Isn’t it a case of Quid pro quo? European nations will see the restrictions being put on their citizens who wish to visit the UK and surprise, surprise, they may wish to return the favour!!

Leaving the EU which allowed us all easy access to the EU means replacing it with complicated unilateral agreements…‘possibly’ that have strings attached (or are used as bargaining leverage in the upcoming FTA negotiations)…e.g. Gibraltese access to mainland Spain (‘perhaps’!).

Brexit is sub-optimal for travel to the EU & European countries in general (IMO).


The government guidance on this issue is:

Free movement will continue until the end of the transition (or implementation) period and EU and UK nationals will be able to move to the UK or Member States as is currently permitted by EU law. EU citizens living in their host state before the end of transition will have permanent residence rights under the withdrawal agreement, subject to certain requirements. The UK and the EU27 have discretion under the agreement to require EU or UK nationals to apply for a new residency status.

We are still in the EU of course, but assuming the withdrawal agreement is ratified, then the current arrangements will continue for the duration. We simply do not know what will happen subsequently. All we can hope forvis that something similar will prevail.

Frog in a tree


Spot on… the rest from @Bowman on this was b*llshit.
Given that it is still to be negotiated… what appears on any website don’t matter… come back in 5 years and we might know the answer.

Better still… if we can get this car crash that is Brexit cancelled… so much the better.
Brexit means Brexit after all.
Just need to get it done… cancelled… and quickly.


You are often referring to what is performed in Poland, but this is of no interest to me and certainly has nothing to do with UK Border Control. The data gathering is related to Polish immigration controls and people policing. I doubt very much that any of the data collected by the Polish authorities are passed to the UK

The majority if not all of the API data is collected before or at check-in. You are mentioning the checks performed after you have your boarding pass which are much later.

As an example: When I book a flight to Thailand most of the data are provided during the booking process. I check-in online before I leave to go to the airport, and I need to enter my passport data at that time. Thai Airways do not provide printable boarding passes, so these have to be collected at the airport, using a DIY machine where I “show” my passport. I can only get my boarding pass when the data entered previously matches the passport . The data collected during this whole process makes up the API data provided to UK Border Control. The final check at boarding is usually a rather superficial check that it is my passport (i.e. the picture looks like me) and the name in the passport agrees with the boarding pass.

Anybody entering the UK is checked (at least via an Airport) and have to show their passport either to an official or via an ePassport machine, so the API data on arriving passengers is not so important in controlling who is coming into the UK. The relevant data are collected at that time and can be linked to the API data provided by the relevant carrier.

Unlike a significant number of EU countries the UK is not a police state and does not monitor where people in the Country are. It is only possible to find “over-stayers” when there is an interaction with the Police (accident, crime, etc.) or via spot checks (which more often then not are employment related). Those found can often be deported.

There have been many attempts at trying to improve control in the UK such as ID cards that would allow easier spot checks, employer checking responsibility, etc., but these are usually met with a media storm about restriction of freedom (usually associated with racist connotations), or refusal to allow certain checks.

It would be so much better if everybody was implanted with a chip (such as we do to animals) that contains our primary data (biometric and non-biometric). This would require regular verification checks (say every 5 to 10 years), which should be performed free-of-charge. Of course it would not be long before the criminal classes found ways around any safeguards.


Your quote is related to residency, I was addressing tourism, which is different. I agree that anybody that tries to come and stay in the UK after the transition period will be subject to a regime that still has to be finalised. However should EU citizens have achieved their pre-settled or settled status before the end of 2020 they will be allowed to continue their stay.

Currently “settled status” can be easily achieved providing there is documantary proof of being in the UK for 5 years. My partner has been here since 2006. All it needed was to go to the Council offices in Bristol to get her identity checked (passport verified and a photo taken). This took all of 15 minutes (with most of the time spent on getting an acceptable image in their computer). When we returned home about 90 minutes later, I logged on to the Home Office website and started the application process by entering her passport number. The identity verification and photograph sections were already completed. I answered the series of questions, including details of her dual nationality and National Insurance number, and then uploaded copies of the requested documentation (in her case mostly annual utility bills in her name showing her registered address). This process took me about 30 minutes to complete. The application was acknowledged almost immediately, with the statement that she would hear within about 5 days if she was successful or needed to provide additional information. In fact it took 8 days, but the intervening period covered a weekend and a Bank Holiday, for a successful conclusion (with nothing further to be submitted).


Fair enough Bowman,

This link is more relevant to tourism to the EU after Brexit.

As stated in my previous message, nothing much changes in the transition period. Going forward it all depends on what is negotiated.

Frog in a tree


Well, you’re the one that jumped in on an on-going discussion about whether or not the UK chooses to police its borders with the powers that it has and my comments referring to Poland as an EU example as I just tested it two weeks ago to answer questions which are indeed of interest to those who were discussing it.

You are bringing up Thailand but the discussion was about whether or not the UK chooses to police its borders within EU rules. It is interesting to look at other systems, but how does one get passport information from an EU citizen’s check-in when they are travelling on a driving license or I.D. card?

In fact, thinking about that check on my passport in the queue, I realised it is probably checking that the I.D. form I have stated I am using at check-in is the document that I am actually carrying, and not taking any data from my passport at all.

What complete tosh.

What I described was border control officers checking to see if a document has been forged or tampered with. Taking responsibility for the people leaving their shores via their system which the UK doesn’t do - but Brexiteer right-wing media is all too quick to publish loud and incorrect complaints about over-stayers and illegal immigrants coming from the EU when they haven’t actually got any data to back up their scare-mongering on the subject.

Organised crime always gets ahead of governments in these things and can churn out I.D. cards and driving licences to a professional standard, indistinguishable from the real thing. I’m certain biometric data will be easily copied also.

However, other, less sophisticated forgeries will be caught with a few simple checks … that the UK doesn’t carry out. It looks to me like the UK charges the highest airport taxes in the EU but saves the most money by ushering anyone through because once out of the country they are no longer our problem.


Agreed. There appear to be statements from both sides that simple visa-exempt arragements for tourists can and will be agreed. If this were to come to pass then there should not be the suggested resultant queues since EU tourists entering the UK will just continue to use the ePassport lanes. I am unsure of what happens at the EU end since it depends on what arrangements they have currently for non-Schengen visa-exempt travellers.


Everyday we get another ridiculous pledge:

They are maniacs of the very, very highest order. Absolute loons.

Sky News Breaking

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell says a Labour government would take steps to delist companies from the London Stock Exchange if they have not taken “adequate” measures to reduce carbon emissions

11:30 AM · Nov 19, 2019

The LSE is a private company and the “listing” is a service it offers, to other private companies. If you delist a public company, you effectively end trading in its shares (until it relists somewhere else). Bang goes the pensions of most of the country if a big FTSE100 company gets binned off. I doubt it’s even legal though.

Who decides what the ‘correct’ amount of emissions are? Is it the same for every company / sector? Is it just emissions here, or globally? How is that measured? How is it enforced? Is it just in the manufacturing phase, or do the products produced also count? Why only carbon emissions, what about other pollutants? What about dual-listings (i.e. Royal Dutch Shell)?

I appreciate not all socialist policies are going to be things I agree with, but the nonsense they’re coming out with now is just pure ****. It’s not even funny anymore, it’s just insane nonsense being pulled out of someone’s rear end and announced as a ‘policy’.



I think I would agree that the UK does not adequately monitor those arriving and leaving the UK, and we should perform just as many checks as other EU or non-EU States.

According to the official EU webpage

Driving licences, post, bank or tax cards are not accepted as valid travel documents or proof of identity.

Our biggest problem is that once somebody is in the UK there are virtually no checks on them. The only checks come about during employment, health issues, or benefits. A self-sufficient tourist can easily stay for more then 6 months undetected, but then these are actually no burden on the UK State. I am unaware that non-UK nationals have to produce valid identity documentation for staying in Hotels or renting accommodation and that this information is passed to either the Police or the Border Force. This issue is valid whether we are in or out of the EU. When I last rented a flat in Germany I was still required to go through the formality of registering with the local authority, something one does not have to do here.

I think it is true that one cannot get “overstayers” or illegal immigrants in the UK who are EU citizens. The majority of the illegal immigrants are those who have been allowed to travel through the EU to get to the UK. I do not understand their ambition since surely the EU is a much better place to be, if one actually believes the Remainer arguements that the EU is so superior to the UK.

To my mind is should be such a simple thing for “overstayers” to be returned to the Country from which they came, and similarly illegal immigrants should be returned to the last Country they were in, i.e. Holland, Belgium, and France. These Countries should then be tasked with dealing with them. As long as it is known that once in the UK they will cease to be their problem encourages them to turn a blind eye to the trafficking that is going on.


Right, yet when a country is making sufficient and superior checks you call it a police state. Make your mind up.

Poland is out on the EU border with very large external countries, with Asia the other side of them, and hundreds of miles of wilderness border that is relatively easily crossed in good weather.

I think they are doing the right thing checking passports, therefore, and if their checks were as lax as ours then it sounds like you would be one of the first people to be up in arms about it.

I do assure you that I watched people entering the UK using, if not a driving license, then an I.D card of the same size as a driving license just a few weeks ago. So either the UK is not demanding what you refer to on the web page or you are missing something. Whatever it is, people are entering without handing over passport information, I can assure you.

It is true that asylum seekers would be better off in many countries in the EU than they would in the UK, especially those they are already in when they then try to move on to the UK (which then makes them illegal).

They are clearly misinformed about Britain and HMG supposedly runs educational programmes in specific countries to put that right.

However, once , say, a brother has made it, then they will try and link up with family members from what I have seen on the odd documentary I’ve watched. Also, they are more likely to speak English than any other language on the whole unless from an ex-European colony, so that is possibly an incentive. It certainly isn’t because of better benefits as the right wing press would have you believe.

Or maybe its just that we have less checks on false document that they can get away with. Or perhaps traffickers trick them into paying them more for taking them further. I don’t know, but our government should.

I don’t think its a big problem, personally, but it will be for the gig economy once EU workers are stopped from coming. You may as well send adverts out across the third world saying ‘plenty of work here for those who don’t mind doing it. Cash in hand. No taxes. No questions asked.’

That is one of the ridiculous things about Brexit. If May really believed that people voted to cut down on immigration as she said, then Brexit should have meant Remain, because we’ll still get the immigrants, but they wont be paying taxes back into the economy or having any chance to integrate.


Spot on.

The UK’s issues with illegal immigration… note the ILLEGAL… is largely of it’s own making by it’s underfunded and near casual approach to Border Control.

It is not the fault of the EU. It is the UK that is shite at Border Control.


This guy knows a bit about the deal worth a listen


My experience of several EU Countries has been that the Police highly involved in the monitoring of peoples movements (everybody not just visitors), as well as dealing with crime, hence my reference to “Police State”. This is not true of the UK, where they are basically just acting on the crime front. We need better monitoring of visitors, not uniform monitoring of everbodys whereabouts. How this can be achieved is the problemmatic part, along with who should be doing the monitoring and how the data are collected and collated.

The National ID card is an acceptable form of ID, and is used extensively wherever ID cards exist. My partner has two, a Swiss one and a Thai one. These cards are credit card sized, so I suspect they are what you saw.

If you look at the EU webpage I provided the link to you will find the following above the text I quoted.

If you are an EU national (or a national of Iceland, Liechtenstein or Norway) , you do not need to show your national ID card or passport when you are travelling from one border-free Schengen EU country to another.

Even if you don’t need a passport for border checks within the Schengen area , it is still always highly recommended to take a passport or ID card with you, so you can prove your identity if needed (if stopped by police, boarding a plane, etc.). Schengen EU countries have the possibility of adopting national rules obliging you to hold or carry papers and documents when you are present on their territory.

I agree that this could be a problem. There was an attempt to put legal responsibility on Employers to verify that potential employees were here legally, and to report illegals, but this was shouted down by the left-wing and liberal groupings. I understand that there is a voluntary scheme whereby employers can check potential employees right to work, and there is a fine regime for Employers found to be employing illegals. It would appear that there are moves in process to assess and implement changes to the system to address the employment of illegals, but I suspect that this is being pushed back since too much HMG time and effort is being spent on Brexit. Hopefully once Brexit has been passed into law, our politicians can concentrate on this issue.

This is an issue that needs to be solved whether or not we are part of the EU. Brexit just increases the problem since EU nationals could/will also fall into the “illegal” grouping.

Personally I think that HMRC should be more involved especially with verifying the validity of NI numbers and monitoring the link between the number and the person concerned. In addition sanctions on employers found employing illegals need to be stiffened, with confiscation of Directors assets considered (much like confiscation of proceeds of crime).

If you are interested in seeing some of the background on this issue you might find the following of interest.

An inspection of the Home Office’s approach to Illegal Working


For a long time there have been penalties for those employers who employ someone who doesn’t have the right to work.
Just as when employing ANY employee, the employer must first check the applicant’s original documents and their right to work (which can all be done online or by calling the Home Office Helpline).

So it hasn’t been “shouted down by the left-wing and liberal groupings”.


but requires that the applicant provides the relevant access code. The use of the online system is optional (voluntary) not mandatory.

There are civil penalties, but these have been largely ineffective. Criminal sanctions need to be implemented, especially for repeat offenders. I can remember the discussions, and the main argument was employers should not have to do the Home Office’s work for them.

I looked up the “Right to Work” rules and have found that there have been many changes implemented over the past year, so things are being changed but apparently not fast enough and insufficiently. I believe that what was being discussed went much further than what in the end has been implemented.


Well here we are again with a similar issue to the one regarding the inadequate UK Border Control.

Immigration Enforcement officers already look for people without the Right to Work who have managed to gain employment and should they find any illegal workers then the business owner is legally responsible for providing that employment and can be fined up to £20k per person.
For many, those amounts would shut firm their business.
The fact that employing illegal immigrants still continues shows that once again… these officers are thin on the ground… and that the likelihood of them being caught is considered low.

So… we have an ineffective, not fit for purpose Border Control where for many it is as easy as locking yourself in a crate on a lorry…and poor Enforcement.

It is already illegal… making the charges higher or criminal will not have much impact. They need to improve their staffing numbers, the quality of those people and also the systems they use.
That all costs money and unfortunately Leaving the EU is only making the UK worse off so these are areas that will continue to have only lip service and used as political footballs.


Well that IS a police state assuming the police are used for that. Plus, I’ve never had to hand over my passport when E.g. staying at a hotel in the EU. You do have to do that in many countries around the world.

Surely if they are illegal they don’t have an N.I. number and therefore any responsible employer isn’t going to take them on. If they use a false Ni number, then that should come to light immediately via PAYE the first time they are paid.

In the main, the only people who employ illegals are extremely dodgy gang-masters and the like and are fully aware they are employing, and under-paying, illegal workers or some people who employ occasional workers in the cash economy.

Probably the largest number of illegal immigrant workers in the UK are involved in prostitution and the people running them are organised crime and likely trafficking them also. That is where the police should be concentrating, not following tourists around.

Back in 2012 I first became aware that EU citizens could enter the UK using a driver’s licence only. I was amazed, but saw it being done. At least that has now changed from what you say … but I expect national I.D. cards are as easy to forge by those with the resources behind them.

Whereas passports are much harder and tend to only become available either through national governments (like the Israeli spies that were caught with Uk and Canadian passports a few years ago) or through stolen inventory of blanks from official sources. Even then, in the latter case, it is difficult to then add details to a blank that wont be picked up by a thorough check (and shouldn’t be allowed to happen in the first place).


That is what the whole issue boils down to. The far right media and politicians play up the illegal immigration issue because they know it plays well with their base who are all too ready to believe it instead of asking why existing laws and powers aren’t being enforced.


Well that is full circle now, @Bowman. How do you know it isn’t fast enough and insufficient when we don’t have figures that can be relied upon?

I heard just 2 or 3 days ago someone say in the media that there were up to 1.5m illegal immigrants in the UK. I simply don’t believe it.

A very large proportion of that is allocated to students over-staying their visas but we know that figure is massively inflated due to insufficient monitoring of exits.

A few years ago there was a scandalous situation where faux colleges were set up for foreign students as a way to get people into the country on students-visas. That has been long stamped out and measures have really gone too far in my opinion, although johnson has promised to wind them back and encourage more immigration via that method I.e. students coming to real colleges with real degree issuing accreditation.

A student visa is now enormously expensive and the student has to pay both fees (50% higher than a UK student) and accommodation a year in advance. Not to mention sponsors from within the Uk are required, who presumably wont be able to sponsor more than once if the student doesn’t leave when their course is over.

All this was implemented … yet when reading the new laws I was amazed to find that if a foreign student has a dependent parent they are allowed to bring them with them. What is that all about? A very strange loophole to leave.

If that is the case for someone who can afford all the up front payments required I’m not sure how their parent can be dependent or why. If they are in such a case, they need to make provision for the parent while away or choose to attend university in their own country. I imagine this isn’t a loophole that is massively exploited, but it seems odd to me that it is there at all.

The fact is that we need foreign students (just like silicon valley does) if we are to compete at a global level in certain cutting edge sectors. Giving them an extra 2 years after their course is finished to land a job and then apply to remain is the best thing the Johnson government has done to date. Or promised to do, I don’t know if they needed legislation to make the change, in which case it hasn’t changed yet.