On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:02:50 -0000 (UTC), Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On 22 Jan 2023 at 2:55:07 PM EET, "Bob" <email@domain.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-22 12:45:55 +0000, Clank said:
>>
>>> On 22 Jan 2023 at 2:21:12 PM EET, "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 2. EU citizens from non-Schengen countries (like the Irish)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. ETIAS holders from visa-free countries (like us)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For 3, the most noticeable change at the border will be the introduction of
>>>>> EES, not ETIAS; it's the introduction of EES that will remove the need for
>>>>> passport stamps and enable the use of eGates for visa-waiver travellers.
>>>>
>>>> Which gets back to my question: will there be any difference in the border
>>>> formalities between category 2 and 3 passport holders once EES and ETIAS
>>>> are in force? Won't both categories (and category 1) go though the same
>>>> eGates, using the same procedures?
>>>
>>> At the border, correct, the procedure /as a traveller/ will be the same.
>>> Behind the scenes there is a difference - passengers in category (2) are just
>>> checked for valid ID, whereas passengers in category (3) get a further check
>>> in ETIAS and their date/time of entry recorded in EES - but provided there are
>>> no discrepancies detected by those checks (eg. missing ETIAS record, or
>>> determination of overstay by EES) it will appear identical.
>>
>> My understanding is category 3 travellers will be subject to a
>> fingerprint scan while category 2 ones will not.
>
>Oh, good point, I'd forgotten entirely about the fingerprint thing. That said,
>I would assume the eGates will also have fingerprint scanners, and it's not
>entirely impossible that they could be required for people in (2) travelling
>on an ID card - the EU biometric ID format includes fingerprints (one reason
>why replacing all the existing IDs is a bit of a palaver - you need to enrol
>the fingerprints to issue the new format ID cards.)

So, potentially, both category 2 and 3 citizens will need to scan their prints, as well as showing their faces. What
about category 1? If machines are equipped with fingerprint scanners, will everyone have to be scanned?

In message <tqjakp$33ut1$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:36:41 on Sun, 22 Jan
2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:

>>> I'm not convinced that reciprocity (of cost) makes sense for Travel
>>> Authorisations, because the cost of running the scheme will vary from
>>> destination to destination.
>>>
>>> In any event, Brits can't travel to NZ without a visa,
>>
>> We certainly used to be able to until recently.
>
>It's just Roland being Roland... Per the NZ Govt Immigration site, "[UK
>visitors] can travel to New Zealand without a visa if they get an NZeTA".

I read that to mean "UK Visitors cannot travel without a visa if they
don't get an NZeTA".

If they mean something else, such as "UK Visitors don't need a visa, but
do need a NZeTA", they should say so!

>Equally, elsewhere on their own site it appears under the visas section, so it
>is fair to say colloquially visa-waivers and visas are in the same basket of
>"things that let me cross a border".

I looked on the NZ site earlier and it lists UK as a "Visa-waiver"
country. Not a visa-exempt country.

Perhaps this answers Tweed's earlier posting too.
--
Roland Perry

On 2023-01-22 13:24:23 +0000, Clank said:

> On 22 Jan 2023 at 3:03:52 PM EET, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don’t quite follow the need for a finger print. The passport is the
>> identifier that should be used to count how many days you’ve been in
>> Schengen. If there are worries about the passport belonging to the person
>> presenting it doesn’t that equally apply to Schengen passport holders?
>
> It does. Which is why it's been mandatory for all EU issued passports to
> include fingerprint data for a while now (and indeed why the new biometric ID
> cards also include fingerprint data.)

You sure about that? I've just had a look at the requirements for
getting an Irish passport, and there is nothing for either first time
issued passports or renewals relating to fingerprint data.

Robin

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 11:59:42 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tqj7bd$33blt$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:40:29 on Sun, 22 Jan
>2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>On 22/01/2023 08:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tqhtn3$2q1ni$5@dont-email.me>, at 23:49:55 on Sat, 21 Jan
>>>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:01:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> It wouldn't have applied to us while a member as we then had the
>>>>>>> unrestricted right to travel and live in any EU country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not quite (all EU citizens have the right to enter and live in
>>>>>>another EU
>>>>>> member state for up to three months, not indefinitely).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, the new system is about checking who enters and
>>>>>>leaves the Schengen zone, which would still have applied to us. So
>>>>>>we'd probably still have the new fingerprinting requirement and
>>>>>>have our passports checked by the machines, but wouldn't have
>>>>>>needed to apply for the new ETIAS. I don't think we'd have needed
>>>>>>to have our passports stamped, as we currently do, but won't when the new ETIAS comes in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure why they need ETIAS and EES, couldn't they just roll them
>>>>>into one?
>
>>>>> Unless ETIAS is little more than a revenue raising exercise.
>>>>
>>>> EU ETIAS: lasts three years, costs €7, but only for travellers between 18
>>>> and 70,
>
>>> Are older and younger free of charge, or banned from the scheme?
>>
>>Free, as 1 minutes googling showed
>
>Or ten seconds of typing by the person making the earlier non-exhaustive
>statement.
>
>Or zero had it been drafted: "free for travellers under 18 and over 70"

You'd then have complained that I didn't say what it would cost people between those ages. For anyone with any common
sense, what I said was already an adequate description.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 11:39:17 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 21/01/2023 23:49, Recliner wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:01:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> It wouldn't have applied to us while a member as we then had the
>>>>> unrestricted right to travel and live in any EU country.
>>>>
>>>> Not quite (all EU citizens have the right to enter and live in another EU
>>>> member state for up to three months, not indefinitely).
>>>>
>>>> In any case, the new system is about checking who enters and leaves the
>>>> Schengen zone, which would still have applied to us. So we'd probably still
>>>> have the new fingerprinting requirement and have our passports checked by
>>>> the machines, but wouldn't have needed to apply for the new ETIAS. I don't
>>>> think we'd have needed to have our passports stamped, as we currently do,
>>>> but won't when the new ETIAS comes in.
>>>
>>> Not sure why they need ETIAS and EES, couldn't they just roll them into one?
>>> Unless ETIAS is little more than a revenue raising exercise.
>>
>> EU ETIAS: lasts three years, costs €7, but only for travellers between 18
>> and 70, provides visa-free access to 420m people in 27 countries
>>
>> US ESTA: lasts two years, costs $21 for all, provides visa-free access to
>> 332m people in one country
>>
>> Which looks more like a revenue-raising exercise?
>
>I doubt whether either scheme does more than cover costs, if they manage
>to do that.

I think the much increased prices for US ESTAs might mean the scheme now makes a small profit. They've gone up a lot.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:25:20 +0000, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:

>On 22/01/2023 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
>> On 22/01/2023 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <042cnQBTP7x0klD-nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>> 10:28:56 on Sun, 22 Jan 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On 21/01/2023 13:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <tqels6$260vk$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:17:42 on Fri, 20
>>>>> Jan 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 17:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> As expected, the new system has been delayed till the autumn:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e4425ae-98d1-11ed-91ab-4070465550b
>>>>>>> a?shareToken=9665026f771578c64329c002f4e050f0>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is old news, The Times asleep again? Even the Beeb had it on
>>>>>> 17th  Jan.
>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64311737>
>>>>>  I have no idea why any of this is a surprise....
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't says it is a surprise.
>>>
>>> The Times article is written in a style that clearly indicates they
>>> think sufficient of their readers will be surprised by not just the
>>> scheme itself, but the potential disruption.
>>
>> They could be right, it still comes as a surprise to Times readers that
>> what they voted for actually happened.
>>
>They're also surprised what it actually meant.

The Times was not pro-Brexit, and I suspect that it had more Remainer than Brexiteer readers.

On 22 Jan 2023 at 3:37:32 PM EET, "Bob" <email@domain.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-22 13:24:23 +0000, Clank said:
>
>> On 22 Jan 2023 at 3:03:52 PM EET, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don’t quite follow the need for a finger print. The passport is the
>>> identifier that should be used to count how many days you’ve been in
>>> Schengen. If there are worries about the passport belonging to the person
>>> presenting it doesn’t that equally apply to Schengen passport holders?
>>
>> It does. Which is why it's been mandatory for all EU issued passports to
>> include fingerprint data for a while now (and indeed why the new biometric ID
>> cards also include fingerprint data.)
>
> You sure about that? I've just had a look at the requirements for
> getting an Irish passport, and there is nothing for either first time
> issued passports or renewals relating to fingerprint data.
>
> Robin

Ireland has an opt-out:

"According to EU law, passports must incorporate a storage medium (a chip)
that contains the holder's facial image and fingerprints. This obligation does
not apply to identity cards or to temporary passports and travel documents
with a validity of one year or less. Ireland is not bound by these rules,
whereas Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Lichtenstein are."

<https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/schengen-borders-and-visa/document-security_en>

Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2023 at 3:03:52 PM EET, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don’t quite follow the need for a finger print. The passport is the
>> identifier that should be used to count how many days you’ve been in
>> Schengen. If there are worries about the passport belonging to the person
>> presenting it doesn’t that equally apply to Schengen passport holders?
>
> It does. Which is why it's been mandatory for all EU issued passports to
> include fingerprint data for a while now (and indeed why the new biometric ID
> cards also include fingerprint data.)
>

But are Schengen passport holders expected to present their fingers for
checking? Genuine question, I don’t know.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:25:20 +0000, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22/01/2023 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2023 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <042cnQBTP7x0klD-nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>> 10:28:56 on Sun, 22 Jan 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 13:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tqels6$260vk$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:17:42 on Fri, 20
>>>>>> Jan 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 17:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> As expected, the new system has been delayed till the autumn:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e4425ae-98d1-11ed-91ab-4070465550b
>>>>>>>> a?shareToken=9665026f771578c64329c002f4e050f0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is old news, The Times asleep again? Even the Beeb had it on
>>>>>>> 17th  Jan.
>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64311737>
>>>>>>  I have no idea why any of this is a surprise....
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't says it is a surprise.
>>>>
>>>> The Times article is written in a style that clearly indicates they
>>>> think sufficient of their readers will be surprised by not just the
>>>> scheme itself, but the potential disruption.
>>>
>>> They could be right, it still comes as a surprise to Times readers that
>>> what they voted for actually happened.
>>>
>> They're also surprised what it actually meant.
>
> The Times was not pro-Brexit, and I suspect that it had more Remainer
> than Brexiteer readers.
>

The Brexiteer lot have gone into hiding in the Times comments section and
the Remainers are out in force.

On 22/01/2023 13:39, Recliner wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 11:39:17 +0000, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 21/01/2023 23:49, Recliner wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:01:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> It wouldn't have applied to us while a member as we then had the
>>>>>> unrestricted right to travel and live in any EU country.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not quite (all EU citizens have the right to enter and live in another EU
>>>>> member state for up to three months, not indefinitely).
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, the new system is about checking who enters and leaves the
>>>>> Schengen zone, which would still have applied to us. So we'd probably still
>>>>> have the new fingerprinting requirement and have our passports checked by
>>>>> the machines, but wouldn't have needed to apply for the new ETIAS. I don't
>>>>> think we'd have needed to have our passports stamped, as we currently do,
>>>>> but won't when the new ETIAS comes in.
>>>>
>>>> Not sure why they need ETIAS and EES, couldn't they just roll them into one?
>>>> Unless ETIAS is little more than a revenue raising exercise.
>>>
>>> EU ETIAS: lasts three years, costs €7, but only for travellers between 18
>>> and 70, provides visa-free access to 420m people in 27 countries
>>>
>>> US ESTA: lasts two years, costs $21 for all, provides visa-free access to
>>> 332m people in one country
>>>
>>> Which looks more like a revenue-raising exercise?
>>
>> I doubt whether either scheme does more than cover costs, if they manage
>> to do that.
>
> I think the much increased prices for US ESTAs might mean the scheme now makes a small profit. They've gone up a lot.

Or they've just worked out that it was costing them a fortune to
operate. Never over-estimate a bureaucrat.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:02:22 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 22/01/2023 11:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <tqj1eb$32evv$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:59:39 on Sun, 22 Jan
>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>> On 22 Jan 2023 at 10:05:23 AM EET, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <tqils8$30le3$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:42:16 on Sun, 22 Jan
>>>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 22 Jan 2023 at 1:49:55 AM EET, "Recliner"
>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:01:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't have applied to us while a member as we then had the
>>>>>>>>> unrestricted right to travel and live in any EU country.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not quite (all EU citizens have the right to enter and live in
>>>>>>>> another EU
>>>>>>>> member state for up to three months, not indefinitely).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In any case, the new system is about checking who enters and
>>>>>>>> leaves the
>>>>>>>> Schengen zone, which would still have applied to us. So we'd
>>>>>>>> probably still
>>>>>>>> have the new fingerprinting requirement and have our passports
>>>>>>>> checked by
>>>>>>>> the machines, but wouldn't have needed to apply for the new
>>>>>>>> ETIAS. I don't
>>>>>>>> think we'd have needed to have our passports stamped, as we
>>>>>>>> currently do,
>>>>>>>> but won't when the new ETIAS comes in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure why they need ETIAS and EES, couldn't they just roll them
>>>>>>> into one?
>>>>>>> Unless ETIAS is little more than a revenue raising exercise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EU ETIAS: lasts three years, costs €7, but only for travellers
>>>>>> between 18
>>>>>> and 70, provides visa-free access to 420m people in 27 countries
>>>>>>
>>>>>> US ESTA: lasts two years, costs $21 for all, provides visa-free
>>>>>> access to
>>>>>> 332m people in one country
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which looks more like a revenue-raising exercise?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for reminding me I need to complete my New Zealand "NZeTA"
>>>>> for a
>>>>> trip over there in a few weeks; costs NZ$ 17 (plus a mandatory
>>>>> visitor tax of
>>>>> NZ$ 35) for a total of NZ$ 52, valid for 2 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> So that's €30, for access to 5m people in 1 country.
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite possibly the worst value of such things I've ever
>>>>> experienced... But
>>>>> alas, just the way the world is going.
>>>>
>>>> I rather suspect getting a tourist visa for Russia (OK, let's ignore the
>>>> war for a second) would cost more than £50, and they are only valid for
>>>> the duration of one short trip.
>>>
>>> It's not entirely clear to me what the relevance of visa pricing is to
>>> the
>>> cost of travel authorisations for *visa free* travel, one thing being
>>> almost,
>>> but not quite, entirely unlike the other;
>>
>> Because both EU and US schemes are visa *Waivers*. There's no visa-free
>> travel as such (ie no need for either a Visa or a Visa-waiver).
>>
>>> but rolling with it anyway - whether or not a tourist visa for Russia
>>> will cost more than £50 very much depends on your nationality. Russia
>>> has long applied a simple principle of reciprocity - i.e. they charge
>>> you the same as whatever your country charges Russians for a visa.
>>>
>>> So given that at the moment NZ citizens pay nothing for their
>>> visa-free travel
>>> to the EU, even on 'the Russian basis' that NZeTA is appalling value for
>>> money. (And indeed will continue to be once the much cheaper ETIAS is
>>> introduced.)
>>
>> I'm not convinced that reciprocity (of cost) makes sense for Travel
>> Authorisations, because the cost of running the scheme will vary from
>> destination to destination.
>
>It's not supposed to make sense, it's a political tantrum.

From vague memory of pushing ten years ago, that was the situation for
Canucks/Ammuricans/Aussies to enter Argentina... as all three
countries had imposed visa requrements on Argentines following an
up-tick in refugee claims/arrivals.

Argentina's response was an ETA, with (again from vague memory) two
options: single-entry or multiple. The single also allowed for return
with a time limit back into ARG from several countries including
Uruguay, but with no mention of the Falkland Islands.

I dutifully obtained the multiple... but later discovered the cruise
itinerary of Bs. As./Montevideo/Puerto Madryn/Stanley/Ushuaia
qualified for a single.

The Argies maintained one didn't leave the country as las Islas
Malvinas were, are, and always will be Argentine.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 23:49:55 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:01:44 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> It wouldn't have applied to us while a member as we then had the
>>>> unrestricted right to travel and live in any EU country.
>>>
>>> Not quite (all EU citizens have the right to enter and live in another EU
>>> member state for up to three months, not indefinitely).
>>>
>>> In any case, the new system is about checking who enters and leaves the
>>> Schengen zone, which would still have applied to us. So we'd probably still
>>> have the new fingerprinting requirement and have our passports checked by
>>> the machines, but wouldn't have needed to apply for the new ETIAS. I don't
>>> think we'd have needed to have our passports stamped, as we currently do,
>>> but won't when the new ETIAS comes in.
>>
>> Not sure why they need ETIAS and EES, couldn't they just roll them into one?
>> Unless ETIAS is little more than a revenue raising exercise.
>
>EU ETIAS: lasts three years, costs €7, but only for travellers between 18
>and 70, provides visa-free access to 420m people in 27 countries
>
>US ESTA: lasts two years, costs $21 for all, provides visa-free access to
>332m people in one country

Actually... sort of... 370m people in two countries.

Those qualifying for visa-exempt access into Canada don't have to have
a Canadian ETA to cross the border from the Excited States if entering
by land or sea, for instance driving from the U.S. or coming by bus,
train, or boat, including cruise ship.

<https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/visit-canada/entry-requirements-country.html#visaExempt>

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <042cnQNTP7ySjFD-nZ2dnZfqnPcAAAAA@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 10:33:51 on Sun, 22 Jan 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
> remarked:
>> On 22/01/2023 08:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> I rather suspect getting a tourist visa for Russia (OK, let's ignore
>>> the war for a second) would cost more than £50, and they are only
>>> valid for the duration of one short trip.
>
> It was reasonably long ago (15yrs maybe) but my business visa for Russia
> had a very short validity. As I don't read Russian I can't tell if it
> was for more than one entry (of whichever kind).

I can thoroughly recommend the Google Translate app which can use your
phone’s camera to replace foreign-looking text with English (or different
foreign looking text) in an image.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 22/01/2023 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 22/01/2023 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <042cnQBTP7x0klD-nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>> 10:28:56 on Sun, 22 Jan 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>> remarked:
>>> On 21/01/2023 13:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <tqels6$260vk$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:17:42 on Fri, 20
>>>> Jan 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> On 20/01/2023 17:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> As expected, the new system has been delayed till the autumn:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e4425ae-98d1-11ed-91ab-4070465550b
>>>>>> a?shareToken=9665026f771578c64329c002f4e050f0>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is old news, The Times asleep again? Even the Beeb had it on
>>>>> 17th  Jan.
>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64311737>
>>>>  I have no idea why any of this is a surprise....
>>>
>>> It doesn't says it is a surprise.
>>
>> The Times article is written in a style that clearly indicates they
>> think sufficient of their readers will be surprised by not just the
>> scheme itself, but the potential disruption.
>
> They could be right, it still comes as a surprise to Times readers that
> what they voted for actually happened.

The Times was for remain, and a superficial Google suggests its readers
were very remain.

--
Arthur Figgis

On 22/01/2023 11:01, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tqh29k$2li2i$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:01:56 on Sat, 21 Jan
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <95tnsh988a8d91cuu7fp7hke6b3kl8fqhu@4ax.com>, at 14:22:05 on
>>>> Sat, 21 Jan 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 13:44:18 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <tqels6$260vk$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:17:42 on Fri, 20 Jan
>>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 17:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> As expected, the new system has been delayed till the autumn:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e4425ae-98d1-11ed-91ab-4070465550b
>>>>>>>> a?shareToken=9665026f771578c64329c002f4e050f0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is old news, The Times asleep again? Even the Beeb had it on
>>>>>>> 17th Jan.
>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64311737>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no idea why any of this is a surprise....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The delay: most big government IT projects, most governments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The need in the first place: either something people who voted for
>>>>>> Brexit forgot to take into account, or did they say "it was worth it,
>>>>>> to get a black passport, annoy the DUP, create tens of thousands
>>>>>> of jobs at freight forwarding companies".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure how much this is a consequence of Brexit. It's a new EU
>>>>> scheme that applies to all non-Schengen passport holders, so we might
>>>>> have been subject to a version of it as well, even without Brexit.
>>>>
>>>> My impression was that if still members of the EU Brits would have
>>>> had a waiver for the border [data gathering] formalities if they
>>>> had applied in advance online, giving minimal information such as name,
>>>> DoB and passport number.
>>>>
>>>> That may have been facilitated by data-sharing agreements between the UK
>>>> and the EU which are no longer possible now we are a Third Country.
>>>>
>>>> It would still have not been automatic entry, but the decision at the
>>>> border would only require producing the non-expired passport, with the
>>>> prediction that would suffice (without further delay) for 95% of
>>>> travellers.
>>>
>>> I think they'd still need
>>
>> Do you mean "would have needed" in the hypothetical case of us still
>> being in the EU? In which case, what evidence is available for that.
>>
>>> to collect the fingerprints. The real test would be what an Irish
>>> passport holder needs to do at the Eurostar border.
>>
>> If you mean at the border in London, then as an EU citizen I would not
>> expect them to be subjected to the same procedures as third-country
>> citizens like Brits.
>>
>> But they might be delayed in a general queue if there isn't an "EU
>> citizens" fast-lane.
>
> It's not that simple. Not all EU countries are in the Schengen area, and
> not all Schengen countries are in the EU.

Non-EU Schengen members: CH, LI, IS and NO?

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:16:30 +0000, Graeme Wall
<rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 22/01/2023 13:11, Tweed wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2023 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <042cnQBTP7x0klD-nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>> 10:28:56 on Sun, 22 Jan 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 13:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tqels6$260vk$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:17:42 on Fri, 20 Jan
>>>>>> 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 17:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> As expected, the new system has been delayed till the autumn:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e4425ae-98d1-11ed-91ab-4070465550b
>>>>>>>> a?shareToken=9665026f771578c64329c002f4e050f0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is old news, The Times asleep again? Even the Beeb had it on
>>>>>>> 17th  Jan.
>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64311737>
>>>>>>  I have no idea why any of this is a surprise....
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't says it is a surprise.
>>>>
>>>> The Times article is written in a style that clearly indicates they
>>>> think sufficient of their readers will be surprised by not just the
>>>> scheme itself, but the potential disruption.
>>>
>>> They could be right, it still comes as a surprise to Times readers that
>>> what they voted for actually happened.
>>>
>>
>> Times readers should not be confused with Daily Telegraph readers.
>>
>
>Telegraph readers deny that what they voted for is what happened.
>
Do most of them remember that they voted?

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 23:30:13 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Clank
<clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:

>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 Jan 2023 at 3:03:52 PM EET, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I don?t quite follow the need for a finger print. The passport is the
>>>> identifier that should be used to count how many days you?ve been in
>>>> Schengen. If there are worries about the passport belonging to the person
>>>> presenting it doesn?t that equally apply to Schengen passport holders?
>>> It does. Which is why it's been mandatory for all EU issued passports to
>>> include fingerprint data for a while now (and indeed why the new biometric ID
>>> cards also include fingerprint data.)
>> But are Schengen passport holders expected to present their fingers for
>> checking? Genuine question, I don?t know.
>
>I don't know (and I'm not minded to dig through the EU website at
> this point, it's late,) but given that it has been made mandatory
> for all EU identity cards and passports to carry chips with the
> holder's fingerprint data, one might reasonably guess that's the
> plan at some point... Although "at some point" may well be a
> decade away, given existing documents need to expire/be replaced,
> so I guess for a while at least Schengen passport holders will be
> saved that trouble.
>
>It doesn't need to be particularly painful though. China has long
> collected fingerprints when they issue visas, and then check them
> at the border, and it seems quick and reliable. Certainly much
> quicker than the face recognition checks that take place at the
> current generation of eGates. I was fingerprinted somewhere else
> recently - Thailand maybe? - on arrival as well, and I'm fairly
> sure those aren't the only two; it's getting routine enough not
> to be notable to be honest.

USA has collected fingerprints for some years.

When I was last there in 2019 they had me go to a machine that took my
picture/fingerprints, read my passport and printed a receipt. The
receipt was collected as I exited customs and, for the first time
ever, I didn't get a stamp in my passport.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 09:13:08 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:02:22 +0000, Graeme Wall
><rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 22/01/2023 11:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <tqj1eb$32evv$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:59:39 on Sun, 22 Jan
>>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>> On 22 Jan 2023 at 10:05:23 AM EET, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <tqils8$30le3$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:42:16 on Sun, 22 Jan
>>>>> 2023, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 22 Jan 2023 at 1:49:55 AM EET, "Recliner"
>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:01:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It wouldn't have applied to us while a member as we then had the
>>>>>>>>>> unrestricted right to travel and live in any EU country.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not quite (all EU citizens have the right to enter and live in
>>>>>>>>> another EU
>>>>>>>>> member state for up to three months, not indefinitely).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In any case, the new system is about checking who enters and
>>>>>>>>> leaves the
>>>>>>>>> Schengen zone, which would still have applied to us. So we'd
>>>>>>>>> probably still
>>>>>>>>> have the new fingerprinting requirement and have our passports
>>>>>>>>> checked by
>>>>>>>>> the machines, but wouldn't have needed to apply for the new
>>>>>>>>> ETIAS. I don't
>>>>>>>>> think we'd have needed to have our passports stamped, as we
>>>>>>>>> currently do,
>>>>>>>>> but won't when the new ETIAS comes in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not sure why they need ETIAS and EES, couldn't they just roll them
>>>>>>>> into one?
>>>>>>>> Unless ETIAS is little more than a revenue raising exercise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EU ETIAS: lasts three years, costs €7, but only for travellers
>>>>>>> between 18
>>>>>>> and 70, provides visa-free access to 420m people in 27 countries
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> US ESTA: lasts two years, costs $21 for all, provides visa-free
>>>>>>> access to
>>>>>>> 332m people in one country
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which looks more like a revenue-raising exercise?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for reminding me I need to complete my New Zealand "NZeTA"
>>>>>> for a
>>>>>> trip over there in a few weeks; costs NZ$ 17 (plus a mandatory
>>>>>> visitor tax of
>>>>>> NZ$ 35) for a total of NZ$ 52, valid for 2 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So that's €30, for access to 5m people in 1 country.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quite possibly the worst value of such things I've ever
>>>>>> experienced... But
>>>>>> alas, just the way the world is going.
>>>>>
>>>>> I rather suspect getting a tourist visa for Russia (OK, let's ignore the
>>>>> war for a second) would cost more than £50, and they are only valid for
>>>>> the duration of one short trip.
>>>>
>>>> It's not entirely clear to me what the relevance of visa pricing is to
>>>> the
>>>> cost of travel authorisations for *visa free* travel, one thing being
>>>> almost,
>>>> but not quite, entirely unlike the other;
>>>
>>> Because both EU and US schemes are visa *Waivers*. There's no visa-free
>>> travel as such (ie no need for either a Visa or a Visa-waiver).
>>>
>>>> but rolling with it anyway - whether or not a tourist visa for Russia
>>>> will cost more than £50 very much depends on your nationality. Russia
>>>> has long applied a simple principle of reciprocity - i.e. they charge
>>>> you the same as whatever your country charges Russians for a visa.
>>>>
>>>> So given that at the moment NZ citizens pay nothing for their
>>>> visa-free travel
>>>> to the EU, even on 'the Russian basis' that NZeTA is appalling value for
>>>> money. (And indeed will continue to be once the much cheaper ETIAS is
>>>> introduced.)
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced that reciprocity (of cost) makes sense for Travel
>>> Authorisations, because the cost of running the scheme will vary from
>>> destination to destination.
>>
>>It's not supposed to make sense, it's a political tantrum.
>
>From vague memory of pushing ten years ago, that was the situation for
>Canucks/Ammuricans/Aussies to enter Argentina... as all three
>countries had imposed visa requrements on Argentines following an
>up-tick in refugee claims/arrivals.
>
>Argentina's response was an ETA, with (again from vague memory) two
>options: single-entry or multiple. The single also allowed for return
>with a time limit back into ARG from several countries including
>Uruguay, but with no mention of the Falkland Islands.
>
>I dutifully obtained the multiple... but later discovered the cruise
>itinerary of Bs. As./Montevideo/Puerto Madryn/Stanley/Ushuaia
>qualified for a single.
>
>The Argies maintained one didn't leave the country as las Islas
>Malvinas were, are, and always will be Argentine.

I was on a cruise with that order reversed when the requirement was
introduced, The Internet on board left much to be desired and the US
passport holders were all complaining about having to go through the
process and the Internet.

Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>> Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 Jan 2023 at 3:03:52 PM EET, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I don?t quite follow the need for a finger print. The passport is the
>>>> identifier that should be used to count how many days you?ve been in
>>>> Schengen. If there are worries about the passport belonging to the person
>>>> presenting it doesn?t that equally apply to Schengen passport holders?
>>> It does. Which is why it's been mandatory for all EU issued passports to
>>> include fingerprint data for a while now (and indeed why the new biometric ID
>>> cards also include fingerprint data.)
>> But are Schengen passport holders expected to present their fingers for
>> checking? Genuine question, I don?t know.
>
> I don't know (and I'm not minded to dig through the EU website at
> this point, it's late,) but given that it has been made mandatory
> for all EU identity cards and passports to carry chips with the
> holder's fingerprint data, one might reasonably guess that's the
> plan at some point... Although "at some point" may well be a
> decade away, given existing documents need to expire/be replaced,
> so I guess for a while at least Schengen passport holders will be
> saved that trouble.
>
> It doesn't need to be particularly painful though. China has long
> collected fingerprints when they issue visas, and then check them
> at the border, and it seems quick and reliable. Certainly much
> quicker than the face recognition checks that take place at the
> current generation of eGates. I was fingerprinted somewhere else
> recently - Thailand maybe? - on arrival as well, and I'm fairly
> sure those aren't the only two; it's getting routine enough not
> to be notable to be honest.
>

I get the impression that fingerprints won't be routinely taken at the
Schengen border. The first time that a non-EU ETIAS holder passes through,
four prints will be taken to register them, and check if they're already
known to the system. It seems they won't necessarily be taken subsequently,
so long as the facial recognition works.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 22:17:10 +0000, Graham Harrison
<edward.harrisom.one@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 23:30:13 +0200 (GMT+02:00), Clank
><clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22 Jan 2023 at 3:03:52 PM EET, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I don?t quite follow the need for a finger print. The passport is the
>>>>> identifier that should be used to count how many days you?ve been in
>>>>> Schengen. If there are worries about the passport belonging to the person
>>>>> presenting it doesn?t that equally apply to Schengen passport holders?
>>>> It does. Which is why it's been mandatory for all EU issued passports to
>>>> include fingerprint data for a while now (and indeed why the new biometric ID
>>>> cards also include fingerprint data.)
>>> But are Schengen passport holders expected to present their fingers for
>>> checking? Genuine question, I don?t know.
>>
>>I don't know (and I'm not minded to dig through the EU website at
>> this point, it's late,) but given that it has been made mandatory
>> for all EU identity cards and passports to carry chips with the
>> holder's fingerprint data, one might reasonably guess that's the
>> plan at some point... Although "at some point" may well be a
>> decade away, given existing documents need to expire/be replaced,
>> so I guess for a while at least Schengen passport holders will be
>> saved that trouble.
>>
>>It doesn't need to be particularly painful though. China has long
>> collected fingerprints when they issue visas, and then check them
>> at the border, and it seems quick and reliable. Certainly much
>> quicker than the face recognition checks that take place at the
>> current generation of eGates. I was fingerprinted somewhere else
>> recently - Thailand maybe? - on arrival as well, and I'm fairly
>> sure those aren't the only two; it's getting routine enough not
>> to be notable to be honest.
>
>USA has collected fingerprints for some years.
>
They were taking all four on (only?) one hand when I visited in 2008.

>When I was last there in 2019 they had me go to a machine that took my
>picture/fingerprints, read my passport and printed a receipt. The
>receipt was collected as I exited customs and, for the first time
>ever, I didn't get a stamp in my passport.
>
No receipt in 2008 when the scanner looked a bit like a 6" SatNav
screen mounted on the desk for the border agent.

On 23 Jan 2023 at 12:41:36 AM EET, "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> Wrote in message:
>>> Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 22 Jan 2023 at 3:03:52 PM EET, "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I don?t quite follow the need for a finger print. The passport is the
>>>>> identifier that should be used to count how many days you?ve been in
>>>>> Schengen. If there are worries about the passport belonging to the person
>>>>> presenting it doesn?t that equally apply to Schengen passport holders?
>>>> It does. Which is why it's been mandatory for all EU issued passports to
>>>> include fingerprint data for a while now (and indeed why the new biometric ID
>>>> cards also include fingerprint data.)
>>> But are Schengen passport holders expected to present their fingers for
>>> checking? Genuine question, I don?t know.
>>
>> I don't know (and I'm not minded to dig through the EU website at
>> this point, it's late,) but given that it has been made mandatory
>> for all EU identity cards and passports to carry chips with the
>> holder's fingerprint data, one might reasonably guess that's the
>> plan at some point... Although "at some point" may well be a
>> decade away, given existing documents need to expire/be replaced,
>> so I guess for a while at least Schengen passport holders will be
>> saved that trouble.
>>
>> It doesn't need to be particularly painful though. China has long
>> collected fingerprints when they issue visas, and then check them
>> at the border, and it seems quick and reliable. Certainly much
>> quicker than the face recognition checks that take place at the
>> current generation of eGates. I was fingerprinted somewhere else
>> recently - Thailand maybe? - on arrival as well, and I'm fairly
>> sure those aren't the only two; it's getting routine enough not
>> to be notable to be honest.
>>
>
> I get the impression that fingerprints won't be routinely taken at the
> Schengen border. The first time that a non-EU ETIAS holder passes through,
> four prints will be taken to register them, and check if they're already
> known to the system. It seems they won't necessarily be taken subsequently,
> so long as the facial recognition works.

Yes, this would make sense.

One could also envisage that fingerprints may be used in future to provide an
automated verification in places where automated facial recognition is
inconvenient - I'm thinking of things like on-train border checks, where a
quick check of a fingerprint will be much easier than trying to get the
passenger to pose for a photo (especially on a night train at 4 in the morning
:-)). At the moment these checks of course rely entirely on the mark 1
eyeball.

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:35:09 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:01:44 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> It wouldn't have applied to us while a member as we then had the
>>>> unrestricted right to travel and live in any EU country.
>>>
>>> Not quite (all EU citizens have the right to enter and live in another EU
>>> member state for up to three months, not indefinitely).
>>>
>>> In any case, the new system is about checking who enters and leaves the
>>> Schengen zone, which would still have applied to us. So we'd probably still
>>> have the new fingerprinting requirement and have our passports checked by
>>> the machines, but wouldn't have needed to apply for the new ETIAS. I don't
>>> think we'd have needed to have our passports stamped, as we currently do,
>>> but won't when the new ETIAS comes in.
>>
>> Not sure why they need ETIAS and EES, couldn't they just roll them into one?
>> Unless ETIAS is little more than a revenue raising exercise.
>>
>>
>
>I’d hardly call 7 Euro every 3 years a revenue raising exercise. Compare to
>£75 for a 10 year UK passport.

And how many hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions of non EU nationals do
you reckon (legally) need to enter the EU every 3 years or less?

On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 23:49:55 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:01:44 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> It wouldn't have applied to us while a member as we then had the
>>>> unrestricted right to travel and live in any EU country.
>>>
>>> Not quite (all EU citizens have the right to enter and live in another EU
>>> member state for up to three months, not indefinitely).
>>>
>>> In any case, the new system is about checking who enters and leaves the
>>> Schengen zone, which would still have applied to us. So we'd probably still
>>> have the new fingerprinting requirement and have our passports checked by
>>> the machines, but wouldn't have needed to apply for the new ETIAS. I don't
>>> think we'd have needed to have our passports stamped, as we currently do,
>>> but won't when the new ETIAS comes in.
>>
>> Not sure why they need ETIAS and EES, couldn't they just roll them into one?
>> Unless ETIAS is little more than a revenue raising exercise.
>
>EU ETIAS: lasts three years, costs €7, but only for travellers between 18
>and 70, provides visa-free access to 420m people in 27 countries
>
>US ESTA: lasts two years, costs $21 for all, provides visa-free access to
>332m people in one country
>
>Which looks more like a revenue-raising exercise?

Both.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 06:42:16 -0000 (UTC)
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 22 Jan 2023 at 1:49:55 AM EET, "Recliner" <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 21 Jan 2023 17:01:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> It wouldn't have applied to us while a member as we then had the
>>>>> unrestricted right to travel and live in any EU country.
>>>>
>>>> Not quite (all EU citizens have the right to enter and live in another EU
>>>> member state for up to three months, not indefinitely).
>>>>
>>>> In any case, the new system is about checking who enters and leaves the
>>>> Schengen zone, which would still have applied to us. So we'd probably still
>
>>>> have the new fingerprinting requirement and have our passports checked by
>>>> the machines, but wouldn't have needed to apply for the new ETIAS. I don't
>>>> think we'd have needed to have our passports stamped, as we currently do,
>>>> but won't when the new ETIAS comes in.
>>>
>>> Not sure why they need ETIAS and EES, couldn't they just roll them into one?
>
>>> Unless ETIAS is little more than a revenue raising exercise.
>>
>> EU ETIAS: lasts three years, costs €7, but only for travellers between 18
>> and 70, provides visa-free access to 420m people in 27 countries
>>
>> US ESTA: lasts two years, costs $21 for all, provides visa-free access to
>> 332m people in one country
>>
>> Which looks more like a revenue-raising exercise?
>
>Thank you for reminding me I need to complete my New Zealand "NZeTA" for a
>trip over there in a few weeks; costs NZ$ 17 (plus a mandatory visitor tax of
>NZ$ 35) for a total of NZ$ 52, valid for 2 years.
>
>So that's €30, for access to 5m people in 1 country.
>
>Quite possibly the worst value of such things I've ever experienced... But
>alas, just the way the world is going.

Don't go then. I never saw the appeal of NZ - nothing there that you can't
find in europe. At least Aus can claim unique landscapes and enviroments.

On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:40:49 +0000, Recliner
<recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Jan 2023 13:25:20 +0000, Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 22/01/2023 13:04, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> On 22/01/2023 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <042cnQBTP7x0klD-nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>> 10:28:56 on Sun, 22 Jan 2023, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On 21/01/2023 13:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tqels6$260vk$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:17:42 on Fri, 20
>>>>>> Jan 2023, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 20/01/2023 17:42, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>> As expected, the new system has been delayed till the autumn:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3e4425ae-98d1-11ed-91ab-4070465550b
>>>>>>>> a?shareToken=9665026f771578c64329c002f4e050f0>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is old news, The Times asleep again? Even the Beeb had it on
>>>>>>> 17th  Jan.
>>>>>>> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64311737>
>>>>>>  I have no idea why any of this is a surprise....
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't says it is a surprise.
>>>>
>>>> The Times article is written in a style that clearly indicates they
>>>> think sufficient of their readers will be surprised by not just the
>>>> scheme itself, but the potential disruption.
>>>
>>> They could be right, it still comes as a surprise to Times readers that
>>> what they voted for actually happened.
>>>
>>They're also surprised what it actually meant.
>
>The Times was not pro-Brexit, and I suspect that it had more Remainer than Brexiteer readers.

The Sunday Times was pro-Brexit before it was a thing and never
wavered, with the glaring exception of David Smith's business section.