Originally Posted by
brunos
That is not a legal loophole. It is just that it is less likely to be enforceable.
My view is that the rules are going to stay in place for many months, probably till or beyond the summer. Airlines and border control will learn how to enforce the rules, and we will get more evidence and where there is "flexibility".
My understanding is that these measures are to prevent the import of new variants (not exports). I find it a joke as there is free entry from some 30 other countries where a PCR test is simply needed. But it is good PR. I do understand that by prevent outbound travel it will reduce inbound travel. But the focus there should be, and probably is, on leisure destinations and those with heavy traffic for other personal reasons, e.g. North African nations with a large number of French residents.
Anyway, I would not like to be he one deciding on all those covid containment measures in France.
I agree it is more PR than anything else. Especially given that the British strain is already quickly expanding in prevalence and the Brazilian and South African ones are also already in France. Spending more effort on speeding up the vaccination program is far more critical and would be far more effective... but that requires more work than the "look at the birdie" strategy they are currently employing.
That said, why would using a US passport as secondary documentation to travel to the US be considered a loophole? Isn't that part of the dérogation? (allowing passengers to travel to a country of their nationality if that country is outside the EEA)?
At the same time, several posters have made the point that France will not reject entry to residents as it would be a PR nightmare.... and perhaps a legal issue as well. At the same time, others insist that they will have to prove their departure was with a motif impérieux. What do others think?
The lack of clarity on behalf of the government is beyond annoying.