A quick point on this is that the Schengen agreement was the abolition of internal borders. I think the reason they were seen to be a failure to a certain extent was that there wasn't the necessary transfer of resources to control external borders. This left an undue burden on certain countries, like Italy, for example, which was left on its own to a large extent at the beginning of the refugee crisis. I think this fuelled the rise of populism in a much more unhelpful government today.
Some of the measures that were taken by the European Union since then are not discussed enough because we mostly generally talk about negative news rather than the positive news afterwards. I think we have seen a lot of measures precisely to make the Schengen area much more effective. It is absolutely critical because it is one of the major success stories in the European integration. Without the Schengen area, I think the European project would be much more weakened.
To come to your point on Poland and Hungary, I think this question of immigration has been exploited by leaders for domestic purposes to bolster their own power and sometimes take measures against the rule of law. It's really critical for European leaders—and we have seen this recently—to be able to separate the two and respond effectively to challenges that are economic or linked to immigration with reasonable policies and to assuage voter concerns, yet at the same time be extremely firm when it comes to the backsliding of the rule of law that questions the liberal democracy that is the heart of the European Union. They are non-negotiable.
I don't know if I would agree with your assessment of a new normal. On the contrary, I think we are seeing a rising concern in Europe over this. We've seen both the European Council and the European Parliament react quite forcefully in the last year. We have seen the EPP take measures against Orbán this year. This is still an ongoing conversation, but I would argue that it has been an awakening for European leaders on these issues.