Why isn't the UK part of Schengen?

Voyager2002

Nordictat2 wrote: »

Of course but that was quite funny. I know there are plenty of stories where people have died and tis a shame indeed but ya know if you let too many people into a country (any country) too quickly then you start to wonder why taxes go up or you start to lose benefits. People come and then don't want to leave so they stay illegally and then crime rate goes up because they need to survive some how too.
I feel bad for some of those people who have it bad and what a shot at a happy life but a country shouldn't forget their own people either!

Except the people we are discussing are GENUINE asylum seekers, who have a legal right to refuge under international agreements signed by the UK. Such people have a right to work and/or claim benefits, and so are very unlikely to turn to crime.

Cade_Foster

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Except the people we are discussing are GENUINE asylum seekers, who have a legal right to refuge under international agreements signed by the UK. Such people have a right to work and/or claim benefits, and so are very unlikely to turn to crime.

A genuine asylum seeker who was in fear of their life would stop in the first safe country they got too, which if they hitch a ride on a lorry to the UK is not here.

eamon

Schenegen countries tend to have land borders with each other. The numbers of people crossing daily make passport checking a nightmare. It was a logical extension after the formation of the single market in 1993, This removed many barriers to trade between the member states. The UK & Ireland don't have land borders with other member states but liked to keep control of who enters. (Though the unknown number of illegal immigrants in the UK would suggest that this policy doesn't work very well). What you tend to find at point of entry airports (into the EU & EEA) is two channels, EU & EEA citizens & others. More detailed information can be found at the following web sites
http://livingingreece.gr/2007/07/09/schengen-countries/
http://europa.eu/

moonrakerz

Nordictat2 wrote: »

Mentioning Spain for a moment...I honestly wonder though if Spain cares about passport control. The past few times I've gone there...there was no one there to check our passports. People were looking around but we just walked on thru...

...............and the Spanish now are asking for Advance Passenger Information ... what a joke !

Voyager2002

Cade_Foster wrote: »

A genuine asylum seeker who was in fear of their life would stop in the first safe country they got too, which if they hitch a ride on a lorry to the UK is not here.

That is the basis for the rules as they now stand. However, if such a person can speak English but not German, and has relatives in England but not in Germany, it makes sense for all concerned to allow them to move from Germany to England. The rules do not allow this, so such people are expected to remain in Germany and probably be unemployed there, rather than move somewhere where they could work and make a contribution to society. Crazy and inhuman. The only logic for this is that settling someone in Germany is the responsibility of the German taxpayer, while if they make it to the UK the cost falls on the British taxpayer. It would make far more sense to share these costs across the whole of the EU, and allow these people to remain in whichever EU country makes most sense for them and for the country concerned.

People who arrive anywhere in the EU are subject to some kind of screening, and the ones who are clearly not genuine refugees are sent back and so never get as far as Calais.

GlennTheBaker

Nice to see Voyager2002 speaking sense as usual :rolleyes:

CFC

Voyager2002 wrote: »

That is the basis for the rules as they now stand. However, if such a person can speak English but not German, and has relatives in England but not in Germany, it makes sense for all concerned to allow them to move from Germany to England. The rules do not allow this, so such people are expected to remain in Germany and probably be unemployed there, rather than move somewhere where they could work and make a contribution to society. Crazy and inhuman. The only logic for this is that settling someone in Germany is the responsibility of the German taxpayer, while if they make it to the UK the cost falls on the British taxpayer. It would make far more sense to share these costs across the whole of the EU, and allow these people to remain in whichever EU country makes most sense for them and for the country concerned.

People who arrive anywhere in the EU are subject to some kind of screening, and the ones who are clearly not genuine refugees are sent back and so never get as far as Calais.

Some people are in favour of a total free for all in relation to immigration, such as yourself. Many others do not like the nearly complete disintegration of the Britain recalled from our childhoods as immigration has risen and risen. To be honest, they are in the majority now.

Whenever were the British people asked if they wanted to be a 'multicultural society'? If they wanted to be crowded into a small island like sardines? If they wanted the most common baby boy's name in England to be a variant of Mohammed? Nobody ever asked. And now go bleat that I'm a racist for asking some honest questions that do not repeat the 'politically correct line'

You seem to think that not allowing all and sundry to settle here can only be because it will cost the UK government money rather than cost the German government money. Not everything in the world is about money, you know.

Go take a look at the relative societies, population and land masses and see if you can guess a couple of other reasons.

balt

I may be wrong but the UK is the most densely populated country in Europe by area. If England was taken by itself it would probably be one of the highest in the world. Anyone know for sure?

Baldur

balt wrote: »

I may be wrong but the UK is the most densely populated country in Europe by area.

That's major nation - In Europe, Malta has a higher population density, according to this Telegraph article.

If England was taken by itself it would probably be one of the highest in the world. Anyone know for sure?

Again, from the same Telegraph article:

Beyond Europe, England's population density is among the highest in the world for major countries. England ranks third in density after Bangladesh (1,045 per sq km) and South Korea (498 per sq km)

PolishBigSpender

Tinuel wrote: »

Not sure if this has been asked before, I have done some googling and get all sorts of answers, ranging from the UK is not ready to open it's border to it was just temporary, they will go Schengen at some point.

The UK has already gone Schengen in some respects (and is a signatory of the Schengen Treaty) - but - of course, they didn't extend the benefits to include people. In fact, the UK has huge problems by not being able to access the Schengen Database - and thus has no way of knowing if someone presenting themselves at the UK border is in fact wanted anywhere in the EU. The UK also cannot do random border checks on people anywhere in the country, unlike in any Schengen state.

Even the control-freak of Europe (Switzerland) is part of Schengen. If anyone knows why and if it's a permanent thing or not, please "educate" me.

It's solely due to scare mongering in the British press. Every country with illegal immigrant problems in the EU has managed to find a way round the Schengen rules - such as Austrians conducting police checks (which by nature are an ID check) 500m from the border or the Polish conducting random checks in known hotspots.

If all the Brits against Schengen came to the Eastern border of Poland for a week, they'd soon see the difficulties EU citizens have when it comes to getting in, let alone illegals!