Talk:Schengen Agreement

Denmark and Sweden
I understand that customs and passport control are different. However, being British, we do not (yet) have id cards and any official who may request id must be given my passport, even if they are only customs.

I rented a car in Germany (German plates) and drove to the Danish border near Flensburg. I passed the "Danmark" sign, the road surface changed and thought that I would see no border control at all. However, a Danish police or customs officer flagged all the cars I could see (prob not the ones with Danish plates) and me into a picnic area where I voluntarity presented my passport and complied with requests for a quick rifle thru my suitcase for drugs etc. Then I went on my way.

After the Oresund Bridge you land in Sweden and go through the toll booths to pay for using the bridge. A short distance after the booth I was flagged down by a Swedish customs officer to whom I again presented my passport before being asked for it. I expect Swedish/Danish cars are not flagged down. After a couple of how long/where/why questions I was allowed on my way.

Crossing the border from Sweden towards Oslo there is a toll booth for the motorway but no customs for cars, but I think there is a lane for trucks.

So there is customs control and stopping of traffic at both these borders which are both internal to the Schengen area. This is quite proper and I think a good idea, but doesn't the article at least IMPLY that there are no controls at all.

It still seems to depend a lot on the car, the plates and the time of day. Swiss border points are almost always guarded. Eastern European cars get a lot more attention and are made to leave the queue and every piece of luggage is searched. But then they are often economic migrants with ALL their posessions. --81.105.243.17 (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are controls, especially at the Swedish side of the Oresund bridge. You had a little bad luck because from my experience there are rarely controls at the other mentioned borders. After the german-danish border you had a police control, not customs control, since in Denmark drugs is a police matter, not customs matter. They are checking local cars also, but some nationalities and personal looks (like dark skin) is little more suspicious than other. --BIL (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As pointed out in the "Customs controls" part of the article, stops are permitted as long as they are not "equivalent to border controls", which means that a person is stopped at or near the border merely for crossing it. However, checks based on police intelligence (also profiles) are still permitted - in some jurisdictions (e.g. Bavaria) even on all transit routes. Or, to take another example, the German Federal Police is entitled to ask anyone present at a German airport or train station for indentification (but not more, they may, e.g., not search a person without proper reason). In other jurisdictions (e.g. the German state of Nordrhein-Westfalen), police may not ask for identification without a suspicion, but they may check the drivers license and vehicle papers of any driver without further reason (leading persons to identify themselves), and may require the presentation of the mandatory warning triangle (which allows them to have a look into the trunk, as the triangle is usually stored there). Thus, police know many ways to perform legal inland checks. And those are considered mere inland and not border controls, being subject to the local police laws. It could also happen to anyone to be pulled over on London Orbital. However, I cannot count how many times I had passed Schengen internal borders, and I have never been checked there. --DanSchultz (talk) 22:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sweden systematically breaches and breaks international treaties, conventions and agreements. Since 2015 the train traffic over the Oeresound bridge is halted for bordercontrolls. Even if such rarely takes place since 2020 passangers are still warned and terrorised of their possiblility by announcement and a uncalled for delayed stop at the first station in Sweden.

[Sweden also activly breaks the treaty of the European Union through activly promoting and selling nicontin pouches, refusing to introduce or even allow use of €uro. Sweden breaches the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations through policesupported and court allowed desecration of Quorans outside muslim embassies. Worse is the breaches of the Geneva convention and the UN Mandela rules on treatment of prisoners where one lets many people die of dehydration and hypotermia in isolated slammer cells in custody without trial or counsil.]

CS 03:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSjoholm (talk • contribs)

Length
This article really needs to be shortened. it is very lengthy in parts. lots of it seem copy and paste of Schengen policy verbatim with no summary. like what is the need for Judicial Cooperation section? Michellecrisp (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The need for the judicial cooperation section simply is that judicial cooperation forms a an original part of the Schengen Agreements and a very important part of the Schengen and overall EU policies, and, without it, the abolishment of border controls would have failed. Of course, it would be possible to shorten the article, and to simply tell (to put it to an extreme, not meant personally): "Yeah, can crossa border withouta visa and withouta some guy stopping 'ya, an whenna overstayed, yeah, looka at the Wikipedia whatcha gonna say then to da cops", but the overall (and multi-topic) concept of the agreement would not be explained. It would, perhaps, well be possible to split up the article and create some sub-topics, but the wealth of all the information should not be put into the trashbin.


 * BTW: This article contains much more precise information than anything what you can read on the EU pages on europa.eu (some of which had not been updated for some ten years). I myself added a lot of information on the judicial coooperation piece, and I did not "copy and paste" anything on this, in particular not from "Schengen policy verbatims". Even more, I referenced everything I wrote. Could you please clearly identify (stating the URL or other source) even one "verbatim" you are blaming the authors of "copying and pasting" from? If you cannot (and I am sure you cannot), please stop flaming the many co-authors here in the discussion box and read some article about "AGF", which means: "Assume good faith". --DanSchultz (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Having taken an occasional interest in this article, I disagree with the contention that it's too long. The article, as it currently stands, is fairly tightly edited.  The subject merits the detailed discussion given by the article.  Or do you have suggestions for compressing it?  Is there fluff, or information peripheral to the subject? Teemu Leisti (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is more about organisation, the amount of data seems overwhelming and it is hard to understand where it all fits in. Perhaps better summeries at the top of sections and moving some of the detail out to other pages (which could help make this page less technical)?- J Logan t: 10:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the subject is dry and technical, and hard to make into a ripping yarn. On the other hand, I don't quite understand your point about fitting in; the text and its subdivisions seem quite clear to me. But if anyone has suggestions on how exactly to improve the article, they'll be quite welcome, I'm sure. But I'm opposed to moving anything out of the current article elsewhere, since I don't really see anything in the article that is peripheral to its subject. Teemu Leisti (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Could we not at least put the history section at the top? Most people who read this article will be far more interested in the history of it and the way that it has affected Europe (which doesn't seem to be dealt with at all) than the legal details of it. I say this as a lawyer myself. Art Markham (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Usually, the history of some currently existing thing (institution, mechanism, etc.) is not dealt with at the top. For example, in the article "United States of America", you would at first like to learn what that currently is (a state, a republic, a federation, etc.), the territory, political system, demographics, economy, and so on. After that, you get the information how everything has developed to what it is today. BTW, what most people who read this article probably want to know is - if they need a visa, and how to get it (but this is an encyclopedia and not a travel handbook). --DanSchultz (talk) 11:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Livigno and Campione d'Italia.j
It is disputable if Livigno is part of Schengen or not. Technically it is: the Guardia di Finanza check goods and not passports, but we could say that Livigno is not part of the EU customs area. In Livigno there is the "Polizia di Frontiera" (border police, part of the State Police) and the Carabinieri that check passports on the borders that Livigno has with Switzerland (and the Guardia di Finanza check the goods). The Polizia di Frontiera will stay (like on other Italian borders) to check passports randomly.

Campione d'Italia on the other hand is not part of Schengen as being surrounded by Switzerland the checks are actually done by the Swiss border guards when entering Switzerland. There is no border between Switzerland and Campione d'Italia but the Swiss authorities cannot access the area and the Carabinieri are the police force there. There is no "Polizia di Frontiera" there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.45.128.112 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide citation?- J.Logan`t : 10:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment I have not found anything, but it is something clear that if you find Guardia di Finanza on the border they will be more interested about your goods rather than your passport/ID card. They can still check but under Italian legislation Polizia di Frontiera (part of Polizia di Stato) and Carabinieri Servizio di Frontiera are in charge of fix passport checks on non Schengen borders and random checks on Schengen borders. Guardia di Finanza can still do checks on passports but are more involved in fighting illegal immigration on the Mediterranean sea.


 * WP:OR I'm afraid, we need a source. And please sign your posts with ~ - J.Logan`t : 10:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no sources to confirm that Livigno is part of Schengen...81.174.61.193 (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)- 81.174.61.193 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)-
 * It's academic, as in a few weeks Switzerland will be part of Schengen, so Livigno, Campione d'Italia and Büsingen (the other exclave inside Switzerland) will all be in Schengen TiffaF (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Livigno is NOT an enclave in Switzerland and has always been part of Schengen. There are no references to demonstrate that Livigno is not part of Schengen. I've been there many times and was never asked for a passport. The Guardia di Finanza do not check people entering Livigno, they check people exiting Livigno but mainly goods. 81.174.61.193 (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)-
 * If they ask for passport/ID card it is probably because they want to know the identity from a police perspective, not for immigration control. For example if you are stopped at a road for alcohol check in my country, the first thing the police asks is for the drivers licence. --BIL (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right, in Italy they can ask for ID anytime but that does not mean that Italy is not part of Schengen. Livigno has been put as not being part of Schengen without any references! I have removed Livigno from not being part of the Schengen area. 81.174.61.193 (talk) 08:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)-
 * Actullay, you deleted the whole entry for Italy. Twice.  Halx (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, can we proceed to take off Livigno from being outside Schengen?81.174.61.193 (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)-

Switzerland
Switzerland is now a member of the Schengen zone.--Ami in CH (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Uniforms
Could include note on Schengen uniforms: search this article 161.76.193.214 (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What about railways?
The article says about Switzerland "Initially border controls of travellers with a schengen visa will be lifted only for roadways, while for airways the controls will be lifted on 29 March 2009, subject to certain conditions." I know Switzerland has major international railway links. (Waterways may also be an issue, but a significantly lesser one.) --NE2 09:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can provide links to articles, but they'd be in German. This article describes what will change in Switzerland because of full Schengen membership. For railways in particular, see this article. --Ami in CH (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you fix the article? --NE2 10:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I changed "road border crossings" to "land borders". Controls have been lifted for all land borders, be it roads, railways, footpaths, ferries, swimming across the Rhine or whatever. TiffaF (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would "surface borders" be better, since a river technically isn't land? --NE2 07:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * EU terminology only knows land, sea, and air borders, an I think this is common usage everywhere, at least also in the U.S. (DHS refers to land borders and not to "surface borders"). --DanSchultz (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of (but certainly not all) European borders crossings are at rivers. I've been to the Netherlands a few times and have always been asked to show a passport at the ticket office when buying international (i.e. to Germany) train tickets and at the last station before the border the Dutch police boarded the train and asked to see everyone's passport/ID card. Oddly I've been able to buy tickets to the Netherlands and Poland from machines in German train stations without any interaction with the authorities ? 86.166.76.47 (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The real border control was performed by the police at the border. The railway company might have asked for passport/ID in order to avoid delays at the border, and maybe even penalities.--BIL (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Middle Eastern visitors
I am not sure but I have observed long term stays by some wealthy Middle Eastern citizens in Europe over the summers of several years. This is often done as a long holiday and to escape the heat of the area in the summer. I believe that what used to happen was that they would obtain a Schengen visa which is valid for France or Britain and then spend 3 months on it in London or Paris 5 star hotels, but they would extend their European stay by having also obtained a separate Visa for a 3 month stay in Switzerland, and then stay in 5 star hotels perhaps in Zurich or Geneva.

1. Am I right in saying that because the UK was part of the JUDICIAL cooperation of Schengen that non-European citizens were required to have a Schengen visa for the UK rather than a UK one because although the UK still has border controls, that is the ONLY difference.

and

2. Am I right in saying that since Switzerland joined Schengen 12/12/08, any stay in the CONTINENT of Europe now that goes beyond 3 months would require one to leave the zone for Andorra, Liechtenstein, the former Yugoslavia, Ukraine, Romania etc. rather than anywhere inside it?

3. Since Liechtenstein has few embassies, the Swiss embassies always decided on who to let in and did the issuing of the visas. Are they therefore now issuing Liechtenstein visas but not Swiss ones? --LeedsKing (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The UK does not belong to the Schengen area. You can stay up to 6 months in the UK as a tourist. The stay in the Schengen area (now including Switzerland) is limited to 90 days per semester.
 * re 1) The UK does not issue Schengen visas. It has its own, separate visa system.
 * re 2) The only countries on the European continent (apart from the UK/Ireland) that are now non-Schengen are : Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Albania & Kosovo. Andorra is also theroetically extra-Schengen, but since no-one requires a visa to enter but everyone must have a valid (double-entry) Schengen visa to pass and return to Spain or France, which are not issued for tourists, it in essence is only accessible to Europeans, resident aliens and non-visa nationals, or business travellers with multiple entry visas. Liechtenstein's status is still pending and will be sorted out in the comming months.
 * re 3) Previously Switzerland & Liechtenstein had a common visa area. That has now changed, so in theory Swiss police will have to introduce border checks at the Liechtenstein border. It remains to be seen if these will actually be implemented. Currently Liechteinstein is not issuing visas. Passportguy (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got it. I would have understood before if the link to European Union visa lists hadn't been in tiny writing in the article. --LeedsKing (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Re point (2): Cyprus is not in Schengen and has the same legal status for this purpose as Bulgaria and Romania. Given the division of the island, it will probably join Schengen after the other two states, if at all. Xenos2008 (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo, border controls and Schengen
The inclusion (or not) of Kosovo as a country in this article should be related to its formal position in the Schengen world. Since the declaration of indepenendence, I do not know what has happened with passports etc. There used to be a dual system with UNMIK identity travel documents and Serbian passports (which most Kosovars refused to touch). If this has changed, then it would seem reasonable to call Kosovo a country, although maybe some note about the administrative arrangements would be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.195.216 (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the whole sentence since it's unreferenced. I think this save us the trouble to guess what the status is. Moreover, I don't think that Greece for example, has a different procedure for citizens from different regions of Servia. According to Greece's POV a citizen from Kosovo has the same rights with a citizen for Belgrade. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Greece is the most pro-Serb country in the EU, so it is hardly typical. I do not know if a Schengen visa can be issued to a UNMIK travel document. Somehow, I doubt it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.229.168 (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is not recognized by all Schengen countries. Greece, Slovakia and maybe others didn't recognize it. Kosovo is not a part of the Schengen Zone, so I don't think there is a reason to speak about this area (country or Serbian province Kosovo i Metohija). --Zik2 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?
There seems to be little if anything in the article on criticisms of the Schengen Agreement. There must be arguments against it; what are they? --Richardrj talkemail 10:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some criticisms can be found here: http://www.ewi.info/pdf/VisapoliciesinSee.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.229.168 (talk) 12:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is criticism from the United States. They build walls, fences and expensive security systems against their neighbours. Free and unchecked movements of European citizens are very suspicious to them. That is why they always fiddle around in our inner affairs, and why they treat Europeans like criminals at their immigration counters .... --84.141.7.157 (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are the United states be interested in how European countries conduct their internal affairs ? Theres no more need for border controls between Austria and Italy than there is need for border controls between New York and New Jersey. 86.166.76.47 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Pre-Schengen free-travel zones in Europe
The statement "Before World War I, one could travel from Paris to Saint Petersburg without a passport" is a quote from a historian being interviewed as part of a newspaper article, and is really just an example of what you could do at the time (and continued with "European culture that went from Lisbon to Moscow"). It is also only moderately informative (why those particular cities?), as it could be compatible with a variety of border control regiems. For example it could mean:
 * A particular railway route between Paris and St. Petersburg was not subject to border controls.
 * There were uncontrolled borders between France, Russia, and intervening countries.
 * No European countries had border controls.
 * Any of the above, but with "no border controls" replaced with "border controls that did not require passports".
 * There were border/passport controls, but they could be waived under certain circumstances.
 * There were border/passport controls, but they were lax and easily circumvented

Does anyone have any more detailed information about what controls (if any) there were between and within European countries (I know some countries at certain periods had internal movement controls)? And was this former "European culture that went from Lisbon to Moscow" the result of any formal agreements/ treaties/ understandings, or just the result of no-one caring about border controls? And were there external border controls, as with Schengen? Wardog (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Before WW1, there were only two international borders between Paris and Moscow: France/Germany and Germany/Russia. (Poland didn't exist then as a soverign state, the area where ethnic Poles live was carved up between Germany, Austria and Russia.) According to this document Germany did indeed not require passports for international travel at the time, so the statement is likely to be true. However it does not say there were no border controls, presumably there were. And the situation was not the result of any Schengen-like passport union but of an individual country's decision to conduct relaxed border controls.


 * The statement about European culture is not about a formal agreement, but a historical one as you wold expect from a historian. The civilisation(s) of all European country are directly rooted in European antiquity (Rome and Greece) and share many similar traits in all fields, their languages are related (with some exceptions), and their religion is mostly Christian. That is probably what he means. Anorak2 (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The authoritative source for understanding the historical evolution of European border controls and documentation of inidividuals is The Invention of the Passport, John Torpey (Cambridge UP, 2000). It takes quite some reading to answer the above questions. but the general context is that most European countries had started to dismantle border controls and travel restrictions in the mid-late 19th century, and they were reimposed just before or after WWI. It is all part of the nationalism trend of the build-up to the two world wars and anti-globalisation policies of that period. The evolution of Schengen can therefore be most easily identified as the post-war co-operation (Benelux, in particular) that occurred in parallel with the Treaty of Rome. Of course, you should be aware that there were no real travel restrictions for the rich and powerful, so we are talking all the time in this context about the poor and common people. Xenos2008 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Switzerland - passport requirement
Do citizens of Schengen-states need a passport to visit Switzerland, Norway, Iceland? Inside the EU they can travel only with ID-card, but what about non-EU Schengen states? 199.64.72.252 (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's absolutely the same. A ID-card (or passport) is necessary but there are not systematic border controls within Schengen (EU + non-EU, except in the airports for security reasons) and there's free movement of persons. In the case of Switzerland, they maintain only border goods control (being outside European Customs Union and European Union Value Added Tax Area where there's a free movement of goods). I don't know for goods in other Non-EU Schengen countries (like Norway and Iceland which are EEA members...). For the movement of persons between Switzerland and EU, before Schengen and from many decades there was only checks of ID-cards, following previous agreements between EU, single member countries and the Confederation. --Dch (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There is really no difference in terms of border controls between EU states and those states associated with the EU through bilateral treaties like the Schengen association agreement. Since many of the EU policies have been generated from the top down, Switzerland with his traditionally independent and democratic institutions casts a popular vote on policies related to the European Union. This is politically relevant and interesting for Europe as a whole. I therefore urge to keep my short sentence, corrected, in the context of the Schengen Agreement as is. But correctly, of course, no non-EU states can directly join the Schengen agreement, even those which fully join the EU later on! (Osterluzei (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC))

Proposed article split
I propose to split this article. I think this article's quite large, but this isn't the real reason I'll like to split it. I really think we should have an article on the Schengen Area. That article could concentrate on the current rules and extent of the area, while this article could concentrate on the agreement itself and their history. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good suggeston. Fully support the idea. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * While it is good to have a separate Schengen Area article, exactly how is the content of each defined? Doesn't the border rules under area come under Agreement such as much as Area. I think some clarification is needed here.- J.Logan`t : 11:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a fair possibility of overlap, but I'm pretty that the Agreement is basically an artefact of history. Post-Amsterdam new member states don't actually sign the Agreement. This article should eventually become an history article, while the Schengen Area article documents the current arrangements. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * good, so now there are two articles. Problem : the map illustrating the Agreement isn't relevant neither to the situation at the time of the signing nor the current situation. Besides, it contradicts a variation of the same map illustrating the article Schengen Area. Herix (talk) 22:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Air security
The article currently states that "when travelling by air between Schengen countries, or within a single Schengen country, identification (usually passport or national ID card) is requested at the airport check-in counters." This is not true in general; at least on some Swedish SAS routes passengers can travel without being identified. A passenger with checked in their luggage, must however prove that he or she also boards the plan by providing a matching fingerprint scan at check-in and boarding.

The article further states: "Also, the nationals who need a visa for Schengen countries are asked to present it together with a valid passport. Although immigration control is generally not applied at points of departure or arrival (essentially, the flight is classed as 'domestic'), this lower form of border control is performed at airport check-in counters." Here, a reference supporting this claim would be most welcome. Filur (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Borders
if the internal borders within most of the EU countries are lifted anyone knows why EU's maps still show countries with borders?--Melitikus (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the Union is a forum for co-operation, not a country in itself. The countries are still separate. You can now go across a border and be under a different government and laws without going through a border post with guards, but you are still in a different country and the borders are in the places they have been since each country was created. But now the border are basically just lines on map and the only physical obstructions are natural ones like rivers, seas and mountain tops. But apart from police and customs checks, the idea is that nobody is stopped simply for crossing between the countries. e.g. you could go from Belgium to France which have different sex and drug laws and a different judicial system and never see a single border control. The maps still show the borders because maps are supposed to show what land belongs to which country and it's national government, and what laws apply where. France is still France and ruled from Paris, Germany is still ruled from Berlin. We are not yet a United States of Europe. --90.220.241.72 (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

? "Schengen white list" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/at-last-serbs-win-passport-to-freedom-1845113.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/2009_December_19 ...
 * Serbians are able to travel to continental Europe without a visa from this day on. (The Independent)

"Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro were put on what is known as the "Schengen white list" on 30 November, which permits their citizens to travel anywhere in the Schengen visa-free zone and stay for up to 90 days." per http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/at-last-serbs-win-passport-to-freedom-1845113.html 99.24.249.96 (talk) 15:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Where it was signed
The article just said that it was signed in a boat anchored in Schengen in Luxembourg.

News sources say that it was signed in the middle of the river, see e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4738063.stm

The BBC article emphasises that the river forms the border between Luxembourg and Germany. Their article omits to mention France in this, but given the extremely close proximity of Schengen to the point where all three borders meet, and the obviously highly relevant symbolic importance of this, I don't think it is too much of a speculation for me to conclude from the reported fact that it was signed mid-river that the exact point was the one where the borders all meet. In fact, it is really pretty much inconceivable for it to have been otherwise. So that's what I wrote. No name is good name (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Schengen Wall
Schengen Wall redirects to here. It most probably refers to the notion of Schengen visa to be a hindrance for non-EU nationals to enter the EU, like a wall - and maybe it is a reference to the Iron curtain... Anyway, I think we should have some "reactions" section were the various positions should be shown (positive and negative agreement). Alinor (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I think POV redirects are allowed. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Schengen Area

 * Support Same infobox, same problems as the Schengen Area article. Why not merge these two? --E4024 (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support I strongly support it too. The two articles are same. No need to keep this one. Free ottoman (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose With the schengen area coming from an agreement which in now within EU-law (but which was not) it is useful to keep two articles… L.tak (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose there article were split from the old Schengen Agreement article because of size. Please see WP:SIZERULE. The Schengen Area article needs to be split more not merged with this article. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The Schengen cooperation is actually an enhanced cooperation
I would like to draw your attention to this discussion here about the Schengen cooperation being an enhanced coopertion. --Glentamara (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

UK - Spain Gibraltar Deal
Gibraltar appears to be joining the Schengen Area as part of the UK-Spain deal on its status per Financial Times "Spain and UK agree deal to keep Gibraltar land border open" ( https://on.ft.com/3rHCLNl )

How do we want to handle this? When the treaty is ratified do we want to add the UK to the Infobox as a party, Gibraltar, or none?

IntUnderflow (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)