Should the UK join Schengen?

[Bletchleyite]

Continuing from another thread.

The UK is NOT an Island nation, it DOES have a land border with the EU. Ireland has made moves towards Schengen recently, although it still has the opt-out and the CTA is a separate agreement.

Ireland is a complication to the whole thing, I'd agree. However Ireland does benefit more from freedom of physical movement (i.e. the CTA) with the bit of the UK it is physically joined to.

However, I'd see Irish reunification as near inevitable within 30 years or so. This being the case, the whole island of Ireland could then join Schengen if it saw fit at that point. The main need for the CTA is for travel between the two parts of Ireland, which would simply be one country then. It's not really needed for Ireland<->Great Britain, because we just get back to "if you're flying or going on a boat, showing your passport is not a great hassle".

Potential Scottish independence is a complicator. However, I'd rather a hard, patrolled border than giving in to Sturgeon's unworkable "leaky CTA" proposal, and it needs to be made clear that if Scotland does join Schengen that is near certain to be what happens. At present, Sturgeon is selling something that is impossible - being in the CTA *and* Schengen - and that misselling must be called out. It is one or the other, and if it's Schengen then there will be a hard border. And that's on the basis that I would vote for Scottish independence were I a Scot - but I would want Scotland to remain in the CTA, not Schengen. The EU is playing hardball on this at present but I reckon in practice it would relent.

But the Channel Tunnel isn't a proper land border. You can't drive over it, you can't walk over it, and even if we were in Schengen there wouldn't be a half hourly local stopping EMU running over it. It acts like air travel, and still would even were we in Schengen.

I'd say checking the passports is less obstructive to Eurostar than the security bag scanning though.

Certainly. Showing your passport is simply not an effort when compared to the law enforcement and immigration issues that would be posed by having fully open borders to the EU. It does cause queues when flying, but usually those queues are just time you'd spend standing by the baggage carousel. In the vast majority of my experience I'm at the carousel before my bags, even at fast airports like Luton. OK, some people don't check a bag, but the pricing schemes of low cost airlines are now pushing people back towards doing so, having discovered that lots of large carry-ons slow boarding significantly, and most people can't do more than a one night trip on the very small size of underseat bag that is now free.

I also wouldn't rule out in-person passport checks (which the UK doesn't do outbound anyway) being phased out in favour of some form of electronic checks before boarding card issue, for instance, alongside a quick automatic biometric or photo check on boarding. Then the friction is reduced to entering your passport details once on the website of the transport provider, and if you use them more than once they can be saved on there for re-use.

 

[zwk500]

Ireland is a complication to the whole thing, I'd agree. However Ireland does benefit more from freedom of physical movement (i.e. the CTA) with the bit of the UK it is physically joined to.

However, I'd see Irish reunification as near inevitable within 30 years or so. This being the case, the whole island of Ireland could then join Schengen if it saw fit at that point. The main need for the CTA is for travel between the two parts of Ireland, which would simply be one country then. It's not really needed for Ireland<->Great Britain, because we just get back to "if you're flying or going on a boat, showing your passport is not a great hassle".

I wouldn't say anything's certain on Irish reunification, and that 30 years is not a length of time we should just coast through until something happens. I'm with you that if the land border is removed, then the issue is massively simplified, but that's not where we are now.
I also agree that Ireland's priority will be maintaining free movement with the UK, but I would also contend that Ireland has shown it would prefer to be in Schengen.

Potential Scottish independence is a complicator. However, I'd rather a hard, patrolled border than giving in to Sturgeon's unworkable "leaky CTA" proposal, and it needs to be made clear that if Scotland does join Schengen that is near certain to be what happens. At present, Sturgeon is selling something that is impossible - being in the CTA *and* Schengen - and that misselling must be called out. It is one or the other, and if it's Schengen then there will be a hard border. And that's on the basis that I would vote for Scottish independence were I a Scot - but I would want Scotland to remain in the CTA, not Schengen. The EU is playing hardball on this at present but I reckon in practice it would relent.

Again, this is a hypothetical and at this point it looks less likely than it did about 10 years ago. I agree Sturgeon is asking for the best of both worlds, and that it is unrealistic. A hard border with Scotland would be just as disastrous (in different ways) to a hard border with Ireland, and again, I would prefer the British Isles to be in Schengen but the CTA is workable instead.

But the Channel Tunnel isn't a proper land border. You can't drive over it, you can't walk over it, and even if we were in Schengen there wouldn't be a half hourly local stopping EMU running over it. It acts like air travel, and still would even were we in Schengen.

I never claimed it was, and I agree it will continue to act as it does today, even if we did join Schengen. Thalys seems to work perfectly well within the EU following that model, though. And the easing of booking domestic tickets on Eurostar would help the re-emergence of a cross-channel commuter zone.

 

[adrock1976]

Regarding land borders between Schengen and non Schengen members, how did it work in Bavaria region of Germany and in Denmark up to 1995 when Austria, Sweden, and Finland became members of the EU?

Also, I read a document somewhere back in 2006-07 that ironically, the House of Lords were in favour at the time of the UK joining Schengen as it would make it a lot easier to extradite any hard criminals to face trial in the UK.

 

[DarloRich]

bit late for that ain't it? Soferinty and all that

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regarding land borders between Schengen and non Schengen members, how did it work in Bavaria region of Germany and in Denmark up to 1995 when Austria, Sweden, and Finland became members of the EU?

Also, I read a document somewhere back in 2006-07 that ironically, the House of Lords were in favour at the time of the UK joining Schengen as it would make it a lot easier to extradite any hard criminals to face trial in the UK.

The norm almost everywhere in Europe other than Eurostar was and is that passport checks were carried out on board, and they still are on e.g. journeys between Romania and the Schengen area.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2022 ==

bit late for that ain't it? Soferinty and all that

It doesn't take much looking at the news over the last 20 years or so to know we would have been in a far worse position in many ways without full control of our borders. I would never, ever vote for their effective delegation to countries that have no reason to care about the UK's safety. I'd like to see us back in the EU, but Schengen and the Euro* are absolute red lines for me. If those are mandatory, we should NOT rejoin (and shouldn't have left, as we had those exemptions already!)

* For a bit of crossover to the cash thread, the Euro is now effectively pointless in a world of electronic payments, and the inability to control quantitative easing and interest rates would have made the 2008 crisis far worse for the UK - we would have been in a position more like Greece. If the issue is bank interchange charges, legislate to ban them - but some banks offer bank rate without fees anyway - Monzo does if on their paid account.

 

[zwk500]

The norm almost everywhere in Europe other than Eurostar was and is that passport checks were carried out on board, and they still are on e.g. journeys between Romania and the Schengen area.

I believe it's come up in other Eurostar threads that checks on the move are being phased out.

It doesn't take much looking at the news over the last 20 years or so to know we would have been in a far worse position in many ways without full control of our borders. I would never, ever vote for their effective delegation to countries that have no reason to care about the UK's safety.

Which threats to the UK have been prevented by having control of our borders that would have been a danger to the UK if we had been in Schengen? Bearing in mind that when we were in the UK EU, we had a lot of controls over immigration that the UK govt chose not to apply.

I'd like to see us back in the EU, but Schengen and the Euro* are absolute red lines for me. If those are mandatory, we should NOT rejoin (and shouldn't have left, as we had those exemptions already!)

* For a bit of crossover to the cash thread, the Euro is now effectively pointless in a world of electronic payments, and the inability to control quantitative easing and interest rates would have made the 2008 crisis far worse for the UK - we would have been in a position more like Greece. If the issue is bank interchange charges, legislate to ban them - but some banks offer bank rate without fees anyway - Monzo does if on their paid account.

To digress slightly, the Euro is not pointless on the continent, where being able to nip over the border to another country and pay in the same currency (even cashless) makes the process much smoother, especially with moving jobs, etc. Variance in exchange rates, even slight ones, would be a disincentive to cross-border trade. It also still fulfils a macroeconomic purpose as a reserve currency, which only the Mark and Franc could hope to replicate, and has helped stabilise a number of domestic economic crises by preventing a local currency crashing (lira, mainly). However this does come at a structural cost to the Euro itself.
The big mistake with the Euro was trying to rush it out to every member state for (largely french) political purposes. Lots of the later adopters weren't anywhere near as financially stable enough, nor were the regulatory oversight structures strong enough, to manage a crisis, as was proven.
I personally think the Eurozone should have been maintained as a strictly contiguous land area, but I don't run the world so ho hum.

For the record, I agree the UK should not join the Euro. Sterling stands on it's own (or did, until Truss and Kwarting thought they was clever) as a global currency, and that ability rescued both the UK and the EU from a much worse crisis. The UK also does not have the same level of cross-border casual trade, given that you need a Boat, Train or Plane to get to the eurozone unless you live in NI. The level of NI/RoI trade is small enough that the Revolut/Monzo services you mention are easily enough.

 

[DelayRepay]

It doesn't take much looking at the news over the last 20 years or so to know we would have been in a far worse position in many ways without full control of our borders. I would never, ever vote for their effective delegation to countries that have no reason to care about the UK's safety. I'd like to see us back in the EU, but Schengen and the Euro* are absolute red lines for me. If those are mandatory, we should NOT rejoin (and shouldn't have left, as we had those exemptions already!)

I would agree with this. Schengen was completely irrelevant in the Brexit debate as we were not part of it. But it would also be my 'red line' if we were to consider re-joining the EU.

* For a bit of crossover to the cash thread, the Euro is now effectively pointless in a world of electronic payments, and the inability to control quantitative easing and interest rates would have made the 2008 crisis far worse for the UK - we would have been in a position more like Greece. If the issue is bank interchange charges, legislate to ban them - but some banks offer bank rate without fees anyway - Monzo does if on their paid account.

I can see the benefits in terms of making it easier to trade across borders, but countries like Greece and Germany sharing monetary policy was never going to work well. I understand the Blair government were initially in favour of the UK adopting the Euro - I think we had a lucky escape.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which threats to the UK have been prevented by having control of our borders that would have been a danger to the UK if we had been in Schengen.

There have been significant movements of terrorists and their materials across the EU, resulting in more attacks in various different countries, against which we have had more scope to protect.

We have mostly been able to keep rabies out.

Illegal entry* of e.g. Albanian criminal gangs has been considerably reduced by the deterrent of only being able to do it by way of a dangerous boat journey. If the UK abolished border controls they'd be straight in and dispersed before we could even say "organised crime" let alone investigate and prosecute it.

Bearing in mind that when we were in the UK, we had a lot of controls over immigration that the UK govt chose not to apply.

Note the * above - we need to separate blocking entry of criminals from genuine immigration e.g. from the EU. I was happy*** with the situation whereby other people from the EU could come to the UK to work and I could go there in return. I wouldn't be happy with all those young males** amassing in Calais being able to simply walk over the border into the UK bringing crime with them. They are not all of good intention. For instance, there is no reason for an Albanian to be given asylum - it is a safe country (and indeed Germany has a blanket policy of refusal of asylum to Albanians - but the problem there is that if they've entered Schengen e.g. to Italy there's no way to stop them entering Germany!)

** If they were fleeing persecution, on balance most would be whole families, and there would be more women and children. They're mostly not asylum seekers, they are mostly economic or criminal migrants - and far too many are the latter. Hence we need to control it. Every genuine asylum seeker should be allowed in, made welcome and helped (e.g. Ukrainians at present) but no economic migrant from outside the UK should unless e.g. they've got a job lined up that couldn't realistically be done by an unemployed EU citizen instead.

*** At the time of mass Polish immigration I wasn't happy with businesses employing people who essentially didn't speak English to work in customer facing roles in shops etc who would then have difficulty understanding my order or issue, but that's an issue of the business being cheap, not so much of immigration - they could have insisted on fluent English and paid more to get people with it regardless of their origin. I don't care what language is spoken in a warehouse or maintenance depot, say, as I don't speak to anyone in one, so that's down to how they want to manage internal communication in their business. Interestingly my now best mate is Polish and he came across in that initial wave - and he agrees with me on that! (I really should learn some Polish).

For the record, I agree the UK should not join the Euro. Sterling stands on it's own (or did, until Truss and Kwarting thought they was clever) as a global currency, and that ability rescued both the UK and the EU from a much worse crisis. The UK also does not have the same level of cross-border casual trade, given that you need a Boat, Train or Plane to get to the eurozone unless you live in NI. The level of NI/RoI trade is small enough that the Revolut/Monzo services you mention are easily enough.

To be honest from the point of view of my personal travel Monzo is spot on. Only Germany retains an obsession with cash, and that'll fade over time. Once you can pay card everywhere, it's just a case of learning what a foreign groat ( ) is worth against a pound. I've been to Iceland and the Isle of Man recently and in neither case did I get any local currency, I just paid by card which was the accepted default everywhere, even on the horse tram which felt a bit odd!. (I know you can spend GBP cash in the IoM but I didn't so as to avoid ending up with change not spendable on my return to England).

 

[Cloud Strife]

At present, Sturgeon is selling something that is impossible - being in the CTA *and* Schengen - and that misselling must be called out. It is one or the other, and if it's Schengen then there will be a hard border.

I've mentioned this before: this isn't quite true. Schengen encompasses more than just physical border controls, and Ireland is an example of a country that applies part, but not all of the Schengen acquis. Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria currently do the same. Essentially, the problem is with the colloquial usage of the word "Schengen" - for instance, Ireland is connected to the Schengen Information System, and I believe Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria all apply Schengen rules relating to hot pursuit across the border.

So, for instance, Scotland could remain part of the CTA, while applying Schengen rules relating to information sharing, hot pursuit and common visas.

The CTA is really not fit for purpose in 2022, as well. As it stands, there are five separate jurisdictions for immigration within the CTA, all of whom apply their own rules.

Regarding land borders between Schengen and non Schengen members, how did it work in Bavaria region of Germany and in Denmark up to 1995 when Austria, Sweden, and Finland became members of the EU?

My area of expertise!

So, Germany/Austria had a very relaxed border up until 1995, although Austria was outside the EU. It was generally understood that the 'hard' controls were on the Austrian borders with the former Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, not on the Austrian/German border. There were a considerable amount of 'local' border crossings where you could cross with only random control, although you had to be careful to comply with customs laws.

Denmark likewise didn't apply passport controls with Sweden, as they were both part of the Nordic Passport Union. There were cases where controls were carried out (especially by air, as all international flights landed at international arrivals), but it was normally enough to look Nordic and to say something in a Nordic language to be waved through. Customs controls were stricter, but given the amount of traffic by ferry between Sweden and Denmark, these controls were more intelligence-led with a certain amount of acceptance of smuggling alcohol/cigarettes.

These days, borders such as Croatia-Bosnia are monitored rather remotely than by physical controls. For instance, at Żeljava Air Base, it's quite normal to encounter a Croatian police control if you wander towards the physical concrete blocks that separate sectors 1/2/3 from sector 4. An example is in my photograph, taken from the BiH side (Sector 4) looking towards Croatia.

One mistake that people make with Schengen is also assuming that the borders aren't monitored. Finland, for example, has video cameras installed at every single Schengen crossing by road. Example here.

 

[Starmill]

I'd like to see us back in the EU, but Schengen and the Euro* are absolute red lines for me. If those are mandatory, we should NOT rejoin (and shouldn't have left, as we had those exemptions already!)

I really wouldn't worry, because it's unlikely that rejoining under any conditions will be on offer in the next decade or so.

North Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and Serbia are also way ahead in the accession negotiations, it's unlikely that we would be able to leapfrog them, and they still have years to go. In addition, Moldova, Turkey and Ukraine are candidate countries, and we would risk being behind them in accession too. Other countries could become candidate countries and proceed to accession negotiations before the UK can gain candidate country status also, especially Georgia.

 

[Cloud Strife]

but the problem there is that if they've entered Schengen e.g. to Italy there's no way to stop them entering Germany!)

One thing I would point out: there is actually many things you can do to stop them. Schengen doesn't prohibit systematic monitoring of the border, it only prevents systematic *control*. In the case of the UK, it would have been quite possible to join Schengen while maintaining a constant vigil at the border.

 

[Starmill]

One thing I would point out: there is actually many things you can do to stop them. Schengen doesn't prohibit systematic monitoring of the border, it only prevents systematic *control*. In the case of the UK, it would have been quite possible to join Schengen while maintaining a constant vigil at the border.

Indeed. Lots of countries have domestic ID laws. They are perfectly free to use those at the border to force people to identify themselves, and do so.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The norm almost everywhere in Europe other than Eurostar was and is that passport checks were carried out on board

Normally it worked in two ways: if the service departed from a station that was the first station across the border, then checks would be carried out on departure. An example today is with the (currently suspended) Vilnius-Mińsk service, where Lithuanian exit and entry control was carried out in the station. Same goes for the Warsaw-Grodno services, where Belarusian control was carried out in the station in Grodno rather than on the move.

If it was a longer distance service, then of course, on board was and is the norm.

The Eurostar operating model isn't entirely a bad one, though, it's just an issue with the level of security that the UK demands for the platforms. In a previous era, border control in Kostrzyn nad Odrą was carried out by having a couple of officers standing on the platform and directing passengers towards a window where both Polish and German border guards were present. No need for anything more complicated than that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2022 ==

Indeed. Lots of countries have domestic ID laws. They are perfectly free to use those at the border to force people to identify themselves.

Yup, random controls are quite normal. I've been stopped by the Czech police more times than I care to count for random controls, including just last week.

 

[Starmill]

The Eurostar operating model isn't entirely a bad one, though, it's just an issue with the level of security that the UK demands for the platforms. In a previous era, border control in Kostrzyn nad Odrą was carried out by having a couple of officers standing on the platform and directing passengers towards a window where both Polish and German border guards were present. No need for anything more complicated than that.

The UK pays a lot of money to maintain the agreement with France, Belgium and the Netherlands to juxtaposed controls. Without such an agreement the UK would have no authority to locate border guards in Lille, Paris, Brussels, Rotterdam, Amsterdam and so on. So while it might be a useful model and I don't disagree, it only really arises because of classic British exceptionalism, on which, in these circumstances, vast amounts of public money are spent.

If it weren't for Le Toquet, Eurostar almost certainly wouldn't want to pursue anything like this kind of operation.

The security requirement in law is only for the use of the tunnel. This is just what was agreed between France and the UK.

 

[Bald Rick]

Bearing in mind that when we were in the UK…

Have we left that too?

 

[zwk500]

Have we left that too?

Well, I have , but I have also corrected my post.

 

[Cloud Strife]

So while it might be a useful model and I don't disagree, it only really arises because of classic British exceptionalism, on which, in these circumstances, vast amounts of public money are spent.

I've always thought that the most sensible solution would be to empower Eurostar to systematically scan biometric travel documents alongside an iris scan. Observe the process in real time from a control centre in the UK, and have UK-based staff authorise the traveller to board the train. Let's say that some guy wants to travel who meets the criteria as being potentially undesirable: the UK can simply refuse him permission to board the train remotely. With the upcoming ETA, it shouldn't be a problem as they'll already be pre-cleared to even attempt travel.

 

[Starmill]

I've always thought that the most sensible solution would be to empower Eurostar to systematically scan biometric travel documents alongside an iris scan. Observe the process in real time from a control centre in the UK, and have UK-based staff authorise the traveller to board the train. Let's say that some guy wants to travel who meets the criteria as being potentially undesirable: the UK can simply refuse him permission to board the train remotely. With the upcoming ETA, it shouldn't be a problem as they'll already be pre-cleared to even attempt travel.

Something like this would be far better, providing that it doesn't impose massive criminal or civil penalties on Eurostar, Gatlink or ferry companies for tiny administrative errors. Unfortunately with the way Britain's political rhetoric constantly whips up severe moral panic about people entering the country from the continent (see the Home Secretary recently calling this an "invasion") I don't think we'll ever get there.

 

[AlterEgo]

However, I'd see Irish reunification as near inevitable within 30 years or so. This being the case, the whole island of Ireland could then join Schengen if it saw fit at that point. The main need for the CTA is for travel between the two parts of Ireland, which would simply be one country then. It's not really needed for Ireland<->Great Britain, because we just get back to "if you're flying or going on a boat, showing your passport is not a great hassle".

In a potential United Ireland it is going to be very difficult to sell the idea to unionists that they will need a passport to visit Great Britain. Any UI will need concessions to unionists, whether this is maintaining the CTA or joining the Commonwealth remains to be seen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. Lots of countries have domestic ID laws. They are perfectly free to use those at the border to force people to identify themselves, and do so.

Though personally I'd consider a domestic ID carrying law another red line. I'm happy for having ID cards - after all, I do have my driving licence in my wallet all the time, I'm fundamentally not happy for a "papers please" change to the relationship between state and citizen that compulsory carry entails, just so we can join a scheme with many disadvantages and a few small advantages.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2022 ==

In a potential United Ireland it is going to be very difficult to sell the idea to unionists that they will need a passport to visit Great Britain. Any UI will need concessions to unionists, whether this is maintaining the CTA or joining the Commonwealth remains to be seen.

This is an interesting point, but given that the majority of such travel is with Ryanair, who require a passport for all travel, it seems a little moot.

 

[Starmill]

Though personally I'd consider a domestic ID carrying law another red line.

Me too. But that's not the case in many European countries in Schengen, that's all I was getting at.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2022 ==

This is an interesting point, but given that the majority of such travel is with Ryanair, who require a passport for all travel, it seems a little moot.

I guess so, but Ryanair and their odd approach to policy isn't a matter of law. Ryanair could drop that policy tomorrow, or other airlines could introduce it. Long term Ryanair coego out of business, or split into multiple separate entities with different policy. Or, one or more countries could change the law defining a list of acceptable photographic IDs which airlines must accept for flying, and include something beyond a passport on that list, thus forcing Ryanair to make a change of policy.

 

[alex397]

Indeed. Lots of countries have domestic ID laws. They are perfectly free to use those at the border to force people to identify themselves, and do so.

I’ve had my passport checked while going between different countries that are both part of Schengen three times now.
The last time while on an Aachen city bus between Kelmis (Belgium) and the German city. German police (or were they special border police, I don’t know) boarded the bus literally at the border. Everyone got their ID cards out. I of course had to get my passport out.
(Incidentally they were very polite and wished me well, and were having a laugh with the locals)

 

[GS250]

The goalposts as far as pan European movement goes have changed completely in the last 10-20 years. A Schengen type system and maybe even a common currency would have probably been extremely good for the UK in the 1980s especially. This being that the EEC consisted of relatively wealthy countries with no obvious desire for a large mass of people to move from one to another. However fast forward to today not only has there been an imbalance of movement from East to West but there is also the huge movement of people from outside to inside of the EU too.

Agreed with the above, I've had my passport checked when travelling between Schengen areas. This apparently rarely happened before 2015.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is an interesting point, but given that the majority of such travel is with Ryanair, who require a passport for all travel, it seems a little moot.

There is no such thing as a moot point with loyalists.

 

[Cloud Strife]

In a potential United Ireland it is going to be very difficult to sell the idea to unionists that they will need a passport to visit Great Britain. Any UI will need concessions to unionists, whether this is maintaining the CTA or joining the Commonwealth remains to be seen.

There is the point that Ireland may adopt ID cards for everyone in order to mitigate this. The UK is unlikely to be hostile towards Irish citizens using ID cards, as they didn't end the CTA during even the worst of The Troubles.

But this is one of a myriad of problems associated with Irish unification.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2022 ==

Or, one or more countries could change the law defining a list of acceptable photographic IDs which airlines must accept for flying, and include something beyond a passport on that list, thus forcing Ryanair to make a change of policy.

That's what Italy did with domestic flights and Ryanair. Why the UK and Ireland didn't insist on the same for CTA flights is entirely beyond me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's what Italy did with domestic flights and Ryanair. Why the UK and Ireland didn't insist on the same for CTA flights is entirely beyond me.

Because neither the UK nor Ireland has ID cards?

I believe the reason they did it was that their new online checkin software couldn't deal with the very long number on a driving licence.

 

[Starmill]

That's what Italy did with domestic flights and Ryanair. Why the UK and Ireland didn't insist on the same for CTA flights is entirely beyond me.

It's a change I would like to see certainly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Nov 2022 ==

Because neither the UK nor Ireland has ID cards?

I believe the reason they did it was that their new online checkin software couldn't deal with the very long number on a driving licence.

Of course, we don't have ID cards specifically, but that's mainly because driving licences, including provisional licences, are used in their stead in every possible application... except for Ryanair flights. Obviously this doesn't really help much for people who are not eligible to drive, but it's still way it is currently. If you go to a nightclub that does all IDs on the door for example, how many of the British guests will show something other than a driving licence, including provisional? Very few, even though theoretically any PASS compliant document is also acceptable.

 

[Halifaxlad]

However, I'd see Irish reunification as near inevitable within 30 years or so.

I can't see that happening I do suspect it may end up like the 'Isle of Man/Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey'

I.e not part of the UK nor part of Ireland!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't see that happening I do suspect it may end up like the 'Isle of Man/Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey'

I.e not part of the UK nor part of Ireland!

In the days when the UK was in the EU and had no sign of leaving it, making NI an independent EU country (but in the CTA) did look like a reasonable solution to the Troubles. Oh how things have changed...

 

[Broucek]

It doesn't take much looking at the news over the last 20 years or so to know we would have been in a far worse position in many ways without full control of our borders. I would never, ever vote for their effective delegation to countries that have no reason to care about the UK's safety. I'd like to see us back in the EU, but Schengen and the Euro* are absolute red lines for me. If those are mandatory, we should NOT rejoin (and shouldn't have left, as we had those exemptions already!)

This. I voted remain but the single currency was and is a terrible idea for countries with such different economies and societies and Schengen makes no sense for the UK.

As an aside, I once had a VERY bad work week which went London-Turin-Milan-Frankfurt-Stockholm-Zurich-Paris-London and I didn't need my passport except for the first and last legs which was ..... weird!