote, backing for incumbent
mayors, poor support for Mr Macron’s
party and a record low turnout. Yet, at the
same time, Parisians were to be found gath-PARIS
France enters lockdown and suspends
its electionFranceThe virus and the
vote