Schengen agreement
Nov 14th, 2015, 10:26 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schengen agreement
Wondering if the recent terrorist attacks in Paris have exacerbated the existing concerns (due to the Syrian refugee situation) regarding the Schengen Agreement. As it stands, the countries who are a part of this agreement can impose temporary border controls in response to severe security concerns, but I think it is only for up to ten days.
How will this play out? The free movement of potential terrorists from the EU to and from central and eastern European countries and then on to the middle east must be a growing concern.
Any ideas as to the viability of the Schengen Agreement in the future?
How will this play out? The free movement of potential terrorists from the EU to and from central and eastern European countries and then on to the middle east must be a growing concern.
Any ideas as to the viability of the Schengen Agreement in the future?
Nov 14th, 2015, 10:41 AM
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dukey1 - not so much predicting as being able to follow a trail after an event. Of course that may not be a logical deterrent, but as it stands, the authorities have little in the way of knowing where and how people are traveling. And obviously "without error" does not exist in any situation.
pariswat - except that each EU country is sovereign, with no actual central security - like the FBI or CIA. I don't know if that makes a difference. If it were just a matter of the outer borders, why not a North American Union - with Canada, the US and Mexico?
I am in no way advocating for or against Schengen - just wondering what is going to happen next. Always interesting to hear from other world travelers.
pariswat - except that each EU country is sovereign, with no actual central security - like the FBI or CIA. I don't know if that makes a difference. If it were just a matter of the outer borders, why not a North American Union - with Canada, the US and Mexico?
I am in no way advocating for or against Schengen - just wondering what is going to happen next. Always interesting to hear from other world travelers.
Nov 14th, 2015, 11:07 AM
#5
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the new conservative leadership in Poland stated today they wish to exit the EU plan for resettlement of refugees(I use the term loosely), I expect fewer and fewer countries will be willing to accept the burden. In turn this will put pressure the Schengen Agreement until a solid workable solution can be found.
Short of the EU making promises they cant keep, I feel the agreement will eventually be suspended until this short to medium term crisis subsides
Short of the EU making promises they cant keep, I feel the agreement will eventually be suspended until this short to medium term crisis subsides
Nov 14th, 2015, 11:12 AM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like in U.S. - no control between the states or is there ?>
No except IMK fruit and veggie inspections like when entering California - not sure they do that any longer though.
I'll predict border formalities may be reimposed on a partial basis in spite of Schengen - wasting time examining all-American looking middle-aged tourists and Europeans like that means fewer resources devoted to trying to catch the possible terrorists - would hate to be an Arab ethnic traveling around Europe in future - especially if young,
That said Europe's borders - interior at least - are so so porous - you can walk thru woods or fields in remote places - a big problem with lots of ensuing expenses for already cash-strapped European governments - the whole thing.
No except IMK fruit and veggie inspections like when entering California - not sure they do that any longer though.
I'll predict border formalities may be reimposed on a partial basis in spite of Schengen - wasting time examining all-American looking middle-aged tourists and Europeans like that means fewer resources devoted to trying to catch the possible terrorists - would hate to be an Arab ethnic traveling around Europe in future - especially if young,
That said Europe's borders - interior at least - are so so porous - you can walk thru woods or fields in remote places - a big problem with lots of ensuing expenses for already cash-strapped European governments - the whole thing.
Nov 14th, 2015, 11:21 AM
#7
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All American looking middle aged tourists and Europeans can be terrorists too - many are converts.
At least one of the passports found in Paris is of a Syrian "refugee" registered in Greece. That doesn't mean the terrorist holding that passport is the same person of course.
No idea if Schengen will survive.
Funny how Poland is happy to send it's workers throughout Europe, and collect child benefit from other European countries, but when it comes to them stepping up and being European they decide they don't like that part of the deal. Should get on great with Britain, apart from all their citziens taking over the UK (if you believe the Daily Mail et al.
At least one of the passports found in Paris is of a Syrian "refugee" registered in Greece. That doesn't mean the terrorist holding that passport is the same person of course.
No idea if Schengen will survive.
Funny how Poland is happy to send it's workers throughout Europe, and collect child benefit from other European countries, but when it comes to them stepping up and being European they decide they don't like that part of the deal. Should get on great with Britain, apart from all their citziens taking over the UK (if you believe the Daily Mail et al.
Nov 14th, 2015, 12:58 PM
#9
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 34,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No border controls between US states isn't comparable at all to Schengen. The comparison to the US would be like no border controls between German states or French regions or departements, not across country borders. Despite Schengen, these are still different countries in Europe, whereas the US states are not.
Nov 14th, 2015, 02:25 PM
#10
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schengen is on its way out if you read the European papers, as it would seem Angela is, too. Beyond refugees/migrants and terrorists, border controls put brakes on nasty common criminals. For those who traveled before Schengen, they know such controls were no big deal, no real inconvenience. Bring controls back, I say!!
Nov 14th, 2015, 08:29 PM
#11
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schengen isn't mainly threatened by terrorism.
The Paris killings will add a new set of emotions to the Schengen debate. But the real problem with Schengen is that the sea borders of Greece and Italy just cannot be acceptably defended against the millions of desperate people who'd rather risk their lives at sea than live in Africa, Syria, Iraq or much of Central Asia.
It's reasonable for Greece and Italy to expect help from the rest of Europe, and at least arguable that the rest of Europe has a moral obligation to provide shelter, subsistence, education and job opportunities for those millions. But it's preposterous to just expect the rest of Europe to let those migrants come and live wherever they like. The Schengen system simply isn't compatible with the reality of millions of refugees on our doorstep.
Some of us will argue that, like the economically illiterate Euro, Schengen illustrates the fantasy world EU fanatics and European Commission employees live in. But that's now the least of our problems.
The Paris killings raise something far worse: the likelihood that attention-seeking Muslim psychopaths have finally outgrown their teenage obsession with blowing up planes - which has been relatively easy to control, with little more than minor inconvenience to passengers.
As the Tamil Tigers discovered in Sri Lanka, psychopaths can get just as much attention by random bombs in markets and drive-by shootings in restaurants. That's far tougher to control: Sri Lanka managed it only by mass killings of its Tamil population.
Re-activating the Schengen borders is probably the necessary consequence of the refugee crisis, and really affects nothing of any significance to people currently living in Europe.
But it will do almost nothing either to deal with a different kind of terrorism: a kind no-one has learned to control without seriously violating the entire population's human rights.
The Paris killings will add a new set of emotions to the Schengen debate. But the real problem with Schengen is that the sea borders of Greece and Italy just cannot be acceptably defended against the millions of desperate people who'd rather risk their lives at sea than live in Africa, Syria, Iraq or much of Central Asia.
It's reasonable for Greece and Italy to expect help from the rest of Europe, and at least arguable that the rest of Europe has a moral obligation to provide shelter, subsistence, education and job opportunities for those millions. But it's preposterous to just expect the rest of Europe to let those migrants come and live wherever they like. The Schengen system simply isn't compatible with the reality of millions of refugees on our doorstep.
Some of us will argue that, like the economically illiterate Euro, Schengen illustrates the fantasy world EU fanatics and European Commission employees live in. But that's now the least of our problems.
The Paris killings raise something far worse: the likelihood that attention-seeking Muslim psychopaths have finally outgrown their teenage obsession with blowing up planes - which has been relatively easy to control, with little more than minor inconvenience to passengers.
As the Tamil Tigers discovered in Sri Lanka, psychopaths can get just as much attention by random bombs in markets and drive-by shootings in restaurants. That's far tougher to control: Sri Lanka managed it only by mass killings of its Tamil population.
Re-activating the Schengen borders is probably the necessary consequence of the refugee crisis, and really affects nothing of any significance to people currently living in Europe.
But it will do almost nothing either to deal with a different kind of terrorism: a kind no-one has learned to control without seriously violating the entire population's human rights.
Nov 14th, 2015, 11:12 PM
#13
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hetismij, totally agree with that. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of EU membership are now trying to back out of its obligations. No country has benefited more than Poland.
We cannot expect the countries at the borders of the EU to take all the strain; EU-funded processing centers, and a fair distribution of all refugees among all countries are needed.
You would have to reinstate border controls, though, since people assigned to, say, Poland, can just move to Germany.
I cannot imagine having border controls again between Belgium and the Netherlands - that would pose some logistical problems.
We cannot expect the countries at the borders of the EU to take all the strain; EU-funded processing centers, and a fair distribution of all refugees among all countries are needed.
You would have to reinstate border controls, though, since people assigned to, say, Poland, can just move to Germany.
I cannot imagine having border controls again between Belgium and the Netherlands - that would pose some logistical problems.
Nov 15th, 2015, 12:34 AM
#14
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>Re-activating the Schengen borders is probably the necessary consequence of the refugee crisis, and really affects nothing of any significance to people currently living in Europe. <<<
Where does this come from? Is this the point of view of someone who sits all day outside of Schengen, unemployed with nothing to do? Millions of businesses and workers throughout the zone will be and are being affected.
As for those benefiting the most not living up to their obligations, nothing new about that in the EU. The "rules" were written to guarantee pretty much that result, and are waived when they fail to. It's only when a country like Poland kicks back at being told what to do that the others suddenly find "principles" to lecture about.
Rather than attempt to re-settle the entire civilian populations of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan in Europe and other parts of the Middle East, wouldn't it make more sense to work on ending the horrific levels of violence in those places, address fundamental grievances, and bring about peace agreements?
Where does this come from? Is this the point of view of someone who sits all day outside of Schengen, unemployed with nothing to do? Millions of businesses and workers throughout the zone will be and are being affected.
As for those benefiting the most not living up to their obligations, nothing new about that in the EU. The "rules" were written to guarantee pretty much that result, and are waived when they fail to. It's only when a country like Poland kicks back at being told what to do that the others suddenly find "principles" to lecture about.
Rather than attempt to re-settle the entire civilian populations of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan in Europe and other parts of the Middle East, wouldn't it make more sense to work on ending the horrific levels of violence in those places, address fundamental grievances, and bring about peace agreements?
Nov 15th, 2015, 12:41 AM
#15
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Millions of businesses and workers throughout the zone will be and are being affected"
Just by the re-imposition of border checks? No one's saying that people entitled to do so under European law would be prevented from crossing borders, just that there would be ID/passport checks. It would be no different from the borders between the UK and the Schengen zone - you present your EU passport, have it scanned, and pass through.
Just by the re-imposition of border checks? No one's saying that people entitled to do so under European law would be prevented from crossing borders, just that there would be ID/passport checks. It would be no different from the borders between the UK and the Schengen zone - you present your EU passport, have it scanned, and pass through.
Nov 15th, 2015, 01:19 AM
#17
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, to be fair, I was. I suppose there would be significant delays resulting from queues at road borders, plus there are infrastructure/staffing issues given that the system had been dismantled.
I doubt Greece would have been capable of coping even before they spent all their money. The other countries the refugees are passing through are struggling to cope too.
I doubt Greece would have been capable of coping even before they spent all their money. The other countries the refugees are passing through are struggling to cope too.
Nov 15th, 2015, 04:10 AM
#18
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 12,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh the ingratitude of backward Poles not properly appreciating Western European enlightenment. Where would they be without that guidance?
Perhaps its payback for the so called Anglo Polish military alliance of 1939? Or they feel the EU baubles and trinkets of the past generation pale in comparison to the brain drain? Perhaps they just don't want to join the Franco German cultural suicide pact
Perhaps its payback for the so called Anglo Polish military alliance of 1939? Or they feel the EU baubles and trinkets of the past generation pale in comparison to the brain drain? Perhaps they just don't want to join the Franco German cultural suicide pact
Nov 15th, 2015, 05:11 AM
#19
i guess you have to go back to route causes. Does Schengen cause this problem? No. Does stopping it resolve the problem? No.
If , like the Brits or the Irish you have a natural border then you don't need to change anything. If like the rest of Europe you have a law based society you need to defend yourself from lawless society. Does that mean wire and walls? No. It does mean education, propaganda (in the best meaning of the word) and vigulance. Does that mean that you need all laws the same inside your law based society? No. But it does mean you need certain things controlled. So guns & drugs need to be under the control of governments. Not criminals or "private arms dealers or drugs dealers".
Look at how the Swiss manage guns, how the Portuguese control soft drugs and how the Norwegians educate.
If , like the Brits or the Irish you have a natural border then you don't need to change anything. If like the rest of Europe you have a law based society you need to defend yourself from lawless society. Does that mean wire and walls? No. It does mean education, propaganda (in the best meaning of the word) and vigulance. Does that mean that you need all laws the same inside your law based society? No. But it does mean you need certain things controlled. So guns & drugs need to be under the control of governments. Not criminals or "private arms dealers or drugs dealers".
Look at how the Swiss manage guns, how the Portuguese control soft drugs and how the Norwegians educate.
Nov 15th, 2015, 08:08 AM
#20
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference between the EU and the US is that in the US, you have one federal government that controls external borders. I'm not sure if Schengen purports to give the member countries latitude on external (non-Schengen) borders, but regardless of whether it does or not, you are still placing control of the Schengen area on a whole bunch of different governments. One weak link in the chain and without internal controls, every Schengen country is at the mercy of the weakest link.
