As an empirical aspect, the document is based on the Schengen hearings that took place in the Committee of the European Communities of the British House of Lords.  It is argued that the speech presented in the minutes of these hearings highlights an interesting perspective on the UK`s border policy, which facilitates the view of the Schengen Agreement and its impact on governance between Europe and the nation-state. The hearings suggest that the British `no` to Schengen may not be sufficiently explained in relation to British Euroscepticism. It is therefore necessary to examine in more detail other factors that may be taken into account in decisions on supranational rules in key areas. For example, the dual nature of the standards (stable and unstable) and the level of construction of the standard (national and supranational) are determining factors in the Schengen equation, not only for the United Kingdom, but also for all participating Member States. In itself, the refusal to accede to an international cooperation agreement is not mysterious. Finally, states have different interests and therefore have different political agendas. For realists, the conundrum would not happen at all. Under the conditions of anarchy, states would only cooperate in the event of a threat. Liberal and neorealist approaches in the theory of international relations accept cooperation as a means of achieving benefits for all involved. In turn, constructivists argue that states are part of a structured relationship that stems from the interaction between states and, increasingly, other actors in global politics. Cooperation within this structure is not unlikely, but it is to be expected.
It is even more likely that targeted institutional agreements have been concluded to strengthen cooperation between countries such as NATO, the WTO, NAFTA, the United Nations, the EU and Schengen. The United Kingdom and Ireland participated in certain aspects of the Schengen Agreement from 2000 and 2002, such as the Schengen Information System (SIS). Denmark, on the other hand, enjoys a stricter exemption from the area of freedom, security and justice. While the 1992 Edinburgh Convention provided that “Denmark would participate fully in cooperation in the areas of justice and home affairs”, the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam contained a protocol that exempted it, from the point of view of EU law, from participation in these policies, which are instead implemented on an intergovernmental basis with Denmark. The Schengen visa regime is an exception. If a measure based on the Schengen acquis is adopted, Denmark has six months to decide whether it should be implemented. If Denmark decides to implement this measure, it will be concluded by an international agreement between Denmark and the Schengen states. Denmark`s omission in the implementation of a Schengen measure could exclude it from the Schengen area.  A number of other parallel intergovernmental agreements have been concluded between the EU and Denmark to extend EU rules on freedom, security and justice, which Denmark cannot participate in directly because of its opt-out.