Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

....I have this habit of accepting that what the EU Commission says .....

...is not enough and I (erolz) have to add my own version of the truth!

They never threatened Greece with sanctions and your lies have been unraveled!

[erolz66]

....I have this habit of accepting that what the EU Commission says .....

...is not enough and I (erolz) have to add my own version of the truth!

They never threatened Greece with sanctions and your lies have been unraveled!

I am more than willing to concede that a rational argument can be made that is a matter of opinion as to if the EU Commission press release stating an evaluation report on Greece that it says concludes Greece is "seriously deficient" and that then also explicitly lays out under what conditions a member state that has been found in such a report to be "seriously deficient" could be suspended from Schengen as a result if they fail to rectify such deficiencies, represents a threat or not. Yes this is a matter of opinion, mine being that it does represent such as it was the opinion of so much of the media around the world, Greek media included. But I accept that you can rationally argue it is not a threat.

What I do not concede, because it is patently not true and no rational argument can be made in support of it are claims that, any one (me, or so much of the worlds media or Greek ministers) suggesting it does represent a threat has just 'completely made it up' with their being no rational basis at all for them coming to such an opinion. What I do not concede, because it is patently not true and no rational argument can be made in support of it are claims that, the only relevant EU Commission evaluation report is the 8th biannual evaluation that does not conclude that Greece is "seriously deficient" and that allegedly criticises Sweden more than Greece.

[GreekIslandGirl]

....suggesting it does represent a threat has just 'completely made it up' with their being no rational basis at all for them coming to such an opinion. What I do not concede, because it is patently not true and no rational argument can be made in support of it are claims that, the only relevant EU Commission evaluation report is the 8th biannual evaluation that does not conclude that Greece is "seriously deficient" and that allegedly criticises Sweden more than Greece.

The evaluation report has this to say about Sweden:

The aforementioned shortcomings in the implementation of the EU acquis led to temporary reintroduction of controls at the German, Austrian, Slovenian, Hungarian, Swedish and Norwegian internal borders.

Also Sweden announced in its recent notification of the prolongation until 20 December 2015 based on Article 25 SBC that it would prolong the border controls further based on Article 23 SBC if the situation does not improve. The successive use of Articles 25 and 23 SBC is possible on condition that the Member State demonstrates that the introduced or prolonged checks are necessary, adequate and proportionate to remedy the serious threat to public policy or internal security identified.

The results of the unannounced visit to Sweden (Arlanda airport) carried out in the previous reporting period (March 2015) have become available. The decision to evaluate the airport was made on the basis of risk analysis made by Frontex which highlighted atypically low rates of refusals of entry and detection of fraudulent documents. During the visit, some deficiencies related to insufficient resources and training as well as correct execution of border checks were identified.

Those are serious shortcomings by Sweden, don't you think? Already with border controls because of being lax. And, 'fraudulent documents' sounds pretty serious.

I've already posted the bits referring to Greece - and they are nowhere near as critical of Greece's checks, merely talking about Greece being at the forefront of the onslaught of migrants.

[Paphitis]

....suggesting it does represent a threat has just 'completely made it up' with their being no rational basis at all for them coming to such an opinion. What I do not concede, because it is patently not true and no rational argument can be made in support of it are claims that, the only relevant EU Commission evaluation report is the 8th biannual evaluation that does not conclude that Greece is "seriously deficient" and that allegedly criticises Sweden more than Greece.

The evaluation report has this to say about Sweden:

The aforementioned shortcomings in the implementation of the EU acquis led to temporary reintroduction of controls at the German, Austrian, Slovenian, Hungarian, Swedish and Norwegian internal borders.

Also Sweden announced in its recent notification of the prolongation until 20 December 2015 based on Article 25 SBC that it would prolong the border controls further based on Article 23 SBC if the situation does not improve. The successive use of Articles 25 and 23 SBC is possible on condition that the Member State demonstrates that the introduced or prolonged checks are necessary, adequate and proportionate to remedy the serious threat to public policy or internal security identified.

The results of the unannounced visit to Sweden (Arlanda airport) carried out in the previous reporting period (March 2015) have become available. The decision to evaluate the airport was made on the basis of risk analysis made by Frontex which highlighted atypically low rates of refusals of entry and detection of fraudulent documents. During the visit, some deficiencies related to insufficient resources and training as well as correct execution of border checks were identified.

Those are serious shortcomings by Sweden, don't you think? Already with border controls because of being lax. And, 'fraudulent documents' sounds pretty serious.

I've already posted the bits referring to Greece - and they are nowhere near as critical of Greece's checks, merely talking about Greece being at the forefront of the onslaught of migrants.

I think the deficiencies Greece and Turkey are being accused off, is that by International Law, the refugees are not suppose to be allowed to leave those countries for other EU Countries which is why Greece has been slapped with deficiencies and violations which could lead to expulsion.

The onus here is on Turkey, but if Turkey does not meet those obligations, then it falls on Greece as the second country which of course can go Turkey for not meeting its obligations. The problem is, the EU has less influence and power over Turkey than it does for Greece, so Greece can be expelled but probably unlikely as the EU would rather work with Greece than throw the book at them.

They understand fully that Greece is inundated, as are many other countries and will try and help Greece through FRONTEX. But what they should do is FUND Greece so that it has the resources to better deal with the crisis because it is unfair that Greece carry this burden at a time they can barely pay their public servants and run the country.

Turkey got 3 Billion.

[erolz66]

Those are serious shortcomings by Sweden, don't you think?

Here are the facts.

As stated in "Eighth biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area" ( available here http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e- ... rea_en.pdf)

The results of the unannounced visit to Sweden (Arlanda airport) carried out in the previous reporting period (March 2015) have become available .... During the visit, some
deficiencies related to insufficient resources and training as well as correct execution of border checks were identified.

what is also stated in this same document is

An unannounced visit was carried out in November to the Greek-Turkish land border as wellas to the sea border (Chios and Samos). The conclusions of the two visits are currently being finalised at the expert level.

Then subsequently once the evaluation report based on the unannounced visits to Chios and Samos mentioned in the report above were finalised the EU Commission announced the conclusion of the evaluation report based on these visits first here http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-174_en.htm and again here where they adopted this evaluation report on Greece http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-211_en.htm . The conclusions of the evaluation report based on these visits to Chios and Samos that occurred outside the reporting period of the Eighth biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area were that

Greece is seriously neglecting its obligations and that there are serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border controls that must be overcome and dealt with by the Greek authorities.

The facts are then that in an evaluation report base on an unannounced visit to Sweden the EU Commission found "some deficiencies" there. In a later evaluation report based on unannounced visits to Samos and Chios in Greece the EU Commission found "that Greece is seriously neglecting its obligations and that there are serious deficiencies"

What is also a fact is that under the terms of the Schengen treaties, there is only one way the EU can suspend temporarily a member country from Schengen. That single way is a process that starts with and can only start with an EU Commission evaluation report concluding

that the evaluated Member State is "seriously neglecting its obligations under the Schengen rules" and if there are "serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border control"

Those are the facts. Now those are out of the way and if and when I feel so inclined, I may address you BS GiG.

[erolz66]

The evaluation report has this to say about Sweden:

And so, having got some basic facts out of the way with the above post I will move on to your distortions GiG

The only shortcomings the "Eighth biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area" that you quote from found that are specific to how Sweden has or has not meet its obligations as a member under the Schengen agreements was those of an evaluation report following an unannounced visit found 'some deficiencies'. It is a matter of opinion as to if this represents "serious shortcomings"

The aforementioned shortcomings in the implementation of the EU acquis led to temporary reintroduction of controls at the German, Austrian, Slovenian, Hungarian, Swedish and Norwegian internal borders.

Here once again we can see classic GiG distortion. You try and create an impression that the section above is stating that Sweden is a perpetrator of the "aforementioned shortcomings implementation of the EU acquis". This is NOT what the report you quote says at all. The "aforementioned shortcomings implementation of the EU acquis" are not directed at Sweden or just the Schengen members states listed that, as a result of these shortcomings, have chosen to exercise their right under the Schengen treaties of temporarily introduce internal (to Schengen) border controls. This is clear if you read the aforementioned text that details the shortcomings in the implementation of the EU acquis, that in turns grants those countries the right to temporarily introduce boarder controls. Those short comings are generic to the EU and are things like

Currently, the fingerprinting obligation imposed by the Eurodac Regulation is not always complied with. The ratio between cases where fingerprints have been taken in case of irregular border crossing (in accordance with Article 14 of the Eurodac Regulation) and the number of such crossings is estimated at around 23% , varying widely between Member States. The Commission is taking action to ensure full compliance with EU law in this area

This then is one of the aforementioned examples given of shortcomings in the implementation of the EU acquis and it does not apply to Sweden specifically at all. It is an acknowledgement of a general failure of EU Acquis, of the kind that allows a Schengen member state to impose border controls temporarily and without which such schengen members would not be allowed to do so under the terms of the schengen treaty.

However you current 'need' is to try and show that Sweden is the 'bad country' and you see the words "shortcomings in the implementation of the EU acquis" and Sweden in the same sentence and that is all you need. Actual truth is irrelevant to this need.

Same old same old.

[erolz66]

I think the deficiencies Greece and Turkey are being accused off, is that by International Law, the refugees are not suppose to be allowed to leave those countries for other EU Countries which is why Greece has been slapped with deficiencies and violations which could lead to expulsion.

I suspect you are getting confused with the 'Dublin agreements'

The deficiencies that the EU Commission identified re Greece in its evaluation report described in the two press releases http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-174_en.htm and http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-211_en.htm are laid out clearly in those press releases. They are that

Whilst acknowledging that the Greek authorities are under pressure, the report notably finds that there is no effective identification and registration of irregular migrants and that fingerprints are not being systematically entered into the system and travel documents are not being systematically checked for the authenticity or against crucial security databases, such as SIS, Interpol and national databases.

It is not about refugees being allowed to leave Greece for other countries. It is about Greece, a Schengen member state with boarders that represent the external boundary of the Schengen area, failing to implement the procedures necessary on such external boarders, for a document free, check free movement of people within the Schengen area to be workable, which is the whole point of having a Schengen area.

The onus here is on Turkey, but if Turkey does not meet those obligations, then it falls on Greece as the second country which of course can go Turkey for not meeting its obligations. The problem is, the EU has less influence and power over Turkey than it does for Greece, so Greece can be expelled but probably unlikely as the EU would rather work with Greece than throw the book at them.

Every migrant refugee, those with a valid claim to asylum and those without it, that goes no 'further' than Turkey, is one less migrant that has to be process and dealt with on the external boarders of the EU and the Schengen area, reducing the burden that is overwhelming countries like Greece and to a lesser degree Italy. This is why the EU is proposing to pay Turkey to reduce that flow and you can bet your bottom dollar that the EU will monitor closely if it is getting value from Turkey over this deal or not and stop the payment if it is not.

However this is NOT what these press releases are about. They are about Schengen being unable to operate if those countries that have the external boarders of the Schengen area are unable to process people coming into that area properly as defined by both Schgen acquis and EU acquis.

They understand fully that Greece is inundated, as are many other countries and will try and help Greece through FRONTEX. But what they should do is FUND Greece so that it has the resources to better deal with the crisis because it is unfair that Greece carry this burden at a time they can barely pay their public servants and run the country.

They are paying Turkey in the hope and expectation that doing so will help Greece (and other countries) with this burden. They are also helping to create "hotspots" in Greece and Italy and to provide staff and other resources to help in these to screen, register and debrief incoming migrants quickly. They have also agreed to relocate 160,000 applicants in clear need of international protection from Italy, Greece to other EU countries. You can argue that they are not doing enough to help Greece but it is not like they are doing nothing to try to help them and just complaining that Greece is failing in its Schengen obligations.

[Paphitis]

I think the deficiencies Greece and Turkey are being accused off, is that by International Law, the refugees are not suppose to be allowed to leave those countries for other EU Countries which is why Greece has been slapped with deficiencies and violations which could lead to expulsion.

I suspect you are getting confused with the 'Dublin agreements'

The deficiencies that the EU Commission identified re Greece in its evaluation report described in the two press releases http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-174_en.htm and http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-211_en.htm are laid out clearly in those press releases. They are that

Whilst acknowledging that the Greek authorities are under pressure, the report notably finds that there is no effective identification and registration of irregular migrants and that fingerprints are not being systematically entered into the system and travel documents are not being systematically checked for the authenticity or against crucial security databases, such as SIS, Interpol and national databases.

It is not about refugees being allowed to leave Greece for other countries. It is about Greece, a Schengen member state with boarders that represent the external boundary of the Schengen area, failing to implement the procedures necessary on such external boarders, for a document free, check free movement of people within the Schengen area to be workable, which is the whole point of having a Schengen area.

The onus here is on Turkey, but if Turkey does not meet those obligations, then it falls on Greece as the second country which of course can go Turkey for not meeting its obligations. The problem is, the EU has less influence and power over Turkey than it does for Greece, so Greece can be expelled but probably unlikely as the EU would rather work with Greece than throw the book at them.

Every migrant refugee, those with a valid claim to asylum and those without it, that goes no 'further' than Turkey, is one less migrant that has to be process and dealt with on the external boarders of the EU and the Schengen area, reducing the burden that is overwhelming countries like Greece and to a lesser degree Italy. This is why the EU is proposing to pay Turkey to reduce that flow and you can bet your bottom dollar that the EU will monitor closely if it is getting value from Turkey over this deal or not and stop the payment if it is not.

However this is NOT what these press releases are about. They are about Schengen being unable to operate if those countries that have the external boarders of the Schengen area are unable to process people coming into that area properly as defined by both Schgen acquis and EU acquis.

They understand fully that Greece is inundated, as are many other countries and will try and help Greece through FRONTEX. But what they should do is FUND Greece so that it has the resources to better deal with the crisis because it is unfair that Greece carry this burden at a time they can barely pay their public servants and run the country.

They are paying Turkey in the hope and expectation that doing so will help Greece (and other countries) with this burden. They are also helping to create "hotspots" in Greece and Italy and to provide staff and other resources to help in these to screen, register and debrief incoming migrants quickly. They have also agreed to relocate 160,000 applicants in clear need of international protection from Italy, Greece to other EU countries. You can argue that they are not doing enough to help Greece but it is not like they are doing nothing to try to help them and just complaining that Greece is failing in its Schengen obligations.

Oh OK. I knew Greece was threatened with expulsion because I did read a report from a Greek Newspaper about it.

That just sounds procedural and Greece might not be doing it because they simply can't cope with the influx. Therefore, I think they will support Greece and expulsion is very very unlikely.

[erolz66]

Oh OK. I knew Greece was threatened with expulsion because I did read a report from a Greek Newspaper about it.

That just sounds procedural and Greece might not be doing it because they simply can't cope with the influx. Therefore, I think they will support Greece and expulsion is very very unlikely.

The EU and the Schengen member states do not want Greece to be suspended from Schengen. To imagine they do is to me ludicrous as there is absolutely no benefit for them in Greece being suspended. They will do everything they can to avoid that having to happen, obviously. However as they keep saying Schengen simply will not and can not work if the required checks and controls on the external borders of Schengen are not implemented.

No where have I said that suspension of Greece was likely, or that in my opinion, it was likely. No where have I said that the failures identified by the EU Commission with regards to Greece's implementation of Schengen was not a result of the sheer unprecedented numbers they are facing, or said it is because Greeks are lazy, or incompetent or insincere signatories to the Schengen agreements, or anything like that. I have no idea if Greece and the EU together will manage to rectify the failures such that suspension can be avoided or not. I have seen press reports that the Greek minister responsible has expressed concerns that he may not be able to reach that goal within the time frame needed but that is all I have to go on by way of 'evidence' on which to base an opinion.

What I did say, in response to GiG's claims that "The root of the plight of refugees is TURKEY!", is "And yet the EU Commission is criticising and threatening sanctions against Greece." As did much of the worlds media , including Greece's in one form or another. As a result I have been subjected to a constant sustained barrage of accusations of being a liar and being called 'slime' and her old favourite labelling me as a 'Turk', whilst she herself persistently and relentlessly misrepresents an EU Commission "report on the functioning of the Schengen area" as being the, singular, 'evaluation report'.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Those are serious shortcomings by Sweden, don't you think?

Here are the facts.

As stated in "Eighth biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area" ( available here http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/e- ... rea_en.pdf)

The results of the unannounced visit to Sweden (Arlanda airport) carried out in the previous reporting period (March 2015) have become available .... During the visit, some
deficiencies related to insufficient resources and training as well as correct execution of border checks were identified.

what is also stated in this same document is

An unannounced visit was carried out in November to the Greek-Turkish land border as wellas to the sea border (Chios and Samos). The conclusions of the two visits are currently being finalised at the expert level.

Then subsequently once the evaluation report based on the unannounced visits to Chios and Samos mentioned in the report above were finalised the EU Commission announced the conclusion of the evaluation report based on these visits first here http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-174_en.htm and again here where they adopted this evaluation report on Greece http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-211_en.htm . The conclusions of the evaluation report based on these visits to Chios and Samos that occurred outside the reporting period of the Eighth biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area were that

Greece is seriously neglecting its obligations and that there are serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border controls that must be overcome and dealt with by the Greek authorities.

The facts are then that in an evaluation report base on an unannounced visit to Sweden the EU Commission found "some deficiencies" there. In a later evaluation report based on unannounced visits to Samos and Chios in Greece the EU Commission found "that Greece is seriously neglecting its obligations and that there are serious deficiencies"

What is also a fact is that under the terms of the Schengen treaties, there is only one way the EU can suspend temporarily a member country from Schengen. That single way is a process that starts with and can only start with an EU Commission evaluation report concluding

that the evaluated Member State is "seriously neglecting its obligations under the Schengen rules" and if there are "serious deficiencies in the carrying out of external border control"

Those are the facts. Now those are out of the way and if and when I feel so inclined, I may address you BS GiG.

The distortions are all yours. This thread is about Sweden and I stated explicitly (and used the whole quote, not your micro-selections) that I was showing the comments relating to Sweden. Such is your embedded hatred of Greece that it's all you want to go back to and with the completely isolated and out of context quotes.

The fact is this:

You clearly stated that the EU Commission had threatened SANCTIONS against Greece. After nearly a week of dissecting and eking out whatever nonsense you could lay your hands on you have NOT found anything with which to qualify your statement.

The rest are problems that have been applied to most migrant-affected countries! No one has come out squeaky clean - and in fact Greece has been praised on many occasions and what YOU hate and what triggered your juvenile outbursts was the possible praise in being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize!