http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13366047
QuoteSchengen 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.
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?
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).
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.
Quote from: Jacob on May 12, 2011, 12:15:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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).
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 12, 2011, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 12, 2011, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 02:27:04 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 12, 2011, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:28:21 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 12, 2011, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 02:36:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:28:21 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 12, 2011, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:31:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 02:27:04 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 12, 2011, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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.
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).
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:38:45 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 02:36:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:28:21 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 12, 2011, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:42:39 AM
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?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 02:48:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:42:39 AM
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?
The EU law says that the EU law takes precedence, but constitutions of most countries say that the constitution takes precedence. In practice, a situation like this happened only once or twice iirc, and in each case the state amended its constitution rather than risked a legal interpretation crisis. (One was the case of the German constitution restricting the military service by women, which was in violation of the EU Treaty providing for gender equality in employment; the federal constitution tribunal had to support the German constitution, but the ECJ stated that it wasn't right to do so - it ended with Germans amending their constitution rather than live with this legal madness!!!111 ).
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 02:31:22 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:27:04 AM
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.
Raz the EU is more like the US under the Article of Confederation, it can't force member states to do anything.
I hope not, for their sake. The articles of Confederation were a disaster.
Wait, what?
Germany fair enough, Danes have a historic paranoia of Germans. Do they still have those laws about foreigners owning houses to stop Germans buying everything?
But Sweden?- what about the development of the united Oresund city folk like talking about? Lots of people living on one side and working on the other I hear.
This has nothing to do with Swedes or Germans, DPP's voters are scared of eastern Europeans and they think this will keep out the criminals.
The random controls probably means they will skip German cars and check the Polish ones.
Quote from: Liep on May 12, 2011, 07:26:59 AM
This has nothing to do with Swedes or Germans, DPP's voters are scared of eastern Europeans and they think this will keep out the criminals.
The random controls probably means they will skip German cars and check the Polish ones.
Danes went up one level in my esteem list.
For Denmark, this move is about 71 years too late, regarding the Germans! ;)
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:28:21 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 12, 2011, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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.
From the article, I'm not sure that it would be possible to demonstrate any actual damages from what Denmark is planning. Unless merely being inconvenienced is considered an actionable damage.
Germany will likely lose a lot of border sales, as Danes now have to explain how 100 cases of beer and 2000 packs of cigarettes can be considered "personal use".
Quote from: Liep on May 12, 2011, 07:57:22 AM
Germany will likely lose a lot of border sales, as Danes now have to explain how 100 cases of beer and 2000 packs of cigarettes can be considered "personal use".
They're Danes. They'll manage.
WINTER IS COMING
Quote from: Liep on May 12, 2011, 07:57:22 AM
Germany will likely lose a lot of border sales, as Danes now have to explain how 100 cases of beer and 2000 packs of cigarettes can be considered "personal use".
:lol:
Reminds me of the beer runs out of Harlan county into the saner wet counties.
Reinstate border control in Denmark??. As usual when it comes to danish matters does the outside world misunderstand what is going on, I wonder if it's on purpose or that foreign journalists just are that stupid... :rolleyes:
No, Denmark isnt about to reinstate border control, we are about to strengthening our custom service, in order to better combat cross border crime. This will mean extra man power to custom service and a more permanent present at the borders, including scanners to scan whole vehicles for illegal goods. The special police units that patrols the border areas, dealing with illegal drugs and people smuggling, will also get more resources...
The goal is to bring the danish custom service up on the same level as the Swedish custom service. As a matter of fact the Swedish custom service have 300 officers in southern Sweden alone, mainly dealing with traffic coming from Denmark. While the danish custom service only have 185 officers deal with the whole country, including the borders, airports and ports...
At worse will ordinary travelers have endure an extra change of being subjected a random spot check at the danish border...
Quote from: Tyr on May 12, 2011, 05:17:58 AM
Wait, what?
Germany fair enough, Danes have a historic paranoia of Germans. Do they still have those laws about foreigners owning houses to stop Germans buying everything?
But Sweden?- what about the development of the united Oresund city folk like talking about? Lots of people living on one side and working on the other I hear.
:lol:
The "Swedish" side is not only strictly Swedish these days, you know. :lol:
I am reminded of the interview with a muslim woman where she gushes that "I love living in Malmö, it feels almost like an arabic city."
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2011, 08:27:27 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 12, 2011, 05:17:58 AM
Wait, what?
Germany fair enough, Danes have a historic paranoia of Germans. Do they still have those laws about foreigners owning houses to stop Germans buying everything?
But Sweden?- what about the development of the united Oresund city folk like talking about? Lots of people living on one side and working on the other I hear.
:lol:
The "Swedish" side is not only strictly Swedish these days, you know. :lol:
I am reminded of the interview with a muslim woman where she gushes that "I love living in Malmö, it feels almost like an arabic city."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlzOt2.png&hash=b798310461b21e6f197f8e7430dc1d2cd0fc4f2c)
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:31:22 AM
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?
Not the National Guard, which is a state-level organization, but Federal troops. This happened during the civil right era.
Ed Anger, funny post! :D
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
Reinstate border control in Denmark??. As usual when it comes to danish matters does the outside world misunderstand what is going on, I wonder if it's on purpose or that foreign journalists just are that stupid... :rolleyes:
It's DPP's fault with their retorics and talks about control at the borders.
E.g.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uriasposten.net%2Fpics%2FOdense-160411.jpg&hash=d2147e6c09de22ef86ef4dc2a6525b3ced3e1891)
Quote from: Liep on May 12, 2011, 09:06:14 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
Reinstate border control in Denmark??. As usual when it comes to danish matters does the outside world misunderstand what is going on, I wonder if it's on purpose or that foreign journalists just are that stupid... :rolleyes:
It's DPP's fault with their retorics and talks about control at the borders.
E.g.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uriasposten.net%2Fpics%2FOdense-160411.jpg&hash=d2147e6c09de22ef86ef4dc2a6525b3ced3e1891)
They always aim high and settle for less, unfortunately doesnt the foreign media have the attention span to realize this...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
Reinstate border control in Denmark??. As usual when it comes to danish matters does the outside world misunderstand what is going on, I wonder if it's on purpose or that foreign journalists just are that stupid... :rolleyes:
No, Denmark isnt about to reinstate border control, we are about to strengthening our custom service, in order to better combat cross border crime. This will mean extra man power to custom service and a more permanent present at the borders, including scanners to scan whole vehicles for illegal goods. The special police units that patrols the border areas, dealing with illegal drugs and people smuggling, will also get more resources...
The goal is to bring the danish custom service up on the same level as the Swedish custom service. As a matter of fact the Swedish custom service have 300 officers in southern Sweden alone, mainly dealing with traffic coming from Denmark. While the danish custom service only have 185 officers deal with the whole country, including the borders, airports and ports...
At worse will ordinary travelers have endure an extra change of being subjected a random spot check at the danish border...
So Denmark is not part of Schengen?
Quote from: dps on May 12, 2011, 07:53:56 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:28:21 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 12, 2011, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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.
From the article, I'm not sure that it would be possible to demonstrate any actual damages from what Denmark is planning. Unless merely being inconvenienced is considered an actionable damage.
Class action.
1. Send 10,000 lawyers with an hourly rate of $1,000 across the border.
2. Have them waste one hour on the border.
3. Sure for $10,000,000. :cool:
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
Reinstate border control in Denmark??. As usual when it comes to danish matters does the outside world misunderstand
Clearly, if the outside world all believes one thing, and you another, it is the outside world/foreign journalists that must be stupid.
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 10:23:29 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
Reinstate border control in Denmark??. As usual when it comes to danish matters does the outside world misunderstand what is going on, I wonder if it's on purpose or that foreign journalists just are that stupid... :rolleyes:
No, Denmark isnt about to reinstate border control, we are about to strengthening our custom service, in order to better combat cross border crime. This will mean extra man power to custom service and a more permanent present at the borders, including scanners to scan whole vehicles for illegal goods. The special police units that patrols the border areas, dealing with illegal drugs and people smuggling, will also get more resources...
The goal is to bring the danish custom service up on the same level as the Swedish custom service. As a matter of fact the Swedish custom service have 300 officers in southern Sweden alone, mainly dealing with traffic coming from Denmark. While the danish custom service only have 185 officers deal with the whole country, including the borders, airports and ports...
At worse will ordinary travelers have endure an extra change of being subjected a random spot check at the danish border...
So Denmark is not part of Schengen?
Denmark is part of Schengen and this strengthening of the custom controls are well with in the Schengen agreement...
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2011, 10:30:11 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
Reinstate border control in Denmark??. As usual when it comes to danish matters does the outside world misunderstand
Clearly, if the outside world all believes one thing, and you another, it is the outside world/foreign journalists that must be stupid.
In this case, yes...
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
No, Denmark isnt about to reinstate border control, we are about to strengthening our custom service
What about the customs service's death camps?
I am sure the NSDAP also just wanted to "strengthen the customs service" by moving the border to the Urals.
Face it, Denmark = little fascist piglets. :mad:
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2011, 10:30:11 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
Reinstate border control in Denmark??. As usual when it comes to danish matters does the outside world misunderstand
Clearly, if the outside world all believes one thing, and you another, it is the outside world/foreign journalists that must be stupid.
Argumentum ad populum?
Really?
Weak.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2011, 08:37:28 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:31:22 AM
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?
Not the National Guard, which is a state-level organization, but Federal troops. This happened during the civil right era.
Yeah, not a very good question on Mart's part.
Quote from: Norgy on May 12, 2011, 11:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
No, Denmark isnt about to reinstate border control, we are about to strengthening our custom service
What about the customs service's death camps?
I am sure the NSDAP also just wanted to "strengthen the customs service" by moving the border to the Urals.
Face it, Denmark = little fascist piglets. :mad:
As long as the barracks are kept bright cheerful colors are there no reason for complains. Also everyone will be provided with 300 grams of rye bread and a cup of einsatz coffee each day...
Quote from: Norgy on May 12, 2011, 11:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
No, Denmark isnt about to reinstate border control, we are about to strengthening our custom service
Face it, Denmark = little fascist piglets. :mad:
Oh, come on. All you Scandies, as much as you try to pretend to be typical Commie Euroweenines, are closet Nazis. Except Slargos, no closet there. And Hortlund, but he doesn't count 'cause he doesn't post here anymore.
;)
Quote from: dps on May 12, 2011, 11:38:44 AM
Quote from: Norgy on May 12, 2011, 11:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
No, Denmark isnt about to reinstate border control, we are about to strengthening our custom service
Face it, Denmark = little fascist piglets. :mad:
Oh, come on. All you Scandies, as much as you try to pretend to be typical Commie Euroweenines, are closet Nazis. Except Slargos, no closet there. And Hortlund, but he doesn't count 'cause he doesn't post here anymore.
:sleep:
Quote from: dps on May 12, 2011, 11:38:44 AM
Quote from: Norgy on May 12, 2011, 11:07:25 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
No, Denmark isnt about to reinstate border control, we are about to strengthening our custom service
Face it, Denmark = little fascist piglets. :mad:
Oh, come on. All you Scandies, as much as you try to pretend to be typical Commie Euroweenines, are closet Nazis. Except Slargos, no closet there. And Hortlund, but he doesn't count 'cause he doesn't post here anymore.
America is stupid and fat.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2011, 11:11:15 AM
Argumentum ad populum?
Really?
Weak.
Agreed, so stop making them. :showoff:
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2011, 11:53:14 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2011, 11:11:15 AM
Argumentum ad populum?
Really?
Weak.
Agreed, so stop making them. :showoff:
I know that you are, but what am I?
Quote from: Tyr on May 12, 2011, 08:00:08 AM
Quote from: Liep on May 12, 2011, 07:57:22 AM
Germany will likely lose a lot of border sales, as Danes now have to explain how 100 cases of beer and 2000 packs of cigarettes can be considered "personal use".
They're Danes. They'll manage.
Otherwise, it's the death knell for Flensburg/Flensborg. Danes can't allow the death of cheap shopping ;) Things will return to normal after a while.
I hope our governments don't sacrifice something as hugely successful as Schengen just to make a few cheap populist points. That would be really sad.
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2011, 08:27:27 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 12, 2011, 05:17:58 AM
Wait, what?
Germany fair enough, Danes have a historic paranoia of Germans. Do they still have those laws about foreigners owning houses to stop Germans buying everything?
But Sweden?- what about the development of the united Oresund city folk like talking about? Lots of people living on one side and working on the other I hear.
:lol:
The "Swedish" side is not only strictly Swedish these days, you know. :lol:
I am reminded of the interview with a muslim woman where she gushes that "I love living in Malmö, it feels almost like an arabic city."
:rolleyes:
I believe they're still a minority (30% foreign born apparently) and so what? Doesn't change what I said.
If I lived next to Malmöstan I´d want some border controls too.
Quote from: Tyr on May 12, 2011, 02:08:19 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2011, 08:27:27 AM
Quote from: Tyr on May 12, 2011, 05:17:58 AM
Wait, what?
Germany fair enough, Danes have a historic paranoia of Germans. Do they still have those laws about foreigners owning houses to stop Germans buying everything?
But Sweden?- what about the development of the united Oresund city folk like talking about? Lots of people living on one side and working on the other I hear.
:lol:
The "Swedish" side is not only strictly Swedish these days, you know. :lol:
I am reminded of the interview with a muslim woman where she gushes that "I love living in Malmö, it feels almost like an arabic city."
:rolleyes:
I believe they're still a minority (30% foreign born apparently) and so what? Doesn't change what I said.
If you need it explained, odds are you won't understand. :D
My 2 ører;
This will have zero practical effect. Borders won't be closed, nor will it stem the alleged tide of criminals. It's purely symbolic, populist nonsense. I'd wish our politcians would spend their time on something a little more substantial...
Quote from: bogh on May 12, 2011, 04:28:36 PMI'd wish our politcians would spend their time on something a little more substantial...
You know that won't happen this close to an election.
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
Reinstate border control in Denmark??. As usual when it comes to danish matters does the outside world misunderstand what is going on, I wonder if it's on purpose or that foreign journalists just are that stupid... :rolleyes:
No, Denmark isnt about to reinstate border control, we are about to strengthening our custom service, in order to better combat cross border crime. This will mean extra man power to custom service and a more permanent present at the borders, including scanners to scan whole vehicles for illegal goods. The special police units that patrols the border areas, dealing with illegal drugs and people smuggling, will also get more resources...
The goal is to bring the danish custom service up on the same level as the Swedish custom service. As a matter of fact the Swedish custom service have 300 officers in southern Sweden alone, mainly dealing with traffic coming from Denmark. While the danish custom service only have 185 officers deal with the whole country, including the borders, airports and ports...
At worse will ordinary travelers have endure an extra change of being subjected a random spot check at the danish border...
Well, that does sound a little less crazy.
Quote from: Liep on May 12, 2011, 09:06:14 AM
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 08:14:27 AM
Reinstate border control in Denmark??. As usual when it comes to danish matters does the outside world misunderstand what is going on, I wonder if it's on purpose or that foreign journalists just are that stupid... :rolleyes:
It's DPP's fault with their retorics and talks about control at the borders.
E.g.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uriasposten.net%2Fpics%2FOdense-160411.jpg&hash=d2147e6c09de22ef86ef4dc2a6525b3ced3e1891)
That's a funny looking border. It looks like they ceded the islands and a good chunk of Southern Jutland to the Germans.
Quote from: Tyr on May 12, 2011, 02:08:19 PM
:rolleyes:
I believe they're still a minority (30% foreign born apparently) and so what? Doesn't change what I said.
Foreign born means Arab?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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?
Allow me to complicate matters further: the Schengen Agreement is not EU-exclusive. They are between European nations, but not just EU countries. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, for example, are Schengen area countries.
While the UK, Romenia and Bulgaria are not part of the Schengen area, despite being part of the EU.
That said, this move is hardly just populist. It is meant to fight off dangerous alien immigration and does not affect real Europeans at all. IIRC, most Danish parties support something like this, and I think the Swedish government also nodded its agreement.
I myself do not approve, however, of such unilateral actions and preferred that controls remained as they are, just made more efficient within the Union. They should pass by the higher instances in the EU and not by the member states, which is what was decided today by the EU Interior ministers.
(as you can guess, Europe is having a bit of an argument between states' rights and its central government. I fear this may escalate as we integrate deeper into one nation)
What are "real" Europeans?
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 12, 2011, 07:27:21 PM
That said, this move is hardly just populist. It is meant to fight off dangerous alien immigration and does not affect real Europeans at all. IIRC, most Danish parties support something like this, and I think the Swedish government also nodded its agreement.
"dangerous alien immigration" read "Romanians"...
whenever i see schengen i think of wu :)
Quote from: LaCroix on May 13, 2011, 12:48:48 AM
whenever i see schengen i think of wu :)
Hu is wu?
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 12, 2011, 07:27:21 PM
That said, this move is hardly just populist. It is meant to fight off dangerous alien immigration and does not affect real Europeans at all.
Jesus.
Who needs enemies when you have friends like the EU.
What are "real" Europeans and what is "dangerous alien immigration"? Real Europeans, are those supposedly the ones living west of the Oder-Neisse? And is "dangerous alien immigration" those people who could possibly do what the poorer members of the EU always have done, undercut the wages in "old" member states?
I have to say I was really, really wrong campaigning for and voting for a yes in the 1994 EU membership referendum. Not because of Eastern Europe, but because of the Med countries and Iberia.
Quote from: Norgy on May 13, 2011, 03:03:57 AMI have to say I was really, really wrong campaigning for and voting for a yes in the 1994 EU membership referendum. Not because of Eastern Europe, but because of the Med countries and Iberia.
Fuck you too, and your cod as well. :P
Quote from: Mr.Penguin on May 12, 2011, 10:08:46 PM
"dangerous alien immigration" read "Romanians"...
And by "Romanians" read "Gypsies", who make up 15% of the Romanian population and are the ones leaving the country in droves to be bums/criminals elsewhere.
Quote from: Norgy
Jesus.
Don't buy into the "Great Spirit in the sky and who likes to play hide and seek with aeroplanes" crap. Give religion up, it's best for you.
Quote from: Norgy
What are "real" Europeans and what is "dangerous alien immigration"? Real Europeans, are those supposedly the ones living west of the Oder-Neisse? And is "dangerous alien immigration" those people who could possibly do what the poorer members of the EU always have done, undercut the wages in "old" member states?
"Dangerous alien immigration" means people whose birthplace lies outside of Europe and come here because either:
a) they hate our guts and want to blow us up (aka Terrorists), or
b) come thinking they can get easy money - often just through unemployment subsidies - and in fact hate our guts because they think we're depraved (aka Muslims/other Africans who absolutely refuse to integrate). They contribute nothing to society, weigh on our deficits and are just disturbing social harmony.
It also means "Gypsies", who though they've been born in their caravans who happened to be in Europe at the time, don't give a crap about Europeans and just live to be bums/criminals/abusers, contributing nothing to society (especially because they roam from place to place and feel no attachment to anybody but their own tribe. It is, in fact, a matter of great pride for them to steal from non-Gypsies).
Though I also oppose excessive immigration that is sponsored by caplitalists and whose only purpose is to keep wages down. This kind of immigration is detrimental both to the local population and to the immigrants who are already in the country (because they get fired as soon as they start to be eligible for the same rights as the locals, and then find themselves unemployed and unemployable, as the bosses prefer to hire other cheaper newcomers instead of them).
And don't confuse "immigrants" with "actual needy refugees". There was a reason why the Tunisian coast guard rammed the immigrants' ships that tried to get to Italy from Tunisia just after the Jasmine Revolution, hoping they'd all drown - most if not all were just thugs of the former Dictator trying to leave the country in order to avoid being dealt Justice by the People they oppressed for decades.
Quote from: Norgy
I have to say I was really, really wrong campaigning for and voting for a yes in the 1994 EU membership referendum. Not because of Eastern Europe, but because of the Med countries and Iberia.
Norwegians are famous for being selfish. Your nation's hate for true solidarity hasn't won you any friends in the last decades, and will probably cost you dearly when your funds end up bust (they bought large amounts of US Residential Mortgage Backed Securities) and nobody steps up to save you from your financial folly.
Wait, the Portuguese guy is lecturing the Norwegian guy on economic irresponsibility. :blink:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 13, 2011, 12:23:23 PM
Wait, the Portuguese guy is lecturing the Norwegian guy on economic irresponsibility. :blink:
Racist.
Why does everyone bitch at me for racism, when you're displaying it on your own all the fucking time?
Quote from: Slargos on May 13, 2011, 12:24:51 PM
Racist.
Why does everyone bitch at me for racism, when you're displaying it on your own all the fucking time?
That's not racism. Neither Portugal nor Norway is a race.
Quote from: Maximus on May 13, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 13, 2011, 12:24:51 PM
Racist.
Why does everyone bitch at me for racism, when you're displaying it on your own all the fucking time?
That's not racism. Neither Portugal nor Norway is a race.
:w00t:
All Americans are syphilic assholes. :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on May 13, 2011, 03:12:05 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 13, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 13, 2011, 12:24:51 PM
Racist.
Why does everyone bitch at me for racism, when you're displaying it on your own all the fucking time?
That's not racism. Neither Portugal nor Norway is a race.
:w00t:
All Americans are syphilic assholes. :hmm:
I'm not sure what is going on in that post.
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2011, 03:45:24 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 13, 2011, 03:12:05 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 13, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 13, 2011, 12:24:51 PM
Racist.
Why does everyone bitch at me for racism, when you're displaying it on your own all the fucking time?
That's not racism. Neither Portugal nor Norway is a race.
:w00t:
All Americans are syphilic assholes. :hmm:
I'm not sure what is going on in that post.
I think he confused two thoughts. He was going to say something about Americans but the recent and distressing diagnosis from his proctologist weighs heavily on his mind and he inadvertently started typing out his ailment.
State to state? No papers?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fsamneill%2Fpictures%2Fhfro%2F310nopapers.jpg&hash=ebceb6cd6c7e17870c5439415ab9e1620e587f01)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/12/europe-to-end-passport-free-travel
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2011, 03:45:24 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 13, 2011, 03:12:05 PM
Quote from: Maximus on May 13, 2011, 03:10:15 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 13, 2011, 12:24:51 PM
Racist.
Why does everyone bitch at me for racism, when you're displaying it on your own all the fucking time?
That's not racism. Neither Portugal nor Norway is a race.
:w00t:
All Americans are syphilic assholes. :hmm:
I'm not sure what is going on in that post.
Spontanous outburst after realizing that it's national-stereotyping-day.
Just put Narn at all of the customs areas.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmidwinter.com%2Flurk%2Fgif%2F054%2Flondo.jpeg&hash=6298f41c5870c24e192dfc40fdbfb065cbb091aa)
Where is the European Shay's rebellion going to happen?
Quote from: chipwich on May 13, 2011, 07:21:13 PM
Where is the European Shay's rebellion going to happen?
Greece
This is turning out to be way more entertaining than it should be. Nazicards are being pulled left and right, disgraced politicians make worthy comebacks only to be disgraced again, and our foreign minister proves herself incompentent again.
Go Denmark!
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 13, 2011, 04:28:13 PM
State to state? No papers?
Interestingly enough, that was the natural state of things until WWI. Before 1914, nobody needed any papers to go and live wherever they wanted to; the whole idea of controlling peoples' movements just seemed silly. Only diplomats and people who needed safe passage for one reason or another were issued with proper papers.
The massification of passports became a reality almost overnight in August 1914, when people suddenly saw themselves in need to prove which nationality they were, in a Continent which became suddenly *very* paranoid about infiltrated spies. It became madness, with passports of one nation being issued by other nations.
(there are some funny stories in the Imperial War Museum about US consulates issuing ad hoc passports to British citizens in Germany on the first days of August to prove that the people were Subjects of the King).
So, we're just going back to the old days. The reality is that the "big novelty" of the EU is... getting us back to pre-1914 ways.
Quote from: Martim Silva on June 21, 2011, 07:06:20 AM
getting us back to pre-1914 ways.
No wonder Otto von Habsburg was so keen on the project.
Quote from: Martinus on May 12, 2011, 02:31:22 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 12, 2011, 02:27:04 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on May 12, 2011, 01:57:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 11, 2011, 10:28:18 PM
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?
Yes, if necessary.
But that is an apples and oranges comparison, I think. The EU is not at all analogous to the US in its level of power/responsibilities/relationship with respects to member EU nations and US states.
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2011, 11:53:14 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2011, 11:11:15 AM
Argumentum ad populum?
Really?
Weak.
Agreed, so stop making them. :showoff:
Huh? :huh:
Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.
"Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.
(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics--since in these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)
Person L says statement p or argument A.
Person L is in the elite.
Statement p is true or argument A is good.
"Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.
Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true.
Statement p is true.
Ah...Ha. :huh:
This Thread= :lmfao:
Quote from: Liep on June 21, 2011, 05:45:53 AM
This is turning out to be way more entertaining than it should be. Nazicards are being pulled left and right, disgraced politicians make worthy comebacks only to be disgraced again, and our foreign minister proves herself incompentent again.
Go Denmark!
What happened?
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2011, 04:36:04 PM
Quote from: Liep on June 21, 2011, 05:45:53 AM
This is turning out to be way more entertaining than it should be. Nazicards are being pulled left and right, disgraced politicians make worthy comebacks only to be disgraced again, and our foreign minister proves herself incompentent again.
Go Denmark!
What happened?
Well, the original political deal somehow along the way went from increased border/custom control to full border control with the Danish peoples party (DF) claiming all the credit. The German interior minister throws a hissy fit and plays the nazi card, DF plays it back claiming that Germany still wants to control its neighbors, this time through a federal Europe...
Various professional and some not so professional experts denounce the Danish government, saying that the agreement is against the Schengen agreement. Some these experts can't quite resist some name calling and political backlash ensue, with question about the role and neutrality of these experts, with counter claims of political gag orders...
At the same time, do some political backbenchers withdraw their support for the whole deal, only reinstate their support after some shady deals, that in reality amounts to a whole lot of nothing...
And last but not least, does it turn out that our foreign minister haven't really bothered to try and explain the whole deal for our neighbors, leaving this part of the job to some incompetent public officials, somehow can't make a German translation of the deal, with making a mess of it all, apparently. All this of course leads back to why the German interior minister did throw his hissy fit in the first place...
Shouldn't Germans be more careful about playing the Nazi card on other nations?
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2011, 08:48:53 AM
Shouldn't Germans be more careful about playing the Nazi card on other nations?
As I read it the Germans only pulled a nationalism card to which the DPP responded, "shouldn't Germans be more careful about playing the Nazi card on other nations?"
Lol, the Germans are just mad they didn't slam the door on the Turks a long time ago.
Quote from: Liep on June 22, 2011, 09:01:58 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2011, 08:48:53 AM
Shouldn't Germans be more careful about playing the Nazi card on other nations?
As I read it the Germans only pulled a nationalism card to which the DPP responded, "shouldn't Germans be more careful about playing the Nazi card on other nations?"
Well, the German interior minister did make a reference to "the kind of nationalism, that in his country's name did bring Europe indescribable suffering"...
Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2011, 11:06:24 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 12, 2011, 11:53:14 AM
Quote from: Slargos on May 12, 2011, 11:11:15 AM
Argumentum ad populum?
Really?
Weak.
Agreed, so stop making them. :showoff:
Huh? :huh:
Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.
"Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.
(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics--since in these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)
Person L says statement p or argument A.
Person L is in the elite.
Statement p is true or argument A is good.
"Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.
Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true.
Statement p is true.
Ah...Ha. :huh:
This Thread= :lmfao:
Argumentum ad Populum is weak. That is what Sluggo said, that's what I said, and that's what your source said. How could you still be :huh: at that assertion after seeing all the supporting evidence?