As a EU citizen I benefit from freedom of movement within the EU, why would I want extra barriers being erected between nations?
I struggle to see a benefit here, just downsides.
Edit: I don't seem to have been clear. I know intra EU travel will remain unencumbered, my point was to illustrate that both the parent and I have been benefiting from that unencumbered travel, so why go the opposite way with other nations.
(I'm not taking sides, as I don't know enough. But there is a big potential downside here).
Usually they claim some loophole like you don’t need it to hitchhike/drive, just to board a commercial plane/ship/bus in.
Those flying in a private jet need not worry about such issues.
Neither does the ETIAS system that the EU is introducing. The article for some reason decided to ignore the existence of ESTA altogether and then call the identical (but cheaper) ETIAS system a visa.
That is what I, and presumably several other commentators, have been responding to.
Edit: I see that one post referred to the ETIAS initiative. But what you’re saying makes perfect sense now. I’m only talking about the visa. My apologies.
If it is just a tit for tat, that just makes everyone worse off. The supposed stated aims (security) seem suspect between 2 blocs that really should be able to work together.
They will of course allow anyone to access the system. And often they don't charge because they don't want to deal with the paperwork. But they're even more often officially supposed to charge.
My (American) father once needed emergency healthcare in France. He eventually received a bill from the French government in the mail back in the US. It was way cheaper than in the US, certainly, but it was not a zero balance due either. (And yes he paid.)
I went with the next best option: Ignore it, but it was more of a "warning ticket" that they could investigate further and issue a real ticket if I didn't pay.
Unsurprisingly, the one that provides cover in the US is significantly more expensive.
>"I believe in freedom of movement between EU nations"
I can't find your quotation anywhere and I made a similar remark.
"I benefit from freedom of movement within the EU" ???
The barriers between the EU and other countries already exist, just to a different degree. There are certain benefits of ETIAS, especially concerning the security and illegal migration, as explained by a video linked in a neighbouring post. US is already imposing ESTA on EU citizens: why should EU give in and not apply the reciprocal measures?
Security and illegal migration seem dubious reasons to introduce (not) visas for the US. Is there a problem with illegal immigrants from the US? Terrorists?
So then we're just left with tit for tat politics. I for one would like my politicians to be more mature (ha!). This is how trade wars, and worse start. I personally would like to lead by example, be the better man, and be a good neighbour. If others don't wish to, that's their problem.
True free movement would then be reciprocal, i.e. EU-US travel would not require either ESTA or ETIAS. Basically that would mean US would be part of Schengen Area or a new similar structure.
The discord about US requiring visas from 5 EU countries is a separate issue that might bring other actual "tit for tat" measures if not resolved.
Introducing this nonsense in the EU means that it will be really hard for either side to drop it, since realistically both sides would have to negotiate to drop it together. That's harder than for the US to drop it now, unilaterally.
In theory, yes. In practice, no. The US had no incentive to drop it, so they wouldn't do it (they could have done it a long time ago if they wanted). Now, they have an incentive to think about it and talk to the EU about a treaty which drops it for both sides.
I challenge them to do the Canadian thing and make it 5 years.
As an EU citizen you won't have any restrictions, but the rest of the world, including the UK, will have to get these e-visas.
The other part only pertains to the USA, where they make certain EU members get a visa and the EU is arguing that the EU should as a whole treat the USA in the same manner, give them visas.
So I don't believe this stated they would put up extra barriers between EU nations, only external nations.
Schengen areas are still true freedom of movement.
I am an American citizen and think all electronic visas are a silly pain in the ass, but are better than traditional visas which require mailing your passport somewhere.
The world should strive for true freedom of movement for all people. Show up in person, walk through customs like everyone else regardless of passport.
ETIAS is therefore a regression from the norm. But, Vietnam used to be paper visa only, and now is E-visa. So that one is progress.
Having it as an intermediate step is great, though.