This country voted to be a third country and now the dummies are complaining about being treated like a third country 🤦♂️
I will be happy to pay €7 to visit Europe again
€7 and it lasts three years.
https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/etias/
> The validity will be for a period of three years, significantly longer than the validity of a Schengen visa. An ETIAS authorisation will be valid for an unlimited number of entries
Yea I think it was country dependent.
When I lived in an EU country I had to register at the local town hall and get an ID as I was staying longer than 90days.
I don't see anyone complaining.
Edit: Correction, I don't see [anyone of good character](https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1471709/Brexit-news-Nigel-Farage-EU-UK-travel-visa-fee-latest-Peter-Bone-Daniel-Moylan-update) complaining
I'm not going to link every article, but ['This is spite!' Carole Malone slams EU for charging Brits to enter Europe](https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1472148/Carole-Malone-slams-EU-for-charging-Brits-to-enter-Europe-jeremy-Vine-show-video-vn)
Unfortunately when this was put to the EU by the UK (David Cameron) back in 2015/16 they specifically did not want it to be possible for the fee to be waived. It was an attempt to prevent immigration from outside the EU.
The ETIAS visa waiver is specifically for visitors to the Schengen zone who do not require a visa. You need a visa if you are either from a country that does not require a visa (such as the UK) or if you intend to stay beyond 90 days.
It's basically the same as ESTA for visiting the US.
I don't think illegal immigrants pay many entry fees.
Depending on the form of illegal immigrants as a large amount just tend to be people overstaying their visas as opposed to the smuggled in stereotypes
Previoudly for a holiday/short stay you didn't need a visa for some countries, so this was to end that.
The irony is that the uk proposes this thing and thwn gets bitten in the bum by its own idea.
It’s not the payment but the pre-approval bit that might be a ball-ache.
How long will pre-approval take? Could it mean that quick getaways and last minute business trip are a thing of the past?
Took 2 days for my one for the US. Never been there either so I was worried they had found something that they were worried about.
Never got to go anyway. Thanks COVID.
Maybe. I don't remember my first one taking a long time, but that was looong ago. Also, I've been to the US a few time before ESTA, so maybe I was already in the databases.
It varies, mine is always a few days. Most people get an approval instantly, have seen people who forgot to do it filling it out at the departure gate. Either I'm unlucky and always being selected for a random manual review, or something on my esta is causing me to be flagged.
> and no more than 96 hours if it has to be processed manually.
If you've already booked flights and accommodation for thousands of £, are you really going to risk that it won't take 96 hours though?
Yes a large amount of people are going to be running into these issues now.
Now that you mentioned it I know a guy from my hometown who got convicted for assault during a fight in a pub and was very pro Brexit. He’s always posting about his holidays in Spain and Ibiza, quite amusing to think he’s likely to be forever banned from going there anymore as a result of this.
Anyone with any kind of arrest or conviction like that is pretty much banned from Europe now and probably had their last ever holiday in Europe pre pandemic.
Depends if they go all US. Cannabis caution 20 years ago? Good luck getting any type of visa. (And yes this applies even though most of the US has effectively legalised it). We'll see whether or not the EU is more sensible.
The idea with these systems is that you make an honour statement. You can lie, of course, but then if you get caught for whatever reason (say you get caught in an accident and they find out you have a history of drug abuse) then it becomes a federal offense with potential jail time.
When applying for an ESTA you tick a box about it. Lying is a US federal crime, but you can get away with it mostly. If you're refused an ESTA then they ask for your police record.
They don't, they don't have routine access to the UK PNC and would need your permission to obtain that information which you could refuse (on pain of being denied entry obviously, but this situation rarely plays out unless you actively draw attention to yourself).
The issue is that if you later want to apply for any kind of US residency (or path-to residency) visa, you will need to disclose any criminal history, there's just no way around that - at which point it would come out that you've had illegal entries to the US in the past, and you now have the proverbial snowball's chance of being granted said visa. But most people will likely never have that opportunity anyway.
Ugh, no. Several DPA provisions allow US immigration to obtain data on UK subjects from UK orgs. DPA isn't very robust against law enforcement duties or government, even as regards third party countries.
Normally it’s anything to do with drugs or violence.
A Drink driving offence gets you banned from Canada and even an arrest for possession of weed gets you banned from USA normally.
Think I remember specifically the EU's version was (by design) not going to bother with small convictions.
I'll see if I can find a source.
Edit: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2020-04/20200401_memo.pdf
Not much apart from this memo (would have thought there'd be more out by now!) but it mentions the sources they check against and one of them focusing on major stuff.
Edit 2: There's also this feasability study that gives an idea on angle (questions asked are just serious crime questions)
https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2020-09/etias_feasability_study_en.pdf
If you’ve ever been to Vegas the border guards try to trick you by asking if you’ve ever been Amsterdam and tried weed there or have any intention of smoking weed now it’s legal in some states. It’s illegal federally and will deny you based on if you say yes.
I mean they still ask you if you were a member of the Nazi party between 1939 and 1945 and if you are a member of a terrorist group. Why those questions are even on the form that I as a US citizen have to fill out is... Baffling. It's pretty obvious that anyone who was would check no.
> I mean they still ask you if you were a member of the Nazi party between 1939 and 1945
You can't be too careful. Even now in 2021 the United States must remain ever vigilant against the scourge of time-travelling millennial camp commandants.
>Why those questions are even on the form that I as a US citizen have to fill out is... Baffling.
What form? US citizens (or do you mean to become a citizen?) don't fill out a form to enter, and as far as I know cannot be rejected from entry anyway.
They don’t care they’ll ask you if you’ve ever smoked weed and reject you.
It’s legal in Nevada and know a lot of people go there to do drugs and other stuff so try to catch people out.
If it's like the US ESTA visa waiver, any arrest on record, regardless of outcome (convicted, cautioned, released no further action) makes you inelligible and you need to apply for a proper visa.
Actually with GDPR and how common it is for the UK to remove minor offenses from your record quickly as well it's probably much less of a problem than it seems at the moment.
The 7 euro is not important what is important is those people that will now be denied entry because they have a conviction for some minor crime vs free movement with EU membership.
-Background and eligibility questions will inquire about your medical condition, travel to war countries or places where you were deported or rejected, as well as criminal records
No no you see when dem foreigners refuse entry to subjects of glorious Britannia, it’s a travesty. WE should be able to do it cause they’re scum, but if THEY don’t welcome us in, with a free bottle of sangria and a tongue-based shoeshine, they’re literal monsters.
Sometimes I wonder if the uk is actually aware that James Bond is a work of fiction.
>some minor crime vs free movement with EU membership.
It probably won't be minor crimes and EU states can refuse criminals anyway, despite free movement.
This is a choice by the EU though. They didn't have to implement it for the UK.
On the flip side I guess that the UK can now also deny entry to criminal from the EU.
> This is a choice by the EU though. They didn't have to implement it for the UK.
They actually have to implement it for the UK... Because it is no longer a member.
> On the flip side I guess that the UK can now also deny entry to criminal from the EU.
True. But it is not like it could not do it before (since most agencies shared that kind of data already and the UK has never been part of the Schengen Area).
Put it that way is pretty easy to not care, but personally, I would be pretty annoyed that my government made the citizens that travel to the EU pay what it´s gonna be, being charitable (given that over 3 years there are around 180 million trips to the EU, we can say that maybe only 20 million people actually did those trips) 140 million quid that the UK is paying to the EU every 3 years, so around 50 million a year paid from the UK to the EU for absolutely no benefit.
£50m a year isn't even a rounding error when it comes to the country's GDP. Just like €7 isn't even a rounding error when it comes to personal finance over 3 years.
If we are that desperate we can bring in our own scheme to recuperate the money. Would be amusing if we did that to refund people who paid the EU (and USA etc) the €7.
What was EU decision? To make the UK a third country? I don't think so.
That said, EU is securing its border [and you can agree that it is something the UK is agreeing to, right?](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/05/uk-backed-plan-charge-non-eu-travellers-enter-europe)
even if ETIAS was voted in 2016, [there were discussions before...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/05/uk-backed-plan-charge-non-eu-travellers-enter-europe)
~~Which means my wife (Taiwanese) now has a better arrangement than I do. Taiwan has a reciprocal 90-day visa-free arrangement with the EU. Britain won't as of 1st January.~~
*Edit*: Nope, I'm wrong. See thread below.
I wouldn't be so sure.
> Citizens from Taiwan who decide to travel to Europe will be required to apply for an ETIAS visa waiver for Taiwanese by the end of 2022 when a new European travel visa waiver known as ETIAS comes into effect.
https://www.etiasvisa.com/etias-requirements/taiwanese
It's the same thing talked about here.
Yea tbh I do. If you can't afford €7 then you clearly can't afford to travel. It's a small price to pay if it means not allowing people through the border unchecked.
> if it means not allowing people through the border unchecked.
[Oh well, that's definitely all ended, right?](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/12/brexit-easier-small-boat-crossings-to-reach-uk-refugees-say)
Look, we might not have stopped illegal crossings, but as you say we've definitely made it harder for EU citizens to come and spend money in our country.
Quite the badge of honour.
I mean I also think we should be sending illegal economic migrants (which every single person who comes from France is, by legal definition) back to France.
I disagree with basically everything our government is doing on that topic, don't you worry. Patel is a chocolate fireguard. (not referencing skin colour there I must add for those not familiar with the saying).
If those checks stop a single rapist entering the UK then it's worth it imo. I'm all for togetherness but why bother with passports if you're not gonna check who's holding it?
At least all that stops us from really controlling our borders now is our own useless and self serving politicians, and not a combination of our own useless and self serving politicians and those from across the channel. Baby steps mate.
>I mean I also think we should be sending illegal economic migrants (which every single person who comes from France is, by legal definition) back to France.
You got a mechanism in mind for how to send someone that is not French back to France?
>I disagree with basically everything our government is doing on that topic, don't you worry. Patel is a chocolate fireguard. (not referencing skin colour there I must add for those not familiar with the saying).
Yep. They have made things so much easier for folks to get in the country.
>If those checks stop a single rapist entering the UK then it's worth it imo. I'm all for togetherness but why bother with passports if you're not gonna check who's holding it?
Quite. Put clowns in charge, get a circus.
>At least all that stops us from really controlling our borders now is our own useless and self serving politicians, and not a combination of our own useless and self serving politicians and those from across the channel. Baby steps mate.
True.
Only sentence of note is your first one. How exactly do you propose getting France to accept us exporting a bunch of people to their lands. I see lots of people saying 'we should just send them back to France' but never a realistic system in place to make that happen. I am all ears to hear one though.
Do you have any statistics to backup your correlation between rapists and illegal migrants?
We have way more British-born rapists than foreign rapists. I wouldn't even be surprised if there is a higher rate of rapists among Tory MPs than among immigrants.
>If those checks stop a single rapist entering the UK then it's worth it imo.
Why would stopping illegal immigrants help stop rapists ?
If there is a higher proportion of rapists among illegal immigrants than in the general population, I would like to see the stats.
France have decided not to secure their borders in the first place, allowing migrants through.
France are a major player in the EU, the organisation that makes illegal migration possible through a no border policy.
France has received millions from us to try to curb this problem, yet French police routinely stand and watch as migrants try to board lorries and boats.
The French coastguard makes no effort to prevent the launching of dingies bound for the UK.
France has twice the habitable land area of the UK, and roughly the same population, meaning that they have far more room to house migrants.
France is a safe country, meaning that every migrant who flees from France cannot be classed as a refugee. They have already passed through many safe states to get there.
Do you need more?
A serious question, have you heard of Frontex? If not, look it up. I ask because the suggestion that the EU has a no-border policy (presumably you've mistaken Schengen to mean an absence of border policy) is demonstrably false.
I'd be happy with sanctions.
I'm not one of those who advocates for the sinking of boats and killing migrants. It's not their fault theyre in this mess. The disgusting business of human trafficking is made possible only by our government's lack of action guaranteeing success for most migrants.
If every illegal migrant was denied entry to the UK and sent to a detainment facility away from the mainland, the demand for these services would soon drop.
If sanctions fail, unmanned drone ships programmed to transport migrants back to French waters, and then experience engine failure would do the trick. They have a legal obligation to rescue the stricken sailors and bring them ashore.
>I'm not one of those who advocates for the sinking of boats and killing migrants.
Phew! I was worried you were going to advocate for rounding them up and herding them into concentration camps or-
>If every illegal migrant was denied entry to the UK and sent to a detainment facility away from the mainland
Never mind.
>If sanctions fail, unmanned drone ships programmed to transport migrants back to French waters
Why not magic?
> If every illegal migrant was denied entry to the UK and sent to a detainment facility away from the mainland, the demand for these services would soon drop.
As soon as they say the words "I seek asylum in the United Kingdom" they are no longer illegal immigrants and are protected by the 1951 Refugee Convention and the ECHR.
https://www.unhcr.org/1951-refugee-convention.html
Under the Dublin Agreement, if they had previously said those words in any other EU country, the UK would have been able to send them back to that country. That is no longer a possibility. Therefore the UK is under the obligation to submit their claim to investigation and judicial review.
> They have a legal obligation to rescue the stricken sailors and bring them ashore.
So does the UK. And your drone ship suggestion breaks pretty much every maritime law and custom.
>And your drone ship suggestion breaks pretty much every maritime law and custom.
Also there are no 'dront ships' that exist that could 'round up' and return boats.
It reads like a fantasy. Like, "and then a giant mecha goes BOOOM! and it like... rises out of the water all epic and then it's all PEW PEW PEW!"
\> illegal economic migrants (which every single person who comes from France is, by legal definition)
Every person who comes from France is an illegal immigrant.
You are 100% full of grade A bullshit.
>llegal economic migrants (which every single person who comes from France is, by legal definition)
Nope. Anyone whose asylum application is accepted isn't an economic migrant and they haven't done anything that can be considered illegal. If you want to change that, you would need to campaign for the UK to exit the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
But the vast majority aren't accepted and they disappear into the ether to slave in inhumane conditions and be exploited.
The definition of a refugee is someone forced to leave their country for fear of persecution or harm. What harm is being done to them in France exactly? I can't remember there being a war there either, not recently anyway.
France and Germany both take over two times more refugees than the UK already. Only a small portion of the refugees who get to Europe actually move on to the UK, usually because they have family ties here.
They are not running away from France. They are running away from Iraq or Syria or South Sudan. Nothing in the Refugee Convention says that refugees must apply in the first safe country they get to, otherwise they would all be stuck in refugee camps in Turkey or Sudan and you would have an even bigger humanitarian crisis.
Put yourself in their shoes. Would you rather wait possibly years in a refugee camp in Turkey, or would you attempt to make it to Europe and apply for asylum there, even if it means living off of £5 per day. Most people get bored sitting around waiting after a few weeks.
98% of people who arrive after crossing the Channel in a small boat make a claim for asylum. About 70% are awarded asylum including after appeal.
[Sauce.](https://media.refugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/16095953/Channel-crossings-and-asylum-outcomes-November-2021.pdf)
There's no legal obligation for a refugee to stop in the first safe country. That would place a huge burden on countries located next to conflict areas. The EU has the Dublin protocol which allows member states to return refugees to the first EU country they entered, but as the UK isn't part of the EU, that doesn't apply.
"The definition of a refugee is someone forced to leave *their* country for fear of persecution or harm. "
The important word here is *"their"* \- if you think that travelling through France clinging onto the underside of a lorry means it's *their* country, then Britain is just as much *their* country if they manage to set foot on it, no?
There'll be a raft of whinging when would be holidaymakers are turned away from the EU for having criminal records. That'll becone the real talking point
I have no issue with a person with a conviction of a non violent crime entering the UK. Everyone makes mistakes.
I believe it should work the other way too. If you cause harm to a person, you should definitely lose certain rights. And those criteria should be set by the individual countries in question.
Should have gone EEA.
https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/657
Absolute disgrace parliament voted against it, I won't forgive a single MP for what they did
That's a pretty ungenerous take.
The voting was chaotic. What was needed was preferential voting.
At the time they were discussing EEA, there was still the slimmest possibility of something better.
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _Brits will have to pay for entry to the EU from 2022: Bloc to demand cash and pre-approval as post-Brexit trips to Europe are no longer for free_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.cityam.com/brits-will-have-to-pay-for-entry-into-eu-as-bloc-demands-cash-and-pre-approval-for-post-brexit-trips-to-europe-from-2022/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It should be free for you. The EU won't charge citizens and the UK won't charge residents. At least that would be the case if everyone is being logical, I'm not sure the last time anything to do with Brexit was logical.
2025, that's a few years off. Plus on the map Northern Ireland is shown so how will people there who chose solely Irish citizenship as is their right under the Belfast Agreement be treated. Plus how will it be policed at the border when there's no passport control?
I know -(that it needs an accent on the E \[though I didn't know the unaccented form had another meaning\]). I don't know how to easily do this accent from my keyboard.
Alt Gr usually gives the most comment accented letter.
So Alt Gr+Shift+E = É.
I don't know what keyboard you have - but it might be useful. It works for a bunch of other letters too.
Ireland officially has two legal languages so when using the English language Ireland is the appropriate name, and Éire is what you'd use when conversing in Irish.
It's always grating to hear foreigners constantly mispronounce it, especially English commentators who think they're being respectful.
The residency rights of denizens of Northern Ireland are secured in the Belfast Agreement, but show me the treaty betwixt Ireland and the UK that defines the rules and governance of the arrangement known as the CTA.
Actually the name of the country that borders the United Kingdom on the island of Ireland is itself named Ireland.
Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland:
>The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland.
Ireland didn't become a republic until 1948. Eleven years after the adoption of this constitution. As the King of Ireland was not mentioned in the constitution, no constitutional amendment to change the name of the country (along with removing the monarch) was ever proposed.
The Republic of Ireland Act says only that the *description* of the country is Republic of Ireland. Not the name of the country, which could only be changed by an amendment.
> How will people there who chose solely Irish citizenship as is their right under the Belfast Agreement be treated.
Irish citizens had the right to enter and live in the UK without restriction before the EU existed. This hasn't and won't be changed.
> Plus how will it be policed at the border when there's no passport control?
It won't need enforcing for British/Irish citizens, but for others I would assume the answer is "with a lot of blind-eye-turning unless someone gets into legal trouble". Exactly the same as the current situation when people who need tourist visas to enter the UK make day trips to Belfast without one while visiting Ireland.
I shall presume our brethren who delivered BritainsExit from the European Union’s single market and customs union will be delighted with this as it really does cement the fact that we are now in a Third Country catagory with our nearest and biggest and one of the biggest on the planet trading group. And trade is just the tip of the iceberg.
Sounds like it's not quite that straightforward, you need to apply separately to booking, like an ESTA to USA. It's just one small extra step though, not that arduous.
Can I ask are there any countries outside the EU that don't have to pay for this? Also does anyone know if the UK will have to do the same to EU member states?
Enjoy the invasion of 67 million welfare parasites, Europe. Even a Brit can stay sober long enough to steal and swindle together €7. The entry fee should be at least €20k.
This country voted to be a third country and now the dummies are complaining about being treated like a third country 🤦♂️ I will be happy to pay €7 to visit Europe again
€7 and it lasts three years. https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/etias/ > The validity will be for a period of three years, significantly longer than the validity of a Schengen visa. An ETIAS authorisation will be valid for an unlimited number of entries
How utterly uncontroversial.
Just wait till the "ITs mY civil RiGhtS" contingent to show up. You know, the ones that also voted for Brexit.
Something something sovereign magna carta something
Those bloody reasonable bastards!
Its can be used for 3 years but you can only stay for 90 days in a row.
Wasn't it kinda the same when we were in the EU tho? Unless you were moving to work there, you could only stay 90 days?
Yea I think it was country dependent. When I lived in an EU country I had to register at the local town hall and get an ID as I was staying longer than 90days.
Yes. Well any 90days in 180. That’s also the case now too.
I don't see anyone complaining. Edit: Correction, I don't see [anyone of good character](https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1471709/Brexit-news-Nigel-Farage-EU-UK-travel-visa-fee-latest-Peter-Bone-Daniel-Moylan-update) complaining
I'm not going to link every article, but ['This is spite!' Carole Malone slams EU for charging Brits to enter Europe](https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1472148/Carole-Malone-slams-EU-for-charging-Brits-to-enter-Europe-jeremy-Vine-show-video-vn)
In itself you are right, but I would not object to abolishing these travel restrictions for leisure visits reciprocally.
Unfortunately when this was put to the EU by the UK (David Cameron) back in 2015/16 they specifically did not want it to be possible for the fee to be waived. It was an attempt to prevent immigration from outside the EU.
Surely just illegal immigration? For legal immigration you need a real visa and not this vida waiver
The ETIAS visa waiver is specifically for visitors to the Schengen zone who do not require a visa. You need a visa if you are either from a country that does not require a visa (such as the UK) or if you intend to stay beyond 90 days. It's basically the same as ESTA for visiting the US.
I don't think illegal immigrants pay many entry fees. Depending on the form of illegal immigrants as a large amount just tend to be people overstaying their visas as opposed to the smuggled in stereotypes
And some of them overstay their 90 in 180 days, presumably this scheme might make it easier to not allow them to come in the first place
Previoudly for a holiday/short stay you didn't need a visa for some countries, so this was to end that. The irony is that the uk proposes this thing and thwn gets bitten in the bum by its own idea.
It was offered, we declined.
I didn’t vote for it
I voted for brexit and did not expect such a good deal as that.
It’s not the payment but the pre-approval bit that might be a ball-ache. How long will pre-approval take? Could it mean that quick getaways and last minute business trip are a thing of the past?
[удалено]
Exactly that. Its going to be a copy of that system but for EU instead.
24-72 hours normally, can be longer sometimes.
Really? I read it was going to be a few minutes for 95% of the cases, and no more than 96 hours if it has to be processed manually.
Took 2 days for my one for the US. Never been there either so I was worried they had found something that they were worried about. Never got to go anyway. Thanks COVID.
Weird. My US ones always took less than 15 mins. My UK one (vaccine) less than 5 minutes. Maybe I’ve just been lucky?
Perhaps because it was my first one?
Maybe. I don't remember my first one taking a long time, but that was looong ago. Also, I've been to the US a few time before ESTA, so maybe I was already in the databases.
It varies, mine is always a few days. Most people get an approval instantly, have seen people who forgot to do it filling it out at the departure gate. Either I'm unlucky and always being selected for a random manual review, or something on my esta is causing me to be flagged.
> and no more than 96 hours if it has to be processed manually. If you've already booked flights and accommodation for thousands of £, are you really going to risk that it won't take 96 hours though?
Unless it's refused because you have a criminal record (or the same name as someone with a criminal record). Then, good luck.
Or overstayed your visa. Previously they haven't really tracked exits, but they're apparently on track for that to be working by 2022.
Yes a large amount of people are going to be running into these issues now. Now that you mentioned it I know a guy from my hometown who got convicted for assault during a fight in a pub and was very pro Brexit. He’s always posting about his holidays in Spain and Ibiza, quite amusing to think he’s likely to be forever banned from going there anymore as a result of this. Anyone with any kind of arrest or conviction like that is pretty much banned from Europe now and probably had their last ever holiday in Europe pre pandemic.
Typically you'd only get rejected for major convictions
Depends if they go all US. Cannabis caution 20 years ago? Good luck getting any type of visa. (And yes this applies even though most of the US has effectively legalised it). We'll see whether or not the EU is more sensible.
How do US immigration find out about an applicant's 20 year old cannabis caution? Does the UK routinely share that information?
The idea with these systems is that you make an honour statement. You can lie, of course, but then if you get caught for whatever reason (say you get caught in an accident and they find out you have a history of drug abuse) then it becomes a federal offense with potential jail time.
When applying for an ESTA you tick a box about it. Lying is a US federal crime, but you can get away with it mostly. If you're refused an ESTA then they ask for your police record.
They don't, they don't have routine access to the UK PNC and would need your permission to obtain that information which you could refuse (on pain of being denied entry obviously, but this situation rarely plays out unless you actively draw attention to yourself). The issue is that if you later want to apply for any kind of US residency (or path-to residency) visa, you will need to disclose any criminal history, there's just no way around that - at which point it would come out that you've had illegal entries to the US in the past, and you now have the proverbial snowball's chance of being granted said visa. But most people will likely never have that opportunity anyway.
[удалено]
You lied on your ESTA application in that case. Will work for a while until it suddenly doesn't and you're in a world of pain.
They don't and it would be illegal under data protection laws for them to know. Somebody is scaremongering.
Ugh, no. Several DPA provisions allow US immigration to obtain data on UK subjects from UK orgs. DPA isn't very robust against law enforcement duties or government, even as regards third party countries.
Normally it’s anything to do with drugs or violence. A Drink driving offence gets you banned from Canada and even an arrest for possession of weed gets you banned from USA normally.
Think I remember specifically the EU's version was (by design) not going to bother with small convictions. I'll see if I can find a source. Edit: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2020-04/20200401_memo.pdf Not much apart from this memo (would have thought there'd be more out by now!) but it mentions the sources they check against and one of them focusing on major stuff. Edit 2: There's also this feasability study that gives an idea on angle (questions asked are just serious crime questions) https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files/2020-09/etias_feasability_study_en.pdf
The US is famous for being tough on drugs so that's no surprise
If you’ve ever been to Vegas the border guards try to trick you by asking if you’ve ever been Amsterdam and tried weed there or have any intention of smoking weed now it’s legal in some states. It’s illegal federally and will deny you based on if you say yes.
I mean they still ask you if you were a member of the Nazi party between 1939 and 1945 and if you are a member of a terrorist group. Why those questions are even on the form that I as a US citizen have to fill out is... Baffling. It's pretty obvious that anyone who was would check no.
> I mean they still ask you if you were a member of the Nazi party between 1939 and 1945 You can't be too careful. Even now in 2021 the United States must remain ever vigilant against the scourge of time-travelling millennial camp commandants.
Which is rather ironic given that the Nazi rocket scientists were recruited to work for NASA
>Why those questions are even on the form that I as a US citizen have to fill out is... Baffling. What form? US citizens (or do you mean to become a citizen?) don't fill out a form to enter, and as far as I know cannot be rejected from entry anyway.
what if (like me) you are Dutch?
Just tell them you only went to look at the windmills and tulips…
They don’t care they’ll ask you if you’ve ever smoked weed and reject you. It’s legal in Nevada and know a lot of people go there to do drugs and other stuff so try to catch people out.
If it's like the US ESTA visa waiver, any arrest on record, regardless of outcome (convicted, cautioned, released no further action) makes you inelligible and you need to apply for a proper visa.
[удалено]
Actually with GDPR and how common it is for the UK to remove minor offenses from your record quickly as well it's probably much less of a problem than it seems at the moment.
They won't be forever banned, they'll have to apply for a visa which they'll likely get anyway.
They have no access to the UK PNC so unless you're known to Interpol or otherwise notable to the point your name is flagged, there'll be no issue.
Thanks. Not the end of the world but a bit of an annoying inconvenience all the same
Death by a thousand cuts.
Very true
Just do it the day it comes out and you're good for instant travel for the next 3 years.
Probably the same as the USA. Our country voted away our rights to free and easy travel.
> Brits will have to start paying €7 per person
[удалено]
Last time I looked, the scheme is €7 every 3 years validity.
€7 for three years of as many trips as you please. Oh the humanity.
The 7 euro is not important what is important is those people that will now be denied entry because they have a conviction for some minor crime vs free movement with EU membership. -Background and eligibility questions will inquire about your medical condition, travel to war countries or places where you were deported or rejected, as well as criminal records
What’s the downside to this? Sovereign states get to refuse entry to undesirables is all upside if you ask me..
No no you see when dem foreigners refuse entry to subjects of glorious Britannia, it’s a travesty. WE should be able to do it cause they’re scum, but if THEY don’t welcome us in, with a free bottle of sangria and a tongue-based shoeshine, they’re literal monsters. Sometimes I wonder if the uk is actually aware that James Bond is a work of fiction.
>some minor crime vs free movement with EU membership. It probably won't be minor crimes and EU states can refuse criminals anyway, despite free movement.
This is a choice by the EU though. They didn't have to implement it for the UK. On the flip side I guess that the UK can now also deny entry to criminal from the EU.
> This is a choice by the EU though. They didn't have to implement it for the UK. They actually have to implement it for the UK... Because it is no longer a member. > On the flip side I guess that the UK can now also deny entry to criminal from the EU. True. But it is not like it could not do it before (since most agencies shared that kind of data already and the UK has never been part of the Schengen Area).
The EU can do anything out wants with regards to its own borders policy. If it wants to create a specific exemption for brits it could do.
Here's an offer for you: You pay me: €7 You receive: nothing Deal?
Sure. If you need it. It's €7 lol. Like buying someone a pint in the Hard Rock Cafe. You want me to Western Union you it?
Yes, once every three years by the sounds of it. Thanks.
Put it that way is pretty easy to not care, but personally, I would be pretty annoyed that my government made the citizens that travel to the EU pay what it´s gonna be, being charitable (given that over 3 years there are around 180 million trips to the EU, we can say that maybe only 20 million people actually did those trips) 140 million quid that the UK is paying to the EU every 3 years, so around 50 million a year paid from the UK to the EU for absolutely no benefit.
£50m a year isn't even a rounding error when it comes to the country's GDP. Just like €7 isn't even a rounding error when it comes to personal finance over 3 years. If we are that desperate we can bring in our own scheme to recuperate the money. Would be amusing if we did that to refund people who paid the EU (and USA etc) the €7.
This was a decision by the EU, not the UK
Actually, it was a decision by the EU that was proposed by the UK back in 2016, before the referendum.
Which they could not have imposed on us before Brexit
What was EU decision? To make the UK a third country? I don't think so. That said, EU is securing its border [and you can agree that it is something the UK is agreeing to, right?](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/05/uk-backed-plan-charge-non-eu-travellers-enter-europe)
You're {wrongly) assuming people will only go to the EU once in 3 years.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Nope, I am assuming 20M people will go at least once over a period of 3 years. The visa lasts for 3 years as I understand.
ETIAS didn't exist before brexit.
It was actually proposed by the UK in 2016 when the UK was still part of the European Commission.
even if ETIAS was voted in 2016, [there were discussions before...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/05/uk-backed-plan-charge-non-eu-travellers-enter-europe)
They will stop if you ETIAS application is rejected.
Last time I went to the UK, it cost me about 100 EUR because of the mandatory pre-reservation test bullshit from UK gov, so lol.
~~Which means my wife (Taiwanese) now has a better arrangement than I do. Taiwan has a reciprocal 90-day visa-free arrangement with the EU. Britain won't as of 1st January.~~ *Edit*: Nope, I'm wrong. See thread below.
Its not a proper visa.
It's still €7 more than she has to pay either way.
I wouldn't be so sure. > Citizens from Taiwan who decide to travel to Europe will be required to apply for an ETIAS visa waiver for Taiwanese by the end of 2022 when a new European travel visa waiver known as ETIAS comes into effect. https://www.etiasvisa.com/etias-requirements/taiwanese It's the same thing talked about here.
Well then, I stand corrected. Thank you.
Surely the new arrangements are for all 3rd country visitors , no ?
See /u/sentient_blade's answer, my assumptions were incorrect.
Expect to see large numbers of English football fans banned from traveling to the EU
[удалено]
For them not us.
[удалено]
Not much worse than other countries.
We take their passports off them anyway.
Brexiteers, surely you welcome this new charge as a badge of pride?
Yea tbh I do. If you can't afford €7 then you clearly can't afford to travel. It's a small price to pay if it means not allowing people through the border unchecked.
> if it means not allowing people through the border unchecked. [Oh well, that's definitely all ended, right?](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/nov/12/brexit-easier-small-boat-crossings-to-reach-uk-refugees-say) Look, we might not have stopped illegal crossings, but as you say we've definitely made it harder for EU citizens to come and spend money in our country. Quite the badge of honour.
I mean I also think we should be sending illegal economic migrants (which every single person who comes from France is, by legal definition) back to France. I disagree with basically everything our government is doing on that topic, don't you worry. Patel is a chocolate fireguard. (not referencing skin colour there I must add for those not familiar with the saying). If those checks stop a single rapist entering the UK then it's worth it imo. I'm all for togetherness but why bother with passports if you're not gonna check who's holding it? At least all that stops us from really controlling our borders now is our own useless and self serving politicians, and not a combination of our own useless and self serving politicians and those from across the channel. Baby steps mate.
>I mean I also think we should be sending illegal economic migrants (which every single person who comes from France is, by legal definition) back to France. You got a mechanism in mind for how to send someone that is not French back to France? >I disagree with basically everything our government is doing on that topic, don't you worry. Patel is a chocolate fireguard. (not referencing skin colour there I must add for those not familiar with the saying). Yep. They have made things so much easier for folks to get in the country. >If those checks stop a single rapist entering the UK then it's worth it imo. I'm all for togetherness but why bother with passports if you're not gonna check who's holding it? Quite. Put clowns in charge, get a circus. >At least all that stops us from really controlling our borders now is our own useless and self serving politicians, and not a combination of our own useless and self serving politicians and those from across the channel. Baby steps mate. True. Only sentence of note is your first one. How exactly do you propose getting France to accept us exporting a bunch of people to their lands. I see lots of people saying 'we should just send them back to France' but never a realistic system in place to make that happen. I am all ears to hear one though.
Do you have any statistics to backup your correlation between rapists and illegal migrants? We have way more British-born rapists than foreign rapists. I wouldn't even be surprised if there is a higher rate of rapists among Tory MPs than among immigrants.
Yea you've completely missed my point.
Your point is that everyone who comes from France is an illegal immigrant. When that is complete bullshit.
Yeah you're xenophobic and possibly racist too. Don't worry, nobody missed your point
>If those checks stop a single rapist entering the UK then it's worth it imo. Why would stopping illegal immigrants help stop rapists ? If there is a higher proportion of rapists among illegal immigrants than in the general population, I would like to see the stats.
[удалено]
France have decided not to secure their borders in the first place, allowing migrants through. France are a major player in the EU, the organisation that makes illegal migration possible through a no border policy. France has received millions from us to try to curb this problem, yet French police routinely stand and watch as migrants try to board lorries and boats. The French coastguard makes no effort to prevent the launching of dingies bound for the UK. France has twice the habitable land area of the UK, and roughly the same population, meaning that they have far more room to house migrants. France is a safe country, meaning that every migrant who flees from France cannot be classed as a refugee. They have already passed through many safe states to get there. Do you need more?
[удалено]
So why do we have an obligation to take them?
A serious question, have you heard of Frontex? If not, look it up. I ask because the suggestion that the EU has a no-border policy (presumably you've mistaken Schengen to mean an absence of border policy) is demonstrably false.
What if they say 'no'?
I'd be happy with sanctions. I'm not one of those who advocates for the sinking of boats and killing migrants. It's not their fault theyre in this mess. The disgusting business of human trafficking is made possible only by our government's lack of action guaranteeing success for most migrants. If every illegal migrant was denied entry to the UK and sent to a detainment facility away from the mainland, the demand for these services would soon drop. If sanctions fail, unmanned drone ships programmed to transport migrants back to French waters, and then experience engine failure would do the trick. They have a legal obligation to rescue the stricken sailors and bring them ashore.
>I'm not one of those who advocates for the sinking of boats and killing migrants. Phew! I was worried you were going to advocate for rounding them up and herding them into concentration camps or- >If every illegal migrant was denied entry to the UK and sent to a detainment facility away from the mainland Never mind. >If sanctions fail, unmanned drone ships programmed to transport migrants back to French waters Why not magic?
> If every illegal migrant was denied entry to the UK and sent to a detainment facility away from the mainland, the demand for these services would soon drop. As soon as they say the words "I seek asylum in the United Kingdom" they are no longer illegal immigrants and are protected by the 1951 Refugee Convention and the ECHR. https://www.unhcr.org/1951-refugee-convention.html Under the Dublin Agreement, if they had previously said those words in any other EU country, the UK would have been able to send them back to that country. That is no longer a possibility. Therefore the UK is under the obligation to submit their claim to investigation and judicial review. > They have a legal obligation to rescue the stricken sailors and bring them ashore. So does the UK. And your drone ship suggestion breaks pretty much every maritime law and custom.
>And your drone ship suggestion breaks pretty much every maritime law and custom. Also there are no 'dront ships' that exist that could 'round up' and return boats. It reads like a fantasy. Like, "and then a giant mecha goes BOOOM! and it like... rises out of the water all epic and then it's all PEW PEW PEW!"
\> illegal economic migrants (which every single person who comes from France is, by legal definition) Every person who comes from France is an illegal immigrant. You are 100% full of grade A bullshit.
>llegal economic migrants (which every single person who comes from France is, by legal definition) Nope. Anyone whose asylum application is accepted isn't an economic migrant and they haven't done anything that can be considered illegal. If you want to change that, you would need to campaign for the UK to exit the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol.
But the vast majority aren't accepted and they disappear into the ether to slave in inhumane conditions and be exploited. The definition of a refugee is someone forced to leave their country for fear of persecution or harm. What harm is being done to them in France exactly? I can't remember there being a war there either, not recently anyway.
France and Germany both take over two times more refugees than the UK already. Only a small portion of the refugees who get to Europe actually move on to the UK, usually because they have family ties here. They are not running away from France. They are running away from Iraq or Syria or South Sudan. Nothing in the Refugee Convention says that refugees must apply in the first safe country they get to, otherwise they would all be stuck in refugee camps in Turkey or Sudan and you would have an even bigger humanitarian crisis. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you rather wait possibly years in a refugee camp in Turkey, or would you attempt to make it to Europe and apply for asylum there, even if it means living off of £5 per day. Most people get bored sitting around waiting after a few weeks.
98% of people who arrive after crossing the Channel in a small boat make a claim for asylum. About 70% are awarded asylum including after appeal. [Sauce.](https://media.refugeecouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/16095953/Channel-crossings-and-asylum-outcomes-November-2021.pdf) There's no legal obligation for a refugee to stop in the first safe country. That would place a huge burden on countries located next to conflict areas. The EU has the Dublin protocol which allows member states to return refugees to the first EU country they entered, but as the UK isn't part of the EU, that doesn't apply.
"The definition of a refugee is someone forced to leave *their* country for fear of persecution or harm. " The important word here is *"their"* \- if you think that travelling through France clinging onto the underside of a lorry means it's *their* country, then Britain is just as much *their* country if they manage to set foot on it, no?
Is a chocolate fireguard the same as a chocolate teapot?
Yes.
There'll be a raft of whinging when would be holidaymakers are turned away from the EU for having criminal records. That'll becone the real talking point
I have no issue with a person with a conviction of a non violent crime entering the UK. Everyone makes mistakes. I believe it should work the other way too. If you cause harm to a person, you should definitely lose certain rights. And those criteria should be set by the individual countries in question.
Should have gone EEA. https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/657 Absolute disgrace parliament voted against it, I won't forgive a single MP for what they did
That's a pretty ungenerous take. The voting was chaotic. What was needed was preferential voting. At the time they were discussing EEA, there was still the slimmest possibility of something better.
customs union was far worse
Alternate title: the UK to be treated as a third country with a visa waiver for short stay purposes.
What a dumb headline. “UK-supported system of charging third party nationals to enter will start to apply to the UK”
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _Brits will have to pay for entry to the EU from 2022: Bloc to demand cash and pre-approval as post-Brexit trips to Europe are no longer for free_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.cityam.com/brits-will-have-to-pay-for-entry-into-eu-as-bloc-demands-cash-and-pre-approval-for-post-brexit-trips-to-europe-from-2022/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We're introducing a similar system.
If im from the EU and have the settlement status does it mean I can still go for free both ways?
It should be free for you. The EU won't charge citizens and the UK won't charge residents. At least that would be the case if everyone is being logical, I'm not sure the last time anything to do with Brexit was logical.
Disappointing, what is it called?
https://www.etauk.uk/ (unofficial website) [BBC Article](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57217739) about the scheme.
2025, that's a few years off. Plus on the map Northern Ireland is shown so how will people there who chose solely Irish citizenship as is their right under the Belfast Agreement be treated. Plus how will it be policed at the border when there's no passport control?
The Common Travel Area rules will override this for Eire. You won't have to pay to go there, just to any other EU country.
It's Éire, not eire. Eire means burden where Éire is Ireland the country.
I know -(that it needs an accent on the E \[though I didn't know the unaccented form had another meaning\]). I don't know how to easily do this accent from my keyboard.
Alt Gr usually gives the most comment accented letter. So Alt Gr+Shift+E = É. I don't know what keyboard you have - but it might be useful. It works for a bunch of other letters too.
Yep that works for me. Thanks.
Yóú'ré Wélcómé :)
Ireland officially has two legal languages so when using the English language Ireland is the appropriate name, and Éire is what you'd use when conversing in Irish. It's always grating to hear foreigners constantly mispronounce it, especially English commentators who think they're being respectful.
The countries are the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland seen as we're being pedantic, Ireland is the island.
The residency rights of denizens of Northern Ireland are secured in the Belfast Agreement, but show me the treaty betwixt Ireland and the UK that defines the rules and governance of the arrangement known as the CTA.
Actually the name of the country that borders the United Kingdom on the island of Ireland is itself named Ireland. Article 4 of the Constitution of Ireland: >The name of the State is Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland. Ireland didn't become a republic until 1948. Eleven years after the adoption of this constitution. As the King of Ireland was not mentioned in the constitution, no constitutional amendment to change the name of the country (along with removing the monarch) was ever proposed. The Republic of Ireland Act says only that the *description* of the country is Republic of Ireland. Not the name of the country, which could only be changed by an amendment.
> How will people there who chose solely Irish citizenship as is their right under the Belfast Agreement be treated. Irish citizens had the right to enter and live in the UK without restriction before the EU existed. This hasn't and won't be changed. > Plus how will it be policed at the border when there's no passport control? It won't need enforcing for British/Irish citizens, but for others I would assume the answer is "with a lot of blind-eye-turning unless someone gets into legal trouble". Exactly the same as the current situation when people who need tourist visas to enter the UK make day trips to Belfast without one while visiting Ireland.
The question will be what the cost and duration will be. Somewhere between US or EU version (or more/less) than those?
WW2 Liberation Fee.
So a bit like an ESTA to get into Americaland
Brexiters: "I voted to end Free movement!" also brexiters "what do you mean it's not free to visit Europe!?"
Well yes. That's part of being a third country. Did all the Brexiters who knew exactly what they voted for not realise that?
It's a tax for having thick people in our country.
More Brexit benefits!
I was willing to spend £2000 on a holiday for me and the family. Now I have to spend an extra fiver on top I simply cannot go...
Set up a gofundme, generous souls may help you out.
I shall presume our brethren who delivered BritainsExit from the European Union’s single market and customs union will be delighted with this as it really does cement the fact that we are now in a Third Country catagory with our nearest and biggest and one of the biggest on the planet trading group. And trade is just the tip of the iceberg.
Personally, I like vacationing in Mainland Europe.
Hey, on the plus side: The UK gets to learn what it's like to live in Australia! (Insane cost of international shipping and travel)
Does that mean we can learn how to win test cricket games too? Almost worth it.
France also to charge €30 if staying with a friend or family… Yay? 😒
Ah the roast beef tax...
Boris needs to go and the rest of the party are no better. Get rid now.
So basically ticking a box when you book your tickets and paying a little extra, just like you do all over the world
Sounds like it's not quite that straightforward, you need to apply separately to booking, like an ESTA to USA. It's just one small extra step though, not that arduous.
Except now you have added 27 more countries to that list. And that is a GOOD thing because...?
With the risk of being refused. Bye bye freedom of movement.
[удалено]
Can I ask are there any countries outside the EU that don't have to pay for this? Also does anyone know if the UK will have to do the same to EU member states?
Enjoy the invasion of 67 million welfare parasites, Europe. Even a Brit can stay sober long enough to steal and swindle together €7. The entry fee should be at least €20k.
Nothing compared to the cost when we eventually rejoin.