EU starting registration of fingerprints and faces for short-stay foreigners Travelers including Britons and Americans visiting most European countries will have to register their fingerprints and faces under a system that goes live next month. The European Union will phase in its Entry/Exit System (EES) between October 12 and April 10. It covers short-term travel by non-EU citizens to the 29 Schengen …
And we can look forward to the Quitlings complaining about this.
Because Sovereignty is something that only the UK should have. And any time another country (or grouping of countries) exercises it in a way that annoys them, they're happy to be hypocrites.
If we had such a thing as a "self-awareness scanner" we could use their headlines & tweets to calibrate it to zero. ;-)
I’m sure the OP will correct me if I’m wrong but I think you’re missing his/her point.
It’s not that anyone has any objection to any country enforcing their sovereignty. It is that if we were still in the EU, we wouldn’t have been effected by this (regardless of our Schengen status at the time)
So I’m with the OP - it is indeed the decision (to leave) that keeps screwing us over
Because the UK deliberately chose to become a third country when it left the EU. That meant there was no agreement on passports. There could have been an agreement but the Brexiteers and Little Englanders didn't want that. This is why Brits get their passports stamped (and will now get fingerprinted) whenever they enter and leave the non-Irish bits of the EU.
BTW one of the lies told during the Brexit referendum was we'd still enjoy hassle-free travel to/from the EU.
"Deliberately chose" is pure nonsense - and is a trope propagated by fifth columnist EU lovers.
The EU chose to treat our exit as a threat - and so have been obstructive at every step along the way ... despite this being "unlawful" according to their law.
Any friction when we travel to the EU is the EU's fault, not ours.
The UK decided not to negotiate with the EU for an EU wide movement deal, which the EU was offering. The deal the UK walked away with, was as a third-nation, where “freedom of movement” within the EU is determined by the individual EU member nations. Ie. We agreed to negotiating individually with all current (and future EU members) rather than have an EU wide deal…
> Any friction when we travel to the EU is the EU's fault, not ours.
We voted to leave, accept the consequences. Does your previous employer allow you free access to their offices, just because you once worked there?
What's it got to do with Brexit? UK was never in the Schengen area. Remember.
Neither is Ireland, yet:
"The EES does not apply to: Nationals of the European countries using the EES, as well as Cyprus and Ireland"( https://travel-europe.europa.eu/ees/to-whom-does-ees-not-apply )
Without Brexit the UK would be on this list of non-Schengen countries too. EU citizens have free movement with the EU, Schengen or not. After all this time and such a tortured exit how do anonymous cowards still not know these basics?
No no no. Mistake you are making is thinking that had the Brexit vote gone the other way then things vis-a-vis UK & EU would have remained the same. They wouldn't. A vote to remain would have been used by EU and UK elites to, for once and for all, wholly integrate the UK into the EU. So now, 9 years on, we'd have been in Schengen, plus a whole lot more.
Aah as long as we're putting on the tin-foil maybe these shadowy elusive 'Elites' (the ones who don't pay any attention to polling data on what British citizens want unlike normal politicians we see who U-turn at the slightest bad headline) actually manipulated the Brexit vote so that we would leave the EU and then have to sign-up to Schengen and the Euro when we inevitably rejoin(*). They play the long-game those crafty 'Elites' do.
(*) Resisting the urge to mention the rebate because frankly we were taking the piss with that for 35 years and only got away with it because France & Spain take the piss with the CAP as well.
Wise up. You're the only one talking of shadowy elusive elites. Elites is a well understood everyday term referring to people in, or close to, power. They are our leaders, both elected, and in the case of the Bruxelles, often unelected. What you call "normal politicians" are elites.
And I'll torpedo your claim that they pay attention to "what British citizens want" and remind you how the 2019 parliament of traitors tried their damnedest to overturn the Brexit vote. Love it or hate it that vote was the democratic decision of the British people and the elites (your "normal politicians") tried to cast it aside.
that vote was the democratic decision of the British people and the elites (your "normal politicians") tried to cast it aside.
They were trying to work out which kind of Brexit to go for. They held a vote in favour or against each kind of Brexit (I believe there were five) and the results ended in deadlock. Of course if they just had one single vote instead of five different votes there would have been no Brexit because none of the different types of Brexit would have had a majority.
Likewise the original referendum - if each kind of Brexit had been spelt out, remain would have been the winner because the rest would have got something like 7-8% each.
The Brexit referendum was different kinds of lunacy temporarily grouped together to get the support of 37% of the voting public, who nine years later have probably been the worse affected by Brexit.
Likewise the original referendum - if each kind of Brexit had been spelt out, remain would have been the winner because the rest would have got something like 7-8% each.
Yes, politicians love that sort of rigged vote. Give the plebs one option for how you want them to vote, and 5 choices for the one you don't want, and you can be sure the outcome will be the one you'd like. I think even the least attentive voters would have picked up on that.
If only we'd had a vote on creating the EU from the EEC in the first place, all this would be moot.
The EU Referendum Act explicitly made the result non-binding on Parliament. It would not have passed into law otherwise, and it said nothing about how Brexit would be implemented because it wasn't about that. It wasn't binding on government either, even though they said they would respect the result. The referendum was purely political and Parliament did their job. The 2019 Parliament was as divided as the country and was not able to resolve the problem. It took a general election to sort it out. That's how it's done, ignoring the fact that Boris made some promises he had no intention of keeping.
At the end of the day, it's the national interest that matters. Our democracy does not run on referendums. It's a representative democracy where the elected MPs exercise their votes based on their conscience, among other things. Shame you didn't pay more attention in school.
You can teach politics without getting political, just as you can teach about religion without getting all religious. Understanding how government works is important. Most people act like they have no idea that Parliament and government are not the same thing. It's quite shocking.
Sometimes people post as AC because what they want to say is relevant but for whatever reason they might face repercussions if their name could be attached to it. For example, my terms of employment say that I am not allowed to put my name to political opinions on public fora in the lead up to elections. If I have cause to do so here, and it's not something I can just let slide, then I post as AC.
90%+ of the time you're correct, mind you, but not always.
We had British Constitution taught at me UK school - a background to how UK Politics worked.
https://archivesearch.lib.cam.ac.uk/repositories/10/archival_objects/1350750
https://ia801403.us.archive.org/12/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.110987/2015.110987.O-Level-British-Constitution-Edition-Thied_text.pdf
But then, the notion of being educated probably is a slur to someone who still supports Brexit almost ten years after the vote and five years after we left.
Sadly, slurs were, and still are frequently used by the Remnants, or I could just call them 'Losers'. Five years after we left, they still haven't gotten over it. But then the EU often relies on an uneducated, ignorant population to continue on its way to becoming a federal superstate. And of course a problem with post-Brexit Britain is our 'leaders' are still following along. So we dodged the EU imposing migrant quotas. We haven't dodged other EU dreams however.
So we're getting fingerprinted and exciting new Digital IDs. Which is basically this garbage-
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/european-digital-identity_en
The EU Digital Identity Framework is the answer. It is based on the principle that everyone should always control their digital identity. EU Digital Identity Wallets are the means to achieve this goal.
Citizens should be able to carry their digital identity with them across the EU, moving seamlessly across borders without ever losing control of their data, with privacy and security at the heart of the project.
Which is, of course bollocks because the EU (and UK) will control citizens (or subjects) identity. And sure, we'll be able to move seamlessly across borders, providing our phones haven't been nicked. That obviously weakens our privacy and security, but also allows our seamless movements to be tracked. But of course being something rolled out by an ever increasingly authoritarian government, it gets worse-
https://edri.org/our-work/showing-your-id-to-get-online-might-become-a-reality-a-closer-look-at-the-eus-new-age-verification-app/
Once fully rolled out, the app can be used by governments and companies across the EU to check the ages of people trying to access certain platforms and services. Whilst the Commission believe that this will make everyone safer, we argue that it’s not only unrealistic – but also unhelpful – to try to childproof the internet.
If it's then used for age verification, or online ID verification, it'll track everything you do online as well. And then the EU (or UK) will be able to punish people for doing, or saying the wrong things online. Like asking questions about stuff like this-
https://www.politico.eu/article/deleting-text-save-space-ursula-von-der-leyen/
BRUSSELS — The president of the European Commission auto-deletes messages from her phone in part to save storage space, the EU executive said this week.
Tech experts have but one question: Really?
Hot on the back of 'losing' messages relating to Ursula's massive drugs deal. The EU of course has rules around transparency and records retention, but those rules of course don't apply to the ruling class. But there are other bullets the UK might have dodged, or swerved a little. The EU wants a Pan-European Defence Organisation to duplicate what NATO does badly. The Remnants assured us the idea of a EUArmy was crazy.
Or Ursula loves creating slush funds. So wants to float a trial EUrobond using Russia's foreign reserves as security, but that potentially €200bn 'loan' to Ukraine will be underwritten by EU member states. If that works, then there'll be more EUrobonds issued, loading more debt onto EU members.. Then because the EU is a bastion of 'democracy', if members like Hungary object to the debt imposition, the EU will just remove their voting rights. The UK, being (semi) sovereign can decide whether to buy those EUrobonds, or not. And then the UK electorate still has the opportunity to vote our our 'leaders' for being f'ng idiots that blindly go along with the EU, and act against the UK's interests.
I insulted someone who used the phrase "2019 parliament of traitors", which is offensive and ignorant. The ignorance has been more or less admitted. If you have anything at all to say on that score, be my guest. Regardless, try and do a better job of following the context.
Regardless, try and do a better job of following the context.
Regardless, try and do a better job of following the thread.. Where you'd see that my reply was to Jedit's comment that came complete with its own slur.. Plus I added some context to why the UK is still blindly following along with EU ID requirements.
If you think the phrase "parliament of traitors" is offensive and ignorant then there's something wrong with you. Wimp, woke, something like that. It is a centuries old British tradition to give our more notable parliaments names. Parliament of pygmies is the alternative name I've heard for the 2019 parliament.
Any suggestions anyone for a name for our current parliament?
It's offensive and ignorant for specific reasons. Offensive because the clear implication with all the language of the rest of the comment is that those public servants were overstepping their authority and defying the will of the people, to the tune of treason. Every time I hear that phrase "will of the people" in the Brexit dialogue, I can't help but cringe. It's ignorant of how Parliament works. Parliament is supreme. Some use the term "sovereign". They make the laws. They made the EU Referendum Act, and they made it so they were not bound by the result of the vote. Then when it came to implementing the result, there was serious disagreement. So in an exercise of Parliamentary Sovereignty, they did their jobs.Those who obstructed a default Brexit put their positions on the line and they lost. It was at that point that I accepted that Brexit would happen, because it was only at that point that the "will of the people" had any constitutional significance. So fuck you.
...rest of the comment is that those public servants were overstepping their authority and defying the will of the people, to the tune of treason.
Oh dear. So public servants work for, and by extension represent.. who? The EU? OK, so another name for public servant is of course Crown servant, and the Crown might have preffered their fiefdom to also remain sovereign. Sovereignty kinda being their reason for exsitence. And yes, if public servants act in the interests of the EU rather than the UK, then it would be treason. But do keep leading with your chin.
Don't be a muppet. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. A Crown servant? What does that mean? Government acts on behalf of the Crown in Parliament to propose laws and conduct the business of governing. Parliament is the body from which government is derived. The monarch's constitutional role is very limited, and Parliament could theoritically pass a law to abolish the monarchy. All this talk of sovereignty (after all, that's what Brexit is supposedly about), but you and so many others don't even understand what that means. "The King hath no prerogative, but that which the law of the land allows him" Case of Proclamations, 1610.
Parliament is sovereign. Government is not. Parlimanent holds the government to account. MPs act under various interests, and the national interest should be fairly high up there. Some of our MPs in 2019, many of them, felt that exiting the EU (especially without a good deal in place) was not in the national interest, which is nothing to do with the interests of the EU. These MPs were rewarded with a loss at the polls. I'm fine with that. That's how the people decide. That's not treason. That's politics. You simply don't know what you're talking about. When David Cameron lost the vote, he should have immediately called an election, or tried to. To his great and enduring shame, he put the interests of the party ahead of the national interest.
Some of our MPs in 2019, many of them, felt that exiting the EU (especially without a good deal in place) was not in the national interest.
Which is fine. We are after all a representative democracy, or should be. So we held a referendum and we, the people voted for Brexit. Our elected representatives were then in a bit of a pickle because they're supposed to represent the will of the people that elected them. We'd also elected a few Euro MPs, but Euro MPs don't really have any power. So we, in a demonstration of democracy voted to leave the EU. We also expected our government to negotiate a good deal and act in the UK's interests. If they opposed that will and acted in the interests of the EU instead, then pretty much by definition that would have been treasoness.
(Which also had some fun constitutional isuses, like if an MP's consituents voted to remain, should the MP then have voted per their consituents? Then throw in calls for proportional representation, whiipped vs free votes amd things get even more fun. Which is also an EU problem given the EU is pretty much ruled by the EPP, which has no represenation in the UK.)
All this talk of sovereignty (after all, that's what Brexit is supposedly about), but you and so many others don't even understand what that means.
Sure I do. We had a bit of a civil war to settle that question which lead to the seperation of powers between Crown, state and church. But we get to elect MPs to represent us, form a government and legislate. Then the Lords and judiiciary can kick those laws back, parties can try to stack the decks to prevent that, but eventually proposed legislation gets plonked infront of the Crown who grants Royal Assent.. Them being by definition, Sovereign in the UK.
But then the EU overrode most of that by issuing diktats in the form of Directives that ordered the member states to do stuff, even when that stuff might not be in their national interests.. And especially in all the areas where the EU had exclusive (in)competency. So simple things like negotiating trade deals. That's an EU exclusive (in)competency and those trade deals might not be in the UK's interests. Or even more local issues, like the EU deciding fishing quotas for UK territorial waters, or making decision on what happens within the UK's EEZ. Or current events like basic sovereign stuff like foreign policy, which for the EU, Kaja Kallas decides, and may $deity have mercy on their souls.
But that also leads to amusing situations like Kallas and von der Leyen screeching at the UN.. Which is the United Nations, so what they were doing there when the EU isn't a nation (honest!) and should just be there as an observer. Or for more amusement, the UN could withdraw voting rights for the 27 individual member states and replace those with a single EU vote. Which would then make the voting results condeming Russia all the more embarrassing.
Not a problem now for the UK because being an independent sovereign nation, we're free to negotiate trade deals, treaties and agreements or just vote at the UN in a way that suits us rather than Brussels.
But you're also shifting the goalposts a bit by focusing on the role of MPs rather than Crown or Civil servants, who are expected to enact legislation and obey the will of the government. If they're obstructing that, or acting in the interests of the EU rather than the UK, that would again be treason. Still not the best soluion, but the best we've come up with after centuries of bloodshed.
When David Cameron lost the vote, he should have immediately called an election, or tried to. To his great and enduring shame, he put the interests of the party ahead of the national interest.
Such is poliitics. Those that seek power rarely surrender it willingly. But you could say much the same of Starmer. Although Labour won a landslide, it ddn't really win it in a democratic way, but such is our version of democracy. Personally I'm a fan of Australia's system and making voting compulsory. We might still end up with idiots like Starmer, but at least they'd be our idiots creating legislation rather than unelected idiots in Brussels. Then we could perhaps borrow from other democracies and also let the people elect a PM. Watching someone like Starmer try to form a government would boost the economy in popcorn sales. Or you could use the Cameron arguement for expecting Starmer to resign, prorogue Parliament and trigger a fresh general election. He's not exactly popular and has been stumbling from crisis to crisis and could argue he's lost the democratic mandate.
I mostly agree with you there, except that I'm not wrong to focus on elected MPs. That's the whole point. Ministers serve the Crown. Backbench MPs do not serve the Crown any more than you or I do. Opposition literally opposes the legislative agenda. MPs legitimately serve their constituents, their party, the national interest, their conscience, and probably other interests that I'm unable to think of right now. If a minister opposes the will of the government, they are sacked, or they resign before it gets to that. Then as a back-bencher, they are free to vote against the government, perhaps risking the whip. They still represent their constituents according to their conscience for as long as their constituents will have them.
That's why I talk about the role of the MP in the larger body of the sovereign Parliament. It's important. It's indeed crucial. So please put treason away. None of the 2019 crew have ever been seriously accused of that nor suffered any repercussions other than democratic ones. Some of them were deselected. Others just lost. That's the way. I've never been tempted to vote Conservative in a national election, but I have tremendous respect for the likes of Philip Hammond, Oliver Letwin, and Dominic Grieve. They were principled and brave, and I admire them.
I mostly agree with you there, except that I'm not wrong to focus on elected MPs. That's the whole point. Ministers serve the Crown. Backbench MPs do not serve the Crown any more than you or I do.
Ah, well, there is this-
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/swearingin/
I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Which is the oath all MPs are expected to swear when they become MPs, and before we start swearing at them. Rest gets a bit more interesting, like I swore an oath to defend the Crown, Police to serve the Crown, same with people becoming British citizens/subjects.. But AFAIK other civil servants don't have to swear an oath when taking up their post. Which is still a potential treason issue given acting in the interests of a foreign power rather than the UK would be treasonous. But then whether they'd be charged & prosecuted, or just fired, or prosecuted under other legislation like official misconduct, the OSA etc etc.
Then maybe questions about whether the Civil Service should sign an oath, or if Sir Humphreys have too much power & are using it wisely. Which is also a bit of a situation across the pond where some of their civil servants are being fired & prosecuted for acting in the interests of a political party, rather than the US, or their office of President. Then other constitutional fun with expecting civil servants to be politically neutral in their duties vs freedom of expresson and assosciation.
None of the 2019 crew have ever been seriously accused of that nor suffered any repercussions other than democratic ones.
That's perhaps just the nature of politics. Despite some monumental fsk'ups, politicians often don't face any real accountability and probably should. If nothing else, the lack of accountability & general incompetence is playing right into the hands of Reform.
Yes, I took an affirmation of allegiance too when I was naturalised. I don't serve.
But as Crown subjects, we're all kinda expected to. Except we haven't gone quite as far as the US and expecting kids to pledge allegiance every day. It's just one of those curious things about being British that people are expected to know, and most of the time doesn't really matter. Give or take maybe being loud & obnoxious somewhere and having that handy charge of breaching the (Kings) peace. Another more extreme favorite is this-
Our sovereign lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King.
From the good'ol Riot Act.. which wasn't always that good given it was basically carte blanche to disperse rioters and lead to the Peterloo Massacre and some revisions. But maybe something Starmer will look at reintroducing with an amended 'God save the King and release the land sharks!'. We still have dispersal orders, I just like the language of the original better.
I can assure you that we subjects most certainly are not compelled to serve a monarch or any overlord. We are not peasants in some feudal system. I may be subject to a constitutional monarchy, but I am no servant. Although I did go through school with my hand on my heart pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America (and to the republic for which it stands), I did not serve the President of the United States. The President of the United States serves the United States, which is a republic of the people, by the people, and for the people, at least when things are working as they should. I could be conscripted to serve if I were drafted into the military in wartime, from which I would later be discharged if I didn't get myself killed. Allegiance to the state is loyalty and obedience to the laws of the land, not servitude. We've gone off on quite a tangent.
> So we, in a demonstration of democracy voted to leave the EU. We also expected our government to negotiate a good deal and act in the UK's interests. If they opposed that will and acted in the interests of the EU instead, then pretty much by definition that would have been treasoness.
Reading you more closely, I have more disagreement with your assertions. Take above. Yes, a referendum of that nature is an exercise of pure democracy. Though, as you noted, ours is a representative democracy. And as I noted, the referendum was non-binding. If it had been binding on Parliament, it would not have passed into law. If our government had acted in public view with disapproval of the electorate, no that's not treason. Blair's government did that in 2003. It hurt him in 2005. Labour lost 101 seats off their majority. That's how it works. He didn't invade Iraq without consulting the Queen.
> Which also had some fun constitutional isuses, like if an MP's consituents voted to remain, should the MP then have voted per their consituents?
That's not a constitutional issue at all. MPs vote however they like, subject to party sanctions and the risk of losing the next election. I don't think you really do understand.
> But we get to elect MPs to represent us, form a government and legislate. Then the Lords and judiiciary can kick those laws back, parties can try to stack the decks to prevent that, but eventually proposed legislation gets plonked infront of the Crown who grants Royal Assent.. Them being by definition, Sovereign in the UK.
The government is only part of it. My MP is not part of govenment nor in the governing party. I expect my MP to challenge government or align with them when it suits. The monarch is not the Crown. The Crown is the state. The monarch is the head of state but is not sovereign. It's a greatly diminished role, and it diminishes further any time a statute replaces a royal prerogative.
> Such is poliitics. Those that seek power rarely surrender it willingly
I'm not suggesting, nor am I convinced, that Cameron's Conservatives would have lost a general election. I think it might have worked something like this. Conservative manifesto might have included remaining in the EU, or perhaps they would have proposed a close external relationship. Other parties would have put forward their approaches. I think Labour under Corbyn would most likely have been in favour of leaving. Lib Dems certainly would have been remain. We would have had debates about a matter of great national importance and the electorate could have then made an informed choice through the proper constitutional framework. For sure, the elephant in the room which is Northen Ireland would have made an appearance. Did you ever hear a word about NI in the run up to the vote?
What happened instead is that something which was never more than a Conservative party matter remained so and overtook everything else. Government decided that they alone could determine what our relationship with Europe would be. They were challenged in the courts and lost. Parliament had to approve. Prime ministers came and went. Boris claims he got Brexit done, but he didn't really, because he went back on key aspects of the customs agreement. So effectively he won his 80 seat majority on a lie. Rishi Sunak, for all his faults, actually got it done properly, but none of us got to vote on that.
By any reasonable measure those MPs who communicated and colluded with Brussels in 2019 in an attempt to undermine our govt's negotiating position were traitors. Had they not colluded with Brussels, had they instead done all they could to achieve their aims, but without plotting with Brussels, then they would have been loyal remainers and that particular parliament would now not be called the parliament of traitors.
"colluded with Brussels" A) Colluded how? B) Prove it.
The courts ruled that a deal could not be accepted without Parliamentary approval, which implies scrutiny. Therefore, our negotiating position was always going to be a public matter. Government might negotiate a deal only for Parliament to shoot it down. The process was fraught from the beginning.
>The Brexiteers themselves effectively undermined the UKs negotiating position by their constant “no deal” stance.
You've got a rotten memory.
Almost universally folk at the time understood that to be effective in negotiations with the EU, the UK needed, if necessary, to be able to walk away and leave without a deal.
What the traitors in parliament did was collude with the EU to take away that option.
You've got a rotten understanding. Treason is a serious charge. Prove it. Government were prepared to walk away without a deal and tried to force that through Parliament by running out the clock. But Parliament needed to meaningfully approve any deal (or no deal), as the full 11 member Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the prorogation case. Is that the collusion you're referring to? Are you talking about the Benn Act (which of course received royal assent)? If not, then what and whom? Who specifically colluded with Brussels and how? What did that amount to? HMG attempting to sidestep Parliament is closer to treason than what you're talking about, given that the Supreme Court ruled that Johnson's advice to the Queen on prorogation was ultra vires.
It is not universally accepted that in order to be effective, we needed to be able to threaten to walk away. Theresa May said "no deal is better than a bad deal", but secretly she believed that "no deal" would be a disaster, and so nobody really bought it. Wise heads understood that "no deal" was worse for Britain than the rest of the bloc, even though it might be bad for the bloc in some ways. Explain to me what exactly was on the line for the EU if we left without a deal? We're just a puny island of some 60 million on the other side of the North Sea. We export very little and import very much. We punched above our weight when were a member of the EU.
Only a small minority of extremists in the UK were happy with the prospect of WTO trading terms. That is not what the country wanted. A "no deal" Brexit, if that were what the vote had been about, would not have won. Not by a long shot. Don't even try to argue that.
Really, we did the EU a great service in exposing the flaws in the Article 50 process. It's very difficult to negotiate anything when you have no authority and have to get approval from Parliament, according to our constitutional arrangements, though it's better than the process that came before. Brussels were extremely patient while we turned ourselves inside out over what began life as a Conservative party factional dispute. Your "traitors" in Parliament just fought for what they believed was best for the country. I don't know why I bother. You're just another anonymous coward.
>” But then the EU often relies on an uneducated, ignorant population to continue on its way”
Just like Farage, Trump, Netanyahu…
>” BRUSSELS — The president of the European Commission auto-deletes messages from her phone in part to save storage space, the EU executive said this week.
Tech experts have but one question: Really?”
She’s not the only politician who has been caught deleting texts, WhatsApp chats etc. I seem to remember many Tories under Boris adopted this policy including using new phones so conversation histories got lost…
I seem to remember many Tories under Boris adopted this policy including using new phones so conversation histories got lost…
Two wrongs don't make a right, although they might make a far-left. All the more ironic when authoritarian governments pass legislation expecting service providers to retain communications records. As we're tech experts and might have had to deal with record retention requirements for that, or stuff like SOX, there's no good reason why politicians communications can't also be retained.
Schengen is larger than the EU, giving freedom of movement, but not of work; freedom of movement of workers within the EU is an EU member benefit.
Whilst the UK was a member of the EU, I could work in any EU country without first getting a visa/work permit.
With Schengen membership, someone from a EU-member could visit say Iceland (non-EU member) for any purpose without a visa, but would still need a work permit to work there. However, someone from Iceland would need to get a work permit from which ever EU state they wished to work in.
Hence from a business viewpoint EU membership trumps Schengen.
Thanks. That's really interesting. But what monty75 & I were discussing was if Schengen only matters for people outside the EU, or not. I say it doesn't. I say it also matters to people inside the EU because without Schengen they'd have no freedom of movement. I am though completely open to being corrected on that.
Schengen is about border controls, not freedom of movement. Any EU citizen can move to any EU country and stay (technically, provided they find work within 3 months or are studying or retired). That is what "freedom of movement" refers to. What Schengen does is allow travel between countries without having to stop and show your passport.
Excellent! Thank you Vincent.
So Schengen removes border controls.
And freedom of movement is EU citizens right to live in any other EU country (subject to some technical restrictions).
So monty75, if you read this, you were right! I was wrong. I had conflated the two.
You were both part-right. Monty was right that Schengen and freedom of movement are different things, but Schengen is relevant to EU citizens too: it's not just a unified visa. In particular, I'm thinking of Benelux where one road near a border (can't remember offhand which) is jam-packed with petrol stations because the tax is cheaper in one country and lots of people border-hop to buy petrol. That would be a lot less practical without Schengen.
EU citizens got freedom of movement and residence in all EU countries in 1992 (Maastricht treaty); for workers, it dates back to the Treaty of Rome (1957).
Schengen Convention (not a treaty) came into force in 1995, abolishing border checks among participating countries, including countries outside the EU (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland; and also Gibraltar next year, if I am not mistaken).
Thanks Vincent for the additional clarification. And your example of the petrol stations is just wonderful, doubly so because I suspect I know where you're thinking of and I've been there and bought petrol. It's the N4 as it skirts round the eastern edge of Martelange. The Bel Lux border runs down the middle of the road. And all it of courtesy of Schengen.
Obviously didn't bother you say. Well ..
I remember after touring the EU capitals late 2015 / early 2016 Cameron came back and gave a big speech (Mansion House?) and announced he'd got agreement that if we voted remain then for something like 5 years the UK would have the option to defer taking new EU rules and regulations. It was all a bit pathetic and unconvincing especially as we knew he'd been asking for quite a bit more but had been turned down flat. Humiliated even.
And the phrase "Trojan horse reforms" I don't think I've ever heard that. I've even checked the first Shipman book and there's no mention of it there. Have you a source for the phrase?
EU citizens traveling within the Schengen Area do not need a passport because there are no formal border controls, but they must carry a valid national ID card or passport to prove their identity, especially for air travel or at the request of police, and for entry into non-Schengen EU countries like Ireland and Cyprus.
… so technically no, practically yes. Esp. For travel and gaining entitlements.
Same as needing ID of sorts within United States of Freedom… so you don’t accidentally end up in El Salvador… esp. if you aren’t white.
That's very interesting. Thanks.
But reason we're talking about passports & borders is because monty75 said "We had freedom of movement" and I said "Piffle. We needed passports".
So that's what we need a ruling on please (anyone?). Specifically, can it be said that when the UK was in the EU, that we in the UK had freedom of movement to the rest of the EU.
I say we didn't because we had border controls and had to produce a valid passport to get through them to enter the rest of the EU.
can it be said that when the UK was in the EU, that we in the UK had freedom of movement to the rest of the EU.
Yes, we had freedom of movement, but because we weren't in Schengen we had to show passports at the EU border. Schengen simply removes internal borders (but not necessarily customs checks) for travel. It's the usual example of political fudge.
Well I regularly used to nip over to France with friends for a days birding. We used to use both the tunnel and ferries, whichever was cheapest, and on both passports had to be produced. On one occasion a friend's passport was out of date and he wasn't allowed through, so none of us went. On another, a passport was in the car but couldn't be found. They held us back until it was found but only after we'd emptied everything out onto the tarmac.
Most EU countries have this thing called an ID card, it comes with biometrics. And, even during the time the UK was part of the EU, those ID cards could be used to travel to the UK and back.
But, because the UK scrapped its short-lived ID cards (which were fully compliant with EU regs, and could *also* be used to travel across the Schengen 'border' onto the continent and vice versa), the only other travel document that is a valid document is... do take a guess... no, rather don't, I'll tell you... A PASSPORT.
Driving licences in the UK can be held by non-EU residents, they are not the same as an ID card, despite the UK using them as a de facto one. An EU-standard ID card will have more information on the RFID chip in it. In Estonia and other countries, it even contains a private key and public key to sign documents with as e-signature.
So yes, because WE in the UK have this aversion to ID cards, we were stuck with using passports. Now the Schengen border along the continent's coast *is* the border between the third country of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, unless you hold a pretty Irish passport, or, should Ireland actually join the EU in issuing proper ID cards (yes, the Irish are as obstinate as us), their ID card.
Ireland issues a "passport card" which to all intents and purposes is accepted as an ID card in other EU countries. And also by the UK, funnily enough.
If Ireland had opted in to Schengen, EES, and ETIAS with the UK out of these things then that would make all-island integration impossible. If there is unification in the future then they will probably think about opting into all three.
The Passport card makes sense because Ireland doesn't have an ID card per se, but a passport is as good as an ID anyway, and the passport card fits in your wallet. :-)
The UK will accept the passport card because the Republic is part of the Common Travel Area where even just showing a driving licence suffices. That's why LHR T5 groups arrivals from Ireland in with those from the Channel Islands, Scotland, and Northern Ireland (and Manchester, natch).
Ireland is still in EES and ETIAS. It's just not in Schengen. Irish citizens will be able to use the e-gates at EU borders *without* having to register for EES or ETIAS. We will have to.
So when the UK was in the EU, we in the UK could travel to the rest of the EU by showing at border control either a passport or a short-lived Gordon Brown id card. That is interesting and I didn't know about the id card being acceptable. But I still fail to see how that can be called freedom of movement.
Not even that. When I used to travel to the EU, once I'd shown my passport and got through the UK-EU border at Dover I could then move back and forth between France Belgium Netherlands & Germany as though there was no border there at all. Only clue would be a sign saying "Welcome to X. Please drive carefully." It was no diff to travelling between British counties.
As someone else pointed out, you needed a passport because you were not issued an EU compliant national ID. You needed to show that at the port, either on arrival or on departure, in order to prove your identity and right to enter. This is because Britain is not part of the continental European landmass. It's no different to entering the 48 contiguous United States. I hold a US passport and I have to present it upon arrival. Once I'm in it, I can go where I like. So can you.
Indeed, but question wasn't about why we needed a passport or id card. Question was because there were border controls and passports / id cards had to be shown at them, can it then be said we had freedom of movement.
However, ChodeMonkey's comment (below) I think is saying freedom of movement encompasses border controls and passports etc. Seems counterintuitive to me, but I'll accept it if that the official definition.
"But I still fail to see how that can be called freedom of movement."
Presentation of one of HM's passports allowed you to pass freely and unhindered.
One did not have to apply for a visa or permit to enter.
I find it very difficult to fathom how people are given choices on things they clearly do not understand. Passports, touched buy the hand of His Majesty, should be the reserve of those who merit them. (We privileged few.) Not for the rabble!
Freedom of movement referred to you being able to move without visas or restrictions around the EU/EEA. You could settle where you wanted, work where you wanted, retire where you wanted... all without any visa restrictions or having to register, being able to use your NHS benefits in local hospitals etc.
That's no longer possible for Brits. And that's why Brits living on the continent were told post-Brexit that "hey, because you came here before the Brexit agreement start, you must please follow some processes to regularise your living here after Brexit" (called 'safeguarding your pre-Brexit EU citizen rights'). In France, it was fairly easy, in Germany it was too, but the bunch of folks who then still thought that Brexit didn't apply to them in Spain got a rude awakening, leading to a big (manufactured) drama by the gutter rags about all the Brits in the Costa del Crime being told to get their affairs in order or pack their bags and fly back to the UK.
There's an EU directive on what needs to be contained in a valid ID card, and it includes fingerprints stored onboard and readable via NFC. (it needs a key held only by governments, so not just any rando can grab it by playing grabass with a reader on your wallet)
That was the main sticking point for Ireland, and I assume the UK about rolling them out. The directive says valid passports are just as good as ID cards though, which is why passport cards were rolled out here. They're totally valid ICAO compliant passports, they're just missing pages to stamp visa info on. A bunch of EU countries already have fingerprints stored in passports, e.g. Spain, so it wasn't too much of a stretch to fingerprint everybody.
Something that really complicates anything that affects the UK/EU border is there being a fairly significant treaty prohibiting immigration controls on the land border in Ireland.
Something that really complicates anything that affects the UK/EU border is there being a fairly significant treaty prohibiting immigration controls on the land border in Ireland.
I assume you're referring to the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement? If so, care to cite the section that prohibts immigration, or any border controls? Because that Agreement, although often cited says nothing of the sorts. Plus the UK (or N.Ireland) is in no obligation to secure the EU borders, especially when it's clearly incapable of securing its own.. But then the UK hasn't exactly been great at preventing illegal immigrants from fleeing France, or the EU in general.
> Actually, we needed ID. I used photo ID to get into the UK on Eurostar and by plane. Passports weren´t required unless you left the EU.
As a UK National, when boarding a flight in Paris to go somewhere else in Schengenland, I was the only person pulled aside and had my ID checked. Everyone else it was like catching the bus. Other than that I was free (as in visa-free) to go wherever in the EU.
We had freedom of movement. No restrictions on us travelling between other EU countries so Schengen was never a consideration.
Freedom of movement still exists, especially if you've got your own boat. It's just becoming more expensive and less convenient to do it legally. Government probably thinks it's somehown discriminatory to only fingerprint illegal travellers, consultants think it's going to be far more profitable to enroll everyone. And now Starmer's going Digital IDiot again with his IDiot App that must be installed on everyone's smart phone, making it even more inconvenient when those are lost or stolen, or lucractive to the people stealing them.
Think I still have some No2ID t-shirts kicking around though.
The difference is that if the UK had remained in the EU, the UK would not be considered a third country despite not being part of Schengen.
Note that Irish citizens do not have to register on EES or ETIAS, despite not being part of the Schengen zone (instead being part of the Common Travel Area with the UK), for exactly the same reason - The Republic of Ireland remains a member of the EU and as such its citizens won't need to use EES or ETIAS.
So yes, it's *everything* to do with Brexit and our no longer being part of the club.
You're welcome.
The real reason Boris left with no deal was to align more closely with the US, people should read up on Atlantic Bridge, people like David Davis and Moggy were members as I recall, bankrolled by American businesses and committed to closer harmonisation with the good ole US of A, that’s why we left all the troublesome EU environmental laws behind and fully detached from EU regulation, in order to become the 51st state!
Only after it was explained to him that the “no deal” exit he talked of would be an even worse deal for the UK than the deal his government had half-heartedly negotiated.
However, Truss, Nigel et al have proved the Conservative/UKIP/Reform desire to be the 51st state is as strong as ever…
>>The EU says EES will make border checks more efficient
Title says it all.
What will happen is a percentage of booths won't work at any given time for registration, a percentage of travellers will not be able to register at the booth and will need assistance, then, once registered, many travellers will fail the automatic biometric check at the border and still have to be diverted to a real customs official who will sigh deeply, curse the English under their breath, and wave them through.
Call me cynical if you like, but the trouble I had getting the UK Passport Application system to recognise me as actually looking at the camera in my photograph was immense. There is no reason at all to suuppose that the 'automatic border check' will be any better. I am not looking forward to EES in the slightest - it will just add stress to the trip.
I travel in and out of the country frequently. I stand still and impassive, with my glasses in my hand at the passport scanner and rarely have difficulty being recognised quickly.
When going through human passport points I'm polite and friendly, this is more often than not reciprocated by the passport officer. The only place that is consistently impolite and unwelcoming is UK Border Control.
Could it be you?
>>Of course I'm polite to them, which no doubt helps.
Likewise. There is nothing the person in front of you can do about whatever issue you have with the system.
Be nice - they are doing their job as efficiently as they can and they have the power to make your day go very badly indeed.
>>Could it be you?
tl;dr - could be but unlikely.
err ad hominim for what reason?
I have no trouble with border control at all - other than once in Paris (so English border officials) coming back from a week away in company with my daughter (different surname) and then girlfriend (another different surname) so they were concerned about me traffiking a 16 year old... understandable and soon sorted out. Why piss off someone who can make your journey complete hell?
The comment about customs officials muttering darkly aboout bloody "tourists" was intended as a humourous aside - I have worked in an adjacent role and such comments are commonplace after dealing with a MoP, regardless of the behaviour of the 'customer'
My issue with the automatic facial recognotion system is that it took well over 30 minutes for the poor chap at Timpsons to get the automatic system to realise he was in fact pointing the camera at my face (yes, I was relaxed, unsmiling, glasses off and no the chap wasn't a new employee unfamiliar with the UK passport system or how to work a camera). There is something the system doesn't like about, I presume, my full beard - I have no evidence that the EES facial recognition will be any worse or better but after a long life in IT I feel that EES will be no different to the UK Passport processing system... these things tend to use the same or similar algorithms to achieve their ends.... hence it is a reasonable assumption to make that EES will inevitably increase the stress involved in crossing the channel for me and, presumably, others with similar facial hair.
My Samsung phone frequently comments "No face detected" . I have glasses, no beard and a moustache.
I'm looking forward to entering the Schengen area in Dover by campervan and exiting into Turkey while the system tries to find a record in Estonia. Or was that two records? One for entry and one for the ESTA type system....
I find it interesting that all the Regtard comments at this point are regarding convenience, or lack of same, rather than security. Yeah, I'll let *any* governmental body keep a copy of my fingerprint, especially with a "promise" of deleting it after 3 years. I am quite sure that the current anti-democratic powers are already wringing their hands at the possibilities involved once they crack their way into the (most likely) poorly-secured governmental server systems (because, when was the last time a government system was been proven to be secure??)
Nope. I guess my last visit to Europe was, indeed, my last visit.
Yeah, I'll let *any* governmental body keep a copy of my fingerprint.
Yep, sounds like a plan. Just need to keep track of which fingerprint prints you're using for each ID when enrolling it so you can print the right ones out when travelling. Technofetishism opens up so many fun possibilities when we're dealing with fallable machines instead of humans that can spot a wrong'un. Kinda tempted to print some now with embedded EURion rings, or just Oracle & Palantir logos. I suspect it might also highlight issues with FMR & FRRs for fingerprints as reliable identifiers.
Just need to keep track of which fingerprint prints you're using for each ID when enrolling it so you can print the right ones out when travelling.
The US system requires all of your fingerprints.
I imagine the EU system will be the same.
(Quite sensible, because it allows for fingers being damaged or amputated.)
"the trouble I had getting the UK Passport Application system to recognise me as actually looking at the camera in my photograph was immense."
I didn't have any problem using my phone to register the whole family when we visited UK this summer. The app took the pictures and processed the data quickly. Smooth sailing.
It did however feel like a stupid money grab.
Did you really like entering contact details for every person every time? Taking a photo of a passport which won't stay open on its own and having to restart if it didn't recognize there was a problem? Having to take a selfie with the front camera and being told it's unsuitable when someone could have taken a better photo with the back camera? Terrible payment gateway... If you leave the app to check your email then you have to restart once you're back in the app so you need one device for the app and another for the email. The list goes on.
"Did you really like entering contact details for every person every time?"
Did I like it? No. Obviously I'd prefer no pre-vetting at all, but this was relatively simple.
I've had to apply for visas for different countries before and having to take a couple photos and sending/taking the passport to an embassy for a few days is much more tedious.
"Taking a photo of a passport which won't stay open on its own and having to restart if it didn't recognize there was a problem?
I don't remember having problems taking photos of the passports.
"Having to take a selfie with the front camera and being told it's unsuitable when someone could have taken a better photo with the back camera?"
I didn't have any problems taking photos. Perhaps you didn't read the instructions of a plain background as such?
This was in June. Perhaps the App has deteriorated since then, or was much worse before that?
I wonder if I left any dabs on that Opel Kadet
Or just any dabs left. I've frequently cursed fingerprint readers because I don't have much in the way of fingerprints. Looking at the worn-out keycaps on my keyboard, they also wear out my fingerprints.. Whcih can be pretty common for anyone who types a lot, along with other trades like french polishers. This also made doing stuff like opening single-use plastic bags a PITA.. err PITF due to the lack of grip.
French polishers, anyone else who scrapes things a lot - understandable.
But - typing? Just a tap down and lift, not supposed to be scraping anything from side to side...
Anyone else seen fingerprintless typists - especially techie typists, rather than someone doing solid copy typing eight hours a week?
But - typing? Just a tap down and lift, not supposed to be scraping anything from side to side...
Yep, typing. Especially if you're used to touch typing, or just typing fairly fast. Lifting is slow, so watching my fingers as I type, I tend to slide rather than lift them much. But also a keyboard tends to last me maybe 2-3yrs before the keycaps wear through. Also fun to look at the wear patters, eg I can see through my space bar on the right side where I tend to hit that with the side of my right thumb.. Which also probably has the best surviving print because we don't usually type with our thumbs.
Anyone else seen fingerprintless typists - especially techie typists, rather than someone doing solid copy typing eight hours a week?
I think you might be suprised by the number of techie typists who spend >8hrs a week typing. Consider emails, reports, documentation or just bashing out code and many IT types probably spend way more than 8hrs a week. But I probably spend around 4-5hrs a day writing, corresponding, chatting or just doing some basic research to demonstrate that someone's preconceptions might be misplaced. So first result on the query I typed gave me this-
https://killzoneblog.com/2019/10/can-writers-lose-their-fingerprints.html
Which professions cause the most damage to fingerprints?
Bricklayers and other heavy manual laborers can wear down their fingerprint ridges to the point where no pattern is visible. Secretaries and file clerks who handle paper all day can have a similar thing occur. Typists (Writers!) and piano players can suffer the same alterations. Hairstylists, dry cleaning workers, and those who work with lime (calcium oxide) are often exposed to chemicals that dissolve the upper layers of the skin, thereby flattening the ridge detail.
Luckily other biometrics are available, like.. ear prints. Unless I take up painting I guess.
I was online with Eurotunnel support yesterday. Despite their CEO saying on the BBC that all was ready the support team didn´t have a clue what people like us - exempt from EES - should do. I'm looking for what lane should I take to bypass the EES questions, as , living in France, I would have to answer ¨no" to most of them.
This post has been deleted by its author
And to forestall a subsequent enquiry, you won't be subject to ETIAS either.
Of course, if the populist right continues to grow in popularity, we may all find that our "permanent residence" comes under the same threat as "indefinite leave to remain" in the UK. However, for the moment, your travel should be unaltered.
We're about 2 weeks out from the start of this process, and they have yet to give any actual details. Phased in? Where, which ports/airports?
ETIAS? Why is it being introduced at a separate time? I thought ETIAS was supposed to be at the same time, so the entire process was self service and stamp-less. If you have to scan all your biometrics in, does that mean you no longer need the stamp? If so, what is the point of ETIAS?
Doesn't really change anything. The EU passes rules, and states are given implementation deadlines. That deadline has moved a bunch of times because of poor planning by the central body - not because countries are having issues implementing it. The people who came up with the rules and the deadline should have known countries would have implementation issues, as they should have liaised with them before-hand.
Top down diktats without adequate prior research and knowledge are the problem here.
Would you like me to tell you about how widely the information about the UK's ETA was disseminated?
Also the continuing confusion since ETA was introduced over what to do about dual British nationals who have an expired British passport and fly in on their passport belonging to the other nationality which appears to be a move to force dual British nationals resident abroad to renew their British passport or apply for a £550 certificate to stick in their other passport.
The benefits of a British passport have dropped to 8th on the Henley index I notice.
What about those children whose British parent just registered their child's birth on an international birth certificate so they are officially a British national, but never got a British passport because it was not necessary? Unknown.
What about those who just got a birth certificate and the first passport for the same reason but then let it expire because €30 and a trip down the police station to get a passport for their other nationality is much easier than the £100, online renewal, and courier nonsense that the FCO insist on making you jump through? Unknown.
Apparently registering your child as a British national to let them decide what to do when the time comes (live and work in the UK or not fussed about the UK) is not a thing any more.
It's absurd when a non British national has more rights to enter the UK than a British dual national.
I would prefer a clear "all dual British nationals must enter the UK on a valid British passport" because then we all know where we stand. But why make clear rules when you can make unclear ones?
They should install a Probulator(*) at all borders and determine if the foreigners have any nefarious looks, abilities and/or thoughts. Any deviation from acceptable should result in installing a mutant career chip and immediate deportation to the New York sewers.
(*) I can't help it if you didn't enjoy Futurame.
Yes! We must all simultaneously applaud this foresightly EU decision with great reverence and bow down to the prescience of those who proposed and voted for it.
After all, no one who is of sane body and mind could ever possibly endeavor to temporarily visit the EU for any endeavor other than outright malfeasance, criminal tourism, or cultural thievery.
It therefore stands to the clearest of reasons that all visitors should be treated with the utmost suspicion, as suspects in past, present, and future criminal investigations, to be fingerprinted, facially imaged, and registered into profile databases, for years to come, just in case ...
But this doesn't go nearly far enough given the extremely outsized dangers of allowing human peoples to cross our borders, moats, fortified walls, drawbridges, and torture dungeons. No! We must also ensure, at minimum, that: 1) they willingly surrender all social media account passwords and posts to be vetted against our stringent new ideological propriety edicts, for life, and; 2) we automate the process of entering border-crossing fingerprints and facial images into all local police databases, to save water through efficiency.
And the stakes are so high that even those measures won't obviously suffice. To further perfect our system, we'll need to also collect DNA samples of all these border-crossing would-be lawbreaking wrongdoers, and database those as well, plus I would suggest having their wrists tattoed with a uniquely identifiable numeric code, and providing them (at fee) with a fashionable yellow star to be worn at all times while in the EU, as they await their eventual deportation to well-upholstered saunas, spas, and similar health camps ... the activities they engage in, there, will eventually set them free; free as in EU free!
</techno-fascism-(however easy, mundane, and banal)-stinks!>
Yes, if your Mrs. Smith and you want to park your butt on a Spanish beach for a week, you'll get treated like a criminal with full biometric rubber gloves.
If you're an illegal migrant from Africa, you can enter illegally, cross the whole continent and leave France with impunity.
In the middle of an illegal migration crisis - this is what the EU does.......says a lot about it's priorities.
this is what the EU does.......says a lot about it's priorities.
The priorities of EU politicians are the same as those of all other politicians worldwide: to obtain and keep as much power and control as possible, and to hell with the needs or wishes of those irritating little voters.
"In the last quarter of 2026, the EU will also introduce a €20 three-year visa waiver [...] This will cover most citizens of visa-exempt countries [...]."
So it's a visitor tax since there is already no need for a visa, the 3 year validity it just to make it look like it's a deal since most traveler will need it only once.
I used to do something not dissimilar to this 25 years ago entering into the US. I recall their INSPASS system used hand geometry though the enrolment process also involved my finger prints too. It was reserved for very frequent flyers as the enrollment took time. Once enrolled it was great to get to a full immigration hall at JFK airport and walk straight past the queues to the empty machines.
So a few months back, ace negotiator Keir Starmer told us he'd given all the UK's fish away in exchange for us being exempted from the EU's new entry/exit system. Seemed an insanely lopsided deal at the time, but now if in fact we are not exempted then it's completely utterly bonkers. Can one prosecute a PM for malfeasance?
As has been mentioned above, the rollout of the scheme is country specific, and it turned out that the benefit that we got in return for the fish was the right to ask individual countries for the right to bypass the system. Just the right to ask, not the right to get.
No, it wasn't a deal to be exempted from EES, it was a deal to be able to use e-gates in the EU, but this always going to happen anyway for non-EU citizens once EES was up and running.
"The practicalities of the scheme will be subject to a consultation, which will also look at how to make it work for those without a smartphone or passport."
Hmm how to make it "work" in such scenarios is interesting indeed.
I assume "without a smartphone" in reality means "without an iPhone or with a de-googled Android phone".
Journey with family
France to Spain to Italy to Austria then
Back via Germany Holland and back to Blighty.
Cancelled it as soon as I heard that it was full face and finger prints etc.
Biometrics will not stop illegals it just punishes and inconveniences good people.
We are heading to Singapore , Thailand etc instead
Silver lining
Singapore and Japan also have fingerprint collection on arrival. Canada does as well I believe.
As much as I would prefer that this wasn't required, the collection of biometrics when arriving in a country will continue to expand.
Come to Australia if you want to avoid it, fingerprints are not collected here (yet).
Biometrics will not stop illegals it just punishes and inconveniences good people.
I think the mistake most people make is failing to understand the system. So my first trip with my exciting new, and oh so convenient biometric passport ended up with me back at LHR. Where Customs staff, keen to show off their new toy wanted me to use it.. Which failed, repeatedly. Then an apologetic look, quick check of my passport and waved me through the gate anway.
Mistake I made was looking fairly happy when I had the photo taken. Not looking like I looked after a 3hr delayed flight, 10hr flight, then 2hrs waiting for a gate at LHR and another hour waiting in the horde to get to passport control. If I'd stayed awake for 3 days, hit myself in the nuts repeatedly and pepper sprayed myself to get that authentic red-eye flight look when I got the passport, the machine might have recognised me. Plus ideally having the passport storing a sequence of progressively more pished off images so the machine has a slightly better chance of an accurate match.
Strangely the same is true of every law, ever.
Though I understand the sentiment, especially with many modern laws, the statement is demonstrably false.
The law against murder doesn't cause inconvenience for most people (even if it may be tempting on occasion^^). Most of us manage to get though the day without being bothered by the laws against theft and similar. Etcetera.
I landed in Spain a few months ago with my girlfriend, and she was suffering a migraine at the time so she was wearing sunglasses. The customs lady asks her to remove them, didn't look up, then told her a couple seconds later she could put them back on if she liked. I figured there was a camera that took her picture, and the customs lady was comparing it on her screen with my girlfriend's passport photo which is why she didn't need to look up at her.
Even if these were not "officially" retained I'm skeptical that despite the EU's data policies that they weren't. They're just making the photo policy official now because they want to supplement it with fingerprints.
It is going to be the norm everywhere, and there will inevitably be hacks that result in people's photos, fingerprints, and information scanned off their passport like name, address, birthdate, and nationality being exposed. We just have to prepare for that inevitability, and not set up systems that overly rely on someone having that information being that person.
The black and white photo on your passport is already considered biometrics. You can even scan a copy of it off the passport, just like they do at the airport using NFC. (I've done it before)
You need a key derived from DOB + passport number + expiry date before it'll let you read it though. Which is why you need to open it, so they can grab that data from the machine-readable section at the bottom.
You need a key derived from DOB + passport number + expiry date before it'll let you read it though
Wow, someone actually listened to the warnings about the potential for NFC abuse and put some precautions in place? Is that part of some international standard, or are you talking about a particular country's passports?
You do know that the United States of America had been collecting fingerprints of all visitors for years now, right? I was sure that years ago the USAians had captured all Communists (and executed some of the Communists who were also accused of being Black or Jewish). Turns out they were Commies all along.
You want to stay in the authoritarian hellhole Trump is building here? Personally if Trump succeeds in his goal of becoming president for life I'm getting the hell out of here and never coming back. I'd rather pay my taxes in a socialist country that does some good with them, then pay them to a corrupt pedophile.
Interesting fact: many countries don't tax overseas investment income, so distributions from my IRAs wouldn't be taxed. That would leave me owing taxes in the US if I don't have foreign taxes to offset it. I'll make sure to find a way to owe or otherwise voluntarily pay taxes in whatever country I'm living in just so I can be sure Trump never gets his tiny hands on a single red cent of mine!
Uh, the USA demand far, far more and worse from visitors. Has been since forever, and has gotten much worse lately. To the point where European tourism towards the USA has seen a pretty big drop. An actual drop in the real world, not something someone on a message board saw in their crystal ball.
I mean, you can travel from the USA to the EU with a social media history chock full of as much shitposts on EU institutions and leadership as you can produce (which I bet is a sizeable amount in your case), and I guarantee you are not going to suffer any problem at the border because of that. In fact, nobody is going to notice, because EU immigration won't ask you to unlock your phone to trawl through your data.
The reverse? Not so sure.
Yesterday I spent 3 hours in the passport exam line entering Lisbon from the U.S., the second time that's happened this year. I has a similar wait trying to exit in June, when we were channeled into a long line extending through the duty-free area with no explanation for those trying to get to their flights on time. Reddit's r/travel has a huge discussion of the problem entering Lisbon, and mentioned other Portugal airports were equally bad. I did an internet search for Madrid, thinking I might use that as an entry/exit point, but found another huge file of online complaints, so it might be Schengen-wide. The complaints were occasionally leavened by a report that someone had made it through in an hour, and that things were "getting better", but those hopes were dashed by following reports that things were just as bad.
In Lisbon at 1:30 p.m. Thurday 9/25 about 500 visitors wer being funneled through 6 machines, 2 of which were out of order. There was also a lack of signage to explain how to use the machines, creating further delays, and a lack of signage back in the entry corridor where we queued for an hour) to explain which line was for the entrants from the Schengen area and which was for the rest of us.
There were a number of shrink-wrapped machines in the room were there back in June as well. Perhaps that's in preparation for the new system. My guess is the problem would be minimized if Lisbon had about 30 machines in good order, and better signage. As it was the few harried employees were working double time running back and forth trying to let people know what was happening and keep some sort of order. With the lack of signage there was "line jumping" both intentional and unintentional.
All told it the situation was very chaotic, and standing in line for three hours was expecially hard on seniors and those with children. I can only hope that the new systems will help, allthough Portugal could also use more employees and much better signage.
