Re-introduction of border controls for EU schengen member states

poeticseraphim

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-and-french-proposal-for-border-controls-endangers-european-unity-a-828815.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386797/Is-Brussels-turn-Schengen-Switzerland-European-country-suggest-reintroducing-border-controls.html

So it is mentioned as a proposal and the details are sketchy.

But it is being proposed supposedly to deal with immigrants.

But we have always had immigrant issues.

It is in many ways more immportant than the EURO freedom to ravel between states.

Do you agree with the article that is could be a vote of no confidence in the euro and it is secretly to keep tight control of capital and prevent EU citizens from travelling?

Would it damage the eu?

NO MORE INTERRAILING :eek:

poeticseraphim

It mentins time limits however it puts mechanisms in place.

It puts the EU back decades and hampers those who have family abroad or who live and work in different countries.

BKtje

NO MORE INTERRAILING

Why no more interrailing? It would just mean that you had to show your passport at every border check point. You'd still have free movement as long as you brought your passport along or am I missing something?

I'd be very sad to see Schengen be withdrawn though, it makes things so easy to travel around europe.

bizmark

Surely the last thing the eu needs is to make its citizens feel even more removed from the "idea" of a united europe and give fewer tangible benefit to being a member to the adverage person?

Dumb idea is dumb

pawrick

Can't see this doing anything other then causing ordinary citizens trouble with delays crossing boarders.

People who want to enter illegally will continue to do so it won't prevent that unless you want to do what Israel has done and built a massive wall to separate us from them.

Daily fail comments are funny, UK has no land boarder with Europe so it is in the best position to reduce illegals gaining entry - getting rid of shengan in Europe as they aren't part of it to begin with will change little for them.

Solair

To me this proposal seems totally stupid for two reasons:

1) It's a hugely retrograde step and it would remove one of the really positive and practical aspects of the EU. While I know Ireland and Britain remained the common border control aspects of Schengen, it made little or no difference to us as we are islands. However, for the rest of Europe this would be a huge problem. Imagine how much extra bureaucracy a trucker would have to deal with?

2) It sends out a message to the international financial wolves markets that the EU is falling apart and that there's some kind of impending large scale social unrest on the way.

It just confirms to me that Europe is largely being run by populists who only care about tabloid headlines and are not putting forward any kind of vision for progress.

stringed theory

The Daily Mail article makes an interesting read for its total misrepresentation of the issue.
This is about putting pressure on Greece, and on Bulgaria and Romania when they join the Schengen zone, to make them take seriously their responsibilities to police the external border. The prospect of reintroducing controls between, say, France and Germany is about zero. There may be an interesting row about subverting the role of the European Parliament, however.

fasttalkerchat

That was a Daily Mail article from over a year ago.

The Corinthian

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That was a Daily Mail article from over a year ago.

Both articles were dated as they took place prior to the French presidential elections, leading to Sarkozy losing and a French socialist president who is unlikely to support such measures.

The issue is this; for geographical reasons Spain, Italy and Greece are points of entry for illegal immigration to the EU. The vast majority of this illegal immigration has no interest in remaining in Spain, Italy or Greece, but seeks to move north to the UK, Germany, France and so on.

So on one side Spain, Italy and Greece are fighting immigration with one hand tied behind their backs, as they are required to observe the human rights of those attempting to enter their territories and simply cannot deal with the influx. As such, all have pleaded with the rest of the EU to lend aid in this area, which of course went largely ignored.

Until of course, a few months back Italy got fed up with carrying the can on this and gave travel passes to a load of north Africans who were in Italy only on their way to France. France got upset at this and began to swagger around discussing suspending the Schengen agreement.

What is this likely to mean? Probably nothing, as with Hollande in power, the policy will likely be dropped. Even if not, it would probably at most mean that there may be border checks again for anyone who looks too swarthy to be European. For the rest of us, there will be absolutely no change.

Victor

Isn't this really a non-story? It is hardly that there is a huge amount of formality for EU citizens travelling between CTA and Schengen countries.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/german-and-french-proposal-for-border-controls-endangers-european-unity-a-828815.html

From 2 months ago, during the French election

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386797/Is-Brussels-turn-Schengen-Switzerland-European-country-suggest-reintroducing-border-controls.html

From last year.

So it is mentioned as a proposal and the details are sketchy.

Perhaps because it isn't really proposed?

But it is being proposed supposedly to deal with immigrants.

But we have always had immigrant issues.

Of course, the articles blur the lines between migrant EU citizens, non-EU citizens and refugees.

It is in many ways more immportant than the EURO freedom to ravel between states.

What is "it"? Why is it more important?

Do you agree with the article that is could be a vote of no confidence in the euro

No. how do you come to that conclusion?

and it is secretly to keep tight control of capital

How would this happen?

and prevent EU citizens from travelling?

But, pre-Schengen, all I had to do is show that I was an EU citizen to get from country to country.

Would it damage the eu?

You do realise that Schengen and the EU aren't the same thing? Not all members of the EU apply Schengen and some countries are in Schengen but not the EU.

NO MORE INTERRAILING :eek:

On what basis? Inter-Railing existed before Schengen.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

It mentins time limits however it puts mechanisms in place.

It puts the EU back decades and hampers those who have family abroad or who live and work in different countries.

Ah, you feel it important to reply to your own thread.

Schengen already allows countries to apply temporary border controls. I think Sweden did it a few years ago for an EU summit.

Does it really put the EU back decades? In what way do you fell this is so? You do realise that enhanced computer technology, e.g. forwarding passenger manifest to the point of arrival means that passport checks can be better targeted than previously?

Solair wrote: »

To me this proposal seems totally stupid for two reasons:

1) It's a hugely retrograde step and it would remove one of the really positive and practical aspects of the EU. While I know Ireland and Britain remained the common border control aspects of Schengen, it made little or no difference to us as we are islands. However, for the rest of Europe this would be a huge problem. Imagine how much extra bureaucracy a trucker would have to deal with?

You mean flash his passport at hte border and be waved on?

2) It sends out a message to the international financial wolves markets that the EU is falling apart and that there's some kind of impending large scale social unrest on the way.

Where are you getting this from?

It just confirms to me that Europe is largely being run by populists who only care about tabloid headlines and are not putting forward any kind of vision for progress.

Or maybe the the Mail is a populist paper that makes things up.

FreudianSlippers

I have to agree with Victor. I see no issue in your passport being scanned in quickly whilst you enter a country. We must remember that the free movement of people/workers is not absolute as well. I am all for border checks where EU citizens show their passport and get scanned in to prove it is legit if it helps curb illegal immigration.

View

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have to agree with Victor. I see no issue in your passport being scanned in quickly whilst you enter a country. We must remember that the free movement of people/workers is not absolute as well. I am all for border checks where EU citizens show their passport and get scanned in to prove it is legit if it helps curb illegal immigration.

That is a big IF which does not appear to be backed up by the evidence.

For instance, in 2009, Schengen area Germany apprehended circa 50K "irregular immigrants", non-Schengen area UK circa 70K.

FreudianSlippers

View wrote: »

That is a big IF which does not appear to be backed up by the evidence.

For instance, in 2009, Schengen area Germany apprehended circa 50K "irregular immigrants", non-Schengen area UK circa 70K.

Noted, but it could help by effectively acting as a screen at border points to filter out those who may have gotten through at a port of first entry into the EU and then been allowed travel freely. Certainly it may not show in specific numbers of individual borders; however, the net amount of illegal immigrants caught would be likely to increase. In a manner of speaking: "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again!"

View

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Noted, but it could help by effectively acting as a screen at border points to filter out those who may have gotten through at a port of first entry into the EU and then been allowed travel freely. Certainly it may not show in specific numbers of individual borders; however, the net amount of illegal immigrants caught would be likely to increase. In a manner of speaking: "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again!"

Well, I think the point is the evidence isn't there to indicate that they are effective.

Secondly, taken to its logically conclusion, we should have "border controls" on our county borders (if not lower level) lest the inter-member state border controls miss anyone, right?

Thirdly, were the "effectiveness" argument, the logic driving our Schengen area opt-out then it would mean we should have introduced border controls with the UK also.

FreudianSlippers

View wrote: »

Well, I think the point is the evidence isn't there to indicate that they are effective.

Secondly, taken to its logically conclusion, we should have "border controls" on our county borders (if not lower level) lest the inter-member state border controls miss anyone, right?

Thirdly, were the "effectiveness" argument, the logic driving our Schengen area opt-out then it would mean we should have introduced border controls with the UK also.

Well, internal issues should be dealt with through the Department of Revenue or Department of Social Protection. I must concede that we do a miserable job in Ireland in catching illegal immigrants who are working or claiming social protection payments in comparison to other countries, so it's a tough one to call in Ireland.

The reason I put forward for the evidence being inconclusive is that all it takes to get into the EU is one weak link - then for all intents and purposes they have free reign of all borderless countries therein. Bordered travel inside the EU does not necessarily mean delays and increased screening; it only requires proof of a valid EU passport or (starting 19th January 2013) a European Driving Licence. Also, for those who do not hold driving licences, it would be simple to implement a European Identity Card.

If we only consider those caught at the port of first entry then we miss the clear opportunities to catch them when making intra-EU travel.