Denmark to reinstate border controls to Germany, Sweden

[Syt]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13366047

Schengen state Denmark to re-impose border controls

Denmark, one of the Schengen states, is to re-impose controls on its frontiers with Germany and Sweden within weeks, amid pressure from the right.

Finance Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said customs booths would be erected at crossings, as well as at harbours and airports.

Insisting the controls were compatible with Schengen membership, he blamed a rise in cross-border crime.

A populist right-wing party allied to the government had called for the move.

The Danish People's Party (DPP) and its leader Pia Kjaersgaard argued controls would counter illegal immigration and organised crime.

The Schengen Agreement, which dates back to 1995, abolished internal borders, enabling passport-free movement between a large number of European countries.

Denmark joined in 2001 along with other Scandinavian countries.
'Within Schengen limits'

"We have reached agreement on reintroducing customs inspections at Denmark's borders as soon as possible," Mr Hjort Frederiksen told reporters in the capital Copenhagen.

The new controls would, he said, enter into force within two to three weeks.

Because Denmark is a Schengen member, it cannot reinstate full frontier controls and the minister said the new measures would "take place within the limits of Schengen".

"Over the past few years we have seen an increase in trans-border crime, and this is designed to curb the problem," he said.

"We will be building new facilities at the Danish-German border, with new electronic equipment and number-plate identifiers."

He said he wanted Danish customs officers to be permanently present at the Oeresund Bridge border crossing between Denmark and Sweden.

The border controls were negotiated by the DPP in return for supporting the government's pension reform.

'Gentleman's agreement'

"It has to be something that works," DPP deputy leader Peter Skaarup was quoted as saying by Denmark's Politiken newspaper.

"A strengthening of customs controls in which there is a permanent customs officer presence. There must also be extra funds for the police so that those caught in customs controls can be arrested."

The newspaper notes that the use of customs officers would be a way of getting around the Schengen rules, as checks would be random.

According to Politiken, the DPP also reached a "gentleman's agreement" with the government that Denmark would support a Franco-Italian proposal for changes to the Schengen Agreement itself.

Denmark's ruling coalition of liberals and conservatives relies on the DPP's support to pass legislation in parliament.

The country must hold its next general election by this November.

[Razgovory]

Just a question.  Can the EU force it's members to follow the treaties they signed?  More broadly, how does the EU enforce any of it's laws?

[Pat]

Well it depends on what you mean by force, I mean there is no Euro-FBI to waltz in and directly enforce the acquis communautaire, but there is of course legal frameworks and if they're ignored there will be diplomatic repercussions, which is the same as most intl. law (which very seldomly can be directly enforced but, lest we forget, works just fine anyway in most cases, whatever those breeds without the law will have you believe). 

[Jacob]

Border controls with Sweden? Denmark hasn't had those since way before Schengen.

It seems really obnoxious, hassling lots of people to score a few populist fearmonger points. I guess that makes sense for Dansk Folkeparti, though.

[Syt]

Border controls with Sweden? Denmark hasn't had those since way before Schengen.

It seems really obnoxious, hassling lots of people to score a few populist fearmonger points. I guess that makes sense for Dansk Folkeparti, though.

A German article mentioned that the populists have been playing this game for years now - bribing/blackmailing the bigger parties into accepting their demands in exchange for voting for the government's budgets.

[Zanza2]

Just a question.  Can the EU force it's members to follow the treaties they signed?  More broadly, how does the EU enforce any of it's laws?

The EU is built on consensus and is composed of sovereign states. If a country stops complying the worst that can happen is that the ECJ or EC fine the respective country (by withholding EU funds).

[Razgovory]

Just a question.  Can the EU force it's members to follow the treaties they signed?  More broadly, how does the EU enforce any of it's laws?

The EU is built on consensus and is composed of sovereign states. If a country stops complying the worst that can happen is that the ECJ or EC fine the respective country (by withholding EU funds).

That doesn't seem very effective, and could open itself to abuse (wealthy countries flaunting the rule and such).  I admit, I don't understand the EU that well.

[Martinus]

Just a question.  Can the EU force it's members to follow the treaties they signed?  More broadly, how does the EU enforce any of it's laws?

The EU is built on consensus and is composed of sovereign states. If a country stops complying the worst that can happen is that the ECJ or EC fine the respective country (by withholding EU funds).

Well, that's not exactly true. A member state could also be suspended in its rights or even outright kicked out of the union for gross violations. Plus treaties are directly enforceable, which means every private or legal person harmed by a EU member state's failure to enforce its provisions can sue the state in breach for damages.

[Martinus]

Just a question.  Can the EU force it's members to follow the treaties they signed?  More broadly, how does the EU enforce any of it's laws?

The EU is built on consensus and is composed of sovereign states. If a country stops complying the worst that can happen is that the ECJ or EC fine the respective country (by withholding EU funds).

That doesn't seem very effective, and could open itself to abuse (wealthy countries flaunting the rule and such).  I admit, I don't understand the EU that well.

Well, what happens if a US state passes law that is contrary to the US constitution and the law is declared invalid by the Supreme Court, but the US state continues to enforce it? Does the US President send in the National Guard?

[Razgovory]

Just a question.  Can the EU force it's members to follow the treaties they signed?  More broadly, how does the EU enforce any of it's laws?

The EU is built on consensus and is composed of sovereign states. If a country stops complying the worst that can happen is that the ECJ or EC fine the respective country (by withholding EU funds).

Well, that's not exactly true. A member state could also be suspended in its rights or even outright kicked out of the union for gross violations. Plus treaties are directly enforceable, which means every private or legal person harmed by a EU member state's failure to enforce its provisions can sue the state in breach for damages.

Which treaty spells out how to throw someone out?  I can't find anything that says that a country can be expelled.

[Martinus]

Just a question.  Can the EU force it's members to follow the treaties they signed?  More broadly, how does the EU enforce any of it's laws?

The EU is built on consensus and is composed of sovereign states. If a country stops complying the worst that can happen is that the ECJ or EC fine the respective country (by withholding EU funds).

Well, that's not exactly true. A member state could also be suspended in its rights or even outright kicked out of the union for gross violations. Plus treaties are directly enforceable, which means every private or legal person harmed by a EU member state's failure to enforce its provisions can sue the state in breach for damages.

Which treaty spells out how to throw someone out?  I can't find anything that says that a country can be expelled.

Lisbon, iirc.

[Razgovory]

Just a question.  Can the EU force it's members to follow the treaties they signed?  More broadly, how does the EU enforce any of it's laws?

The EU is built on consensus and is composed of sovereign states. If a country stops complying the worst that can happen is that the ECJ or EC fine the respective country (by withholding EU funds).

That doesn't seem very effective, and could open itself to abuse (wealthy countries flaunting the rule and such).  I admit, I don't understand the EU that well.

Well, what happens if a US state passes law that is contrary to the US constitution and the law is declared invalid by the Supreme Court, but the US state continues to enforce it? Does the US President send in the National Guard?

I don't know the full list of options the Federal Government has at it's disposal, but in short yes.  The President can send soldiers to force the issue, something that has been done in the fairly recent past.

[Martinus]

You also have to remember that EU member states have independent courts, and EU member state courts are empowered to directly apply treaties in their rulings, in the same way US courts can apply the US constitution - and in fact pretty much always they do, finding against their own states and in favour of citizens suing for damages or to invalidate some administrative ruling (e.g. a decision preventing a citizen to work in a country in violation of the EU Treaties). Depending on local procedures they can also either declare a local act of law (just as a statute or a bill) invalid due to the violation of the treaties, or refer it to a constitutional court to take a view on that. Finally, courts are obliged to interpret local law "in the spirit" of the EU law (e.g. when there is an interpretation room or ambiguity, they are obliged to interpret the law in a way that would bring it most in line with the EU law).

There is an extensive body of case law of states being sued for huge amounts on that basis (and this is not just the far reaching "freedom" - e.g. when Italy failed to implement a pension system it was obliged to baed on a EU regulation, an Italian citizen working in a factory in Italy, who was not covered as a result by a pension scheme, succesfully sued the Italian state before an Italian court).

[Razgovory]

Just a question.  Can the EU force it's members to follow the treaties they signed?  More broadly, how does the EU enforce any of it's laws?

The EU is built on consensus and is composed of sovereign states. If a country stops complying the worst that can happen is that the ECJ or EC fine the respective country (by withholding EU funds).

Well, that's not exactly true. A member state could also be suspended in its rights or even outright kicked out of the union for gross violations. Plus treaties are directly enforceable, which means every private or legal person harmed by a EU member state's failure to enforce its provisions can sue the state in breach for damages.

Which treaty spells out how to throw someone out?  I can't find anything that says that a country can be expelled.

Lisbon, iirc.

From what I've read the Lisbon treaty does not have any direct avenues for the expulsion of a member.

[Razgovory]

You also have to remember that EU member states have independent courts, and EU member state courts are empowered to directly apply treaties in their rulings, in the same way US courts can apply the US constitution - and in fact pretty much always they do, finding against their own states and in favour of citizens suing for damages or to invalidate some administrative ruling (e.g. a decision preventing a citizen to work in a country in violation of the EU Treaties). Depending on local procedures they can also either declare a local act of law (just as a statute or a bill) invalid due to the violation of the treaties, or refer it to a constitutional court to take a view on that. Finally, courts are obliged to interpret local law "in the spirit" of the EU law (e.g. when there is an interpretation room or ambiguity, they are obliged to interpret the law in a way that would bring it most in line with the EU law).

There is an extensive body of case law of states being sued for huge amounts on that basis (and this is not just the far reaching "freedom" - e.g. when Italy failed to implement a pension system it was obliged to baed on a EU regulation, an Italian citizen working in a factory in Italy, who was not covered as a result by a pension scheme, succesfully sued the Italian state before an Italian court).

What if a country amends their constitution to put it in conflict with a treaty?