On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:02:23 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
In message 1239380984.506806557.945802.recliner.ng-
, at 19:54:36 on Sun, 22 Jan
2017, Recliner remarked:

The US ESTA is part of a

Tourist-
Visa waiver scheme.

If you aren't a tourist, you need a visa.

I'm optimistic that we won't need visas for casual travel within
Europe. As we were never part of Schengen, I'm hopeful that things
won't change much.

Almost all my extensive European travel has been on business.

The US ESTA scheme is for business, pleasure or transit.

In message , at 11:11:42 on
Mon, 23 Jan 2017, David Walters remarked:
The US ESTA is part of a

Tourist-
Visa waiver scheme.

If you aren't a tourist, you need a visa.

I'm optimistic that we won't need visas for casual travel within
Europe. As we were never part of Schengen, I'm hopeful that things
won't change much.

Almost all my extensive European travel has been on business.

The US ESTA scheme is for business, pleasure or transit.

Yes. I was getting a bit muddled between "business" (buying and
selling?) and "working". And what counted as "other than working".

Quite a bit of my time in Europe would probably have counted as
"working".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 10:40:46 on Mon, 23 Jan
2017, d remarked:
I think there's a *lot* more travel between the UK and the rest of Europe.
And as there will be a soft intra-Ireland border, and an open Ulster-GB
border, there would be little point in inventing a new bureaucratic
obstacle to travel to/from Europe. The airports simply wouldn't have the
space for the gigantic Immigration areas that would be needed, nor would
there be the staff available.

Depends how it works. Something like ESTA which would be
pre-registered and recognised electronically on entry wouldn't require
substantial extra space if any.

Not so much in the airport, because it's a way of registering to use the
gates, and there would still need to be lots of new manual desks for all
those who hadn't pre-registered.

But it would require a big bureaucracy to process all the applications.
And, of course, the EU would need an equivalent bureaucracy to process UK
applications. It all seems rather pointless if nearly all applications
from EU citizens are likely to be automatically accepted by default.

In what sense would doing nothing "return control of our borders", which
a slim majority voted for?

The answer is fairly simple - pass a law that firms must hire uk citizens
in preference to foreign nations unless they can give a good reason why they
can't find a suitable candidate amongst the 60 million people on the island.

And permanent residents who haven't naturalised?

--
Roland Perry

On 2017-01-23 10:02:23 +0000, Roland Perry said:

If you aren't a tourist, you need a visa.

You don't need one for business meetings either.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 2017-01-23 10:04:04 +0000, Roland Perry said:

How would that work? People who have been marked as unwelcome being met
at the gate (in the UK), or is the idea to compel the airlines not to
let them board?

The latter is how it already works.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On 23.01.2017 12:02 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
In message 1239380984.506806557.945802.recliner.ng-
, at 19:54:36 on Sun, 22 Jan
2017, Recliner remarked:

The US ESTA is part of a

Tourist-
Visa waiver scheme.

If you aren't a tourist, you need a visa.

I'm optimistic that we won't need visas for casual travel within
Europe. As we were never part of Schengen, I'm hopeful that things
won't change much.

Almost all my extensive European travel has been on business.

Many, if not most, countries treat business activities (meeting suppliers,
clients, subsidiaries, having meetings etc.) as permissible within the same
visa exemption as tourism.

On 2017-01-23 12:25:10 +0000, Clank said:

Many, if not most, countries treat business activities (meeting suppliers,
clients, subsidiaries, having meetings etc.) as permissible within the same
visa exemption as tourism.

Of the places I've travelled to on business, India is the only one that didn't.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 11:59:49 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:40:46 on Mon, 23 Jan
2017, d remarked:
I think there's a *lot* more travel between the UK and the rest of
Europe.
And as there will be a soft intra-Ireland border, and an open Ulster-GB
border, there would be little point in inventing a new bureaucratic
obstacle to travel to/from Europe. The airports simply wouldn't have the
space for the gigantic Immigration areas that would be needed, nor would
there be the staff available.

Depends how it works. Something like ESTA which would be
pre-registered and recognised electronically on entry wouldn't require
substantial extra space if any.

Not so much in the airport, because it's a way of registering to use the
gates, and there would still need to be lots of new manual desks for all
those who hadn't pre-registered.

But it would require a big bureaucracy to process all the applications.
And, of course, the EU would need an equivalent bureaucracy to process UK
applications. It all seems rather pointless if nearly all applications
from EU citizens are likely to be automatically accepted by default.

In what sense would doing nothing "return control of our borders", which
a slim majority voted for?

The answer is fairly simple - pass a law that firms must hire uk citizens
in preference to foreign nations unless they can give a good reason why they
can't find a suitable candidate amongst the 60 million people on the island.

And permanent residents who haven't naturalised?

Tough. If they want to live here they either become citizens or put up with
being at the bottom of the list.

--
Spud

In message , at 12:05:29 on Mon, 23
Jan 2017, Neil Williams remarked:
How would that work? People who have been marked as unwelcome being
met at the gate (in the UK), or is the idea to compel the airlines
not to let them board?

The latter is how it already works.

I suspect the "no-fly" list only has people on it who are regarded as a
terrorist threat, rather than economic migrants.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 16:17:58 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 15:44:33 on Sun, 22 Jan 2017, Recliner
remarked:
The current pier 6 works well in Gatwick, and it would be unacceptable
if linked to the end of an already overlong pier by an even longer,
higher bridge than it has now.

Because you wouldn't need a bridge - access to the gates in question
would be via the taxi-way that didn't need to be bridged.

How? It would still be a remote satellite pier, whichever terminal it's
linked to.

You could link it at concourse level. That wouldn't impede any planes as
they'd go along the taxi-way that currently has the bridge over it. he
taxi-way that would end up being blocked is the one which is clearly
unsuitable for some reason, because it could otherwise be used by all
the planes currently going under the bridge.

The bridged taxiway serves the North terminal. You're proposing to block
the taxiway serving the South terminal

A taxiway serving part of the South terminal

Yes, about 15 gates in the North terminal. And 15 in the South terminal.

So you're suggesting that 30 gates should be seved by a *single* taxiway,
which would be blocked altogether if aircraft were pushing back from any of
eight gates. In railway terms, this would be the equivalent of removing all
but one of Waterloo's approach tracks. And spending tens of millions of
pounds in the process.

This is even barmier than any of Michael Bell's harebrained schemes! At
least he had the excuse that he was redesigning things he'd never seen, but
you were once a frequent flyer, and should have at least a distant memory
of how airports work.