MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, May 23rd 2019 - 17:32 UTC

Brexit: Britons will have to pay €7 every three years to travel to EU countries

Saturday, December 15th 2018 - 09:14 UTC
Full article 17 comments

Britons will have to pay €7 (£6.30) every three years to travel to EU countries, as a consequence of Brexit. The European Commission has confirmed that while UK travelers will not need a visa, they will need to apply for and buy another document. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • LEPRecon

    Of course Britons may choose to go somewhere else outside of the EU instead which in some cases is actually cheaper, so the EU, with especially Spain, Portugal and Greece suffering when the tourists disappear.

    Dear EU, this is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Dec 15th, 2018 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • golfcronie

    LEP Is this not the same as a passport. ie you have to show at point of arrival?

    Dec 15th, 2018 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    No one is going to change their travel plans over €7. What this means is that the EU can block any UK citizens they choose from entering, but under May's agreement we will have no control over EU citizens visiting Britain.

    Dec 15th, 2018 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • RedBaron

    What about Brits already living in the EU (some having national ID cards of other countries)?
    What about EU citizens going to the UK - presumably the UK will also introduce and reciprocal entry ticket system?
    Of course, no-one is going to choose to go to non-EU destinations because of a Euro 7 entry cost (valid for three years) - especially when other countries charge similar fees (Switzerland, Turkey, Egypt, USA, Canada, Australia, to name but a few). The ticket fee will not be a visa as such but will be a checkable fee at time of entry.

    Dec 15th, 2018 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • bushpilot

    I'm missing something in your post. It seems to be saying that from the EU to the UK, the border will be open.

    But Brexit was mainly about closing that same border, not opening it.

    Can you explain this to me?

    Dec 16th, 2018 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @DT. You think? I had made serious enquiries with a Greek travel firm specialising in “personal” holidays. You know how it works. In my case, I wanted to visit “relics” of ancient Greece all over the country, at my pace and setting aside time for beaches and snorkelling. Being accustomed to lengthy holidays in the US and driving around europe, I thought I'd go for 3 weeks. Now I won't bother. I see it on the basis that I was probably going to spend a lot of money in a country that needs money. And I seem to recall that Brits have been able to travel around europe quite freely for about 1600 years without paying an extra “squeeze” to a bunch of corrupt incompetents. So, no Greece for me. Perhaps I'll “do” Australia or New Zealand instead.

    Dec 16th, 2018 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Sure, I can explain. The Brexiters promised a closed border, but they also promised nothing would change in NI, where we currently have an open border with Ireland. When you promise the impossible, it can't be delivered.

    Both May and the EU insist they want to keep the open border between Ireland and NI, with no customs or immigration checks. And the EU will not give us any kind of deal if we don't agree to this. If we have an open border with Ireland, then any criminals/terrorists etc that Ireland admits can simply walk into the UK with no checks - and Ireland will still be forced to follow the same EU rules on who to let it that we were supposed to be getting rid of.

    The result is that the EU can tighten security against us, but we can't tighten security against them. Not exactly what the Brexiters promised, is it? They lied to everyone, and that is why our MPs are about to vote on a plan which leaves us subject to the EU's rules but with no say in them, the worst of both worlds. :(

    You need a visa to visit Australia, so make sure you apply in plenty of time. Apparently a health check may be required if you're over 75.

    Dec 16th, 2018 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    The UK has a very special part in my heart. It saddens me when I see Eurocrats inflicting all these stupid bureaucratic paper cuts upon the British People. When I was stationed in England, I vividly remember the debates on whether the Kingdom should vote to leave and it seemed at the time it would be nearly impossibly impossible. My friends were so correct. Globalisim is evil!

    Dec 16th, 2018 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    It's possible to leave, but it's not possible to get a better deal than we had. If only the Brexiters would understand that rather than believing anyone who tells them what they want to hear.

    And how come you weren't cheering on nationalism and the tariffs to defend Argentina's industry when the Kirchners did it, Chicureo? Do you now understand they were right to oppose the evil Globalism, even if they did it clumsily?

    Dec 16th, 2018 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo


    I always cheer my country's nationalism, but also remain convinced our policy embracing open and fair trade with strong independent financial regulation is best for most countries in the world. Chile is considered to be very progressive regarding global issues, but vigilantly retains it sovereignty. The reason why I'm so strongly against the Kirchner era of governance was due to its continuance of a long depressing tradition of ingrained historical corruption of Argentine corruption which keeps the nation from being one of the wealthiest in the world. Knowing the potential of Argentina, it's disgusting and ridiculous that they are not one of the top 20 in the world.

    Patrick J. Buchanan wrote: “To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.”

    Dec 16th, 2018 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Hmm, yes, Chile has always been quite outward-looking, hasn't it? Do you feel your Pacific Alliance partners are taking unfair advantage of Chile, or regret signing up to the Evil Globalist TPP?

    As for the Kirchners, I'm glad to know it wasn't their policies you were so opposed to, but rather their continuing Argentina's long history of corruption. But Chicureo, why aren't you even more critical of President Macri? He hides his money in offshore bank accounts, there's a serious investigation into falsified campaign donations to his party, and his relatives are being investigated for offering bribes in return for contracts. Plus he promised to return Argentina to the world, which means he's promoting Globalism!

    Re the millions in the West, like all people they just want the parts that benefit them. The masses in Poland love free movement when it means they can go and work in richer countries, but they object when the EU asks them to take some refugees. Similarly people in Britain love the increased jobs and trade that membership of the EU brings, and like being able to retire to Spain, but dislike Poles moving here to work. No one wants to admit that whatever you choose, you can't have everything your own way.

    Dec 16th, 2018 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo


    Read any economic summary you wish about Chile. We have one of the most open free trading economies in Latin America, but we also have strictly remained, with a few* unfortunate exceptions, vigilant about our sovereignty. The TPP trade agreement is very positive for Chile, why would we object? (BTW: I've just opened a nice bottle of Carmenère, so everything is positive at the moment.)

    Regarding Macri, so far the judgement about his governance of Argentina is questionable as he was handed a bag of mierda from Cristina, and they have nearly zero creditworthiness. (Yes, he's himself and his family) have been accused of corruption, so nothing is clear whether he'll break the country's historical pattern.

    What's certain is Macri is a Nationalist trying to rejoin traditional alliances and you won't see any Argentine politician that will agree that beef cattle production is potentially related to global warming. Argentine's are undoubtably inbred Nationalists.

    Finally, your country, which I had the wonderful opportunity to visit many times as well as being stationed there for naval training. A lot of the non-British people I met there in the village while I lived in during 2002 were from Estonia, Poland and Jamaica. Everyone seemed to get along just fine, but there was already a strong unhappiness about uncontrolled non-EU immigration and some very unfair EU regulations. From what I have surmised, your politicians let the Eurocrats get way out of hand and your national sovereignty has been endangered.

    (*those unfortunate exceptions include international border agreements, an intake of too many migrants unable to integrate with our society and unreasonable interference in our political affairs.)

    Dec 16th, 2018 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I'm drinking a bottle of cider; although I enjoyed the wine in Argentina and Chile, I've really missed my favourite tipple.

    “those unfortunate exceptions include international border agreements, an intake of too many migrants unable to integrate with our society and unreasonable interference in our political affairs.”

    Hmm, and there was me wondering why you don't just open your long, long border with Argentina. It does all seem very tiresome to someone used to open borders in Europe, but then I wouldn't trust Argentina to be vigilent about biosecurity, either.

    “The TPP trade agreement is very positive for Chile”

    Do you think it wasn't similarly positive for the US, then?

    Re Macri, Argentina's poor creditworthiness didn't stop him borrowing billions - in dollars - to his country's detriment. And saying he's a nationalist is absurd. He's a globalist to the core, turning to international investors, trying to increase (agri)exports and reestablish trade links.

    As for Britain, I would prefer much less immigration, and control over all our own laws, but that would/will require a huge sacrifice, something I have yet to see a simple Brexit voter or campaigner admit. If my fellow citizens had made this decision with their eyes open I would be much more optimistic, but all the ones I have spoken to either have no clue or believe in the comforting lies. The stupidest is that 'things can't get any worse'. Did their grandparents never tell them about rationing and real poverty? Why exactly do they think Poles and Bulgarians are queuing up to come here? And those are nowhere even close to the worst countries to live in!

    Dec 16th, 2018 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo


    Our concept of “Globalism” and a “populist Nationalist” differ. Really, the few credit lines open to Macri was Russia, China and the IMF. (Or am I missing someone?)

    My family have been farming for several generations. Anything we produce and export is not taxed. The PROFITS from those sales are eventually taxed, but if you do an analysis of what happens in Argentina, the taxation is so excessive, it's a national sport there for business people to evade taxes.

    I respectfully stand with my opinion that Argentines are inbred Nationalists. They will tell you (and lecture as well) they are and have the best of everything. (Wine, women, football players, national dance, wheat production, quality of beef... their fabulous military club and tall masted sailing ship...) I find that's many times absolutely true, but they terribly really terribly mismanage it all terribly...

    The USA is currently being managed by cutthroat team of trade negotiators that are bent on disrupting the status quo. The TPP was never going to be accepted because it gave too many privileges to smaller nations like New Zealand or Chile. Fortunately, we have an excellent bilateral trade agreement that rings all the bells and blow the whistles to placate the North Americans.

    Dec 16th, 2018 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Globalism to me means trade agreements and stuff like Interpol, but also multinationals spreading around the world so there's McDonalds and Coca Cola in every country. Walmart taking over the local supermarket chain, etc. No country can hope to control these behemoths.

    And populists are those who give people what sounds good and what they want now without regard for the damage they are doing to the country and those same people's future. Borrowing to fund giveaways that will have to be paid for later, for example.

    Macri isn't a populist, but after paying off the vultures he was able to borrow on the normal bond markets, albeit with a bad credit rating. Trouble was his borrowing and lowing taxes for agricultural exports failed to kickstart the economy, so eventually he ran out money but had run up a huge debt. Hence the resort to the IMF.

    As for the TPP, IIRC Hilary Clinton also promised not to sign it, so you're right that it was never going to be accepted. I don't know whether it would have been good or bad for Americans (or Chileans), though, and I'm sure neither did anyone who isn't an economist. The US still has NAFTA, just with a few tweaks, and as you say has trade deals with Chile and many other countries, so apparently they are not really willing to abandon globalism either.

    Dec 17th, 2018 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Chicureo

    On the other hand, Globalism to me means placing your national interests above all else. Globalists for me are those who would sacrifice their national independence letting international organizations control national affairs. Nationalism allows for trade agreements, the UN, Interpol, the IMF, the WTC, etc...

    ...we as a country have been obligated in the past to accept a UN quota of immigrants, which we accepted in the beginning, but now after some major complications with Haitians and Middle Easterners, we've starting to more carefully vet those seeking permanent residency. For example, female sexual mutilation is illegal here. (Over 22 individuals have been deported due to this problem alone since 2016.)

    In my opinion, it's all a matter of semantics...

    Dec 17th, 2018 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Eh, I think those are one and the same. Governments join international organisations primarily to benefit their own nations. Just look at the EU where each country is determined to protect their own interests and only compromises if they get something out of it. Greece etc didn't join the Euro because they believed in the dream of European integration, they joined so they could borrow more cheaply. They surely regret it now, but that's the benefit of hindsight.

    What's this UN immigrant quota? I'm sure we never had one.

    Dec 17th, 2018 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!