No Visa Free Visits to Sandro

[jone]

Those of you who wish to travel to Italy will now be required to use a visa.  Sorry, Sandro, one more hurdle in inviting ourselves over for a quick lunch.

While Visa free travel extends to most countries of the European Union, in coming to the US, the US has excluded Romania, Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria and Cyprus.  Yesterday the European responded by including all of the European Union as a visa required zone for US Citizens. 

This is significant because it very well could escalate in the other direction.  Western Europeans could very well be required to obtain a visa for visiting the US in the future.  However, the ESTA standard, in place now, by which Western Europeans need only fill out information online and pay around $20, seems to be working well and it would cost the US a substantial chunk of changes to change back to the Visa system.

The Visa requirement for US citizens is seen as a punative measure and is temporary, in effect for only 12 months.

[ML]

Jon . . . are you a little premature?

19 hours ago.

The European Parliament called on the EU executive on Thursday to force Americans to apply for visas before visiting Europe this summer, stepping up pressure to resolve a long-running transatlantic dispute on the issue.

The European Commission stressed it was pursuing a diplomatic resolution to the row, leaving it unlikely that it would act on the vote by lawmakers setting a May deadline to impose visas - a move that could hurt Europe's tourism sector.

The Parliament, by a show of hands, urged the Commission to adopt restrictive measures against U.S. citizens "within two months". Lawmakers have little immediate power to ensure that the executive complies with such demands.

But the economic cost of imposing visa restrictions on the millions of American tourists and business travelers who visit Europe each year is a major disincentive.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-usa-visa-idUSKBN1691Q9

[GQBlues]

The flip side to this is, if it ever becomes a reality, it will not necessarily be a bad idea in light of all the non-vetted refugees that entered Europe.

Mutual tourism revenue will undoubtedly affect both regions, but requiring 'visas' doesn't necessarily preclude anyone from travelling to/fro. There will be 'more' European regions/state that will be hit harder than any other US destinations due to tourism revenue reliance. Let the EU do what it feels best for its interest.

If this becomes permanent, it may be a good enough impetus to eventually draw down NATO and ultimately the UN.

[jone]

Sorry, my bad.

I read it at 5AM this morning and missed the part where it said that it still is yet to go in effect.  Looks like I spelled 'punitive' wrong as well. 

[wallm]

FU EU for even thinking of it. I will keep traveling to Asia. EU can keep inviting the refugees who kill their people.

[Boethius]

There are refugees in many countries because of US policies and military action (Syria, Libya, Iraq). 

[Boethius]

The flip side to this is, if it ever becomes a reality, it will not necessarily be a bad idea in light of all the non-vetted refugees that entered Europe.

How would this matter in any way?  Refugees are citizens of EU countries.  If they come from countries with visa restrictions placed on them, they would need to get visas to travel from the EU.

[GQBlues]

There are refugees in many countries because of US policies and military action (Syria, Libya, Iraq).

This is largely why both NATO and the UN should be scrapped. Good thing, up until now, we have not militarily engaged in Ukraine's problems, too. No need to bring that 'war' in our doorsteps, too.

How would this matter in any way?  Refugees are citizens of EU countries.  If they come from countries with visa restrictions placed on them, they would need to get visas to travel from the EU.

Recent refugees are NOT citizens of EU countries, Boethius. These non-citizens will then be subjected to 'closer' and stringent vetting. As for its citizens, with 'extreme' political affiliation, then the US would reserve right of first refusal.

It's a great idea actually if you think about it.

[Boethius]

Oops, yes, I meant they are not EU citizens and hence, cannot travel freely in any event, so your post was moot.

[wallm]

There are refugees in many countries because of US policies and military action (Syria, Libya, Iraq).

You forgot Somalia, Albania, Kosovo, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iran......I am sure we are ruining those countries too....

[Boethius]

No matter how sarcastic you wish to be, the US created the instability that is the source of most of the refugees flooding the EU right now.  This was foreseeable. In fact, both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi warned this would occur. But since it's someone else's problem, who cares, right?

[SANDRO43]

So I'm going to be spared a horde of hungry Murricans ?

I don't know if things changed in the meantime, but when I visited Florida in 2010 I was required to obtain a visa - a simple procedure via Internet that only took a few minutes, probably just to check that I was not on some 'undesirable' list .

[GQBlues]

No matter how sarcastic you wish to be, the US created the instability that is the source of most of the refugees flooding the EU right now.  This was foreseeable. In fact, both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi warned this would occur. But since it's someone else's problem, who cares, right?

No. Actually I am not being sarcastic. The US need not have to be in these places and conflicts. We never even had to be involved in Ukraine as much as we had. You already know what my feelings were about that conflict. We HAVE absolutely NO business there. Just as any other regions of the world.

NATO is no longer necessary, and the UN had always been useless and only promoted even more strife.

Obama exacerbated and engaged in more regions of conflict during his administration.

[Boethius]

My post wasn't directed at you, however, you're missing the point.  There would be no significant refugee crisis in the EU today were it not for US meddling and fomenting war in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and probably Afghanistan.  I actually supported Afghanistan after 9/11, but then it morphed from hunting al Qaeda to "nation building".  The latter is always a recipe for disaster.

[Hammer2722]

No. Actually I am not being sarcastic. The US need not have to be in these places and conflicts. We never even had to be involved in Ukraine as much as we had. You already know what my feelings were about that conflict. We HAVE absolutely NO business there. Just as any other regions of the world.

NATO is no longer necessary, and the UN had always been useless and only promoted even more strife.

Obama exacerbated and engaged in more regions of conflict during his administration.

I think she was referring to Wallm's post.

[GQBlues]

My post wasn't directed at you, however, you're missing the point.  There would be no significant refugee crisis in the EU today were it not for US meddling and fomenting war in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and probably Afghanistan.  I actually supported Afghanistan after 9/11, but then it morphed from hunting al Qaeda to "nation building".  The latter is always a recipe for disaster.

Actually no. I am NOT missing the point. The point remains valid. All those regions of conflict you pointed out have had beginnings, whether political or economics or both, dated back to mostly from the WW I to post WW II or even before.

Trace them as you might. I hold firm in drawing out of NATO and leaving the UN. Let the world determine its fate as it should.

[ML]

. . . probably just to check that I was not on some 'undesirable' list .

So they didn't check all the lists . . . ?

[Boethius]

Actually no. I am NOT missing the point. The point remains valid. All those regions of conflict you pointed out have had beginnings, whether political or economics or both, dated back to mostly from the WW I to post WW II or even before.

Trace them as you might. I hold firm in drawing out of NATO and leaving the UN. Let the world determine its fate as it should.

The US won't do that until either the oil runs out, or the world uses another energy source.

[GQBlues]

The US won't do that until either the oil runs out, or the world uses another energy source.

We have enough on our own and a good deal going with Canada. We've never had to rely on Mid-East oil for decades, Boethius. That's mostly EU's reliance.

[Boethius]

You don't have to rely on it for your domestic purposes.  It's about economics and control of a resource, not use.

[GQBlues]

You don't have to rely on it for your domestic purposes.  It's about economics and control of a resource, not use.

Good. These nations, i.e. EU, who do rely on oil for their trade and commerce, can acquire their own. let them compete with China for African and Middle-East oil. There's also always Russia they can deal with.

NATO is obsolete and the UN is feckless.

[jone]

Feckless.  Great name for the UN.  Should be called the United Feckless Nations.  Now there's a thought. 

[Boethius]

Good. These nations, i.e. EU, who do rely on oil for their trade and commerce, can acquire their own. let them compete with China for African and Middle-East oil. There's also always Russia they can deal with.

NATO is obsolete and the UN is feckless.

I don't think the US is attempting to control the world's oil supply for the benefit of the EU.

[GQBlues]

I don't think the US is attempting to control the world's oil supply for the benefit of the EU.

So we invaded and nearly committed genocide in Libya, for what exactly? Their weather?

What's ironic about that too is, we invaded a nation unprovoked, then after bombing the hell out of it and killed hundreds of thousands of is citizens, the Obama administration tagged the country as a haven for terrorists. I guess that's the *liberal* way of doing things.

[Boethius]

The US didn't do it for the EU.  This disaster can be laid at the feet of Hillary Clinton, because both the  US intelligence community and the Pentagon opposed intervention in Libya.  But you can't say that she did it for the good of the EU, just as Iraq wasn't invaded by the US for the good of Iraqis.