Canadians may soon need a visa to enter the EU | Hacker News Reader

Canadians may soon need a visa to enter the EU

cbc.ca

62 pointskspaans91 comments

I'm not sure why the Romanian & Bulgarian issue is being mentioned.

Another part of it is Canadians and Americans have access to the EU where you can just get there without forms or paying anything whereas you have to fill in a silly form and pay a bit of cash to go the other way.

Semantically it's not termed a visa but it's just like one so this is the EU trying to put in a silly form and small payment as a reciprocal measure.

> and pay a bit of cash to go the other way.

Citation, please? Travel/tourist visas for visitors staying less than 90 days may use the Visa Waiver Program [0] to enter the USA free of charge.

[0] https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/visit/visa-waiver-...

It costs $14 to apply for an ESTA online which is a pre-requisite to use the VWP, and you have to renew it for another $14 every 2 years or when your passport is renewed, whichever comes first. https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/1072/kw/esta/

There's a $14 fee to the US, $7 to Canada alongside the form.

[0] http://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/frequently-...

[1] http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?qnum=1056...

Yeah an actual US tourist visa costs $160 (plus any reciprocity fees), $14 is peanuts by comparison.

This may be so but the issue is more that the EU has no fees and no form for US or Canadian citizens which is absolutely nothing compared to peanuts.

So start charging Americans $14 to enter the EU, I'm sure they won't care.

Good to know - the fee are paid to DHS - and not the State Department, which actually issues the visa.

The fees are small and perhaps the form itself is simple, but something that bureaucrats never seem to consider is how much documentation you have to read and understand before you can pay the fee and fill the form.

The FAQ from the US site runs to 6023 words of dense language. If you're not completely fluent in English, you're not going to understand every nuance. And this is just the FAQ.

The Canadian site is similarly lacking empathy for human beings. For example, it says, "Canadian citizens, including dual citizens, and Canadian permanent residents are not eligible to apply for an eTA." While this is technically correct, why couldn't they have phrased it as, Canadian citizens, including dual citizens, and Canadian permanent residents do not an eTA and should not apply for one. That would have been much easier to understand.

The visa waiver program does not cover all EU countries.

Or all EU citizens of the eligible countries:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158

You've clearly never applied for an American visa. Filling a "silly form and paying a bit of cash" is way more convenient than having to make a consular appointment, pay $$$ for that appointment, go there early in the morning on a workday to avoid long lines, still wait an hour, get grilled by a consular officer, pay more $$$ for your approved visa, and have to wait days for them to mail your passport back.

Yes that's true, but this is also about Canada & the USs silly form on EU citizens whereas there is nothing the other way.

Bulgaria, Romania & Poland have high overstay rates (above 2%) despite having a high visa refusal rate. If they were part of the Visa Waiver Program it would make them the worst offenders.

Meanwhile the overstay rate for my passport is lower than many visa waiver countries, but we're not even considered for visa waiver because we're not part of Europe. It's about politics, not logic.

How does what your are saying (high overstay rates) go with the current fact that thousands of people are crossing the Mexican border into the US and apparently the US is ok with that?

I'm not against that, but I find it highly hypocritical for the US on one hand to require visas from RO/BG people (and maybe others) on overstaying concerns, while on another hand allowing free flow into US from the Mexican side.

It's a question of enforceability. If the requirement on Mexicans were tougher they would use the porous borders more.

The weather can't be dictated by a piece of paper and a pen.

It seems the Obama administration could order with a piece of paper and a pen the border guards to stop controlling border flow:

> The National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) and Pinal County Sheriff joined forces to denounce the Obama Administration and accused the White House of handcuffing the efforts of law enforcement in regards to the enforcement of immigration law.

> He reinforced the evidence that the Obama Administration has been bypassing Congress by taking illegal executive actions and forcing Border Patrol agents to not do their job of enforcing the law along the border.

Because mexicans are doing the jobs even romanians and bulgarians won't do

I'm Polish and I don't think anyone cares about going to US and staying for work anymore. It was incredibly tempting right after the fall of soviet union and LOTS of people overstayed their tourist visas, but nowadays? The standard of living in the US is nearly identical, the pay is not that much better unless you are looking for highly qualified positions(and if that's the case, why the hell would you overstay a tourist visa), if you get caught you get deported, if you fall ill you have to pay for medical treatment. The flights are expensive.

If any young Poles look for work abroad it's much easier to go to Germany, France, Spain or UK. Even unskilled work is paid much better than in Poland, medical treatment is free everywhere, we can work legally everywhere, wherever we work it gives us right to national pension from that country after we retire, getting to any of those countries is easy and hassle free.

Seriously, I don't understand why any Pole would like to get a tourist visa to US and then stay and work, it's just not worth it.

On the other hand, I wish Poland was part of the VWP, because then I could go and actually visit US as a tourist without having to spend a whole day at a consulate trying to get a visa.

I have US Visa and I prefer it. I had to spent a few hours but I'm done for 10 years. I don't have to fill out forms every time.

I think a green card is not technicaly a visa. It's closer to citizenship than a visa.

No, I have a Visa type R class B1/B2

Non-Immigrant visa (such as a B-1) are issued for long durations, up to 10 years. Note they don't allow staying for 10 years, just multiple entries in that period.

EU citizens can also get US tourist visas and enter on those if they want. Visa waiver is an option, not compulsory.

You've clearly never entered the EU as a US citizen where the whole process looks like that: 1) Turn up at the airport 2) Hand over your passport 3) Wait a few seconds 4) Receive back your passport. If you are unlucky you get to have a one-minute conversation with the border official.

I received a US visa in the past. I had to fill in an online form, make an appointment which arbitrarily setup for me, visit the US embassy go through security etc, wait in the line for an hour, go through an interview, pay, and then wait for a 1-2 weeks. On the bright side they gave me 10 years visitor VISA so I visit whenever over that period without having to get a new one.

Don't you now need to take two appointments, one for biometric data entry and a few days later for the visa interview? If the consulate is not in your city you would lose more than a few workdays.

Are you kidding? Entering the US as European requires filling out long forms (days in advance), weird questions, finger prints, eye scan etc.

Yes exactly, i'm not kidding!

Entering the EU as a Canadian or as an American has no forms before and is free. You just book your ticket and go.., if you're unlucky at worst a 1 minute conversation with a border official. That is what the EU finds that the easiness of the EU's version of entry is not reciprocated

IIRC the questions asked when applying for an ESTA are not really different to the ones that used to be asked on the old paper forms you filled out on the plane and handed to the immigration official.

If you're a Romanian citizen living in another country, you'll have to fly back to Bucharest (even if you've never been there before) for an appointment at the US Embassy there, show your papers including flight tickets and hotel reservation, come back to the UK to move on with your life and then wait for an answer.

If you're lucky and get approved, you might also be double lucky and get the approval before the actual trip happens.

It's not impossible, but it is far away from filing a silly form and paying a bit of cash.

I think bigger news here is for US citizens. US consistently denied visa-free travel for a lot of EU countries, including poland

comeuppance?

That's an egocentric view. The winds of the world are shifting and it isn't all about the US. It has played its part in the drama, but it isn't even remotely the only player or even necessarily the prime mover anymore.

I find that very interesting. What winds exactly do you think have changed such that the US isn't the prime mover now? When I look around the world, I don't see any reason to agree with your premise.

The US has an $18 trillion economy - 80% larger than China - with 43% of all global wealth, the fifth highest GDP per capita, and dominates militarily almost as much as it ever has (outside of the brief stretch from 1990-2003 when Russia was particularly weak).

I look at Latin America, Brazil is in a depression that is worsening (20 year set-back at least), and Venezuela has collapsed. So there's no challenge there from changing winds.

Most of Africa is getting better gradually, and that's tremendous news for them, however that's no challenge to the US prime mover status.

Japan is in much worse shape relative to the US than it was 25 years ago. In about six or seven years, the US will have double the GDP per capita of Japan, as they continue to aggressively debase the Yen to try to remain solvent.

South Korea is no stronger relative to the US than they were in the mid 1990s.

There are no other challengers to the US outside of China in Asia. India is rising, but they're no challenge to the dominant position the US has in the world. Maybe in 30 years if everything goes really well, they'll challenge China as an Asian power. Singapore has a great economy, but they're tiny. Vietnam and several other Asian countries will likely keep improving, but they're mostly a regional challenge for China, the US will benefit from them improving (it will take industry away from China).

Half of Europe is either broken economically or otherwise very poor. I could go down through each country and lay out their economic and political problems, but it's not necessary. Most of Europe has lost ground relative to the US on economy and military, that includes France, Spain, Italy, Britain. Overall the US is stronger today economically and militarily compared to Europe, than it was a decade ago. Where's the wind shift when it comes to Europe vs the US? There has been none. The Eurozone for example is a disaster, that hasn't seen economic growth in nearly a decade. Scandinavia is doing ok (other than their vast household debt problems and Finland's depression), but what else? And they're not a challenge to the US. Germany has been unable to grow its economy almost at all since 2008 (the US has almost added an economy the size of Germany in that time).

Russia is a non-issue as a challenger to the US. They're extremely weak now, with oil on the way out permanently, which will cripple their fossil fuel dependent economy for the next several decades at least. Their economy is 1/12th the size of the US economy now. Russia is now a regional player, a thorn in the side of Western Europe, with a median income that has fallen below much of Eastern Europe.

I go down the list, country by country, examining the situation, and the relative strength of each compared to the US. What winds have changed?

Listing all the ways in which various bits of the world relates to the US is entirely missing my point. All the bits of the world relate to each other directly as well. Not all of those relations are the US's fault or responsibility. Visa decisions are not being made around the world solely in relation to the current state of the United States. In fact, despite occasional rhetoric to the contrary, the US probably the least of concerns relating to those decisions; nobody is facing immanent social changes caused by incoming US immigration or fearing terrorist attacks from US citizens. (You can and should debate whether the US government's foreign policy is good or bad, but on the whole US citizens are individually well-behaved.) For example, Shengen is not collapsing because the US is out there agitating for it to come down. Oh, sure, trace the root causes and responsibility weaves in and out of US actions, but it's a complex tapestry and, again, a bit egocentric to specially privilege US actions in that rich tapestry.

I don't disagree with most of what you said. I consider the US to be merely one of the many big influences in the world, and it's blatantly the dominant one by a wide margin - by almost any metric we can name. However I fail to see how the US has a weaker position in terms of its dominance / prime mover status, than it did 10, 20, or 30 years ago. There has been no actual fundamental shift.

For example, the US share of global GDP is unchanged over the last 30 years - despite China's vast GDP gains over that time (meaning the US had to grow a lot to keep its position, while other former major powers lost ground). China has essentially taken the place of the USSR as a strength counter to the US.

Calling something egocentric isn't an actual counter-point (what does it have to do with whether something is factually correct or not?), it's an argument from intimidation. The only purpose it serves is to try to embarrass the other side of the discussion (since many people consider ego to be shameful; I obviously don't agree with that).

Note that for most EU countries US offers visa waiver, which still requires filling out some forms online before the trip and a payment. US citizens can just come to EU whenever they want to.

Sounds reasonable. It's very difficult to get US or Canada visa in some countries. Certainly harder than getting a EU visa.

It would be an entirely spiteful act, however -- the only consequence would be a reduction in tourist dollars to Europe. Which is why it seems incredibly unlikely this would pass a EU general vote.

Canada and the United States have a refugee pact. Certain, specific countries in the EU have been a source of large numbers of bogus refugee claimants that cost considerable time and money (Canada received 23 times more "Hungarian refugees" than the rest of the world combined in 2010). Hence, a visa requirement. Spitefully saying "we'll do it too" is nonsensical -- Canada and the United States are sovereign countries, so it's not going to be received well.

EDIT: It seems that my account is dead. Yet another victim who dared to disagree with the great tptacek.

> EDIT: It seems that my account is dead. Yet another victim who dared to disagree with the great tptacek

Please don't post petty stuff like this.

Your account's fine, but it won't stay fine if you continue to break the HN guidelines. That's no doubt why previous comments of yours were flagged (by users, not moderators), and it has nothing to do with disagreeing with someone.

The EU has a huge internal market and attract tourists from everywhere (2 of the top 3 visited countries are European: Spain and France).

I don't think those tourist dollars are a problem when solidarity among EU countries is at play. Take yours somewhere else.

It doesn't sound relevant, the current status quo is there isn't a visa required (this is between US/Canada and the EU)

I'm EU citizen and I need to fill in a request before going to US. They can either approve or reject it. If it's rejected, I may go to embassy for another try. Both of these are paid. Not refunded if negative.

Defacto, it's far from "no visa required".

Since there's lots of discussion here about overstays, here's the US government report for overstays broken down by country:

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FY%2015...

Some highlights from the category of FY 2015 Overstay rates for nonimmigrants with B-1/B-2 visas admitted to the United States for business or pleasure via air and sea POEs for non-VWP Countries (excluding Canada and Mexico):

Bulgaria 1.48%

Romania 1.81%

Average of all countries 1.60%

The highest rates are Bhutan 23.98% and Djibouti 26.80%.

One important factor that the report doesn't give is the difficulty of getting the visa in first place. Some countries have a much higher visa rejection rate by American consulates than others. Those would be interesting statistics to see.

I couldn't find a similar report for Canada, but I'd expect the proportions by country to be similar, but perhaps higher overall for Canada since Canada is slightly easier to enter than the US.

The correct column is the other one, 'Total overstay rate'.

Also those stats for the Romania and Bulgaria are after refusing over 15% of all Visas applied for, which is sort of a filter that prevents the number from being dramatically higher. Under the VWP there would be no such filter.

The other country to mention is Poland.

> The correct column is the other one, 'Total overstay rate'.

Yes, you're right. I used the column that indicates "overstayed the visa and are still in the US as far as the DHS knows", whereas the Total Overstay is sum of those still in the US plus those who departed.

Here are the correct figures since I can't modify my earlier comment:

Bulgaria 1.74%

Romania 2.06%

Poland 1.49% (since you mentioned it)

Average of all non-VWP countries 1.74%

The highest rates are Bhutan 24.89% and Djibouti 27.67%.

And for comparison: Average of all VWP countries 0.73%

The highest rates in VWP countries are Hungary 2.92% and Slovakia 2.36%.

> Also those stats for the Romania and Bulgaria are after refusing over 15% of all Visas applied for.

I'm interested to know where you got that figure? If anything, I would have thought that US visa refusal rates would be even higher (varying by country of course).

I got it from here: https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Im...

Originally from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Waiver_Program#Adjusted_V...

Even though it's on a US government website, I'm dubious about their numbers and methods. That report (and earlier ones from 2006-2014) are riddled with weird inconsistencies. Examples:

(1) Vatican has 100% refusal it says. The Pope and 557 people have Vatican citizenship, and that's mostly cardinals and clergy. I doubt the US was turning away 25% of them. The overstay report (linked in my earlier comment) says that the Vatican (Holy See) had a 0% overstay rate. So the US was refusing 25% of visas from a country with 0% overstay?

(2) Canada has 49% refusal it claims. But Canadians don't need to apply for B-category visas to enter the US; they get an "implied" B1 or B2 at the border. Canadians could get turned away at the US border and I'm sure some do, but it's certainly not 49% of Canadians.

(3) The 2014 version of the report says that 100% of Serbia and Montenegro were refused visas! That's not credible. It's completely at odds with the overstay report that says that the US had 20,149 visitors from Serbia in 2015 and 17,422 in 2014, and 3,972 visitors from Montenegro in 2015 and 3,214 in 2014.

I don't mind paying a nominal fee to enter the EU. Hopefully, this happens at the border. Mailing in my passport to a black box EU embassy and waiting an unspecified amount of time is what annoys me about visa processes.

I'm also not afraid of "Romanian and Bulgarian hordes" or whatever tired immigrant trope was used to not open the borders to those two countries.

Work it out peeps!

Visas usually involve having to queue at an embassy.

It'll likely be online just like the US/Canada eTA, so no queuing at the border or at an Embassy.

It's only there because the US/Canada has it, not for any other reason other than reciprocity.

EU needs to thread more careful here and solve this problem rather than accuse Canada for arrogance.

If visa exemption is messed up with Canada (and even the US!) then Britain voting for exiting the EU becomes considerably more likely.

After all Britain (and other Western European states) still sees itself as closer tied to Canada, US, Australia than to Romania.

The UK isn't in Schengen so it's not part of this. They're not putting visas up (or don't intend to) for Canadians or Americans. There's a bit of a bromance going on for the anglophone countries.

This has nothing to do with the Schengen treaty.

Schengen == "there are no passport controls at border crossings"

Visa Waiver Program == "you do not need to apply for a visa in the destination country's embassy"

While it doesn't have anything to do with Schengen directly, the UK and Ireland still got an opt-out of the regulation at hand as they do with most related issues. They are not effected by any of this.

The EU is negotiating on the behalf of future and current Schengen area members.

While you have numbed it down it is simply that the Visa Waiver Program is tough on Romania and Bulgaria and also has a fee for the ETA whereas there is no such thing to go to the Schengen area from Canada or the USA.

So yes it does have to do with Schengen, but not the treaty specifically as it doesn't involve inter EU travel.

Schengen also regulates a shared visa policy for all members and all countries that are prospective members. This affects all EU countries other than the UK and Ireland, and indirectly affects several non-EU countries. E.g. Norway applies Schengen visa rules as a Schengen member, and non-Schengen countries that are prospective EU members works towards harmonising their visa rules with Schengen because it is a requirement of EU membership.

>The UK isn't in Schengen so it's not part of this.

Romania and Bulgaria aren't in Schengen, either. This isn't a Schengen issue, this is a European Union issue.

Romania and Bulgaria are legally obligated to enter Schengen in future so yes it is a Schengen issue.

The UK on the other hand has no intention to join and don't intend to put visas in. This issue is more a Schengen than an EU issue.

sigh Let me explain. The EU would like to have its citizens treated under the same legal conditions abroad regardless whether they are from a Schengen country or not. In fact, the Schengen Area includes multiple non-EU countries as well (Switzerland, Norway, Iceland etc), and their visa policies are not involved in this issue at all.

The UK (and Ireland) has specific opt-outs that prevents this from affecting the UK. Any other non-Schengen countries other than the UK and Ireland are affected because the Schengen visa policy applies to them regardless.

What I mean is the EU is negotiating on the behalf of all Schengen area countries (including the Swiss, Norwegians, & Icelandic) but is not negotiating on the behalf of the UK/Ireland (who are EU members).

It has to be this way because when you enter the EU it is either Schengen or the CTA (UK/Ireland).

While technically Bulgaria and Romania are not yet in Schengen, they have to enter at a future time.

The Swiss, Norway and Icelandic visa policy IS involved because they also have to fill in the silly form and pay the fee to visit the US/Canada as part of the Visa Waiver Program or eTA but a US/Canada citizen can simply enter Switzerland or Norway (Schengen) without any forms or fees.

While Bulgaria, Poland and Romania have the WVP issue this isn't the only reason for these measures. This is on the agenda too (how they are not in the WVP) with the USA despite intending on being in Schengen.

While the UK/Ireland also has the ETA these negotiations don't have anything to do with it as they will not be imposing Visas on US or Canadian citizens.

It is a Schengen issue and the UK is completely unaffected by it.

The visa policy of the Schengen Area is set by the European Union and applies to the Schengen Area and to other EU member states without the opt-outs enjoyed by Ireland and the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_Schengen_Ar... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_United_King...

The quote you gave points out it isn't a Schengen issue, but a UK/Ireland vs. the rest, issue. The UK and Ireland has opt-outs, so you're right the UK is unaffected. But every other EU country is subject to the Schengen visa policy even if they are not part of the Schengen area. Bulgaria and Romania are explicitly called out on the first of your linked pages.

>But every other EU country is subject to the Schengen visa policy even if they are not part of the Schengen area.

And that is exactly why it is a Schengen issue. The Schengen agreement contains more than just the passport free travel area. It also contains transitional rules for the countries that are obliged to join the passport free area like Romania and Bulgaria.

I think the misunderstanding results from the fact that the Schengen agreement is now part of the EU treaties. So yes it does affect the whole of the EU apart from the countries that have an opt-out (UK and Ireland)

Australia requires US citizens get a visa to visit. It's not an all around bromance.

Everyone needs an ETA/Visa to visit Australia...

It is a bromance considering what you need to visit Australia as a non anglophone country.

China is Australia's largest trading partner (both imports and exports) but they have it nothing like the anglophone countries. Even on the tourism front there are more Chinese tourists than Americans, but its still not easy..

In fairness the only reason a 'Visa' is required is because its reciprocal.

The EU has near no requirements for Australians (you can just get in) so they have the free eVisitor whereas the US needs an ETA (not really a Visa) but its pretty much reciprocal to the Visa Waiver Program in terms of the online application and fee.

That being said there's something even more special to anglophone countries having the Queen as the head of state in terms of the visas (including the working holiday kind)

If you pay a fee, it's a visa. Whether if you get it ahead of time or on landing (a la Indonesia) doesn't matter. A fee is a visa.

Speaking of Indonesia, they even charge you to leave!

Yeah everyone seems to have this 'visa' in everything but its name.

The EU doesn't have any of this, you just get in and get on with your day.

Unfortunately because the bastion of freedom charges a $14 fee and makes you fill in a very visa like form the EU may soon have this blasted visa form too :/

Romania and Bulgaria both control their own borders, they are not members of the Schengen Zone. Therefore this has absolutely nothing to do with an exchange of visa free travel. A fair exchange would be that Romania and Bulgaria both revoke visa free travel... although they don't offer it in the first place.

It sounds like the EU is trying to throw its weight around in order to gain political favour with neighbour states. I hope everyone says no. The EU would see its tourism from more affluent countries plummet, cutting off the nose to spite the face.

It's political posturing and probably nothing would come out of it if everyone did say no.

What do you mean for Romania and Bulgaria to revoke visa free travel?

Romanian and Bulgarian citizens can travel all over EU, including into the Schengen Zone, without a visa. They are only subject to a Passport/ID check.

And EU citizens can travel to Romania/Bulgaria without visas. So what do you mean?

I mean coming from Canada, both countries require a visa.

It's the same the other way around, but the EU is pressuring Canada apparently to offer visa free travel to them both. Why wouldn't such a thing be worked out between the individual countries involved.

Because the EU member states decided to lift this issue to the EU level via Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. The EU is about harmonizing legislation after all and regulating external borders is a very important part of what the EU does.

> regulating external borders is a very important part of what the EU does.

Whoa man. Lets not open up that can of worms here, lets try and keep the topic about Canada eh/ I think telling another country who they must allow visa free travel to is similar to telling them what laws they need to follow.

Canada isn't a member of the EU, there never was any such agreement. An EU council regulation should have little to do with them.

Visa-free entry is usually done on a reciprocal basis, i.e. two countries decide that each others citizens can enter visa free. The EU member states decided that they only enter into such an agreement if there are similar agreements with all other member states.

Nobody here tells Canada what to do. They only say that if Canadian citizens should be let without a visa into the EU, they must allow all EU citizens visa-free entry.

I pointed out in my first post that the countries in questions have their own borders.

The "EU" isn't an entity you reciprocate visa free travel from and to. Some member states of the EU, don't share the same visa rules as other member states. Such as in this case here. Why am I expected to talk in circles with you.

This is the clearest I can put it: Parties A and B want to enter into an agreement. B will only do so under condition X. Party B is free to state any conditions they want just as A is free to not accept them.

Now substitute "Canada" for A, "Germany"/"France"/"Sweden"/... for B and "Enter a similar agreement with these other 25 countries" for X and you get the current situation. The EU member states decided to make this a condition to all their reciprocal visa agreements.

If Canada thinks that's not fair they can withdraw from the reciprocal visa agreements.

> The "EU" isn't an entity you reciprocate visa free travel from and to.

The EU has decided that it is, with the exception of the UK and Ireland which has specific opt-outs from Schengen.

Whether the EU will stick to that or not, the point is that the visa policy of all EU members other than the UK and Ireland is set at EU level. Some non-Schengen EU members have still not fully harmonized their visa rules, but they are expected to, and the issue here is that the principles of Schengen visa policy is reciprocity, and then Canada's lack of willingness to reciprocate becomes a problem.

> Visa-free entry is usually done on a reciprocal basis

There are plenty of countries to which EU citizens have visa free access, but whose citizens aren't allowed into the EU visa free. Somehow in all its talk of reciprocity the EU never mentions those. Would be interesting if those countries start demanding reciprocity from the EU too, or start charging EU citizens for visas.

This is usually done because the country thinks it's beneficial for them, e.g. more tourists or easier access for people doing business. Those one-sided decisions can be ended at any time and the EU has no power to demand those nor does it.

Those are not mentioned because they are not relevant to this discussion. Canada could still over visa-free access for Germans even if Canadians required visa for Canadians because they refuse to offer access for Bulgarians. It's just unlikely that it happens.

What do you mean by "Bulgaria is controlling its own border"? There is no phisical border between Bulgaria and Greece. A terrorist Canadian can enter Bulgaria from south.

> It's political posturing and probably nothing would come out of it if everyone did say no.

I thought the same thing. Apparently it's not.

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/4e0tzm/european_uni...

Always amusing to see the US lecturing European countries on how they don't welcome migrants well enough, and then see that these additional visa requirement for "bad european countries" which population they do not see coming on US soil...

Yes, and Turkey (80 million middle eastern people) will get EU membership.

Merkel cut a deal w/ Turkey to take back immigrants in return for EU membership.

link: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-tu...

Even if Merkel had made such a promise (which she didn't), she does not get to decide who becomes a member of the EU. The human rights situation in Turkey makes it impossible for them to join the EU.

Only in Erdogan's dreams. There are many many factors which prevent Turkey from joining the EU, and they have only become worse since the subject was initially raised years ago.

This is unlikely, many countries have already pledged to veto it.

You should try twitter. Lots of like minded people.

That's not how EU extension works.

Even if Turkey solves it's human rights issues, which are a big blocker right now, it still takes a single EU country to veto Turkey accession.

As much as I'd personally be all for giving Turkey EU membership eventually, with Turkey's current trajectory they are decades away from getting it, and Erdogan seems intent on reducing their chances.

Even if Merkel tried to push for Turkish membership, it'd take years of negotiations and further years of reforms before anything could happen.

EDIT: Note that what the article actually says is that she has offered to help accelerate the membership discussions. But even if Germany pushes to ensure talks with Turkey are fast-tracked, the ultimate thing that prevents Turkish EU membership is that Turkey needs to carry out extensive reforms - both political and economical - as well as convincing several EU member states not to veto membership before there's any way they will be allowed entry. Even if the negotiations concluded tomorrow, it'd take years - probably a decade or more - for Turkey to complete the required reforms (and that assumes the government would even want to carry out these reforms, which Erdogan seems totally uninterested in). I think it's more likely membership will take on the order of 15-20 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com