![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is Greenland still included in the Schengen Area after the recent change in autonomy? -- Tterrag ( talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
83.104.138.141 ( talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
Also, there is the sentence "There are air security rules requiring this for passengers with check-in luggage." - can this be confirmed by any references? I have often checked bags without being checked for ID - I will therefore remove this for now. -- SmilingBoy ( talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
ID is required as a general requirement (including by Lufthansa) for intra-Schengen travel from (but not to) GReece). As I understand it, the normal rules of ID proof are abolished for countries that, at a particular time, are considered to be a route for smuggling and asylum-seeking. Temporary abandonment of the free movement provision is anyway permitted, but this is a more minor derogation than that. I presume it is permitted in the Border Code. Xenos2008 ( talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
According to this website Moroccans from Tétouan and Nador are able to enter Ceuta and Melilla without a visa. They nevertheless are not able to travel to any other Spanish or Schengen territory. How is this compatible with Schengen rules? If this is a true story, I think it should be included in the article.
Quote:
Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There was talk that some of the CARIFORUM (Caribbean Community + Dominican Republic) countries that signed on to the Economic Partnership Agreement with the E.U... would be granted Visa free travel to the E.U. area? The last sources I saw said said it should have been approved by the end of March 2009. [1], [2]. Anyone know if this has entered into force as stated? CaribDigita ( talk) 09:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I work for the Seychelles Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I believe the Agreements were signed on thursday 28th May 2009. Seychelles was included along with a few carribean countries. once the legal and practical formalities have been sorted, it should be aright by the end of June. For countries which has done all of these , then it should take effect 1st June.Hansel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.137.155 ( talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the response. The Caribbean press picked up the story as well. Short-stay visa waiver agreements signed between EU and four Caribbean countries, Caribbean Net News - Published on Friday, May 29, 2009
Hello,
This map illustrating Schengen_Area#Membership is inaccurate. Schengen_Agreement_map.svg
Please refer to letter from the Irish State's Department of Justice, Equality & Law-Reform 2009-02-25
SUBJECT : Schengen acquis not in place in Irish Jurisdiction
Reference: OFFICIAL DOCUMENT IRISH AUTHORITY IN DUBLIN 2009-02-28+Dhr Henry Mitchell,Dept. Justice Equality+Law-Reform-
IMAGE INACCURATE MAP: location (url)
[3]
Barentsz ( talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It says in this article that the Faroe Islands and Greenland are de facto members of the Schengen Area because of the lack of passport control. But I would say that they only are partially de facto members, because of different immigration rules.
I seem to understand that the 90-day periods for Schengen, the Faroe Islands and Greenland are separate from each other, whereas there is a common 90-day period for all Schengen countries for non-EEA, non-Swiss citizens. So you may stay in Schengen for 90 days, and directly after that you may stay in Greenland for another 90 days.
So there are some differences, and they may cause some trouble to some people, especially if a visa is needed. This doesn't seem to be clearly explained in the article. ( 130.237.223.128 ( talk) 09:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC))
The article states that Liechtenstein will join the Schengen Area by november 2009, but this is not true. The Swedish Social Democratic Party (the biggest opposition party) blocked the Swedish ratification of the agreement between EU and Liechtenstein already in May 2009. Therefore Liechtenstein won't be able to join the Schengen Area until the country cooperate fully with the European Union in economic issues. Source (in Swedish). -- Glentamara ( talk) 13:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently a date of "2011" is put in the article with no source and sources in the Liechtenstein section (from 2009) point for "Swedish/German block because of lack of tax-evasion cooperation" (or similar). So, we should either have some more recent source about "Sweden/Germany approve Liechtenstein Schengen membership, to happen in 2011" - or we should put one dash "-" for date with a link to the Liechtenstein section where the "Swedish/German block" is explained. Alinor ( talk) 06:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
In the table I find this confusing comment for Ireland:
not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, which is implemented and put into effect.[1]
This suggests that the UK has implemented the whole treaty and that it has been put into effect. Nowhere close to the comment does it say that only a subset applies to the UK. But how can this be made more clear?
police and judicial cooperation rules not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, which is implemented and put into effect.[1]
But then it implies that the other parts of Schengen have been implemented in Ireland. Hm...
not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, where parts of Schengen are implemented and put into effect.[1]
Would this avoid confusion? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 21:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC))
police and judicial cooperation rules not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, where these parts of Schengen are implemented and put into effect.[1]
List of current Prum signatories (the article currently list only the original signatories)? Also the link Prüm Convention redirects to Schengen Treaty, but the Prum treaty is actualy described in more detail here (Schengen Area) and not there. Alinor ( talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I made a grammatical change to the following:
As you can see, I added "not yet" to the phrase "However, this has been put into effect," as it seemed to me that the references pointed to Ireland having approval to implement these rules, but the country has not done so yet. Furthermore, the use of the word "However" suggests that a negative phrase was expected here, not a positive.
In any case, I welcome the insight of anyone else who has been working this page and subject longer than 'moi'...
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (
talk)
23:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
crown dependencies are not part of the UK and as such don't need to be listed as exempt territiories 94.197.141.177 ( talk) 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)twitik 17th feb 2010
I had a look a the table you are discussing here. It uses different background colors for some rows. There is no legend for this coloring scheme, and it is also not clear to me how such a legend would look like. If no clear definitions can be given, I would remove the colors. Tomeasy T C 21:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
@JLogan. I see that you have reintroduced the colors, but unfortunately your legend does not work - at least not on my sytem. Tomeasy T C 01:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
There was a time when some people thought that "owing to" and "due to" should be used in different occasions. However, I would warrant that the vast majority of people today - including scholars and dictionaries - would say that these two phrases are, and may be, used interchangeably. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv56.shtml http://www.dailywritingtips.com/owing-to-vs-due-to/ Also see http://elc.polyu.edu.hk/CILL/eap/contrastclauses.htm where it shows that "due to" is actually used much more often than "owing to", which, frankly, often sounds stilted to the North American ear. Finally, see http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp?file=/2007/1/3/lifefocus/16325657&sec=lifefocus where the following is quoted:
"However, according to the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989), this use of “due to” as a compound preposition “is now widely current” in spite of H.W. Fowler’s objection to it in his 1926 book, Modern English Usage, that “due to” was “often used by the illiterate as though it had passed like ‘owing to’ into a mere compound preposition”. "
and
" The online American Heritage Dictionary (2000) and Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary express a similar opinion, with the latter saying: “‘Due to’ is as grammatically sound as owing to, which is frequently recommended in its place. It has been and is used by reputable writers and has been recognised as standard for decades. There is no solid reason to avoid ‘due to’.” "
So, rather than start an edit war, can we just acknowledge that going through Wikipedia article by article changing "due to" to "owing to" is not really a productive exercise, when there are so many other far worse issues to address? William J. 'Bill' McCalpin ( talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Further to the discussion above about how Sweden blocked the ratification of the accession of Liechtenstein to the Switzerland treaty, I've been trying to find more recent information but it is difficult. What I infer is that under the Treaty of Lisbon (in force December 2009), unanimous consent of EU members is no longer necessary for treaties of this sort, and therefore Sweden's parliament will no longer be able to prevent Liechtenstein from joining the Schengen Area. Is that correct? It looks like on April 26, 2010, the Council of the European Union released two draft decisions on this matter and sent them to the European Parliament for its consent. [7] [8] However, from those pdfs (the second is a corrigendum) it is hard to tell whether they are draft decisions or true decisions. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 02:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It states on the table that these are not part of Schengen, however, nothing is mentioned in the article about this. Additionally, they are not specially coloured/mentioned in the schengen visa map, something that surely should apply if they are not part of Schengen. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 21:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is running here for a name and possible content change of the European Union visa lists. If you have any ideas, feel free to join in.... L.tak ( talk) 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
As it abundantly clear from the legend on this article the red-ish coloured states are states which cooperate with the Schengen rules by implementing certain part of the Schengen acquis. The UK does this and Ireland doesn't, so the UK should be coloured red and Ireland should be coloured grey. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If it is relevant, Ireland participates in the 'transfer of prisoners' element of Schengen - see http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2005/2805.pdf -- Red King ( talk) 12:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Could this be the source that Blue Haired Lawyer wanted? CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MUTUAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 2008 -- Red King ( talk) 12:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Just noting here at the end for anyone new that the map has been replaced by one which doesn't mention the UK or Ireland. They could possibly be included later, when the complicated bureaucracy of ireland allows it! Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 12:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
posted wrongly instead of here. Alinor ( talk) 05:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The "date of first implementation" header in one of the tables isn't accurate. Many countries joined Schengen in three steps:
The countries joining the EU in 2004 and 2007 implemented the first step immediately upon joining (so that was the "first implementation") and later implemented the other things ("second implementation" and "third implementation"). However, the table shows the dates of the "second implementation" for these countries. ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 17:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC))
A somewhat confusing notes were added to the UK/Ireland PJC implementation table:
Ireland: "Signed by President 17 Oct, 2009. Legal effect: 01 Dec, 2009.[24]; Upon the entering into legal Force of the Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) amending the treaties of the European Union &c., being the same one the Irish Republic voted on twice, as a "Nation" (once again?)"
What is this supposed to mean? Some discussion about the two ToLisbon referendums, "once again" question marks, etc.???
Anyway, I am not sure that ToL ratification has anything to do with PJC implementation. The link supplied gives the following relevant info: "Ireland’s application to participate in these specified articles of the agreement was approved by Council decision in 2002. In accordance with this decision, these provisions will come into effect only after a range of technical and legislative measures have been put in place and successfully evaluated by the Council. The measures which will enable Ireland to meet its Schengen requirements are currently being progressed." So, it applied in 2002, adopted requirements, the Council is currently evaluating the adoption - and eventually will take a decision for PJC implementation with Ireland.
A link to the 2002 Council decision would be welcome. Alinor ( talk) 09:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC) - it is up in the text. Alinor ( talk) 09:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
"Unfortunately, the name used by the Irish Republican government for the 'Schengen Implementing Convention on Police & Security' is not the same name as that which every other member-state of the Union refers to it. Namely, the Irish government cites this entry to the law register as: “ Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam ”. [1] This had the effect that the Irish government neglected to communicate the passing in the House of Legislature of this request (for the evaluation of a de-facto operating participation). Nine months following the laying of the document requesting the necessary evaluation according to the Law, attorneys for the European Commission who deal specifically with this area of the law and with the Irish Republic in this specific matter were still no made aware the request being made the previous April, in the Irish Houses of Parliament. [2]" Alinor ( talk) 09:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this section should be updated. Today (8 November) the EU interior ministers decided to lift visa requirements for the citizens of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. [9] Piasoft ( talk) 14:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there basically no border between Gibraltar and Spain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.252.15 ( talk) 16:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The current version of the article is citing a 2009 Forbes article for the statement "In 2010 Liechtenstein has begun revealing information about assets of EU citizens." It goes on to make the unsourced statement "This should speed up the Schengen process."
In fact, the accession of Liechtenstein is now before a committee of the European Parliament. On December 1, 2010, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs issued a draft recommendation, recommending that the European Parliament consent to the conclusion of the protocol. The document number is PE452.761 and you can access it through this link. Mathew5000 ( talk) 00:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It is now a member. Member-- Smart30 ( talk) 16:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
1985??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakebread ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The European Commission (Directorate-General for Home Affairs) published a new "maps and statistics" page this week: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/borders/borders_maps_en.htm. Also the FAQ is marked as having been updated, as well as documentation pages: [12] [13] — Mathew5000 ( talk) 11:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This means that Schengen is a nonsense. Nations can still control their borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Schengen needs to be distinguished from freedom of movement. – Kaihsu ( talk) 15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
What's the rules on helicopters going from outside Schengen to San Marino, Vatican State and Monaco ? My guess is that for San Marino and Vatican State, they have to land in a international airport (that is not in San Marino and Vatican State) and do passports checks there. Because air planes, helicopters and boats are generally required to report to a border control if the arrive into the Schengen area, and I assume San Marino and Vatican State can't do this. For Monaco I assume the rules for the seaport are valid, that is helicopters can land in Monaco and be checked there. What are the rules ? -- BIL ( talk) 09:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It's always better to travel with ID but I'd like to see a list in this article with the Schengen area member countries that actually rquire foreigners from within S.A. to bring their IDs with them. i'd also like to know what are the consequences of not having ID card while random control. Can a persn be sent back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.96.155 ( talk) 21:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Liechtenstein is now a member of the Schengen Area. Border controls will be formally lifted on 19 December. ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/homepage/showfocus?lang=en&focusID=78856) ( Connolly15 ( talk) 14:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC))
Liechtenstein is a member, just as Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus, that doesn't mean it should have the same colour as Switzerland on the map (yet). The difference is implementation, not membership.
The map under "History" is wrong. Liechtenstein hasn't implemented Schengen yet officially, yet, it is marked with the purple colour assigned to Schengen members outside the EU. It will do so on December 19th. Why do people have the urge to change maps before accession? It already had the dubious but true tag of "outside, but set to join (non-EU)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is the UK listed as "outside (EU)" on the map?
Odd, I thought the UK was a member, but of course not part of Schengen. Bolegash ( talk) 03:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Blue haired lawyer I opened a new chapter for you regarding the name of Ro and Bg. I am also against calling Romania and Bulgaria as "future candidates". Everyone is kindly invited to share his/her opinion at the subject. -- Camoka4 ( talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Referring to Romania and Bulgaria, we don't know what future brings, you mean candidate? according to the EU, there is no candidate status in Schengen membership. They just give decisions in EU meetings to let them in or not. As far as I remember, France blocked Romania entrance last year, so it's an error to conclude that they are really future members. Even if they become a member, why do we show them on the main map of Schengen Area? .. For instance, on the article of EU, they don't show candidate countries on the main map. Wikipedia only shows the members of NATO on NATO article, EU members on EU article. Another thing is, Cyprus doesn't even have any intention to join Schengen. Croatia does. But Croatia is grey and Cyprus is green. Can anyone explain this? I propose to change the main map to existant Schengen members only ---- Camoka4 ( talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
now reverted in view of the clear lack of consensus and because the change as it was implemented (by changing the image) affected over 10 language versions...). L.tak ( talk) 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't give any argument? Read this discussion again then. Not acknowledging a comment doesn't mean it isn't there, and it's very, very obvious that L.tak isn't the only user that disagrees with the edit. - Sudo Ghost 23:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
There is another edit war for Macedonia and FYROM, I wonder which one should be used in the article.-- Camoka4 ( talk) 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
According to news sources, borders check between Schengen countries are resumed. Should we add something to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.251.57 ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a group who constantly chat eachother on third party platforms and whenever one member of the group is against something, the rest of the groups comes like out of beehive to attack and manipulate the discussion.--
Camoka4 (
talk)
23:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The comment above was added at 14 june around 12:00 UTC. The original comment (to which of the users reacted) at 13 June 23:46 was: Hello, I am removing Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus from the first map. I KNOW they are obliged to join legally some time later, BUT we should add them to the first map only AFTER they really join, until then we should only show CURRENT members in the first map. We have the second map for them already if someone wants to know all the "future members", and the countries that are in the EU but not in Schengen (Ireland, UK).
A.K.A. the Schinken Area. :-) -- E4024 ( talk) 12:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Can this article be of help to improve this page? -- E4024 ( talk) 22:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Does the Schengen Treaty establish an international union or organisation? Why do we talk about "members"? It should be "states parties" or simply "parties". RfC. -- E4024 ( talk) 14:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at the European Commission's page on the Schengen Area: [14]. (a) It does not use the word "member" at all, but refers to "Schengen States". (b) Unlike our Wikipedia article, the official page on the Schengen Area does not say that Cyprus is a future part of the Schengen Area. Mathew5000 ( talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Legally bound to enter with an indefinite date (but Netherland keeps vetoing them) means future member? We have some fortunetellers here. Even EU official website doesn't call them "future member". -- Free ottoman ( talk) 12:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
On topic: I have implemented my proposal; feel free to revert per WP:BRD or to adjust… L.tak ( talk) 20:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The country I live, Serbia, is a member state since December 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.71.206 ( talk) 17:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this edit, but it might be a good idea to explore why/how/when Croatia is obliged to join Schengenland. I think that a bit more content along those lines would be really helpful. bobrayner ( talk) 06:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This map is incorrect. Croatia isn't in the Shengen area. Should be of the same color as UK, Ireland, Romania and Bulgaria. 87.252.154.237 ( talk) 19:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Isn't Andorra on a par with San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City/ Holy See? I refer to the article Andorra-European_Union_relations#Schengen.-- Bornsommer ( talk) 09:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
it says under the part about Liechtenstein that a ship cannot go directly from it to Vatican or San marino. who wrote that, they are landlocked countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.155.62 ( talk) 11:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It is written: Enforcement of these rules varies by country.
You can say that again. In fact, perhaps you ought to say 'varies very widely'. In Germany, for instance, there is no attempt whatever to enforce the production of ID in commercial accommodation, and in practice ID is never required, nor is any form of registration usually carried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.199.36 ( talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It says in the data box that the area of France is "excluding overseas departments and territories", but in that case Metropolitan France should be only 551,695 km². As far as I can see now the number of 674,843 km² is exactly including overseas departments. - 89.66.180.105 ( talk) 21:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor recently removed information about Zurich airport having automated border controls. The edit summary claimed that the editor lived in Zurich and recently visited the airport. The editor does not mention having travelled to or from the airport from a non-Schengen airport, and a visit to the airport is not by itself sufficient to establish whether automated border controls are in effect. The original citation referred only to an older pilot test, but a press release from Secunet dated December 2014 indicates the presence of automated border controls. Does anyone have more information and/or a better source? -- Boson ( talk) 13:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Isn't Liechtenstein like San Marino, Monaco and the Vatican "a microstate with open borders" ? (Please note it's a question, not a statement) Boeing720 ( talk) 02:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"De facto, the Schengen Area also includes three European micro-states, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City, that maintain open or semi-open borders with other Schengen member countries"
Is Andorra also de facto member? Does it have a treaty (I dont find it in the list) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.230.24 ( talk) 20:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The main difference to me is (as shown here) that a multiple entry visa is needed. Thus you really leave schengen, according to schengen, which makes Andorra less of a "de facto member" than e.g. Vatican. On the other hand, "de facto member" is an open term, that we fill to the best of our abilities. We could use a definition that includes Andorra, or one that doesn't. , as long as we make clear that going to Andorra counts towards a leave of the Schengen area in visa terms, whereas this is not the case for SMarino or Vatican...
According to e-mail I got from some airlines which have flights between Greece and Sweden, Greek airport staff do checks of the right to stay or travel in the Schengen area, including checking if a visa is needed and if the visa is valid. I asked those airlines (Aegean, Apollo/Novair and Ving/Thomas Cook Airlines) if people who have a passport but no visa even if they need one, can travel with them. The answer was no. Since Greece has no land border to other Schengen countries, and airlines do strict passport checks, there seems not to be much usefuleness in the Schengen Area membership for Greece. Can someone confirm if there are laws on passport check for air travel from Greece to other Schengen countries? And should we mention this in this article? -- BIL ( talk) 20:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 18 external links on
Schengen Area. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Schengen Area. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please add the link in the menu to the german site. Thanks a lot. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen-Raum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.58.138 ( talk) 11:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The first image in the article seems to imply that Switzerland and Liechtenstein are legally required to participate in the Schengen Area. This would at least need a citation since it's hard to believe Switzerland would find itself in a position of being legally required to do something other countries prescribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA13:7101:1780:F4D6:480B:E750:CCBD ( talk) 08:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Given Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Poland and Sweden have all temporarily imposed border controls as a result of the European migrant crisis and the French state of emergency means they have also, it would be good to show this on the map in the infobox. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
In the map under the "Membership" section, there are two grey blobs in Sweden. These appear to correspond to bodies of water. These probably should either be colored dark blue like the rest of Sweden (likely preferred, if they're internal waters of Sweden), or turned white like the ocean (if they're international waters). ... Unless, of course, it really is the situation that they're truly an enclave of non-Schengen zone inside of Sweden. -- 160.129.138.186 ( talk) 18:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The vatican city DOES NOT have open borders.
You need a permit and a passport to enter the Vatican Gardens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.217.196 ( talk) 18:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
You need a permit and a Passport to enter the Vatican Gardens.
The fact that you can enter St Pauls cathedral without a passport is comparable to standing in the US-Mexico border bridge on the US side. The passport control is passing the bridge, 500 feet into the land — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.217.196 ( talk) 18:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm rather sceptical about the «Note 9» stating that «EFTA state, which is outside the EU, that is associated with the Schengen activities of the EU and where the Schengen rules apply.».
This is uncorrect.
Nevertheless, the note itself has another source citing an EEA/EU legal text about Norway and Iceland. In fact, this situation doesn't reflect the exact facts in the matter of the Schengen Area and two EFTA members states that are Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
On the other hand, one can find a better and more precise explanation on the EFTA website ( http://www.efta.int/faq under the point «What is not covered by the EEA Agreement?») which clearly contradicts the explanation given under Note 9: «Schengen is not a part of the EEA Agreement. However, all of the four EFTA States participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements and they all apply the provisions of the relevant Acquis.» Therefore, I'd rather correct «Note 9» writing something like «participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements». It seems more correct and relevant to me. What do you think? :) Ngagnebin ( talk) 01:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Where are there three different maps of the European countries and there different relation to the agreement? -- Per W ( talk) 10:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Following the migration crisis, as of July 2018, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway, and Sweden temporary imposed the
It is June 2018. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 14:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
In the table under 'temporary border controls', for many countries we have the strange phrase 'All internal borders'. What does this mean? Borders between counties? lander? provinces? oblasts? -- Red King ( talk) 10:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
add 'member states not part of EU' color code to map >Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.94.176.36 ( talk) 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement from British Foreign Secretary: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-foreign-secretary-uk-gibraltar-spain-agreement
Article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55497084
Rob984 ( talk) 15:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
UK citizens no longer have freedom of movement with the EEA and Switzerland. Should this section of the article not be updated to reflect this? Steven a91 ( talk) 15:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Steven a91 ( talk) 16:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
DealOrNo believes that Gib is already a de facto member of Schengen. There are two simple tests: (1) Covid precautions aside, there are no frontier controls between participants. Not only is that not true at the Gib/ES frontier, they became more (not less) strict on 1 January. (2) There are Frontex accredited border guards at the port and airport of the participant: again, not true. The fact that both ES and Gib are trying to make the border "as fluid as possible" until the ES/UK agreement is formalised and ratified as an EU/UK treaty.
I have (again) reverted their change per WP:STATUSQUO pending a WP:BRD discussion and consensus. The discussion is now open.-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
DealOrNo declines to respond to this WP:BRD discussion but has moved the revert war to Gibraltar, where they continue to misreport the sources [I drew their attention to the article in The Guardian, [3] which gives clearly the very different contexts for "fluidity of movement" and "freedom of movement" phrases that those making them were careful to make clear]. I can see this going to wp:ANI (3RR, NPA and more) so may I ask others to intervene since I am now unambguously WP:INVOLVED. I have given them two {{ uw-disruptive}} cautions and a {{ uw-ew}} (edit warring) notice – see history of their talk page, they have deleted. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
References
The article currently states that the decision on Ireland's participation in parts of the Schengen acquis did not take effect until 1 January 2021. Indeed, the 2002 decision states that the relevant provisions only apply after all necessary measures have been implemented by Ireland and the Schengen states and a decision has been taken by the Council on this. However, I am wondering about whether the 2002 decision had any effects on legal acts adopted after the decision entered into force on 1 April 2002. For instance Council directive 2004/82/EC states that Ireland is taking part in the directive and that it is binding upon Ireland. Does this not mean that the 2002 decision had some effect already before 1 January 2021? -- Glentamara ( talk) 18:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The cited document reads
5. Joint Declaration concerning Mount Athos
Recognising that the special status granted to Mount Athos, as guaranteed by Article 105 of the Hellenic Constitution and the Charter of Mount Athos, is justified exclusively on grounds of a spiritual and religious nature, the Contracting Parties will ensure that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of the provisions of the 1985 Agreement and the 1990 Convention.— The Schengen acquis - Agreement on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 [...] and the Hellenic Republic acceded by the Agreements signed at Bonn on 25 June 1991. [1]
I suppose since it is mentioned in the Agreement of Accession, it merits mention in the article but it would be wp:undue to give it more than half a dozen words. The Agreement gives every citizen the right of access to any and all public spaces but not obviously to private premises. The derogation seems really just to allow all of Athos be treated as a private space in this context. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
References
A user has added Büsingen as a territory with special status under the section "Current members". However, the references do not support this statement. They talk about the historical situation. I have tried to find any references to the territory of Büsingen in the Schengen acquis, but I have found nothing. On the contrary, since the Schengen acquis was integrated into the Union law by the Treaty of Amsterdam, it is applicable to the whole territory of the member states that belongs to the European Union. Some exceptions do indeed exist, such as the outermost regions of France, but there seems to be no references at all to a special status of Büsingen. The territory has simply no special status in the Schengen acquis. If somebody claims the opposite, please provide a reference to the legal act where it is stated. Until then, we should not list it as a territory with special status as there is not enough support for such a claim. -- Glentamara ( talk) 18:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Wrong! Again! The Schengen Agreement did not apply / was not applied to Büsingen as a territory until Switzerland joined. The border between Büsingen and Switzerland is open and not checked and this is regardless of whether either country is in Schengen or not. The treaty between the two countries predates Schengen and continues to apply, as do the provisions outlined therein and as such even though both countries are currently in the Schengen area, the border between the enclave and Switzerland is not even an internal Schengen border as outlined in the S. Agreement. SlippyLina ( talk) 08:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
According to Schengen Visa Info, Iceland has today (June 15th) announced that the current border restrictions will apply until July 1st, but will then be scrapped for vaccinated arrivals, as the Digital Covid Certificate goes live. [1] Culloty82 ( talk) 11:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
References
The statement "Countries outside of the Schengen Area also benefit" is pure political propaganda (Wikipeda? Political propaganda??? No!!!!! Impossible!!!!!). At the very least, it should say 'Some argue that ...'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 ( talk) 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lemurbaby ( talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, last point.
Well, since the neutrality of this review is being questioned and there appears to be an element of "barrack room lawyering", I will review it in full. I will leave sentencing to the primary reviewer. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm doing this section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.
...to be continued.
Pyrotec (
talk) 20:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done – Plarem (
User
talk
contribs)
20:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Pyrotec ( talk) 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This map (below), half way down the page with green and yellow borders, has some significant issues with the non-EU states, such as the new existence of strange North African/Ukrainian-Moldovan/Western Balkans superstates :) Would someone able to edit maps be able to fix it, possibly by basing it off another template? Also perhaps worth mentioning that the temporary border controls in certain Member States don't apply to all their borders - for example the current SE temporary controls are only towards DK and ferries, not NO or FI. Schengen Area#/media/File:Border controls at internal and external Schengen borders.svg Hentheden ( talk) 08:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
"the Justice and Home affairs council of the EU will make a final decision on Croatia’s entry to the bloc on 9 December 2022. Ultimately, the final decision is made by the EU Council, consisting of the EU's 27 government leaders, acting unanimously." Are you saying the Dec. 9 decision is final? If not, when will the final one be? Arrecife ( talk) 00:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
By changing "three" to "four" and including Andorra, I made it more accurate. Reverted because I didn't provide a citation. OK, I'll look for one (rather than cite "personal experience"). But note that the citation previously given said "several," not "three" and did not name them. (And that source is now a 404.) 伟思礼 ( talk) 16:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Romania and Bulgaria joined Schengen in October 2023! New Welaeonska ( talk) 15:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
România and Bulgaria has already joined in Schengen today! Thanks! 213.233.108.202 ( talk) 07:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps removing reference to Bulgaria, saying that it won't happen, blaming Austria. Via the edit note, I invite them to put the evidence here. But meanwhile, the process appears to be continuing:
So not evident. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Kosovo finally can enter Schengen visa-free, as is shown clearly in this article. The title is however misleading as it suggests Kosovo is joining Schengen. From teh context in the article it is clear that is not the case (it says is joins its balkan neighours, who are also not members). Other articles are more precize (eg here and here)....
It therefore is not correct to add Kosovo as a Schengen member. L.tak ( talk) 20:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is Greenland still included in the Schengen Area after the recent change in autonomy? -- Tterrag ( talk) 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
83.104.138.141 ( talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
Also, there is the sentence "There are air security rules requiring this for passengers with check-in luggage." - can this be confirmed by any references? I have often checked bags without being checked for ID - I will therefore remove this for now. -- SmilingBoy ( talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
ID is required as a general requirement (including by Lufthansa) for intra-Schengen travel from (but not to) GReece). As I understand it, the normal rules of ID proof are abolished for countries that, at a particular time, are considered to be a route for smuggling and asylum-seeking. Temporary abandonment of the free movement provision is anyway permitted, but this is a more minor derogation than that. I presume it is permitted in the Border Code. Xenos2008 ( talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
According to this website Moroccans from Tétouan and Nador are able to enter Ceuta and Melilla without a visa. They nevertheless are not able to travel to any other Spanish or Schengen territory. How is this compatible with Schengen rules? If this is a true story, I think it should be included in the article.
Quote:
Fentener van Vlissingen ( talk) 00:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There was talk that some of the CARIFORUM (Caribbean Community + Dominican Republic) countries that signed on to the Economic Partnership Agreement with the E.U... would be granted Visa free travel to the E.U. area? The last sources I saw said said it should have been approved by the end of March 2009. [1], [2]. Anyone know if this has entered into force as stated? CaribDigita ( talk) 09:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I work for the Seychelles Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I believe the Agreements were signed on thursday 28th May 2009. Seychelles was included along with a few carribean countries. once the legal and practical formalities have been sorted, it should be aright by the end of June. For countries which has done all of these , then it should take effect 1st June.Hansel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.137.155 ( talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi thanks for the response. The Caribbean press picked up the story as well. Short-stay visa waiver agreements signed between EU and four Caribbean countries, Caribbean Net News - Published on Friday, May 29, 2009
Hello,
This map illustrating Schengen_Area#Membership is inaccurate. Schengen_Agreement_map.svg
Please refer to letter from the Irish State's Department of Justice, Equality & Law-Reform 2009-02-25
SUBJECT : Schengen acquis not in place in Irish Jurisdiction
Reference: OFFICIAL DOCUMENT IRISH AUTHORITY IN DUBLIN 2009-02-28+Dhr Henry Mitchell,Dept. Justice Equality+Law-Reform-
IMAGE INACCURATE MAP: location (url)
[3]
Barentsz ( talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It says in this article that the Faroe Islands and Greenland are de facto members of the Schengen Area because of the lack of passport control. But I would say that they only are partially de facto members, because of different immigration rules.
I seem to understand that the 90-day periods for Schengen, the Faroe Islands and Greenland are separate from each other, whereas there is a common 90-day period for all Schengen countries for non-EEA, non-Swiss citizens. So you may stay in Schengen for 90 days, and directly after that you may stay in Greenland for another 90 days.
So there are some differences, and they may cause some trouble to some people, especially if a visa is needed. This doesn't seem to be clearly explained in the article. ( 130.237.223.128 ( talk) 09:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC))
The article states that Liechtenstein will join the Schengen Area by november 2009, but this is not true. The Swedish Social Democratic Party (the biggest opposition party) blocked the Swedish ratification of the agreement between EU and Liechtenstein already in May 2009. Therefore Liechtenstein won't be able to join the Schengen Area until the country cooperate fully with the European Union in economic issues. Source (in Swedish). -- Glentamara ( talk) 13:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Currently a date of "2011" is put in the article with no source and sources in the Liechtenstein section (from 2009) point for "Swedish/German block because of lack of tax-evasion cooperation" (or similar). So, we should either have some more recent source about "Sweden/Germany approve Liechtenstein Schengen membership, to happen in 2011" - or we should put one dash "-" for date with a link to the Liechtenstein section where the "Swedish/German block" is explained. Alinor ( talk) 06:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
In the table I find this confusing comment for Ireland:
not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, which is implemented and put into effect.[1]
This suggests that the UK has implemented the whole treaty and that it has been put into effect. Nowhere close to the comment does it say that only a subset applies to the UK. But how can this be made more clear?
police and judicial cooperation rules not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, which is implemented and put into effect.[1]
But then it implies that the other parts of Schengen have been implemented in Ireland. Hm...
not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, where parts of Schengen are implemented and put into effect.[1]
Would this avoid confusion? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 21:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC))
police and judicial cooperation rules not implemented nor put into effect by Decision of the European Council[1][2][4] unlike for the UK, where these parts of Schengen are implemented and put into effect.[1]
List of current Prum signatories (the article currently list only the original signatories)? Also the link Prüm Convention redirects to Schengen Treaty, but the Prum treaty is actualy described in more detail here (Schengen Area) and not there. Alinor ( talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I made a grammatical change to the following:
As you can see, I added "not yet" to the phrase "However, this has been put into effect," as it seemed to me that the references pointed to Ireland having approval to implement these rules, but the country has not done so yet. Furthermore, the use of the word "However" suggests that a negative phrase was expected here, not a positive.
In any case, I welcome the insight of anyone else who has been working this page and subject longer than 'moi'...
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin (
talk)
23:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
crown dependencies are not part of the UK and as such don't need to be listed as exempt territiories 94.197.141.177 ( talk) 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)twitik 17th feb 2010
I had a look a the table you are discussing here. It uses different background colors for some rows. There is no legend for this coloring scheme, and it is also not clear to me how such a legend would look like. If no clear definitions can be given, I would remove the colors. Tomeasy T C 21:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
@JLogan. I see that you have reintroduced the colors, but unfortunately your legend does not work - at least not on my sytem. Tomeasy T C 01:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
There was a time when some people thought that "owing to" and "due to" should be used in different occasions. However, I would warrant that the vast majority of people today - including scholars and dictionaries - would say that these two phrases are, and may be, used interchangeably. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv56.shtml http://www.dailywritingtips.com/owing-to-vs-due-to/ Also see http://elc.polyu.edu.hk/CILL/eap/contrastclauses.htm where it shows that "due to" is actually used much more often than "owing to", which, frankly, often sounds stilted to the North American ear. Finally, see http://thestar.com.my/english/story.asp?file=/2007/1/3/lifefocus/16325657&sec=lifefocus where the following is quoted:
"However, according to the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989), this use of “due to” as a compound preposition “is now widely current” in spite of H.W. Fowler’s objection to it in his 1926 book, Modern English Usage, that “due to” was “often used by the illiterate as though it had passed like ‘owing to’ into a mere compound preposition”. "
and
" The online American Heritage Dictionary (2000) and Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary express a similar opinion, with the latter saying: “‘Due to’ is as grammatically sound as owing to, which is frequently recommended in its place. It has been and is used by reputable writers and has been recognised as standard for decades. There is no solid reason to avoid ‘due to’.” "
So, rather than start an edit war, can we just acknowledge that going through Wikipedia article by article changing "due to" to "owing to" is not really a productive exercise, when there are so many other far worse issues to address? William J. 'Bill' McCalpin ( talk) 18:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Further to the discussion above about how Sweden blocked the ratification of the accession of Liechtenstein to the Switzerland treaty, I've been trying to find more recent information but it is difficult. What I infer is that under the Treaty of Lisbon (in force December 2009), unanimous consent of EU members is no longer necessary for treaties of this sort, and therefore Sweden's parliament will no longer be able to prevent Liechtenstein from joining the Schengen Area. Is that correct? It looks like on April 26, 2010, the Council of the European Union released two draft decisions on this matter and sent them to the European Parliament for its consent. [7] [8] However, from those pdfs (the second is a corrigendum) it is hard to tell whether they are draft decisions or true decisions. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 02:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It states on the table that these are not part of Schengen, however, nothing is mentioned in the article about this. Additionally, they are not specially coloured/mentioned in the schengen visa map, something that surely should apply if they are not part of Schengen. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 21:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is running here for a name and possible content change of the European Union visa lists. If you have any ideas, feel free to join in.... L.tak ( talk) 17:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
As it abundantly clear from the legend on this article the red-ish coloured states are states which cooperate with the Schengen rules by implementing certain part of the Schengen acquis. The UK does this and Ireland doesn't, so the UK should be coloured red and Ireland should be coloured grey. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 13:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If it is relevant, Ireland participates in the 'transfer of prisoners' element of Schengen - see http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2005/2805.pdf -- Red King ( talk) 12:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Could this be the source that Blue Haired Lawyer wanted? CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MUTUAL ASSISTANCE) ACT 2008 -- Red King ( talk) 12:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Just noting here at the end for anyone new that the map has been replaced by one which doesn't mention the UK or Ireland. They could possibly be included later, when the complicated bureaucracy of ireland allows it! Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 12:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
posted wrongly instead of here. Alinor ( talk) 05:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The "date of first implementation" header in one of the tables isn't accurate. Many countries joined Schengen in three steps:
The countries joining the EU in 2004 and 2007 implemented the first step immediately upon joining (so that was the "first implementation") and later implemented the other things ("second implementation" and "third implementation"). However, the table shows the dates of the "second implementation" for these countries. ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 17:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC))
A somewhat confusing notes were added to the UK/Ireland PJC implementation table:
Ireland: "Signed by President 17 Oct, 2009. Legal effect: 01 Dec, 2009.[24]; Upon the entering into legal Force of the Treaty of Lisbon (initially known as the Reform Treaty) amending the treaties of the European Union &c., being the same one the Irish Republic voted on twice, as a "Nation" (once again?)"
What is this supposed to mean? Some discussion about the two ToLisbon referendums, "once again" question marks, etc.???
Anyway, I am not sure that ToL ratification has anything to do with PJC implementation. The link supplied gives the following relevant info: "Ireland’s application to participate in these specified articles of the agreement was approved by Council decision in 2002. In accordance with this decision, these provisions will come into effect only after a range of technical and legislative measures have been put in place and successfully evaluated by the Council. The measures which will enable Ireland to meet its Schengen requirements are currently being progressed." So, it applied in 2002, adopted requirements, the Council is currently evaluating the adoption - and eventually will take a decision for PJC implementation with Ireland.
A link to the 2002 Council decision would be welcome. Alinor ( talk) 09:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC) - it is up in the text. Alinor ( talk) 09:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
"Unfortunately, the name used by the Irish Republican government for the 'Schengen Implementing Convention on Police & Security' is not the same name as that which every other member-state of the Union refers to it. Namely, the Irish government cites this entry to the law register as: “ Article 3 of the fourth Protocol set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam ”. [1] This had the effect that the Irish government neglected to communicate the passing in the House of Legislature of this request (for the evaluation of a de-facto operating participation). Nine months following the laying of the document requesting the necessary evaluation according to the Law, attorneys for the European Commission who deal specifically with this area of the law and with the Irish Republic in this specific matter were still no made aware the request being made the previous April, in the Irish Houses of Parliament. [2]" Alinor ( talk) 09:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this section should be updated. Today (8 November) the EU interior ministers decided to lift visa requirements for the citizens of Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. [9] Piasoft ( talk) 14:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there basically no border between Gibraltar and Spain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.252.15 ( talk) 16:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The current version of the article is citing a 2009 Forbes article for the statement "In 2010 Liechtenstein has begun revealing information about assets of EU citizens." It goes on to make the unsourced statement "This should speed up the Schengen process."
In fact, the accession of Liechtenstein is now before a committee of the European Parliament. On December 1, 2010, the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs issued a draft recommendation, recommending that the European Parliament consent to the conclusion of the protocol. The document number is PE452.761 and you can access it through this link. Mathew5000 ( talk) 00:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
It is now a member. Member-- Smart30 ( talk) 16:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
1985??????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakebread ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The European Commission (Directorate-General for Home Affairs) published a new "maps and statistics" page this week: http://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/policies/borders/borders_maps_en.htm. Also the FAQ is marked as having been updated, as well as documentation pages: [12] [13] — Mathew5000 ( talk) 11:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This means that Schengen is a nonsense. Nations can still control their borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 ( talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Schengen needs to be distinguished from freedom of movement. – Kaihsu ( talk) 15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
What's the rules on helicopters going from outside Schengen to San Marino, Vatican State and Monaco ? My guess is that for San Marino and Vatican State, they have to land in a international airport (that is not in San Marino and Vatican State) and do passports checks there. Because air planes, helicopters and boats are generally required to report to a border control if the arrive into the Schengen area, and I assume San Marino and Vatican State can't do this. For Monaco I assume the rules for the seaport are valid, that is helicopters can land in Monaco and be checked there. What are the rules ? -- BIL ( talk) 09:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It's always better to travel with ID but I'd like to see a list in this article with the Schengen area member countries that actually rquire foreigners from within S.A. to bring their IDs with them. i'd also like to know what are the consequences of not having ID card while random control. Can a persn be sent back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.96.155 ( talk) 21:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Liechtenstein is now a member of the Schengen Area. Border controls will be formally lifted on 19 December. ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/homepage/showfocus?lang=en&focusID=78856) ( Connolly15 ( talk) 14:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC))
Liechtenstein is a member, just as Romania, Bulgaria and Cyprus, that doesn't mean it should have the same colour as Switzerland on the map (yet). The difference is implementation, not membership.
The map under "History" is wrong. Liechtenstein hasn't implemented Schengen yet officially, yet, it is marked with the purple colour assigned to Schengen members outside the EU. It will do so on December 19th. Why do people have the urge to change maps before accession? It already had the dubious but true tag of "outside, but set to join (non-EU)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyhoser ( talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Why is the UK listed as "outside (EU)" on the map?
Odd, I thought the UK was a member, but of course not part of Schengen. Bolegash ( talk) 03:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Blue haired lawyer I opened a new chapter for you regarding the name of Ro and Bg. I am also against calling Romania and Bulgaria as "future candidates". Everyone is kindly invited to share his/her opinion at the subject. -- Camoka4 ( talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Referring to Romania and Bulgaria, we don't know what future brings, you mean candidate? according to the EU, there is no candidate status in Schengen membership. They just give decisions in EU meetings to let them in or not. As far as I remember, France blocked Romania entrance last year, so it's an error to conclude that they are really future members. Even if they become a member, why do we show them on the main map of Schengen Area? .. For instance, on the article of EU, they don't show candidate countries on the main map. Wikipedia only shows the members of NATO on NATO article, EU members on EU article. Another thing is, Cyprus doesn't even have any intention to join Schengen. Croatia does. But Croatia is grey and Cyprus is green. Can anyone explain this? I propose to change the main map to existant Schengen members only ---- Camoka4 ( talk) 12:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
now reverted in view of the clear lack of consensus and because the change as it was implemented (by changing the image) affected over 10 language versions...). L.tak ( talk) 18:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't give any argument? Read this discussion again then. Not acknowledging a comment doesn't mean it isn't there, and it's very, very obvious that L.tak isn't the only user that disagrees with the edit. - Sudo Ghost 23:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
There is another edit war for Macedonia and FYROM, I wonder which one should be used in the article.-- Camoka4 ( talk) 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
According to news sources, borders check between Schengen countries are resumed. Should we add something to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.99.251.57 ( talk) 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a group who constantly chat eachother on third party platforms and whenever one member of the group is against something, the rest of the groups comes like out of beehive to attack and manipulate the discussion.--
Camoka4 (
talk)
23:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The comment above was added at 14 june around 12:00 UTC. The original comment (to which of the users reacted) at 13 June 23:46 was: Hello, I am removing Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus from the first map. I KNOW they are obliged to join legally some time later, BUT we should add them to the first map only AFTER they really join, until then we should only show CURRENT members in the first map. We have the second map for them already if someone wants to know all the "future members", and the countries that are in the EU but not in Schengen (Ireland, UK).
A.K.A. the Schinken Area. :-) -- E4024 ( talk) 12:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Can this article be of help to improve this page? -- E4024 ( talk) 22:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Does the Schengen Treaty establish an international union or organisation? Why do we talk about "members"? It should be "states parties" or simply "parties". RfC. -- E4024 ( talk) 14:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at the European Commission's page on the Schengen Area: [14]. (a) It does not use the word "member" at all, but refers to "Schengen States". (b) Unlike our Wikipedia article, the official page on the Schengen Area does not say that Cyprus is a future part of the Schengen Area. Mathew5000 ( talk) 00:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Legally bound to enter with an indefinite date (but Netherland keeps vetoing them) means future member? We have some fortunetellers here. Even EU official website doesn't call them "future member". -- Free ottoman ( talk) 12:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
On topic: I have implemented my proposal; feel free to revert per WP:BRD or to adjust… L.tak ( talk) 20:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
The country I live, Serbia, is a member state since December 2009. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.223.71.206 ( talk) 17:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this edit, but it might be a good idea to explore why/how/when Croatia is obliged to join Schengenland. I think that a bit more content along those lines would be really helpful. bobrayner ( talk) 06:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
This map is incorrect. Croatia isn't in the Shengen area. Should be of the same color as UK, Ireland, Romania and Bulgaria. 87.252.154.237 ( talk) 19:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Isn't Andorra on a par with San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City/ Holy See? I refer to the article Andorra-European_Union_relations#Schengen.-- Bornsommer ( talk) 09:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
it says under the part about Liechtenstein that a ship cannot go directly from it to Vatican or San marino. who wrote that, they are landlocked countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.65.155.62 ( talk) 11:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
It is written: Enforcement of these rules varies by country.
You can say that again. In fact, perhaps you ought to say 'varies very widely'. In Germany, for instance, there is no attempt whatever to enforce the production of ID in commercial accommodation, and in practice ID is never required, nor is any form of registration usually carried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.199.36 ( talk) 16:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
It says in the data box that the area of France is "excluding overseas departments and territories", but in that case Metropolitan France should be only 551,695 km². As far as I can see now the number of 674,843 km² is exactly including overseas departments. - 89.66.180.105 ( talk) 21:13, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
An IP editor recently removed information about Zurich airport having automated border controls. The edit summary claimed that the editor lived in Zurich and recently visited the airport. The editor does not mention having travelled to or from the airport from a non-Schengen airport, and a visit to the airport is not by itself sufficient to establish whether automated border controls are in effect. The original citation referred only to an older pilot test, but a press release from Secunet dated December 2014 indicates the presence of automated border controls. Does anyone have more information and/or a better source? -- Boson ( talk) 13:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Isn't Liechtenstein like San Marino, Monaco and the Vatican "a microstate with open borders" ? (Please note it's a question, not a statement) Boeing720 ( talk) 02:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"De facto, the Schengen Area also includes three European micro-states, Monaco, San Marino and the Vatican City, that maintain open or semi-open borders with other Schengen member countries"
Is Andorra also de facto member? Does it have a treaty (I dont find it in the list) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.67.230.24 ( talk) 20:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The main difference to me is (as shown here) that a multiple entry visa is needed. Thus you really leave schengen, according to schengen, which makes Andorra less of a "de facto member" than e.g. Vatican. On the other hand, "de facto member" is an open term, that we fill to the best of our abilities. We could use a definition that includes Andorra, or one that doesn't. , as long as we make clear that going to Andorra counts towards a leave of the Schengen area in visa terms, whereas this is not the case for SMarino or Vatican...
According to e-mail I got from some airlines which have flights between Greece and Sweden, Greek airport staff do checks of the right to stay or travel in the Schengen area, including checking if a visa is needed and if the visa is valid. I asked those airlines (Aegean, Apollo/Novair and Ving/Thomas Cook Airlines) if people who have a passport but no visa even if they need one, can travel with them. The answer was no. Since Greece has no land border to other Schengen countries, and airlines do strict passport checks, there seems not to be much usefuleness in the Schengen Area membership for Greece. Can someone confirm if there are laws on passport check for air travel from Greece to other Schengen countries? And should we mention this in this article? -- BIL ( talk) 20:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 18 external links on
Schengen Area. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Schengen Area. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please add the link in the menu to the german site. Thanks a lot. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen-Raum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.58.138 ( talk) 11:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The first image in the article seems to imply that Switzerland and Liechtenstein are legally required to participate in the Schengen Area. This would at least need a citation since it's hard to believe Switzerland would find itself in a position of being legally required to do something other countries prescribe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA13:7101:1780:F4D6:480B:E750:CCBD ( talk) 08:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Given Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Poland and Sweden have all temporarily imposed border controls as a result of the European migrant crisis and the French state of emergency means they have also, it would be good to show this on the map in the infobox. — OwenBlacker ( Talk) 20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
In the map under the "Membership" section, there are two grey blobs in Sweden. These appear to correspond to bodies of water. These probably should either be colored dark blue like the rest of Sweden (likely preferred, if they're internal waters of Sweden), or turned white like the ocean (if they're international waters). ... Unless, of course, it really is the situation that they're truly an enclave of non-Schengen zone inside of Sweden. -- 160.129.138.186 ( talk) 18:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The vatican city DOES NOT have open borders.
You need a permit and a passport to enter the Vatican Gardens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.217.196 ( talk) 18:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
You need a permit and a Passport to enter the Vatican Gardens.
The fact that you can enter St Pauls cathedral without a passport is comparable to standing in the US-Mexico border bridge on the US side. The passport control is passing the bridge, 500 feet into the land — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.162.217.196 ( talk) 18:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm rather sceptical about the «Note 9» stating that «EFTA state, which is outside the EU, that is associated with the Schengen activities of the EU and where the Schengen rules apply.».
This is uncorrect.
Nevertheless, the note itself has another source citing an EEA/EU legal text about Norway and Iceland. In fact, this situation doesn't reflect the exact facts in the matter of the Schengen Area and two EFTA members states that are Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
On the other hand, one can find a better and more precise explanation on the EFTA website ( http://www.efta.int/faq under the point «What is not covered by the EEA Agreement?») which clearly contradicts the explanation given under Note 9: «Schengen is not a part of the EEA Agreement. However, all of the four EFTA States participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements and they all apply the provisions of the relevant Acquis.» Therefore, I'd rather correct «Note 9» writing something like «participate in Schengen and Dublin through bilateral agreements». It seems more correct and relevant to me. What do you think? :) Ngagnebin ( talk) 01:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Where are there three different maps of the European countries and there different relation to the agreement? -- Per W ( talk) 10:17, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Following the migration crisis, as of July 2018, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Norway, and Sweden temporary imposed the
It is June 2018. Mtaylor848 ( talk) 14:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
In the table under 'temporary border controls', for many countries we have the strange phrase 'All internal borders'. What does this mean? Borders between counties? lander? provinces? oblasts? -- Red King ( talk) 10:33, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
add 'member states not part of EU' color code to map >Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.94.176.36 ( talk) 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Statement from British Foreign Secretary: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-from-the-foreign-secretary-uk-gibraltar-spain-agreement
Article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55497084
Rob984 ( talk) 15:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
UK citizens no longer have freedom of movement with the EEA and Switzerland. Should this section of the article not be updated to reflect this? Steven a91 ( talk) 15:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Steven a91 ( talk) 16:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
DealOrNo believes that Gib is already a de facto member of Schengen. There are two simple tests: (1) Covid precautions aside, there are no frontier controls between participants. Not only is that not true at the Gib/ES frontier, they became more (not less) strict on 1 January. (2) There are Frontex accredited border guards at the port and airport of the participant: again, not true. The fact that both ES and Gib are trying to make the border "as fluid as possible" until the ES/UK agreement is formalised and ratified as an EU/UK treaty.
I have (again) reverted their change per WP:STATUSQUO pending a WP:BRD discussion and consensus. The discussion is now open.-- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
DealOrNo declines to respond to this WP:BRD discussion but has moved the revert war to Gibraltar, where they continue to misreport the sources [I drew their attention to the article in The Guardian, [3] which gives clearly the very different contexts for "fluidity of movement" and "freedom of movement" phrases that those making them were careful to make clear]. I can see this going to wp:ANI (3RR, NPA and more) so may I ask others to intervene since I am now unambguously WP:INVOLVED. I have given them two {{ uw-disruptive}} cautions and a {{ uw-ew}} (edit warring) notice – see history of their talk page, they have deleted. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 20:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
References
The article currently states that the decision on Ireland's participation in parts of the Schengen acquis did not take effect until 1 January 2021. Indeed, the 2002 decision states that the relevant provisions only apply after all necessary measures have been implemented by Ireland and the Schengen states and a decision has been taken by the Council on this. However, I am wondering about whether the 2002 decision had any effects on legal acts adopted after the decision entered into force on 1 April 2002. For instance Council directive 2004/82/EC states that Ireland is taking part in the directive and that it is binding upon Ireland. Does this not mean that the 2002 decision had some effect already before 1 January 2021? -- Glentamara ( talk) 18:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The cited document reads
5. Joint Declaration concerning Mount Athos
Recognising that the special status granted to Mount Athos, as guaranteed by Article 105 of the Hellenic Constitution and the Charter of Mount Athos, is justified exclusively on grounds of a spiritual and religious nature, the Contracting Parties will ensure that this status is taken into account in the application and subsequent preparation of the provisions of the 1985 Agreement and the 1990 Convention.— The Schengen acquis - Agreement on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 [...] and the Hellenic Republic acceded by the Agreements signed at Bonn on 25 June 1991. [1]
I suppose since it is mentioned in the Agreement of Accession, it merits mention in the article but it would be wp:undue to give it more than half a dozen words. The Agreement gives every citizen the right of access to any and all public spaces but not obviously to private premises. The derogation seems really just to allow all of Athos be treated as a private space in this context. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
References
A user has added Büsingen as a territory with special status under the section "Current members". However, the references do not support this statement. They talk about the historical situation. I have tried to find any references to the territory of Büsingen in the Schengen acquis, but I have found nothing. On the contrary, since the Schengen acquis was integrated into the Union law by the Treaty of Amsterdam, it is applicable to the whole territory of the member states that belongs to the European Union. Some exceptions do indeed exist, such as the outermost regions of France, but there seems to be no references at all to a special status of Büsingen. The territory has simply no special status in the Schengen acquis. If somebody claims the opposite, please provide a reference to the legal act where it is stated. Until then, we should not list it as a territory with special status as there is not enough support for such a claim. -- Glentamara ( talk) 18:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Wrong! Again! The Schengen Agreement did not apply / was not applied to Büsingen as a territory until Switzerland joined. The border between Büsingen and Switzerland is open and not checked and this is regardless of whether either country is in Schengen or not. The treaty between the two countries predates Schengen and continues to apply, as do the provisions outlined therein and as such even though both countries are currently in the Schengen area, the border between the enclave and Switzerland is not even an internal Schengen border as outlined in the S. Agreement. SlippyLina ( talk) 08:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
According to Schengen Visa Info, Iceland has today (June 15th) announced that the current border restrictions will apply until July 1st, but will then be scrapped for vaccinated arrivals, as the Digital Covid Certificate goes live. [1] Culloty82 ( talk) 11:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
References
The statement "Countries outside of the Schengen Area also benefit" is pure political propaganda (Wikipeda? Political propaganda??? No!!!!! Impossible!!!!!). At the very least, it should say 'Some argue that ...'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 ( talk) 14:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lemurbaby ( talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 11:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:What the Good article criteria are not#(1) Well-written Mistakes to avoid, last point.
Well, since the neutrality of this review is being questioned and there appears to be an element of "barrack room lawyering", I will review it in full. I will leave sentencing to the primary reviewer. Pyrotec ( talk) 18:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm doing this section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last.
...to be continued.
Pyrotec (
talk) 20:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done – Plarem (
User
talk
contribs)
20:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Pyrotec ( talk) 09:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
This map (below), half way down the page with green and yellow borders, has some significant issues with the non-EU states, such as the new existence of strange North African/Ukrainian-Moldovan/Western Balkans superstates :) Would someone able to edit maps be able to fix it, possibly by basing it off another template? Also perhaps worth mentioning that the temporary border controls in certain Member States don't apply to all their borders - for example the current SE temporary controls are only towards DK and ferries, not NO or FI. Schengen Area#/media/File:Border controls at internal and external Schengen borders.svg Hentheden ( talk) 08:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
"the Justice and Home affairs council of the EU will make a final decision on Croatia’s entry to the bloc on 9 December 2022. Ultimately, the final decision is made by the EU Council, consisting of the EU's 27 government leaders, acting unanimously." Are you saying the Dec. 9 decision is final? If not, when will the final one be? Arrecife ( talk) 00:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
By changing "three" to "four" and including Andorra, I made it more accurate. Reverted because I didn't provide a citation. OK, I'll look for one (rather than cite "personal experience"). But note that the citation previously given said "several," not "three" and did not name them. (And that source is now a 404.) 伟思礼 ( talk) 16:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Romania and Bulgaria joined Schengen in October 2023! New Welaeonska ( talk) 15:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
România and Bulgaria has already joined in Schengen today! Thanks! 213.233.108.202 ( talk) 07:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
An IP editor keeps removing reference to Bulgaria, saying that it won't happen, blaming Austria. Via the edit note, I invite them to put the evidence here. But meanwhile, the process appears to be continuing:
So not evident. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 16:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Kosovo finally can enter Schengen visa-free, as is shown clearly in this article. The title is however misleading as it suggests Kosovo is joining Schengen. From teh context in the article it is clear that is not the case (it says is joins its balkan neighours, who are also not members). Other articles are more precize (eg here and here)....
It therefore is not correct to add Kosovo as a Schengen member. L.tak ( talk) 20:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)