Talk:Schengen Area

Change the pink color of the maps of Bulgaria and Romania to blue now that they are fully part of the Schengen area 85.245.187.39 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

They are not now fully part of the Schengen area. CMD (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

They will be fully part of the Schengen Area on 1 January 213.233.110.217 (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the plan, but it's not happened yet so, unless you're a time-traveller with evidence that it does happen, we'll stick to WP:CRYSTAL. Bazza 7 (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."

Well since the last and final decision was made on 12 December at the Council of the European Union, then it's something that's set in stone, it can't be denied/annulled or taken back anymore, Romania and Bulgaria are full Schengen members but the border controls are going to be abolished on 1 January, I don't think you even read the official press release article have you? 2A02:2F0F:F108:6000:513:8005:DDCA:2B9 (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that's what the rules say, but let's think of the most practical solution. Imagine you're planning a Christmas road trip through Europe, and don't really like border controls. You check the Wikipedia page to see which countries you should avoid because they're not in Schengen. The map displays Romania and Bulgaria as Schengen members, so you go there. You arrive at the border and surprise - border checkpoint. People don't visit this site to hear what some people in Brussels decided, they do it to see what the fact really is. See WP:PRAC Littau Eric (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's see if the map will be updated on the 1st of January. There is obviously some negative bias towards these countries by the head authors and editors of this page 2A01:5A8:405:734C:7932:DFA3:7B8E:B052 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Anyone can update the article on 1 January. Unless someone else does it before me, I will do it myself. --Nablicus (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No, there is no bias towards these countries. The only bias is precision. We don't declare to be true something that we know that will continue to be false for another 16 days. The same policy applies to every article on Wikipedia, it is not personal. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This part should be removed. Bulgaria and Romania are full members of Schengen Area now. Each country in Schengen has own story about accession to Schengen, this article would be very long if we write about accession of every member. Dasomm (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree 2A02:2F0F:F108:6000:91A7:F5E6:5723:C9F6 (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the subsection can be shortened, but parts of it should definitely be kept in the History section. The accession process for Bulgaria and Romania was very long and complicated, and not comparable to other countries' accession processes. It is worth to be mentioned. --Nablicus (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I also agree, remove Bulgaria and Romania section (at maximum keep 2-3 phrases which say that those are the last countries to join area after years of process). Risto est (talk · contribs) 17:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve started making some edits on the Gibraltar page, but I’m not certain how to edit this page, after the statement a deal on Gibraltar Schengen accession was reached.

Perhaps a template for this page stating it requires an update would be useful. However, as I’m not that experienced on this site, perhaps someone could help with that.

Slomo666 (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you might be in too much of a hurry, as it is still just at the 'agreement in principle' stage. I think we need to wait to see the small print. But yes, a {{update needed}} can be added to the Gibraltar section (not the whole thing): I'll do that now. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That was what I had intended. (Not the whole thing obviously)

Slomo666 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the page should be updated to remove the language that Gibraltar will join the Schengen Area because that's not what was agreed according to Fabian Picardo and David Lammy. What was agreed was apparently a common travel area of sorts between Gibraltar and Schengen.

As well, this page notes the burdensome procedure for a state to join Schengen, including a years long evaluation process with annual reports, and finally consent of all existing member states. None of that has happened with Gibraltar.

De jure, Gibraltar is not joining the Schengen area (or the EU customs area). I believe the source you included says that and here are more sources:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/david-lammy-gibraltar-priti-patel-spanish-foreign-secretary-b1232625.html

https://en.mercopress.com/2025/06/12/uk-eu-joint-statement-of-agreement-in-respect-of-gibraltar Zookerz6 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. So the Gib text needs to come out of "potential enlargement" completely. Can anyone suggest a new section?

could it go in ===European microstates=== (with a new section title)? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC) revised 20:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

We should combine the European microstates section and the Territories of Schengen states outside the Area section, as they are both about exceptions. If anyone has access to this book chapter that might be useful. (I would also suggest putting Opt-outs as a subsection of current members, while thinking about the structure.) CMD (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This is the original link which I found a little unclear, but I interpreted it that if passengers arrive to Gibraltar by air or boat and are citizens of the EU, then Spain will perform id checks, and if passengers are British citizens, then Gibraltar will do checks like they do at present. If passengers are other citizens, there will be dual checks.--BIL (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@BIL: we really need to wait until we see the precise details in the treaty as ratified. The reports in the media (esp Telegraph, Mail etc that seem to be more interested in feeding their pet trolls) cannot be trusted. WP: NOTNEWS, WP: NODEADLINE. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

@JMF

The sources I used originally were from the joint press statement by the negotiating parties or were supported by it. Not from “the media” (you mention sources that I would deem quite unreliable. I have not used and will not use the telegraph as a source for this article.)

I don’t agree we must wait until a treaty has been ratified. We can talk about their current consensus and what they say will be in the treaty.

Just as there was an entire section about what might be covered by the treaty, I think the current position of the negotiations should be given a place in the article. Readers might be curious about what will happen. Not to mention that the progression from “what might be covered” to what was agreed at what time is also interesting for the historical record.

Slomo666 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Oops I see I have mistaken my edit of this page for the edit of the Gibraltar page. I did not use the joint statement on this page.

mea culpa

Slomo666 (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the Gib page (specifically Effect of Brexit on Gibraltar) is a good place for that detail. I'm cautious about putting anything too specific here until the wax has hardened on the treaty, because the parties have been close to agreement before and then it trickled away. Perhaps more to the point, the section on Gib in this article is already too long. In the overall context of Schengen, the UK in general and Gib in particular are of fringe significance and it would be wp:undue to give it disproportionate space. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I don't agree with combining. They have nothing in common apart from being ex eptions and fit very different reasons. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in common except for the relationship to the topic is a very large thing in common. That's not to mention that each individual item in both sections is different from the others. Leaving them split as is, 3/11 sections on the Schengen Area article are about places that are not part of the Schengen Area. CMD (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree. The commonality is that they are not Schengen members but sit on the European continent. Structurally, it's logical to group these states together.

If they're grouped together, we would need to clarify that they don't all necessarily have the same legal relationship with Schengen or the EU, but that seems possible to accomplish in a few words. Zookerz6 (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Who do you agree with? . Yes, the non-EU, non-EFTA polities de facto in the Area make a logical group. The EU or EFTA 'overseas territories' (Caribbean, high north etc) that are opted out of the Area make another logical group. Maybe we could have an overall "Exceptions" section but it would still have these same subsections, I think? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Gibraltar-Spain border will vanish in 2026 under post-Brexit deal.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/gibraltar-spain-border-to-vanish-in-2026-under-post-brexit-deal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=dlvr.it&fbclid=IwdGRjcAMcClNleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHiOmj6SfOrb43Pi1UGenD12LRv6Fec2HKNmeJO8Gd2XuPcsX_oQiB0FsvKhn_aem_EvIq04XV0NX2Y83NcqT57g Blondie19780000 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Which is not the same as accession. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@Lopezsuarez With regards to specifying that the Canary Islands, Azores and Madeira are included inside Schengen: I understand that they are part of Spain and Portugal proper and therefore included, but I do find it useful to specifying it in the table, given that they are relatively far from the mainland and a reader may have doubts. The inclusion doesn't occupy much space and it's very quick to get the information with a cursory look. Wilk10 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

"However, as the EU described on the official website, Ireland requested to some Schengen areas, like Schengen Information System due to "the benefits of Schengen cooperation"."

There is a word or two missing there. Ireland requested to what some Schengen areas? David10244 (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I have revised that to read However, as the Commission described on the official website, Ireland requested participation in some Schengen areas, such as the Schengen Information System, due to "the benefits of Schengen cooperation". I assume that this is what was intended. (I should have changed "described" to "reported" so I'll do that now.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

"Andorra, while maintaining border controls, has open borders with Schengen states and applies Schengen visa rules but is not considered de facto part of the Schengen Area." This sentence does come across as rather confusing. If it has open borders and follows the rules, then surely it is considered de facto part, but not de jure? ~2026-12951-12 (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the wording. TDL (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)