Opinion of the Schengen Agreement

[k-onmmunist]

Go.

[Franzl]

Sceptical of it on principle, but isn't really a problem. At least with most member states.

[Antonio the Sixth]

One of the great progresses the EU brought.

[Gustaf]

I'm not really a big fan.

[ZuWo]

I opposed it when Switzerland voted on it (and narrowly approved of it) and still oppose it now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Positive.

[Gustaf]

Out of curiosity, why are those of you who like it in favour?

[Franzl]

Out of curiosity, why are those of you who like it in favour?

I imagine the argument in favor is freedom of travel (i.e. not having to stop at the border and show ID).

Why that's necessary between sovereign countries, I dunno. But I don't think it's causing massive problems. I do have an uneasy feeling about the whole thing, though.

[Gustaf]

Out of curiosity, why are those of you who like it in favour?

I imagine the argument in favor is freedom of travel (i.e. not having to stop at the border and show ID).

Why that's necessary between sovereign countries, I dunno. But I don't think it's causing massive problems. I do have an uneasy feeling about the whole thing, though.

I guess...I almost always travel by air so I always show ID anyway.

While I generally think that it is nice to be able to travel freely I think it should be up to a sovereign state to decide for itself.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Out of curiosity, why are those of you who like it in favour?

I imagine the argument in favor is freedom of travel (i.e. not having to stop at the border and show ID).

Why that's necessary between sovereign countries, I dunno. But I don't think it's causing massive problems. I do have an uneasy feeling about the whole thing, though.

I guess...I almost always travel by air so I always show ID anyway.

While I generally think that it is nice to be able to travel freely I think it should be up to a sovereign state to decide for itself.

Why people value sovereignty as a positive thing per se and regardless of the issue, I fail to understand.

[ZuWo]

Out of curiosity, why are those of you who like it in favour?

I imagine the argument in favor is freedom of travel (i.e. not having to stop at the border and show ID).

Why that's necessary between sovereign countries, I dunno. But I don't think it's causing massive problems. I do have an uneasy feeling about the whole thing, though.

I guess...I almost always travel by air so I always show ID anyway.

While I generally think that it is nice to be able to travel freely I think it should be up to a sovereign state to decide for itself.

Why people value sovereignty as a positive thing per se and regardless of the issue, I fail to understand.

What is a viable alternative to the sovereignty of individual states? A "Government of Europe" or a "Government of the World", where matters concerning all nations are decided by an extremely small and powerful elite?
I certainly agree that the concept of individual sovereign nation states has its limits, but it's by far the best realistic concept I can imagine.

[Boris]

Austrian and Icelandic police have requested my passport upon when I've entered each country from another Schengen state...But literally each officer glanced at it for like .0001 seconds which probably means they don't care about people with US passports. But is that actually legal for them to ask? What would if happened if I had said no, I don't have my passport?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Out of curiosity, why are those of you who like it in favour?

I imagine the argument in favor is freedom of travel (i.e. not having to stop at the border and show ID).

Why that's necessary between sovereign countries, I dunno. But I don't think it's causing massive problems. I do have an uneasy feeling about the whole thing, though.

I guess...I almost always travel by air so I always show ID anyway.

While I generally think that it is nice to be able to travel freely I think it should be up to a sovereign state to decide for itself.

Why people value sovereignty as a positive thing per se and regardless of the issue, I fail to understand.

What is a viable alternative to the sovereignty of individual states? A "Government of Europe" or a "Government of the World", where matters concerning all nations are decided by an extremely small and powerful elite?
I certainly agree that the concept of individual sovereign nation states has its limits, but it's by far the best realistic concept I can imagine.

What about simply, concretely finding out which level of government is most fit for each issue ? There are some domains which are better managed by small entities like regions, other that are well managed by nations. For plenty of topics, like environment, economic policies and regulations, or immigration, countries have proven unable to properly do the job. A global oversight is necessary in order to protect the interest of every citizen and transcend national egoism.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Out of curiosity, why are those of you who like it in favour?

Simply because I can travel to most of the other EU counties without passport.

[Franzl]

Austrian and Icelandic police have requested my passport upon when I've entered each country from another Schengen state...But literally each officer glanced at it for like .0001 seconds which probably means they don't care about people with US passports. But is that actually legal for them to ask? What would if happened if I had said no, I don't have my passport?

I think it's legal if it's done for a limited time in a random way. Not positive, though.

I've been checked going from Germany to Austria before. I've crossed that border probably 20 times and they were only standing there once.

[Gustaf]

Out of curiosity, why are those of you who like it in favour?

I imagine the argument in favor is freedom of travel (i.e. not having to stop at the border and show ID).

Why that's necessary between sovereign countries, I dunno. But I don't think it's causing massive problems. I do have an uneasy feeling about the whole thing, though.

I guess...I almost always travel by air so I always show ID anyway.

While I generally think that it is nice to be able to travel freely I think it should be up to a sovereign state to decide for itself.

Why people value sovereignty as a positive thing per se and regardless of the issue, I fail to understand.

I happen to think that decisions should be democratically legitimate rather than "efficient". Of course, I think that makes them more efficient as well.

The reason why soverignty has a value is because the soveriegn state is the entity which has democratic legitimacy and a functioning public discourse. Which is why it is always problematic to me when power is moved away from an arena where politicians are held accountable (i.e. Sweden) to one where they aren't (the EU).

Now, I realize that if you're already living in a country like Italy this loss may not be as big, but I still think it is fairly sizeable.

Furthermore, you seem to assume that one must give up soverignty to have free travel. I disagree. The Nordic countries have had this for decades without surrendering soverignty to any undemocratic, super-national institution. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Out of curiosity, why are those of you who like it in favour?

I imagine the argument in favor is freedom of travel (i.e. not having to stop at the border and show ID).

Why that's necessary between sovereign countries, I dunno. But I don't think it's causing massive problems. I do have an uneasy feeling about the whole thing, though.

I guess...I almost always travel by air so I always show ID anyway.

While I generally think that it is nice to be able to travel freely I think it should be up to a sovereign state to decide for itself.

Why people value sovereignty as a positive thing per se and regardless of the issue, I fail to understand.

I happen to think that decisions should be democratically legitimate rather than "efficient". Of course, I think that makes them more efficient as well.

The reason why soverignty has a value is because the soveriegn state is the entity which has democratic legitimacy and a functioning public discourse. Which is why it is always problematic to me when power is moved away from an arena where politicians are held accountable (i.e. Sweden) to one where they aren't (the EU).

Now, I realize that if you're already living in a country like Italy this loss may not be as big, but I still think it is fairly sizeable.

Furthermore, you seem to assume that one must give up soverignty to have free travel. I disagree. The Nordic countries have had this for decades without surrendering soverignty to any undemocratic, super-national institution. 

Who said supernational entities are necessarily undemocratic ? If you euroskeptics spent more time pushing for democratization of the EU institutions instead of keep shouting that EU sucks and that we must absolutely protect sovereignty, maybe EU would be more democratic by now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Very positive because border controls are sooooooooooooooo f**king stupid. The US/Canadian ones are so f**king inane and unnecessary this seems like such a good idea. I don't see a reason why there should be any border control between the US and Canada whatsoever, and it makes just as much sense to have it between European states.

[ingemann]

As someone who drive or take the train on most trips outside the country and as someone old enough to remember, how sh**tty it was to cross the border before; I'm support the Schengen agrement. I have no wish to return to the 3 hour waiting periode at every border.
As for question asked earlier about whether it was legal for the Austrian custom to demand identification (and search the vehicle) at the border; yes it is as long as the custom is only sampling, and not a general rule for border crossing.

[Gustaf]

Out of curiosity, why are those of you who like it in favour?

I imagine the argument in favor is freedom of travel (i.e. not having to stop at the border and show ID).

Why that's necessary between sovereign countries, I dunno. But I don't think it's causing massive problems. I do have an uneasy feeling about the whole thing, though.

I guess...I almost always travel by air so I always show ID anyway.

While I generally think that it is nice to be able to travel freely I think it should be up to a sovereign state to decide for itself.

Why people value sovereignty as a positive thing per se and regardless of the issue, I fail to understand.

I happen to think that decisions should be democratically legitimate rather than "efficient". Of course, I think that makes them more efficient as well.

The reason why soverignty has a value is because the soveriegn state is the entity which has democratic legitimacy and a functioning public discourse. Which is why it is always problematic to me when power is moved away from an arena where politicians are held accountable (i.e. Sweden) to one where they aren't (the EU).

Now, I realize that if you're already living in a country like Italy this loss may not be as big, but I still think it is fairly sizeable.

Furthermore, you seem to assume that one must give up soverignty to have free travel. I disagree. The Nordic countries have had this for decades without surrendering soverignty to any undemocratic, super-national institution. 

Who said supernational entities are necessarily undemocratic ? If you euroskeptics spent more time pushing for democratization of the EU institutions instead of keep shouting that EU sucks and that we must absolutely protect sovereignty, maybe EU would be more democratic by now.

Haha!

If you people who aren't euroskeptics and, you know, run the EU cared about democracy I think that would matter more. The EU skeptics tend to actually do call for more transparency and accountability in the EU but that doesn't go anywhere.

And supernational entities are undemocratic because they have no democratic basis. There is no public debate, scrutinizing media or even political parties operating on the EU level.

Even disregarding that, my argument does not rely on supernational institutions being inherently undemocratic, but merely on the EU actually being so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Haha!

If you people who aren't euroskeptics and, you know, run the EU cared about democracy I think that would matter more. The EU skeptics tend to actually do call for more transparency and accountability in the EU but that doesn't go anywhere.

And supernational entities are undemocratic because they have no democratic basis. There is no public debate, scrutinizing media or even political parties operating on the EU level.

Even disregarding that, my argument does not rely on supernational institutions being inherently undemocratic, but merely on the EU actually being so.

Now it's my turn to laugh.

Of course there is no European-level public opinion and political conscience, since people like you keep seeing things with an exclusively national perspective ! Of course we will never have a real European Federation, based on democratic institutions, until people will keep thinking to their short-term national interests instead of realizing that Europe is the best way to guarantee the interests of everyone !

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Euroskeptics are the cause of Europe's flaws. But they certainly do nothing to move things in the right direction. Because every time there is a move to reinforce solidarity between countries, these people will stand up and refuse to "pay for the others", without realizing that in the end this attitude harms everybody. It's not surprising that after that members of EU countries start to hate each other, instead of realizing they are all in the same boat. It's not surprising EU democracy doesn't progress when petty, narrow-minded leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy are in charge. Because they don't want a democratic, federal EU. They only care about their useless sovereignty and don't see this will eventually bring their little countries down.

Now, if you tell me you want to kick out Barroso and his clique of neoliberal technocrats, make the European Parliament the real legislative body of the EU and create European parties, I will agree with you 1000%. "The EU isn't democratic, let's democratize the EU" seems a sounder logic to me than "the EU isn't democratic, down with the EU".

[Gustaf]

Haha!

If you people who aren't euroskeptics and, you know, run the EU cared about democracy I think that would matter more. The EU skeptics tend to actually do call for more transparency and accountability in the EU but that doesn't go anywhere.

And supernational entities are undemocratic because they have no democratic basis. There is no public debate, scrutinizing media or even political parties operating on the EU level.

Even disregarding that, my argument does not rely on supernational institutions being inherently undemocratic, but merely on the EU actually being so.

Now it's my turn to laugh.

Of course there is no European-level public opinion and political conscience, since people like you keep seeing things with an exclusively national perspective ! Of course we will never have a real European Federation, based on democratic institutions, until people will keep thinking to their short-term national interests instead of realizing that Europe is the best way to guarantee the interests of everyone !

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Euroskeptics are the cause of Europe's flaws. But they certainly do nothing to move things in the right direction. Because every time there is a move to reinforce solidarity between countries, these people will stand up and refuse to "pay for the others", without realizing that in the end this attitude harms everybody. It's not surprising that after that members of EU countries start to hate each other, instead of realizing they are all in the same boat. It's not surprising EU democracy doesn't progress when petty, narrow-minded leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy are in charge. Because they don't want a democratic, federal EU. They only care about their useless sovereignty and don't see this will eventually bring their little countries down.

Now, if you tell me you want to kick out Barroso and his clique of neoliberal technocrats, make the European Parliament the real legislative body of the EU and create European parties, I will agree with you 1000%. "The EU isn't democratic, let's democratize the EU" seems a sounder logic to me than "the EU isn't democratic, down with the EU".

So, you're saying that the problem is that people haven't seen the light? I mean, people don't actually care for those other parts of Europe. Why would we? I don't feel as if I have more in common with Italians than Norwegians. In fact, it's rather the opposite. If I am to show solidarity with someone I'd rather increaes my contributions to Doctors Without Borders to help people in genuine plight rather than pay more taxes to pay for state pensions for the Greek.

Your idea is to force a concept that has no roots or legitimacy on people who don't want them. You seem to think that this will somehow be democratic, but it won't be.

At least the euroskeptics criticize the lack of democracy in the EU and try to do something about that. The pro-EU side silently reinforces the laughable sham of the EU institutions.

See, the petty narrow-minded leaders you so despise were elected. As opposed to the people in Brussels. Your entire attitude, that democracy is the problem standing in the way of an EU federation is symptomatic for the EU's problems at large.

Your saying that there is no European debate because people like me keep seeing things the wrong way. That's an odd stance to take. We've been plagued by EU propaganda supported by both sides of the political spectrum, as well as all the other elites in every country (UK being something of an exception). If people still don't agree with you I think that's their democratic prerogative and not something to be sneered at.

My logic is quite simple - the EU won't be democratic anytime soon, both because there is no institutional desire to do so and because it inherently lacks the legitimacy required. Thus, it is better to do away with it.

[Tender Branson]

Austrian and Icelandic police have requested my passport upon when I've entered each country from another Schengen state...But literally each officer glanced at it for like .0001 seconds which probably means they don't care about people with US passports. But is that actually legal for them to ask? What would if happened if I had said no, I don't have my passport?

They would then take you to the police station or customs station and evaluate where your passport is. If you say you lost it, you can get a temporary one at the embassy I think. If you say you crossed the border without a valid passport, they will probably put you in Schubhaft (arrest awaiting deportation) and later deport you.

[Gustaf]

It's easy to forget that the corollary to Schengen is that police can ask for your passport at any time anywhere. I remember this was a big issue in France when it started out, because people were claiming that minorities were being excessively targeted by the police.

[Tender Branson]

It's easy to forget that the corollary to Schengen is that police can ask for your passport at any time anywhere. I remember this was a big issue in France when it started out, because people were claiming that minorities were being excessively targeted by the police.

Which is why I don't understand the problems with the AZ law, a law that is basically in effect in Austria and most everywhere else.