3 ms·

It might be a valid point to some extent, but there is an imporant aspect here: we are talking about _different_ requirements. Even though those four EU countr

by rmind 8y ago

It might be a valid point to some extent, but there is an imporant aspect here: we are talking about _different_ requirements. Even though those four EU countries are not in the Schengen Area, their citizens can freely travel (without visa or any authorisation) anywhere in the EU. They just go through the border control. In other words, the requirements concerning the free travel are already met. Now, in the context of EU-US travel, do other (internal EU) requirements matter? I would argue that they don't.

sgc 8y ago
It's not an irrelevant treaty. It is specifically the part of the EU agreement which regulates visas and travel in respect to non-EU countries (yes, I understand others have been allowed into it by reciprocal agreement, nonetheless it an EU directive). If a country can't yet be part of it or refuses to be part of it, why should they be treated as if they were? Free travel within the EU is the part that appears to be internal and not relevant in this case.
- rmind 8y ago
  I don't follow you. Which treaty are you referring to? Are you talking about the EU directive regarding the visa policy? If so, how is this relevant to the negotiations/decision-making concerning the EU-US agreements? EU directives are domestic legal acts. I guess you can think of them as US federal laws. Let me put it this way: let's say, just hypothetically, US would have some federal law regulating the movement (perhaps imposing some barriers) between the US states. Why and how exactly would this be relevant to the US-EU visa/travel agreements? What matters is that 27 countries agree to negotiate together, so the European Commission negotiates with the US on behalf of the EU, including those five countries. For the purpose of the agreement, it does not matter what legal instrument (EU directive, 27 bilateral treaties, whatever) is used to implement that agreement.
  - sgc 8y ago
    What I was trying to say is: The schengen agreement or treaty, which is now a part of eu law, deals with visa policy for the eu. There is no reason for foreign actors to treat eu countries like they are in the schengen when they are not, since it is specifically designed to deal with eu-extra eu relations. If the eu wants to deal with internal eu travel and residence outside of the schengen agreement that is one thing, but it's not a consistent policy to try to create a second set of international relations by selectively bypassing the schengen agreement. A second set of agreements would be both coherent and acceptable if the eu accepted that the schengen agreement was superfluous and not to be taken into account for countries that opted to enter into a reciprocal relationship with them based on this new agreement. Otherwise it is just picking and choosing without sufficient respect to the other parties involved. This would probably be for the best long term, since the schengen leaves eu international policy too tied to a few non-eu members who have schengen agreements in place. In brief, it is the eu's problem that they have an imperfect union and have not managed to integrate all their members into all their reciprocal agreements. It is an understandable problem, but not one they can credibly complain to others about. Edit: I think where we are missing each other is I don't view the schengen agreement as just internal policies, but the framework for the eu's interaction with the world. From what I have read in the eu's own words and elsewhere, that is its intention.

by rmind 8y ago

sgc 8y ago

It's not an irrelevant treaty. It is specifically the part of the EU agreement which regulates visas and travel in respect to non-EU countries (yes, I understand others have been allowed into it by reciprocal agreement, nonetheless it an EU directive). If a country can't yet be part of it or refuses to be part of it, why should they be treated as if they were? Free travel within the EU is the part that appears to be internal and not relevant in this case.

rmind 8y ago
I don't follow you. Which treaty are you referring to? Are you talking about the EU directive regarding the visa policy? If so, how is this relevant to the negotiations/decision-making concerning the EU-US agreements? EU directives are domestic legal acts. I guess you can think of them as US federal laws. Let me put it this way: let's say, just hypothetically, US would have some federal law regulating the movement (perhaps imposing some barriers) between the US states. Why and how exactly would this be relevant to the US-EU visa/travel agreements? What matters is that 27 countries agree to negotiate together, so the European Commission negotiates with the US on behalf of the EU, including those five countries. For the purpose of the agreement, it does not matter what legal instrument (EU directive, 27 bilateral treaties, whatever) is used to implement that agreement.
- sgc 8y ago
  What I was trying to say is: The schengen agreement or treaty, which is now a part of eu law, deals with visa policy for the eu. There is no reason for foreign actors to treat eu countries like they are in the schengen when they are not, since it is specifically designed to deal with eu-extra eu relations. If the eu wants to deal with internal eu travel and residence outside of the schengen agreement that is one thing, but it's not a consistent policy to try to create a second set of international relations by selectively bypassing the schengen agreement. A second set of agreements would be both coherent and acceptable if the eu accepted that the schengen agreement was superfluous and not to be taken into account for countries that opted to enter into a reciprocal relationship with them based on this new agreement. Otherwise it is just picking and choosing without sufficient respect to the other parties involved. This would probably be for the best long term, since the schengen leaves eu international policy too tied to a few non-eu members who have schengen agreements in place. In brief, it is the eu's problem that they have an imperfect union and have not managed to integrate all their members into all their reciprocal agreements. It is an understandable problem, but not one they can credibly complain to others about. Edit: I think where we are missing each other is I don't view the schengen agreement as just internal policies, but the framework for the eu's interaction with the world. From what I have read in the eu's own words and elsewhere, that is its intention.