Brexit thread - what happens next

[dowie]

I just posted about this. Who's going to pay for their return ticket? Where will they be housed until then?

From what I've read and my own experience it's not the carrier's responsibility to check visa status before travel.

it is the passenger's responsibility to pay for the return flight when turned away at an airport (though their return flight would usually cover it) - if they can't pay then it is down to the carrier...

perhaps if that were the case for Ferries (should the border be moved back) then they'd be strongly incentivised to ensure return tickets had been booked when some national from a dodgy country tried to get on board

 

[delta0]

I just posted about this. Who's going to pay for their return ticket? Where will they be housed until then?

From what I've read and my own experience it's not the carrier's responsibility to check visa status before travel.

Airlines are allowed and do carry out visa checks if necessary. They can be told to do these checks. I think they may value their license so it would be in their interest to make sure it is done.

 

[[TW]Fox]

For example, I once got a flight back to the UK from the USA. I have dual nationality but didn't have my UK passport (it was off getting a visa stuck in or smth) so I flew out on the US one.

So you had a valid passport.

Coming back I turned up with just the US one and had a tough time getting back in because from the perspective of the border guard I had no right to be here. Obviously nobody on the US side checked I had a UK visa.

Because ordinarily a US citizen does not require a UK visa. Had you turned up at the gate with a Somalian passport you might have had a tougher time getting on that flight.

This is because the operating carrier is responsible for you and it's why an airline will deny you boarding if you don't have, for example, a valid ESTA if you are travelling to the US, or a valid visa in your passport for other destinations.

I'm not saying it's as good as the situation we have now - it isn't. But it's not a free for all either.

 

[Puzzled]

It wouldn't do France any good either, the best thing they can do is send a strong message that the border is closed. The last thing they want is more migrants thinking they can get across to the UK.

The EU really needs to come up with a decent humane solution for the current migrant crisis, the media just seems to be ignoring it at the minute (certainly throughout the referendum debate for obvious reasons).

 

[[TW]Fox]

it is the passenger's responsibility to pay for the return flight when turned away at an airport

No it's not - it's the operating carrier. Who may then chose to recover it from the passenger, but legally the operating carrier is responsible for the inadmissible persons return.

 

[dowie]

No it's not - it's the operating carrier. Who may then chose to recover it from the passenger, but legally the operating carrier is responsible for the inadmissible persons return.

which is what I said... except you've only partially quoted me there

the passenger has a responsibly to the carrier to pay for a ticket, the carrier has a responsibility to the country to remove them (even if they can't pay)

 

[dowie]

see:

http://travel.stackexchange.com/que...he-return-ticket-when-a-country-refuses-entry

Just as an example, here are Lufthansa's terms regarding denied entry. But as I said, you will find similar regulations in other air lines' terms of carriage as well:

Refusal of Entry 13.3. If you are denied entry into any country, you will be responsible to pay any fine or charge assessed against us by the Government concerned and for the cost of transporting you from that country. We may apply to the payment of such fare any funds paid to us for unused carriage, or any funds of the passenger in the possession of us. The fare collected for carriage to the point of refusal of entry or deportation will not be refunded by us.

 

[[TW]Fox]

That is the airlines terms and conditions, not international law.

The airline is responsible. What they put in the T&C's to enable recovery at a later date is their choice. It even alludes to it in the terms - you will be responsible to pay any fine or charge assessed against us by the Government concerned.

The government bills the carrier, as under the Montreal Convention it is the carrier who has the legal responsibility for it.

Things therefore get very expensive very fast for carriers who routinely carry ineligible passengers such as those in Calais. Sending them an invoice after the fact isn't much of a solution, therefore the carriers tend to be proactive.

 

[joeyjojo]

Yep that all makes sense now, thanks.

The relevant bits of the UK rules are actually pretty easy to find:

1.5 What is expected of a carrier?
You do not need to satisfy yourself that the person will be acceptable to the United Kingdom authorities on arrival. That judgement can only be exercised by a Border Force officer. However, you are expected to make sure that:

• every passenger has a valid passport or travel document which is acceptable in the UK;
• the person is the rightful holder;
• the document is valid; and,
• if the person needs a visa, it is of the required kind and is valid for the holder and any other accompanying persons named in the passport.

etc.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/document-checks-and-charges-for-carriers

So back to the question - probably not much will happen if the ferry/train companies do their job properly.

In reality they'll probably miss some people, and the rules state that the company aren't liable if they miss people but tried "reasonably" hard to check (e.g. people make it in with good fake passports, someone else's passport where the photo is passable, etc.). So those people will still need dealing with. In effect the proper UKBA checks will be replaced by someone working for a transport company, so people will slip through the net.

 

[[TW]Fox]

etc.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/document-checks-and-charges-for-carriers

So back to the question - probably not much will happen if the ferry/train companies do their job properly.

In reality they'll probably miss some people, and the rules state that the company aren't liable if they miss people but tried "reasonably" hard to check (e.g. people make it in with good fake passports, someone else's passport where the photo is passable, etc.). So those people will still need dealing with. In effect the proper UKBA checks will be replaced by someone working for a transport company, so people will slip through the net.

And invariable the transport companies will argue that the demand being placed on them is unusually high and expect government support and funding - which is a fairly reasonable point, they are expected to check documents of travellers not fend off hoards of illegal immigrants, therefore the biggest effect will be that it'll cost us more money.

Never mind though, Brexit is going to save is £350m a week so we can just use that?

 

[dowie]

That is the airlines terms and conditions, not international law.

The airline is responsible. What they put in the T&C's to enable recovery at a later date is their choice. It even alludes to it in the terms - you will be responsible to pay any fine or charge assessed against us by the Government concerned.

so first you only partially quote me then try to change the subject

go back and re-read the posts concerned - the question was:

'who's going to pay for their return ticket?'

the answer is firstly they will likely use a return ticket, secondly if that isn't an option then the passenger will have to pay, if they can't pay then the carrier still has to take them.

pointing out that the passenger has to pay only due to T&Cs is irrelevant, the point is they are supposed to pay

 

[stewski]

On the legality or illegality of activation of Article 50 with/without the consent of parliament. Theregister report that the law firm Mishcon de Reya will be representing the case that a vote in parliament is needed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/04/legal_challenge_eu_article_50/

Like the old Chinese Curse may we live in interesting times...

 

[treble202016]

Why don't the remainers get a life, accept that a vote was done & the leave won & move on & lets get the hell out of the eu.

Jeez it's a joke all this 'lets have another go' or 'lets block or ignore the result cause you didn't like it'.

Just stop & accept the result. Your all just being petty & silly.

 

[stewski]

Why don't the remainers get a life, accept that a vote was done & the leave won & move on & lets get the hell out of the eu.

Jeez it's a joke all this 'lets have another go' or 'lets block or ignore the result cause you didn't like it'.

Just stop & accept the result. Your all just being petty & silly.

you're

 

[treble202016]

you're

Thank You

 

[Arazi]

Leadsom seems a ringer for Thatcher. All calm and collected, but I bet when she loses it, she proper loses it.

Yeah i was thinking that, still, i would

 

[[TW]Fox]

go back and re-read the posts concerned - the question was:

'who's going to pay for their return ticket?'

And the answer is 'the ferry company'.

the answer is firstly they will likely use a return ticket

You don't buy return tickets usually on cross channel ferries. You buy singles. Illegal migrants are unlikely to be in possession of return ferry tickets.

, secondly if that isn't an option then the passenger will have to pay, if they can't pay then the carrier still has to take them.

So in reality, the carrier has to pay. These people are not going to go 'No worries, single to Calais please' are they?

pointing out that the passenger has to pay only due to T&Cs is irrelevant, the point is they are supposed to pay

And they will not pay, so its highly relevant!

 

[{T5K}TT]

We need strong leadership right now not in three months time.

Cameron needs to start speaking up Monday and re assure everyone we'll be ok.

No Wonder Boris/Gove wanted him not to resign but glad he did they'll have to deal with this cluster**** and there future in politics won't be tenable. That's what they deserve for backstabbing him and far worse for the damage they've done to our country.

The only silver lining is once we leave we can say **** you to that scam artist Juncker, need to get one of the Ukip lot to kill him.

It is rumoured in the German press that Merkel wants Juncker out. It is possible that Merkel has realised that many regard Juncker as a symbol of what is wrong with the EU; hence she wants a new face for the EU integrationist project. Or, and I doubt this, perhaps Merkel wants the EU institutions to undergo serious reform to counter the possibility that more countries leave the EU, and regards Juncker as a barrier to that process.

What is the case is that Cameron said before the referendum that he would remain PM, respect the will of the people and see the process through, no matter the result. Cameron's let the country down.

 

[stewski]

It is rumoured in the German press that Merkel wants Juncker out. It is possible that Merkel has realised that many regard Juncker as a symbol of what is wrong with the EU; hence she wants a new face for the EU integrationist project. Or, and I doubt this, perhaps Merkel wants the EU institutions to undergo serious reform to counter the possibility that more countries leave the EU, and regards Juncker as a barrier to that process.

What is the case is that Cameron said before the referendum that he would remain PM, respect the will of the people and see the process through, no matter the result. Cameron's let the country down.

He's been doing that throughout his tenure.

 

[joeyjojo]

Why don't the remainers get a life, accept that a vote was done & the leave won & move on & lets get the hell out of the eu.

Jeez it's a joke all this 'lets have another go' or 'lets block or ignore the result cause you didn't like it'.

Just stop & accept the result. Your all just being petty & silly.

Thanks for that, but it doesn't add to the conversation we were just having about the Calais border checks.