Will Schengen be suspended for two or three years.

[Tranona]

We will have to differ. I sincerely believe you are wrong if you base you reason for 90/180 on that post from "DG just". It is late here so I will give my reasons tomorrow. Basically the logic is all wrong and I suspect the structure of the letter is misleading. Sleep well .

Not sure why you are persisting with this line of thinking. The rights of UK citizens in respect of travel and residence in the EU are in the Withdrawal Agreement . Existing residence rights are protected for the state of residence at the time (like you). residence in one EU state does not confer any rights for travel residence or work in another EU state other than those allowed to third country citizens under Schengen rules. The only exception to the 90/180 rule as Graham says is for residents in transit.

No point in you wishing it to be any different.

As to Schengen being suspended just because Barnier is stirring up things in France. He is going for President against Macron and one way he can get votes is to steal them from Le Pen. He was very unhappy with the line he had to take from the EU in the negotiations and this is a way of differentiating himself from EU policy. Not a chance of the idea getting any further than election rhetoric.

 

[Koeketiene]

It is pointed out that the EU will do anything to stop Le Pen from winning.

I assume you're just googling English language articles?

Anyway, Le Pen has dropped almost all of her anti EU rethoric.
Frexit is no longer on the cards.

 

[Koeketiene]

Nothing is explicitly stated, except that other contender the EU chief negotiator chap has stated his solution as a suspension of EU wide immigration.

Barnier hasn't called for a suspension of EU wide immigration, but he has called to a temporary stop on immigration from outside the EU.
As a Swedish permanent resident, this would not affect you.
Anyway, this policy would have to be implemented EU-wide.
So, what a French presidential hopeful says in the run-up to an election...
As we all know, being beastly to foreigners is always a real votewinner.

 

[Bouba]

I assume you're just googling English language articles?

Anyway, Le Pen has dropped almost all of her anti EU rethoric.
Frexit is no longer on the cards.

I could be wrong, but the timing of her dropping Frexit was because of the sheer humiliation that May caused Britain. Now we have Johnson, we have his vaccine rollout compared to the eu’s. And if the predicted boom in Britain out strips the eu, then perhaps opinions will change here. Just saying...

 

[Koeketiene]

I could be wrong, but the timing of her dropping Frexit was because of the sheer humiliation that May caused Britain. Now we have Johnson, we have his vaccine rollout compared to the eu’s. And if the predicted boom in Britain out strips the eu, then perhaps opinions will change here. Just saying...

Anything is possible these days it would seem.

As for the vaccine roll-out. EU countries seem to be catching up nicely.
In France, vaccine shots are being made available to the public at large (rather than certain age categories) ahead of schedule.
Both the wife and I got our first shot last month.

Whilst there was a certain amount of schadenfreude in the EU when it came to the UK when TM was PM, Boris is just ridiculed.

As for economic recovery: having a poor neighbour does no-one any good. It's in the EU's interest the the UK does well and vice-versa.

EU Commission could raise 2021 euro zone growth forecast in May

GDP first quarterly estimate, UK - Office for National Statistics

 

[AndersG]

It is also logical because the only difference between my application for permanent residence and citizenship is the ability to speak Swedish. I am sure that a Greek immigration guard could not give a rats ass whether I, a British citizen entering Greece can speak Swedish or not. I can but I prefer to stay away from dual citizenship if possible.

It would be rather odd if someone lived in a normal area in Sweden long enough to acquire citizenship without learning Swedish but currently there are no requirements to speak Swedish to become a citizen.

 

[Bouba]

Anything is possible these days it would seem.

As for the vaccine roll-out. EU countries seem to be catching up nicely.
In France, vaccine shots are being made available to the public at large (rather than certain age categories) ahead of schedule.
Both the wife and I got our first shot last month.

Whilst there was a certain amount of schadenfreude in the EU when it came to the UK when TM was PM, Boris is just ridiculed.

As for economic recovery: having a poor neighbour does no-one any good. It's in the EU's interest the the UK does well and vice-versa.

EU Commission could raise 2021 euro zone growth forecast in May

GDP first quarterly estimate, UK - Office for National Statistics

I’m not saying that what you say isn’t true. I’m just thinking that the public perception of Frexit would have been humiliation heaped upon humiliation that the Eu put May through. But a hugely successful Boris Brexit would cause a lot of Eu citizens to think again

 

[BurnitBlue]

What follows is my attempt to de-construct the message from “DG juss” posted by Graham376. I will used bullet points to remove interpretations of Grammer.

• Basically the message says that transit through Schengen Member States from another Schengen Member State where the person is a resident does not count against a 90/180 allowance coming or going. The passport does not need to be stamped to record arrival or departure. The resident card becomes King.
  
• There is no time limit for transit indicated in the message. By Air, Sea or Land. So why is this ridiculous concesion applied only to residents. There is nowhere in the EU where a transit would take longer than 90 days without stepping outside Schengen.
  
• A visitor from USA hits the ground running and the clock starts ticking the day they land in Paris to transit via bus to Athens.
  
• Did anyone question why this does not apply to residents during their passage through member states. There are many non EU countries that qualify for visa free travel up to 90/180.
  
• I did and my conclusion is that it is there is no 90/180 restriction for residents of a Schengen Member state because they already have permission to stay in Schengen 360/360 by virtue of being granted residence.
  
• I think the message from “DG juss” was an answer to a SPECIFIC question about whether transit to or from a resident state impacts against 90/180. The simple answer should have been “No, 90/180 limits do not apply to residents of a member state because they already have 360/360 by virtue of the grant of residence inside Schengen. In USA it is called an Indian Treaty where a big deal is made granting rights Indians they already had before the cavelry rode into town.
  
• There is absolutely no mechanism to book out of Schengen to another Schengen member state. Departure and arrival gates are segregated to their respective destination in or out of Schengen. This to me is a “de facto” understanding that it is not required. If effort was addressed to the non existant problem of transit then they would have addressed the real problem of passport control for residents travelling between member states.
  
• Your last post implied that if a person did not have a valid Ditch residence permit he was not allowed to spend 90/180 in any Schengen member state. Clearly ridiculous.
  
• I have also looked for links exclusive for residents and I conclude there are non simply because the restriction does not exist. Like permission to breathe.

Basically Graham, messages are open to interpretation. Project fear is an example where half truths were used to bias opinion. It is still going on with the added problem of fake news. The above is my take on the available EVIDENCE. There is the old saying that European law is based on Napoleonic Law where a person is guilty until proved innocent. British law (justice) is based on Innocent until proved guilty. If true then EU law is based on guilty until proved innocent. We cannot, as born and bred Brits, look at EU edicts as if it was based on innocent until proved guilty. We should assume that if we are given permission as residents of a Schengen State to remain in that Schengen state for 360/360 it does apply to that other(apparently) fictional Schengen state outside the resident Schengen state. Show us the law that discriminates the Schengen states- You may have guessed I find this subject quite fascinating-

 

[syvictoria]

Why is this still being debated?! BurnitBlue, I'm afraid that you are the only person here that believes that, as a non-EU citizen, your residence permit allows you anything more than 90/180 (excluding time travelling to/from your country of residence) and yet you still persist! I'm sorry, but consensus in this thread, and those that proceeded it, is that you are wrong.

As for your claim in post #9 that "I have even read someone say that as there is no border between schengen states it is a matter of honour to comply with the meaning of the law. That is ridiculous. It is either lawful or it isn't. " Is it legal to steal from a house just because the door is open?!! You are, as a resident of Sweden and a citizen of the UK, expected to comply with the laws relating to these statuses.

Why not put your question in writing to Europe Direct: Contact | European Union to satisfy yourself as to the situation? They will, in my experience, point you to the exact legislation that relates to your question.

 

[BurnitBlue]

Not sure why you are persisting with this line of thinking. The rights of UK citizens in respect of travel and residence in the EU are in the Withdrawal Agreement . Existing residence rights are protected for the state of residence at the time (like you). residence in one EU state does not confer any rights for travel residence or work in another EU state other than those allowed to third country citizens under Schengen rules. The only exception to the 90/180 rule as Graham says is for residents in transit.

No point in you wishing it to be any different.

As to Schengen being suspended just because Barnier is stirring up things in France. He is going for President against Macron and one way he can get votes is to steal them from Le Pen. He was very unhappy with the line he had to take from the EU in the negotiations and this is a way of differentiating himself from EU policy. Not a chance of the idea getting any further than election rhetoric.

I re-joined this discussion from an earlier post by Graham376. I persist because I find it fascinating. The WA agreement is for Brits after Brexit. What about USA or Canadian citizens who are resident in Greece. No WA there. I have spoken to a few of them and they told me that residence in Greece allows them 360/360 in the rest of the EU. They are cruising people so bias opinion could apply. I can only listen to what people say. I value your opinion so please give us line and verse where it says that a resident of a member state cannot spend more than 90 consecutive days in another member state. I have it in writing from the Swedish Migrations Agency both in Swedish, and as an attachment in English, that as a permanent resident of Sweden I have the same rights as an EU citizen. (har du samma rättigheter som en unionsmedborgare). It is not wishful thinking because i am covered either way. 90/180 is OK by me. Caribbean sailing is in my future. But I do not intend to invent restrictions. Show me where it states that a permanent resident of Sweden is banned by law from staying more than 90 days in another Schengen member state. I agree that as a third country citizen not a resident of a member state I would be limited to 90/180. As far as I am concerned Schengen is Schengen and the EU know they have dug themselves into a hole where folk inside Schengen cannot be tracked.

I can understand why people think that residence does not grant any extra territorial advantage but I cannot understand why a resident needs an extension to the 90/180 rule to travel home. No doubt by bike. Any business traveller who needs to do it on a weekly basis would fly and jump over Schengen states. It is an extension that makes absolutely no sense. He can already stay in his resident state for as long as he wants and if he takes a flight out he will land in schengen or non EU state. (transit over 24 hours max even fromTahiti). Why does he need an extension then. The answer to me is that there is no such thing. The 90/180 restriction does not apply to permanent residents. It was a free gift. Give me one instance where such a concession is necessary. Frankly I am not all that bothered beyond my natural curiosity.

 

[BurnitBlue]

Why is this still being debated?! BurnitBlue, I'm afraid that you are the only person here that believes that, as a non-EU citizen, your residence permit allows you anything more than 90/180 (excluding time travelling to/from your country of residence) and yet you still persist! I'm sorry, but consensus in this thread, and those that proceeded it, is that you are wrong.

As for your claim in post #9 that "I have even read someone say that as there is no border between schengen states it is a matter of honour to comply with the meaning of the law. That is ridiculous. It is either lawful or it isn't. " Is it legal to steal from a house just because the door is open?!! You are, as a resident of Sweden and a citizen of the UK, expected to comply with the laws relating to these statuses.

Why not put your question in writing to Europe Direct: Contact | European Union to satisfy yourself as to the situation? They will, in my experience, point you to the exact legislation that relates to your question.

Because I find it fascinating. I am actually not interested in consensus. Majority in Rome believe in Jesus Christ. Similar parochial consensus everywhere from Islam to Christianity. They are currently killing each other in Gaza in support of their own consensus. I have stated on this thread and others that I can accept 90/180, but I will not invent restrictions based on consensus or false logic.

I spent all my working life designing the logic diagrams that mapped out the electronic gates that allow computers to function. It sticks and I find anything that looks like false logic to be offensive until I dig down and solve the puzzle. The thing that sticks in my craw is the letter posted by Graham376 which seems to allow a resident more than 90 days to get home. Give me a situation which needs that extension only to a resident but not to a third country citizen without residence. I am not saying it is impossible to predict except that I don't see one. Except my contention that it already exists.

 

[syvictoria]

The thing that sticks in my craw is the letter posted by Graham376 which seems to allow a resident more than 90 days to get home. Give me a situation which needs that extension only to a resident but not to a third country citizen without residence.

Because a resident has a right to reside, i.e.: to get to their home, even if they've already used up their 90/180 allowance.

 

[BurnitBlue]

As for your claim in post #9 that "I have even read someone say that as there is no border between schengen states it is a matter of honour to comply with the meaning of the law. That is ridiculous. It is either lawful or it isn't. " Is it legal to steal from a house just because the door is open?!!

Actually I believe that it WAS not illegal if the door is open, the law was altered because of house squatters who claimed the door was open so it was an implied invitation. The owner of the house and contents had to prove that the door was locked and forced entry needed to gain unlawful access. So with open borders there is absolutely no way I can be accused of illegal entry to a neighbour state. I say legal open borders not climbing over a fence or mountain which of course with open borders would still be legal. There may be a responsibilty to declare ones presence after three month but Ok then to move to another member state and start another three month.

Unfortunately, although fascinating I must get some gardening done. so I will leave the thread until tomorrow.

 

[RAI]

I googled Schengen long term visa rules and found a PDF file with a faq. Question 15 says

"I have a valid long stay visa/residence permit for a country that is
part of the Schengen area. Do I need another visa to travel to other
Schengen states?
No. A long stay visa or a residence permit issued by a Schengen State allows you to
travel or stay in other Schengen States, while respecting the maximum duration of a
“short stay” (a stay of "90 days in any 180 day period")."

How the EU monitors this is another matter. Maybe the eleventh commandment applies.

 

[BurnitBlue]

Because a resident has a right to reside, i.e.: to get to their home, even if they've already used up their 90/180 allowance.

Exception to gardening. just this once. You are correct and I did consider this but I wondered why a resident is allowed to exceed the 90/180 when a non resident can be banned from re-entry or fined if he did the same thing. If you are right that a resident can ignore the consequences of exceeding 90/180 and tour Europe driving his car on his way home with no time limit but a non resident even one minute into the next day cannot is very strange.

If a resident cannot spend more than 90/180 days in another Schengen state then it requires more than just an extension for such an unusual event. Lets suppose a resident decides to drive home (in transit) and he has run out of his 90 days allocation. What if he changes his mind near Calais after a few month getting there and drives back to his resident state. That whole business stinks as far as I am concerned. Exceeding 90 days is not allowed so he can wait 180 days as a consequence of his unlawfullness. Or he can simply go to the nearest airport in his residence state to take a flight direct. It his his problem. there is no need to give him extensions because it was his fault he got in that situation. That is if you are correct and he is simply not allowed more than 90 days. My take is that this message of Graham376 is a bull sh1t job and a whitewash to cover an anomaly in the whole 90/180 rule. That extension is an admission that 90/180 does not apply. Q bloody ED.

 

[BurnitBlue]

I googled Schengen long term visa rules and found a PDF file with a faq. Question 15 says

"I have a valid long stay visa/residence permit for a country that is
part of the Schengen area. Do I need another visa to travel to other
Schengen states?
No. A long stay visa or a residence permit issued by a Schengen State allows you to
travel or stay in other Schengen States, while respecting the maximum duration of a
“short stay” (a stay of "90 days in any 180 day period")."

How the EU monitors this is another matter. Maybe the eleventh commandment applies.

That's what they want you to think. That is why they use the word "respecting" the maximum duration rather than "obeying" it. note also the absence of the word LAW.

I have to do some gardening. Plus as a founder member of the nit-pickers club I have other duties to attend to.

 

[Graham376]

• There is absolutely no mechanism to book out of Schengen to another Schengen member state. Departure and arrival gates are segregated to their respective destination in or out of Schengen. This to me is a “de facto” understanding that it is not required. If effort was addressed to the non existant problem of transit then they would have addressed the real problem of passport control for residents travelling between member states.
  

When travelling to/from outside the EU by air or ferry, Schengen entry/exit is recorded when passport scanned. For those with residence in any EU State, residence card should also be shown and is no doubt entered in database. As far as travel between different States is concerned, no further checks are needed. Those without residence who have overstayed , will be caught when they finally exit the area.

I'm beginning to think after the hundreds of previous posts in countless threads about this subject, you're just trolling.

 

[RAI]

That's what they want you to think. That is why they use the word "respecting" the maximum duration rather than "obeying" it. note also the absence of the word LAW.

I have to do some gardening. Plus as a founder member of the nit-pickers club I have other duties to attend to.

Why should I be googling for you?
The Schengen agreement may mean that internal traffic goes mostly unchecked but it does not remove the obligation of travellers to carry the required travel documents. If stopped for any reason the police check ID and have access to the Schengen databases. They can demand further evidence of your movements, should they choose.

 

[BurnitBlue]

When travelling to/from outside the EU by air or ferry, Schengen entry/exit is recorded when passport scanned. For those with residence in any EU State, residence card should also be shown and is no doubt entered in database. As far as travel between different States is concerned, no further checks are needed. Those without residence who have overstayed , will be caught when they finally exit the area.

I'm beginning to think after the hundreds of previous posts in countless threads about this subject, you're just trolling.

Gee whiz I give up. I am fully aware that schengen entry/exit is recorded when passport is scanned. That happens whether a resident or not. I am also not interested in those without residence who have overstayed. Obviously they will be caught when they finally exit "the area". Also if a resident exits Schengen from his state of residence he cannot be accused of overstaying because he has the right to stay 360/360. If he exits Schengen from another member state Greece in my case, he could be asked how long he has been in Greece. However with the transit extension he could state any number of days he liked.

I am discussing permanent residents who have been legally resident in a member state inside Schengen for years and will continue to do so if they wish. When they cross into another member state by road or air they do not have their passports scanned even when they return to their state of residence because there is no mechanism to do this. If he stays inside the Schengen area.

I am not trolling but I have become bored with saying the same thing over and over again.

You also said there has been hundreds of posts in countless threads about this. I wonder why? Could it be that everyone is a troll if they disagree with you.

 

[Koeketiene]

"I have a valid long stay visa/residence permit for a country that is
part of the Schengen area. Do I need another visa to travel to other
Schengen states?
No. A long stay visa or a residence permit issued by a Schengen State allows you to
travel or stay in other Schengen States, while respecting the maximum duration of a
“short stay” (a stay of "90 days in any 180 day period")."

How the EU monitors this is another matter. Maybe the eleventh commandment applies.

This should do it, when it comes on-line (scheduled 2022): ETIAS - European Travel Information and Authorisation System