Schengen: Danish, German and Swedish ministers called to Brussels

[webfact]

Schengen: Danish, German and Swedish ministers called to Brussels



Ministers called to Brussels
Denmark brings back border controls
Follows decision by Sweden
Analysts say Schengen under threat

The news

BRUSSELS: -- Government ministers from Denmark, Sweden and Germany have been called to Brussels for a meeting on Wednesday.

The European Commission wants them to collaborate more in resolving migration and border issues which, it is feared, are calling the fundamental principal of free movement of people, or Schengen Area:http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/schengen/index_en.htm, into question.

News of the meeting was announced on Tuesday.

Denmark reinstates border controls

Denmark has imposed temporary identity checks on its border with Sweden.

Officials say the controls will last for ten days, but can be extended.

It follows a similar decision by Sweden, which began checking documents on the Oresund Bridge, Europe’s longest combined road and rail crossing.

Denmark’s prime minister says Sweden’s decision gave his country no option but to impose its own border controls.

Lars Lokke Rasmussen appealed to the EU to take “collective decisions” to better protect its external borders against the tide of migrants.

Sweden

Facing growing numbers of migrants, Sweden re-introduced border controls in mid-November.

Since 4th January, checks have also been brought in on trains and coaches crossing the Oresund Bridge from Denmark.

The Swedish police say numbers have already dropped.

Germany

Germany re-introduced some border controls, primarily along its border with Austria, in mid-September.

The numbers

Last year, an estimated 163,000 refugees sought asylum in Sweden. This is the largest number for any EU country relative to its population.

With 10,000 arriving a week in November, mostly travelling through Denmark, the Swedish government says it is time to tighten the rules.

More than a million migrants fleeing conflict in the Middle East and beyond sought shelter in Europe in 2015.

Why is this news?

Commentators say the decisions deal a double blow to Europe’s fraying passport-free Schengen Area as it attempts to deal with a record influx of migrants.

The unprecedented numbers have strained the EU’s free movement policy to breaking point.

Several countries have temporarily re-introduced border controls.

The decision also has important domestic implications. Around 15,000 commuters cross the strait between Sweden and Denmark every day.

Denmark’s state-owned rail operator estimates the ID controls will cost the company nearly one million Danish crowns (around 750,000 euros) a day.

Danish employers fear fewer Swedes will want to cross the bridge to work in Denmark as a result of the new rules.

There are concerns that businesses in Sweden’s Skane region and in Copenhagen with be impacted.

What they are saying

“Schengen is vital for our country” – German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

“A dark day for our Nordic region” – former Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-01-06

[rasmus5150]

I hope that Denmark will stand tough, against the German pressure to reopen the borders as usual.

[baboon]

Why is it a problem for the Schengen arrangement? If you have a valid ID/visa then surely it is through you go?

[NongKhaiKid]

Was this designed to facilitate the movement of people from countries that signed the agreement or just everyone ?

Seems ridiculous that the arrangement should be extended to people who enter illegally, no documentation etc. but in the current atmosphere of ' great humanitarianism ' it's no surprise and to hell with the consequences.

[oneday]

“Schengen is vital for our country” – German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Well then, you should not have opened your mouth and your borders so freely.

[NeverSure]

"Government ministers from Denmark, Sweden and Germany have been called to Brussels for a meeting on Wednesday."

"Have been called". They should remind them that they are sovereign countries and tell them to flap off.

[BestBitterPhuket]

I was very drunk and I invited a lot of unsavory characters to my house for a party. I didn't really know any of them and it turned out that they were not the types I wanted to have in my house. In order to get rid of them, I asked them to go to my neighbor's house and told them that he had better beds, food and more drinks than me, and so they left. However, my neighbor had locked his door and wouldn't open, and thus they couldn't get into his house. They all came back to my house! I was furious at my neighbor. What a horrible human being! How could he not accept my unwanted guests. I will surely tell all the others in the neighborhood what a terrible human being he is!

Edited January 6, 2016 by BestBitterPhuket

[wabothai]

"Government ministers from Denmark, Sweden and Germany have been called to Brussels for a meeting on Wednesday."

"Have been called". They should remind them that they are sovereign countries and tell them to flap off.

Indeed, should be the other way around.

[Baerboxer]

"Government ministers from Denmark, Sweden and Germany have been called to Brussels for a meeting on Wednesday."

"Have been called". They should remind them that they are sovereign countries and tell them to flap off.

The "tone" coming out of Brussels - calling these Ministers, threatening Poland, etc has hardened since Merkel's puppet Juncke became President.

Of course, the more they act like a Federal Government the more people will believe they actually are. And that suits both.

Don't be surprised if Sweden and Denmark are told off, whereas Germany is dealt with sympathetically.

Overt favoritism and hypocrisy is a common trait for Brussels.

[jope]

"Government ministers from Denmark, Sweden and Germany have been called to Brussels for a meeting on Wednesday."

"Have been called". They should remind them that they are sovereign countries and tell them to flap off.

The "tone" coming out of Brussels - calling these Ministers, threatening Poland, etc has hardened since Merkel's puppet Juncke became President.

Of course, the more they act like a Federal Government the more people will believe they actually are. And that suits both.

Don't be surprised if Sweden and Denmark are told off, whereas Germany is dealt with sympathetically.

Overt favoritism and hypocrisy is a common trait for Brussels.

Calling Juncker "Merkel's puppet" is an interesting choice of words considering that she strongly supported British reservations at the time and tried everything to prevent Juncker from becoming President of the Commission. Well, whatever you wish to believe...

Pacta sunt servanda!

All EU-member states signed the EU-treaties and by that they gave up parts of their sovereignty. The Commission is the guardian of the treaties. That is their first and most important task and responsibility. So, the Commission does not ask or beg member states to come and follow the rules. The Commission calls them in. If member states refuse to follow, the Commission will finally bring the matter to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and sue respective member states including, of course, Germany.

Edited January 6, 2016 by jope

[Saradoc1972]

Pacta sunt servanda!

All EU-member states signed the EU-treaties and by that they gave up parts of their sovereignty. The Commission is the guardian of the treaties. That is their first and most important task and responsibility. So, the Commission does not ask or beg member states to come and follow the rules. The Commission calls them in. If member states refuse to follow, the Commission will finally bring the matter to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and sue respective member states including, of course, Germany.

Pacta sunt servanda^#, yes, until there is a laesio enormis^##, i.e. an enormous unanticipated change to the basic that agreement rested on.

That concept is commonly written down in civil laws in a generalized way, e.g. when you can repossess your rented out flat or fire your worker for breach of contract, but there also is an overarching principle covering cases when it would not be fair to insist on an agreement. In British law that is called a promised estoppel, in

Germany you might find recourse in Treu und Glauben or Positive Vertragsverletzung, §242 BGB.

As the Schengen agreement was based on the assumption there would be common European borders that were guarded in an acceptable way and that obviously ceased to be the case and is something the Scandinavian states cannot control themselves, they and everybody else might well be entitled to go back on that agreement.

If you were to lend your car to a friend for the weekend and were to find out your friend had suddenly (after the fact) decided to use that car for illegal car racing, you'd be going back on that lending agreement, wouldn't you?

^# agreements must be kept

^## an enourmous breach or s.th. to that effect, a drastic change in circumstances

[jope]

Pacta sunt servanda!

All EU-member states signed the EU-treaties and by that they gave up parts of their sovereignty. The Commission is the guardian of the treaties. That is their first and most important task and responsibility. So, the Commission does not ask or beg member states to come and follow the rules. The Commission calls them in. If member states refuse to follow, the Commission will finally bring the matter to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and sue respective member states including, of course, Germany.

Pacta sunt servanda^#, yes, until there is a laesio enormis^##, i.e. an enormous unanticipated change to the basic that agreement rested on.

That concept is commonly written down in civil laws in a generalized way, e.g. when you can repossess your rented out flat or fire your worker for breach of contract,

but there also is an overarching principle covering cases when it would not be fair to insist on an agreement. In British law that is called a promised estoppel, in

Germany you might find recourse in Treu und Glauben or Positive Vertragsverletzung, §242 BGB.

As the Schengen agreement was based on the assumption there would be common European borders that were guarded in an acceptable way and that obviously

ceased to be the case and is something the Scandinavian states cannot control themselves, they and everybody else might well be entitled to go back on that agreement.

If you were to lend your car to a friend for the weekend and were to find out your friend had suddenly (after the fact) decided to use that car for illegal car racing, you'd

be going back on that lending agreement, wouldn't you?

^# agreements must be kept

^## an enourmous breach or s.th. to that effect, a drastic change in circumstances

Would not argue that!

I was more referring to the "sovereign state, they cannot tell us anything"-notion and the role that the Commission plays within the EU.

And if there was a lawsuit (can't see that either), Luxembourg might even surprise everyone with the arguments you just pointed out. But I think the Commission just wants to be convinced that the border controls will be temporary and that Europe is not going down the drain, a concern I do not share completely. I am still convinced that we will manage.

[Saradoc1972]

I hope that Denmark will stand tough, against the German pressure to reopen the borders as usual.

I hope so, too. I should like to have some civilized first world coutries in my Germany neighbourhood to take refuge in myself

should one day I have to return to Europe and things in Germany have totally gotten out of hand with a view to criminality,

housing and taxes.

[OMGImInPattaya]

“Schengen is vital for our country” – German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Well then, you should not have opened your mouth and your borders so freely.

Isn't she a physicist...shouldn't she understand that every action has and equal and opposite reaction?

[Saradoc1972]

Would not argue that!

I was more referring to the "sovereign state, they cannot tell us anything"-notion and the role that the Commission plays within the EU.

And if there was a lawsuit (can't see that either), Luxembourg might even surprise everyone with the arguments you just pointed out. But I think the Commission just wants to be convinced that the border controls will be temporary and that Europe is not going down the drain, a concern I do not share completely. I am still convinced that we will manage.

Your word in God's auditory canal.

[MockingJay]

Too late! Europe is done, Germany - as always - will later be blamed for the complete destruction of Europe...

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/11/watch-anti-migrant-video-going-viral-across-europe/

Edited January 6, 2016 by MockingJay

[Travelman868]

Why is it a problem for the Schengen arrangement? If you have a valid ID/visa then surely it is through you go?

It is a problem because there are NO border controls. The EU have been crying because the UK insist on border controls and better rules on migration, NOW they have big problems because no one knows where all the "refugees" are AND who is going to pay for them.

There already are several German cities that are bankrupt over refugees.

The fact is, why should we even think about taking millions of economic Muslim migrants into Europe.

AND it should be noted that when the dust has settled the 2 million male migrants will insist on bringing their 20 million relatives over as well. (after all it is their human rights)

The EU need to start working on a plan to repatriate migrants who are not refugees, these are the men and boys traveling with no family. SEND THEN BACK TO MUSLIM COUNTRIES. Shia to Iran Sunnis to Saudi

[jope]

Why is it a problem for the Schengen arrangement? If you have a valid ID/visa then surely it is through you go?

It is a problem because there are NO border controls. The EU have been crying because the UK insist on border controls and better rules on migration, NOW they have big problems because no one knows where all the "refugees" are AND who is going to pay for them.

There already are several German cities that are bankrupt over refugees.

The fact is, why should we even think about taking millions of economic Muslim migrants into Europe.

AND it should be noted that when the dust has settled the 2 million male migrants will insist on bringing their 20 million relatives over as well. (after all it is their human rights)

The EU need to start working on a plan to repatriate migrants who are not refugees, these are the men and boys traveling with no family. SEND THEN BACK TO MUSLIM COUNTRIES. Shia to Iran Sunnis to Saudi

As has been pointed out in previous threads:

Only spouses and their under age children will be permitted to follow. Looking at the age of the refugees I doubt that many of them are married and have children. An estimate of 20 million seems to be a tiny bit over the top.

[webfact]

Saving Schengen: Denmark, Sweden and Germany in emergency border talks



"We all agreed that the Schengen and free movement must be safeguarded, both for citizens and for the economy"

BRUSSELS: -- Officials from Denmark, Sweden and Germany have been at emergency talks in Brussels – amid mounting concerns over new border controls.

It comes after Sweden introduced ID checks on all people travelling to Denmark – and Denmark tightened controls on its frontier with Germany.

It’s dealt a double blow to the fraying passport-free Schengen area.

“We all agreed that the Schengen and free movement must be safeguarded, both for citizens and for the economy,” said Dimitri Avramopoulos, EU Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs.

Sweden took in more than 160-thousand migrants last year, many of them having travelled through Denmark.

It is the largest number for any EU country, in relation to its population and has put a huge strain on services.

That is why the government decided to impose stricter controls.

“If I just count the unaccompanied children and minors, there came 26-thousand to Sweden, and that is one thousand school classes arriving in Sweden in four months,” said Morgan Johannson, Swedish Minister for Justice and Migration.

“So it tells a little bit how the situation was in Autumn, and I don’t want to get back to that situation again.”

Ole Schroder, German Parliamentary Secretary of State, told reporters: “Our problem at the moment in Europe is that we do not have functioning border control system especially at the Greece-Turkey border.

“We must apply the common European asylum system properly, Eurodac is not applied properly (finger-printing system), the relocation mechanism is not functioning.”

In fact, only 272 refugees have been relocated from Greece and Italy so far, out of 160-thousand originally pledged.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-01-07

[manarak]

Commentators say the decisions deal a double blow to Europes fraying passport-free Schengen Area as it attempts to deal with a record influx of migrants.

this is BS.

why not just let countries do border checks and let all European citizens and legal residents pass freely with their passport / id card / residency permit ?

where is the problem?

was Schengen made to facilitate travel of illegals or what?

if I was one of those ministers I would also start checking IDs in trains, buses, random checks on highways... security of citizens first.

Edited January 6, 2016 by manarak

[bobmac10]

too little too late

[jope]

Commentators say the decisions deal a double blow to Europes fraying passport-free Schengen Area as it attempts to deal with a record influx of migrants.

this is BS.

why not just let countries do border checks and let all European citizens and legal residents pass freely with their passport / id card / residency permit ?

where is the problem?

was Schengen made to facilitate travel of illegals or what?

if I was one of those ministers I would also start checking IDs in trains, buses, random checks on highways... security of citizens first.

But that is exactly the point: traveling freely without the obligation to produce ID. More importantly: border controls have a serious economic effect. Delayed freight deliveries cost a lot of money. Why do you think there are no border controls between the different states of the USA?

Edited January 7, 2016 by jope

[micmichd]

Pacta sunt servanda!

All EU-member states signed the EU-treaties and by that they gave up parts of their sovereignty. The Commission is the guardian of the treaties. That is their first and most important task and responsibility. So, the Commission does not ask or beg member states to come and follow the rules. The Commission calls them in. If member states refuse to follow, the Commission will finally bring the matter to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and sue respective member states including, of course, Germany.

Pacta sunt servanda^#, yes, until there is a laesio enormis^##, i.e. an enormous unanticipated change to the basic that agreement rested on.

That concept is commonly written down in civil laws in a generalized way, e.g. when you can repossess your rented out flat or fire your worker for breach of contract, but there also is an overarching principle covering cases when it would not be fair to insist on an agreement. In British law that is called a promised estoppel, in

Germany you might find recourse in Treu und Glauben or Positive Vertragsverletzung, §242 BGB.

As the Schengen agreement was based on the assumption there would be common European borders that were guarded in an acceptable way and that obviously ceased to be the case and is something the Scandinavian states cannot control themselves, they and everybody else might well be entitled to go back on that agreement.

If you were to lend your car to a friend for the weekend and were to find out your friend had suddenly (after the fact) decided to use that car for illegal car racing, you'd be going back on that lending agreement, wouldn't you?

^# agreements must be kept

^## an enourmous breach or s.th. to that effect, a drastic change in circumstances

All European governments have been warned about the wave of refugees from Africa and the Middle East since 20 years. Hard to claim a dramatic change of circumstances now.

[jaidam]

Commentators say the decisions deal a double blow to Europes fraying passport-free Schengen Area as it attempts to deal with a record influx of migrants.

this is BS.

why not just let countries do border checks and let all European citizens and legal residents pass freely with their passport / id card / residency permit ?

where is the problem?

was Schengen made to facilitate travel of illegals or what?

if I was one of those ministers I would also start checking IDs in trains, buses, random checks on highways... security of citizens first.

But that is exactly the point: traveling freely without the obligation to produce ID. More importantly: border controls have a serious economic effect. Delayed freight deliveries cost a lot of money. Why do you think there are no border controls between the different states of the USA?

To be fair, this massive cost of reintroducing border controls must be added to the cost/capita of welcoming these migrants. That is, assuming the true cost of mass immigration is to be properly calculated. Also to be factored in is the skyrocketing cost of policing, penitentiaries and the judiciary to take care of the crime wave they brought along with them.

[Saradoc1972]

Pacta sunt servanda^#, yes, until there is a laesio enormis^##, i.e. an enormous unanticipated change to the basic that agreement rested on.

All European governments have been warned about the wave of refugees from Africa and the Middle East since 20 years. Hard to claim a dramatic change of circumstances now.

There might have been the prospect of waves of economic migrants, Spain certainly has known that for decades along Ceuta, Melilla and the Canary islands, but not these numbers and circumstances.

Firstly, we have an unprecedented number of states that more or less have disappeared, i.e. Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya, especially the latter.

With Libya still in the hands of a friendly megalomaniac dictator, these waves of rafts and dinghies over the Mediterraneans would not have been possible.

Radical Islam had not been on the rise like today, 9/11 was only 14 years ago, today's IS is much different from the Taliban and Al-Quaida.

Technology has changed. 20 y ago no one foresaw the impact the internet would have and the widespread use of mobile communication, allowing migrants to constantly update their

info on possible routes and circumstances along their track. Portable GPS was unavailable for common private persons. I don't believe the tech to just glue rafts together in a garage

was available, as it is now in Libya.

It was not anticipated the relative rise of wealth in third world countries would actually result in more people making the journey because they now can afford it in the first place.

UN, European and ECHR legislation and jurisdiction have over the last 2 decades formed a toxic relationship in making it legally nearly impossible to push back migrants, even if they tear down fences and throw stones in crossing borders, or force captains to change the direction of vessels they have been "rescued" by. The flawed installation and subsequent failure of Dublin regulations were not foreseeable.

Lastly, no one would have anticipated two EU countries going rogue (i.e. Sweden and Germany) in actually inviting any number of migrants in, either because of wanting the world to see how human rights are done proper, or regarding Muslim an-alphabets as a welcome workforce. And doing away with Dublin regulations on the fly. And wanting to force migrants on other EU countries who never agreed on unregulated immigration or the abuse of asylum as a tool for that. And other EU countries actively busing migrants along to get them out of their own country and past the next country's border guards.

I think it was Poland's Donald Tusk who gave an interview asking why all of a sudden people from Afghanistan were flocking to Germany in masses with Afghanistan having been a war zone and a hell-hole of a country for 30 years and only some people leaving all the time, almost exclusively to neighbouring Pakistan and Iran.

He proceeded to answer to his own question in that now these people had more or less been told that immigration to Germany, i.e. the land of milk and honey, was now possible as the EU countries and Germany would be letting them in.

So yes, that is a massive largely unanticipated change in all manner of circumstances.

[Ulic]

I really don't understand, A 2 second check of everyone who does not look like they came from the middle east or Africa, and closer inspection for those that do. It's not that difficult or time consuming, just the principle of it I suppose.

[elgordo38]

Commentators say the decisions deal a double blow to Europes fraying passport-free Schengen Area as it attempts to deal with a record influx of migrants.

this is BS.

why not just let countries do border checks and let all European citizens and legal residents pass freely with their passport / id card / residency permit ?

where is the problem?

was Schengen made to facilitate travel of illegals or what?

if I was one of those ministers I would also start checking IDs in trains, buses, random checks on highways... security of citizens first.

But that is exactly the point: traveling freely without the obligation to produce ID. More importantly: border controls have a serious economic effect. Delayed freight deliveries cost a lot of money. Why do you think there are no border controls between the different states of the USA?

To be fair, this massive cost of reintroducing border controls must be added to the cost/capita of welcoming these migrants. That is, assuming the true cost of mass immigration is to be properly calculated. Also to be factored in is the skyrocketing cost of policing, penitentiaries and the judiciary to take care of the crime wave they brought along with them.

The poor slob working taxpayer's back is starting to look a little bent. Win the war from within.

[sweatalot]

If they want, handling this is easy.

Just don't let anybody in who has no proper education, no work permit in Europe or cannot show enough money to take care of themselves

and dismiss Merkel and sue her for the damage she did to the country (same as Yingluck)

Let the borders inside open and remove people of the kind mentioned above.

[Credo]

I really don't understand, A 2 second check of everyone who does not look like they came from the middle east or Africa, and closer inspection for those that do. It's not that difficult or time consuming, just the principle of it I suppose.

These things just don't tend to work out so well. First, anything crossing the border needs to be checked, including trucks and that slows things way down. Second, any form of public transport that will be crossing the border will have to check before they leave and when they arrive; a somewhat slow process. Finally, there are those people who have forgotten their documents, can't find them, have questionable documents and they have to be detained and checked.

Some of these countries are fairly small and for a truck or bus to get from point A to point B could be slow process.

[sead]

Commentators say the decisions deal a double blow to Europes fraying passport-free Schengen Area as it attempts to deal with a record influx of migrants.

this is BS.

why not just let countries do border checks and let all European citizens and legal residents pass freely with their passport / id card / residency permit ?

where is the problem?

was Schengen made to facilitate travel of illegals or what?

if I was one of those ministers I would also start checking IDs in trains, buses, random checks on highways... security of citizens first.

But that is exactly the point: traveling freely without the obligation to produce ID. More importantly: border controls have a serious economic effect. Delayed freight deliveries cost a lot of money. Why do you think there are no border controls between the different states of the USA?

Traveling freely for EU citizens with Scengen borders! And clearly that didnt work good.

Edited January 7, 2016 by sead