Could a second Channel Tunnel be built to increase capacity?

[Mountain Man]

Going on holiday to Western Europe is hardly going to be a priority in a climate emergency.

Not if those were banned.

Maybe change the balance of sea crossings and tunnel journeys.

Not going to happen. Would be such a vote loser no government would go near the idea.

Furthermore aerospace propulsion is advancing so quickly the climate change argument will become a non issue

 

[HSTEd]

Furthermore aerospace propulsion is advancing so quickly the climate change argument will become a non issue

Really?

It will be 20 to 30 years before any electrically powered airliner of significant capability is available, if at all.

And providing the UK's current requirements for aviation turbine fuel from zero carbon synthetic sources would require something like our entire annual electricity consumption.
Meanwhile aviation turbine fuel demand continues to grow despite supposed efficiency improvements.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

International travel is, and remains, a plaything of the upper and middle classes.

The LCC airlines serving the many beach destinations, and last year's 1.75m migrants (1.2m inwards, 557K outwards), would probably disagree with you.
Tourism is also a very big economic earner, both inbound and outbound, not all of it premium (eg football tourism, HAJJ).

It's a bit like Philip Hammond's "It's already a rich man's railway", when it isn't, really.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

May I dare say that describing climate change as an emergency is a particular way of articulating things, which leads to the measures you described, like banning flights, flight shaming and making it unaffordable for working class people to travel outside their country.
Taking these measures (flight bans or making travel prohibitively expensive through taxation) is not an inevitability, rather it is a political choice and I do not see our electorate making this choice anytime this century, no matter how serious climate change consequences become…

Welcome to the forum. Bravely ( but correctly stated) in my opinion.

 

[Mountain Man]

Really?

It will be 20 to 30 years before any electrically powered airliner of significant capability is available, if at all.

And providing the UK's current requirements for aviation turbine fuel from zero carbon synthetic sources would require something like our entire annual electricity consumption.
Meanwhile aviation turbine fuel demand continues to grow despite supposed efficiency improvements.

People showed the same pessimism about cars. They were wrong then and wrong now.

And no government in the UK will survive in office if they try and implement flight bans.

 

[HSTEd]

People showed the same pessimism about cars. They were wrong then and wrong now.

Did they?
The problem with cars was always about economics.

The problem with the idea of electric airliners with significant range is physics.

A jetliner already carries a substantial fraction of its total takeoff weight in fuel.

And no available, practical, battery tech is going to approach the energy density of kerosene for a very long time. It's simply a matter of physics - only metal-air batteries really have a chance of that. And they make the plane heavier as they discharge!

And no government in the UK will survive in office if they try and implement flight bans.

The reality is that a large fraction of flights are taken by a very small portion of the population.

The bulk of it would not even notice if flight numbers were cut by three quarters if cuts were focussed on frequent fliers.

But in any case, I doubt draconian "flight bans" would be required.
Far more likely, jet operators would be required to utilise zero carbon aviation fuel.

That fuel will be treble or quadrouple the cost of today and the demand for aviation will be strangled "organically".

I'm not incredibly pleased about this outcome, but the alternative is the aviation industry paying for 300TWh of electricity per year.

 

[duncanp]

I certainly agree that St Pancras could do with a complete rebuild - EMR, Southeastern and Eurostar could all do with extra capacity, and the current layout is very inefficient and confusing (including the tube station) and can massively be improved.

The Gare Du Nord in Paris needs a complete rebuild ahead of next year's Olympic Games, otherwise it is going to be a nightmare.

Even the secure waiting area at Lille Europe was expanded a few years ago.

A second channel tunnel is a non starter for cost reasons, but even if cost wasn't a problem it could easily take several years to build, which wouldn't solve the current problems.

In the short term, re-opening Ebbsfleet and Ashford would go some way to solving the issue, as would things like allowing UK citizens to use the e-gates at St Pancras, as well as the EU getting rid of their silly rules about the passport must be less than 10 years old at the date of travel, and be valid for more than three months after the date of leaving the Schengen area.

Even the United States, who are notoriously fussy about who they let in, do not have these rules about passport validity, insisting only that the passport is valid for the proposed length of stay. When I went to the United States last month, the passport wasn't even stamped on entry.

Reducing the number of people with potentially invalid passports, as well as allowing more people to use the e-gates, would speed up processing times at St Pancras.

 

[takno]

In the short term, re-opening Ebbsfleet and Ashford would go some way to solving the issue, as would things like allowing UK citizens to use the e-gates at St Pancras, as well as the EU getting rid of their silly rules about the passport must be less than 10 years old at the date of travel, and be valid for more than three months after the date of leaving the Schengen area.

Even the United States, who are notoriously fussy about who they let in, do not have these rules about passport validity, insisting only that the passport is valid for the proposed length of stay. When I went to the United States last month, the passport wasn't even stamped on entry.

Reducing the number of people with potentially invalid passports, as well as allowing more people to use the e-gates, would speed up processing times at St Pancras.

The rules are pretty logical, and apply to a lot of other countries. I'd categorise the US as moody rather than fussy - they'll let you in, but not before you've spent an hour in a queue being ordered around by goons on a power trip. More importantly, the rules are applied pretty even- handedly to all non EEA countries, so there's basically no chance of us negotiating a carve-out.

 

[duncanp]

The rules are pretty logical, and apply to a lot of other countries. I'd categorise the US as moody rather than fussy - they'll let you in, but not before you've spent an hour in a queue being ordered around by goons on a power trip. More importantly, the rules are applied pretty even- handedly to all non EEA countries, so there's basically no chance of us negotiating a carve-out.

The EU could easily change their rules though.

A slight correction to my earlier comment about the United States and passport validity is that the United States requires six months passport validity, but also maintains a list of countries for which this rule is waived.

If the EU were to adopt a similar rule then it would reduce processing times at ports of entry.

It is noted that President Macron doesn't want the ETIAS system and the EES system introduced before the Paris Olympics precisely because he knows it will cause huge delays.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Dec/Six-Month Club Update122017.pdf

Kosovo is the newest member of the six-month club. Visitors traveling to the United States are required to be in possession of passports that are valid for six months beyond the period of their intended stay in the United States. Citizens of the countries listed below are exempt the six-month rule and need only have a passport valid for their intended period of stay. This update supersedes the list found inside CBP’s Carrier Information Guide, 2014 edition. Andorra Angola Antigua and Barbuda Antilles Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Bahamas, The Barbados Belgium Belize Bermuda Bolivia Bosnia-Herzegovina Brazil Bulgaria Burma Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominica Dominican Republic Egypt El Salvador Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France Gabon Georgia Germany Greece Grenada Guatemala Guinea Guyana Haiti Hong Kong (Certificates of Identity and Passports) Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Kosovo Latvia Lebanon Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Maldives Malaysia Malta Mauritania Mauritius Mexico Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Mozambique Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua (for all passports) Nigeria Norway Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Russia San Marino Saudi Arabia Serbia Seychelles Singapore Slovakia Slovenia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and The Grenadines Suriname Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Tuvalu Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay Uzbekistan Vatican (Holy See) Venezuela Zimbabwe

 

[zwk500]

The EU could easily change their rules though.

A slight correction to my earlier comment about the United States and passport validity is that the United States requires six months passport validity, but also maintains a list of countries for which this rule is waived.

If the EU were to adopt a similar rule then it would reduce processing times at ports of entry.

It is noted that President Macron doesn't want the ETIAS system and the EES system introduced before the Paris Olympics precisely because he knows it will cause huge delays.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Dec/Six-Month Club Update122017.pdf

What motive do the EU have to give the UK special treatment? Their objective is to prevent other countries leaving the Union, so they're hardly going to be nice and friendly to the country that's just left and is playing into the EUs hands by making a right pigs ear of things.
There are similar political games going on all over the EU for various national interests. It was a game the UK played pretty well, all things considered. But now we've stormed off in a huff they're hardly going to deal us straight back into the game.

 

[Chester1]

Did they?
The problem with cars was always about economics.

The problem with the idea of electric airliners with significant range is physics.

A jetliner already carries a substantial fraction of its total takeoff weight in fuel.

And no available, practical, battery tech is going to approach the energy density of kerosene for a very long time. It's simply a matter of physics - only metal-air batteries really have a chance of that. And they make the plane heavier as they discharge!

The reality is that a large fraction of flights are taken by a very small portion of the population.

The bulk of it would not even notice if flight numbers were cut by three quarters if cuts were focussed on frequent fliers.

But in any case, I doubt draconian "flight bans" would be required.
Far more likely, jet operators would be required to utilise zero carbon aviation fuel.

That fuel will be treble or quadrouple the cost of today and the demand for aviation will be strangled "organically".

I'm not incredibly pleased about this outcome, but the alternative is the aviation industry paying for 300TWh of electricity per year.

Quadrupling the price of jet fuel is electoral suicide. Even if current taxes were replaced with a frequent flyer tax it wouldn't prevent a substantial proportion of the population from being effectively banned from traveling further than our near neighbours. Unless the EU and EEA countries agreed to do the same then it would just divert most people to traveling via Dublin, Paris and Amsterdam with split ticketing. Until the economics of greener flying are viable flying will continue to generate a lot of fossil fuels. People shouting climate emergency isn't going to change the electoral reality that flying is seen as essential by many. I fly much more than average but I live in a flat, I don't drive and I don't eat meat. My carbon footprint balances out at around the national average. Not flying would seperate me from family, I care more about them than carbon emissions. There are many millions of Brits and British residents in that situation.

Its ironic that the keenest to introduce changes because of climate change are generally the most globalist on immigration. Look at the green party, they are pro EU and basically want global freedom of movement. The more diverse our society becomes the more aviation carbon emissions will rise because people want to see their friends and family in other countries.

The Gare Du Nord in Paris needs a complete rebuild ahead of next year's Olympic Games, otherwise it is going to be a nightmare.

Even the secure waiting area at Lille Europe was expanded a few years ago.

A second channel tunnel is a non starter for cost reasons, but even if cost wasn't a problem it could easily take several years to build, which wouldn't solve the current problems.

In the short term, re-opening Ebbsfleet and Ashford would go some way to solving the issue, as would things like allowing UK citizens to use the e-gates at St Pancras, as well as the EU getting rid of their silly rules about the passport must be less than 10 years old at the date of travel, and be valid for more than three months after the date of leaving the Schengen area.

Even the United States, who are notoriously fussy about who they let in, do not have these rules about passport validity, insisting only that the passport is valid for the proposed length of stay. When I went to the United States last month, the passport wasn't even stamped on entry.

Reducing the number of people with potentially invalid passports, as well as allowing more people to use the e-gates, would speed up processing times at St Pancras.

The Passport Office has only been issuing passports with ten year validity for quite a while now. The problem will solve itself by end of decade. EES + ETIAS and UK ETA will cause a lot of problems over next couple of years but after that will make border controls much smoother. On top of your suggestion of reopening Ebbsfleet and Ashford, Stratford International could live up to its name. If St Pancras is still a major bottleneck after roll out of ETIAS, EES and UK ETA then Amsterdam and Rotterdam allocations could be copied. If some seats are only available from intermediate stations then people will use them.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

In the short term, re-opening Ebbsfleet and Ashford would go some way to solving the issue, as would things like allowing UK citizens to use the e-gates at St Pancras, as well as the EU getting rid of their silly rules about the passport must be less than 10 years old at the date of travel, and be valid for more than three months after the date of leaving the Schengen area.

French E-gate use is expected this year for British citizens, it's been a technical issue

Don't know why passports should be over 10 years old, that's their validity

 

[zwk500]

EES + ETIAS and UK ETA will cause a lot of problems over next couple of years but after that will make border controls much smoother.

Hopefully this turns out to be the case. The US visa waiver scheme was pretty smooth last time I had to use it some 15 years ago.

On top of your suggestion of reopening Ebbsfleet and Ashford, Stratford International could live up to its name. If St Pancras is still a major bottleneck after roll out of ETIAS, EES and UK ETA then Amsterdam and Rotterdam allocations could be copied. If some seats are only available from intermediate stations then people will use them.

BIB - this doesn't really help too much. The station has never been fitted out and the pathing challenges it brings would make capacity issues worse.

Don't know why passports should be over 10 years old, that's their validity

When you renew your passport you are allowed to retain up to a certain amount (6 months?) validity added on so if you were close to the limit and had renewed your passport at the earliest opportunity previously you could exceed the 10 year limit.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

When you renew your passport you are allowed to retain up to a certain amount (6 months?) validity added on so if you were close to the limit and had renewed your passport at the earliest opportunity previously you could exceed the 10 year limit.

That I didn't know, I've never had a passport run the full amount before renewing as I've always had a name change or lost it .

I'd rather have reciprocal arrangements with Ireland rather than a special agreement with the rest of the EU tbh

 

[zwk500]

I'd rather have reciprocal arrangements with Ireland rather than a special agreement with the rest of the EU tbh

We have the Common Travel Area with the Republic of Ireland, that's separate from the freedom of movement formerly provided by the EU.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

We have the Common Travel Area with the Republic of Ireland, that's separate from the freedom of movement formerly provided by the EU.

I know, but Irish people can use expired passports for UK travel but the opposite doesn't apply

 

[HSTEd]

Unless the EU and EEA countries agreed to do the same then it would just divert most people to traveling via Dublin, Paris and Amsterdam with split ticketing.

Well flights taken from those places don't count towards UK emissions, and thus it becomes someone elses problem. The rest of Europe is eventually going to have to resort to similar charging strategies - or concede subsidies to aviation of tens of billions of euros per year.

Also going anywhere in Europe via Dublin would be utterly insane. You can't reach it quickly with surface transport and its hundreds of kilometres in the wrong direction to go anywhere in Europe!
Paris CdeG would be the obvious option.

Until the economics of greener flying are viable flying will continue to generate a lot of fossil fuels.

Unless electricity prices drop to near zero, which they might (but I am not holding my breath), they will never be "viable".
The modern aviation industry is based on an unlimited supply of incredibly cheap kerosene, that is going to go away one way or the other.

There are ways that the aviation industry could cut kerosene use, but it won't do them whilst kerosene remains ultra-cheap.

Abolition of business/first class, scrapping most of the windows in the plane, fuel stops/breaking up very long distance flights etc.

People shouting climate emergency isn't going to change the electoral reality that flying is seen as essential by many. I fly much more than average but I live in a flat, I don't drive and I don't eat meat.

Aviation emissions are already on order of 10% of UK emissions, this fraction is going to rise precipitously on the grounds of continuing aviation demand growth and cratering emissions everywhere else.
Once electric cars go (with electricity decarbonisation rapidly progressing) they will be a substantial portion of all remaining emissions.

My carbon footprint balances out at around the national average. Not flying would seperate me from family, I care more about them than carbon emissions. There are many millions of Brits and British residents in that situation.

And there are many tens of millions more who are not. Voters of this worldview will also tend to be inefficiently distributed, being concentrated in a handful of urban seats.

If a government is faced between stringent energy use cuts in the domestic environment (or imposing veganism on the population) or clobbering frequent fliers, they will clobber frequent fliers every day of the week.
And I (and the politicians) don't really want to deal with the nightmare of a 3-4C world, so the emission cuts will have to happen.

 

[Chester1]

And there are many tens of millions more who are not. Voters of this worldview will also tend to be inefficiently distributed, being concentrated in a handful of urban seats.

If a government is faced between stringent energy use cuts in the domestic environment (or imposing veganism on the population) or clobbering frequent fliers, they will clobber frequent fliers every day of the week.
And I (and the politicians) don't really want to deal with the nightmare of a 3-4C world, so the emission cuts will have to happen.

By 2050s the majority of children in our schools will be an ethnic minority or mixed race. The birth rate of a British female born in UK is 1.3 and is 1.6 for all women living in UK. Both are miles below replacement level. Our population is sustained by massive amounts of immigration and on higher birthrates of previous immigrants. The only serious political debate is over who the next generation of migrants will be. We also have substantial emigration. In 2050 it will be normal to have close family in other countries. Net zero will be second to the votes of people who want to see their loved ones, regardless of the climate.

No government is going to significantly harm standard of living or impose major lifestyle changes because of climate change. Our carbon emissions are too small to change global situation and voters won't support dracionian measures that have a token effect on global situation. There is a lot of lower hanging fruit that doesn't alter our lifestyle in a meaningful way and a lot of time for synthetic aviation fuel to become affordable. I suspect by the time we have got rid of gas heating, combustion engine cars and fossil fuel electricity the price of synthetic fuel will much lower and there will be viable hybird or full EV short haul flights.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Passport Office has only been issuing passports with ten year validity for quite a while now.

Indeed. For at least 40 years if my old passports are anything to go by!

 

[Wolfie]

The Gare Du Nord in Paris needs a complete rebuild ahead of next year's Olympic Games, otherwise it is going to be a nightmare.

Even the secure waiting area at Lille Europe was expanded a few years ago.

A second channel tunnel is a non starter for cost reasons, but even if cost wasn't a problem it could easily take several years to build, which wouldn't solve the current problems.

In the short term, re-opening Ebbsfleet and Ashford would go some way to solving the issue, as would things like allowing UK citizens to use the e-gates at St Pancras, as well as the EU getting rid of their silly rules about the passport must be less than 10 years old at the date of travel, and be valid for more than three months after the date of leaving the Schengen area.

Even the United States, who are notoriously fussy about who they let in, do not have these rules about passport validity, insisting only that the passport is valid for the proposed length of stay. When I went to the United States last month, the passport wasn't even stamped on entry.

Reducing the number of people with potentially invalid passports, as well as allowing more people to use the e-gates, would speed up processing times at St Pancras.

So you basically want both the EU and the UK to fundamentally change their immigration documentation requirements to suit Eurostar/the railway. You have about as much chance of that as l have of being the next Chief Rabbi and l ain't Jewish......

Indeed. For at least 40 years if my old passports are anything to go by!

Not true. While we were in the EU if you applied for a new passport before your old one expired and residual validity on the old one was added to the new one.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not true. While we were in the EU if you applied for a new passport before your old one expired and residual validity on the old one was added to the new one.

Ah. Well I never did.

 

[Wolfie]

What motive do the EU have to give the UK special treatment? Their objective is to prevent other countries leaving the Union, so they're hardly going to be nice and friendly to the country that's just left and is playing into the EUs hands by making a right pigs ear of things.
There are similar political games going on all over the EU for various national interests. It was a game the UK played pretty well, all things considered. But now we've stormed off in a huff they're hardly going to deal us straight back into the game.

Spot on. Far from being dominated by the EU we actually set much of its agenda. I was the UK Board member for an EU agency at one point in my career.

By 2050s the majority of children in our schools will be an ethnic minority or mixed race. The birth rate of a British female born in UK is 1.3 and is 1.6 for all women living in UK. Both are miles below replacement level. Our population is sustained by massive amounts of immigration and on higher birthrates of previous immigrants. The only serious political debate is over who the next generation of migrants will be. We also have substantial emigration. In 2050 it will be normal to have close family in other countries. Net zero will be second to the votes of people who want to see their loved ones, regardless of the climate.

No government is going to significantly harm standard of living or impose major lifestyle changes because of climate change. Our carbon emissions are too small to change global situation and voters won't support dracionian measures that have a token effect on global situation. There is a lot of lower hanging fruit that doesn't alter our lifestyle in a meaningful way and a lot of time for synthetic aviation fuel to become affordable. I suspect by the time we have got rid of gas heating, combustion engine cars and fossil fuel electricity the price of synthetic fuel will much lower and there will be viable hybird or full EV short haul flights.

Your second para is farcical as it attempts to completely ignore the impaired standard of living and lifestyle changes directly implicit from climate change. Doing nothing will hurt too - probably more.

Oh, and don't hold your breath on all of those who you expect to pay significantly more in order for you to retain cheap flights agreeing to that either.

 

[Chester1]

Your second para is farcical as it attempts to completely ignore the impaired standard of living and lifestyle changes directly implicit from climate change. Doing nothing will hurt too - probably more.

Oh, and don't hold your breath on all of those who you expect to pay significantly more in order for you to retain cheap flights agreeing to that either.

I heard all of this sort of stuff a lot at university. Where have we got in the last 15 years? I am predicting what has happened in last 15 years will happen in the same period going forward. The UK makes changes as infrastructure and vehicles become life expired and aviation largely gets left alone because without a major leap in technology it cannot be decarbonised. People overwhelmingly make decisions based on their near future which is why no western government has managed to make drastic changes on climate policy. Logically what you are saying makes sense if most of the world implemented huge changes simultaneously to avoid non immediate harm. That simply isn't how things work, if it did then we wouldn't have man made climate change in the first place.

Getting back to topic of Eurostar, none of the countries served by it have tried to ban flights between cities it links. These governments will effectively ban most people flying at all within a generation?!

Is the US, Canada and other large countries going to effectively lock people into their own corner of their country to cut carbon emissions? No flying sounds like a good idea for Europeans who are very insular or who have the time and money to do long distance train travel in Europe.

 

[Ediswan]

A slight correction to my earlier comment about the United States and passport validity is that the United States requires six months passport validity, but also maintains a list of countries for which this rule is waived.

If I recall correctly, they don't actually waive the rule. Rather, for the purpose of meeting that rule, they deem some passports to be valid beyond their expiry date. The result is the same.

 

[duncanp]

What motive do the EU have to give the UK special treatment? Their objective is to prevent other countries leaving the Union, so they're hardly going to be nice and friendly to the country that's just left and is playing into the EUs hands by making a right pigs ear of things.
There are similar political games going on all over the EU for various national interests. It was a game the UK played pretty well, all things considered. But now we've stormed off in a huff they're hardly going to deal us straight back into the game.

I wasn't suggesting that the EU give special treatment just to the UK.

I was thinking that they could waive the ten year rule for passports, and the three months validity rule, for a select group of countries in a similar way as the United States has done.

 

[PGAT]

People showed the same pessimism about cars. They were wrong then and wrong now.

And no government in the UK will survive in office if they try and implement flight bans.

Electric cars are still a relatively niche and small business, and have a lot of problems which aren’t seen on the surface. This is off-topic but my point is that you can’t just blindly use electric cars to support electric planes being a thing

 

[zwk500]

I wasn't suggesting that the EU give special treatment just to the UK.

I was thinking that they could waive the ten year rule for passports, and the three months validity rule, for a select group of countries in a similar way as the United States has done.

Select group - giving special treatement.

Again, it is not in the EUs interests to do anything to make things easier for the UK or it's citizens. Waiving the passport validity rules is a potential bargaining chip in future negotiations, they're not going to just give things up for nothing.

 

[Wolfie]

I wasn't suggesting that the EU give special treatment just to the UK.

I was thinking that they could waive the ten year rule for passports, and the three months validity rule, for a select group of countries in a similar way as the United States has done.

Your blase little statement would involve the EU and every single one of its members in a significant amount of work (with commensurate expense no doubt) to modify every single one of its immigration systems.

Given that there is absolutely nothing in it for them doing that, hazard a guess how likely that is to happen......

 

[duncanp]

Your blase little statement would involve the EU and every single one of its members in a significant amount of work (with commensurate expense no doubt) to modify every single one of its immigration systems.

Given that there is absolutely nothing in it for them doing that, hazard a guess how likely that is to happen......

My statement is not in the least bit blase.

It was a genuine suggestion to try and make things easier in the long term at St Pancras and other Schengen area ports of entry by reducing the potential number of invalid passports.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of someone in the EU to change the computer systems work out whether a passport is valid by checking date of issue, date of expiry and issuing country. If this involves at lot of expense and work it says more about the Schengen area computer systems than anything else.

Indeed travel companies such as Eurostar and the airlines could easily amend their websites to include a passport checker tool, and encourage people to check their passports when they make a booking, to avoid unecessary delays at check in.

The fact that the UK allows citizens of EU member states to use our e-gates at ports of entry, whereas the EU doesn't reciprocate for UK citizens says more about the attitude of the EU and illustrates who is largely responsible for increased queues at places like St Pancras.

 

[takno]

The fact that the UK allows citizens of EU member states to use our e-gates at ports of entry, whereas the EU doesn't reciprocate for UK citizens says more about the attitude of the EU and illustrates who is largely responsible for increased queues at places like St Pancras.

I think it says more about how desperate we are for tourists to be honest. The EU is "to blame" for the queues at places like St Pancras because they want to run an effective policy at their borders to control access by people who aren't part of the EU and don't have any automatic rights to be there. We spent years arguing for these rules when we were in the EU because we saw it as a way of controlling immigration, so we can't really complain when we choose to leave and subject ourselves to them. What would be a more appropriate question is why on earth the EU would care about queues at St Pancras.