Skatering

I think the Schengen zone needs tighter enforcement and consistency at its external borders before it worries about ESTA style authorisation.

I've entered the Schengen zone too many times without seeing a French officer. I've read too many cases of airport officers not stamping non-EUs in or out.

aidy

Agreed... one example.. a charter flight to Greece, you would be lucky to see an immigration officer

Dieuwer

would be sensible IF you want to destroy the tourism industry.

aidy

Well I've worked in the tourism industry for 10 years at one of the biggest and oldest tour ops in the world.... so I know it pretty well.

When ESTA was introduced.... how much do you think demand fell... zero.... when turkey bought in the evusa instead of visa in arrival... how do you think it effected demand. Again Zero

GUWonder

Waiving visa requirements/costs does stimulate some demand. Instituting additional visa demands/costs -- electronic or otherwise -- does the opposite.

Noticing changes in demand/the demand profile gets flustered, as confounding factors sort of mask the impact of a changed entry requirement.

WilcoRoger

Just to make clear, this is not something to do with Brexit, even though the Guardian starts the article with that.

OTOH Britons voted for Brexit and now wake up every day (with Ms May and her cabinet included) with reality hitting them - "OMG, brexit means we won't be in the EU"

Of course the UK could still join the Schengen area without being an EU member á la CH, NO, IS (etc) but somehow I think Ms May is not thinking along those lines

GUWonder

This indeed was under consideration prior to the day of the Brexit vote. But it's only with Brexit that this approach may end up hitting the biggest chunk of UK passport users visiting the Schengen area.

The U.K. PMO has zero intention of the U.K. joining the Schengen area. I am still trying to find out what all they plan to do with regard to the U.K.-Ireland CTA, as it's not like Ireland wants to leave the EU.

TFKEF

Schengen works for NO, IS & CH because their citizens enjoy the same freedom of movement as EU citizens. The same freedom of movement that the British voters rejected.

If this Schengen ESTA thing is being talked about now, expect it to take effect in 10 years at the earliest. Changes happen sloooowly in these grand European projects and perhaps it would be wise to begin with ensuring some uniformity in how the current rules are enforced at Schengen entry points. Countries that depend on tourism from US, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Japan, S Korea etc. are probably not going to be happy about such proposals either.

GUWonder

I give it 3 or 4 years max before it hits. A bunch of Schengen governments really want to engage in mass surveillance of passengers, and this is a means to make that more complete.

$14 evisas aren't really going to cause enough of a noticeable difference in visitor numbers to make paranoid governments to hesitate in pursuing this. The PNR surveillance laws were just part of the picture for ramping up the capability to engage in more comprehensive surveillance of travelers.

WilcoRoger

If it were only you trying to find out. Her Majesty's Government seem to have no clue whatsoever, either.

GUWonder

Maybe someone can sell the U.K. on automated border control gates for IRL-UK traffic too. [But that land border is so nice to cross as is, without slowing
travel flows. ] Since government employee headcount costs seem to freak out the government spending types more than "investments" that line the pockets of the private sector providers of equipment and services purchased by the government, sounds like yet another "solution" available in search of a "problem".

GUWonder

https://www.ft.com/content/de3b38c6-...3-bb8207902122

The article has a lot of correct details about ETIAS as of now, but there is an obvious error in the article.

To get behind the pay-wall, use a search of Google news.

WorldLux

If a <20$ charge stops you from traveling, you won't be traveling internationally a lot. In any case a prefer to pay ahead instead of paying for a VoA, that's priced in USD, payable via lousy exchange rates in other major currencies and change is only given at a lousy exchange rate in local currency.

I doubt that, given that the UK explicitly didn't want to join Schengen. It's a possibility, but that would defeat all their efforts of keeping foreigners out. With Schengen, there borders would fall immediately and illegals that made it into the EU can simply board an aircraft, ferry, train, bus to reach the UK (it would still be illegal, but how are you going to control it, if there aren't systematic border controls).

GUWonder

A change in costs -- even very marginal costs -- does have some impact on travel demand at the margins.

I prefer the current no-fee state of affairs for those visitors waived of visa requirements over a fee-in-advance-and-supply-a-lot-more-info future state applicable for these same travelers.

WorldLux

The "supply-a-lot-more-info" is coming anyway via the EPMR. That's already decided. An re: fees, I say why not. Most nations require payment of a small fee.

<20USD fee that gets you VWP between 5 and 10 years worth of traveling is a much better deal than paying for a VoA every time you go to a specific country.