Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[ainsworth74]

If you're choosing to value the passport by how many countries it gives you FOM to live in without applying for a visa first, then you're talking about its value to only a tiny minority of people. The vast majority of people use their passports simply to go on short holiday or business trips abroad, and for those people, the British passport remains of very similar value in Europe to a passport from most EU countries, since it still gives comparable freedom to make those trips.

And in international terms, the UK passport remains much more 'valuable' than passports from the majority of countries, in terms of giving easy access to visiting a large number of countries across the World.

Indeed I was thinking that! Whilst the British passport has lost a major benefit that it previously had (that being able to move, work and live freely across the EU/EEA) in terms of international travel generally it remains extremely strong with the ability to travel to dozens of countries visa free, with visa on arrival or quickly and cheaply apply for a permission/visa online before arriving (such as to enter the US). Even those handful of countries that we do need to apply for a visa before travel most of them are going to be fairly straight forward. It's really only the likes of Russia, China, Iran or North Korea where its tricky.

I think sometimes people don't realise just how lucky we are in the UK in just quite how easy it is for us to travel across the whole world. Certainly entering the EU is now more painful than it was before and that's extremely frustrating (even more so when you travel with someone who still has an EU passport and they breeze through immigration ) but in terms of ability to gain easy entry to countries the British Passport is one of the best in the world to hold. Go and compare it with somewhere like Gambia or even Thailand where you'll need a visa or to arrange a visa prior to travel in order to enter vast swathes of the world.

 

[nw1]

Indeed I was thinking that! Whilst the British passport has lost a major benefit that it previously had (that being able to move, work and live freely across the EU/EEA) in terms of international travel generally it remains extremely strong with the ability to travel to dozens of countries visa free, with visa on arrival or quickly and cheaply apply for a permission/visa online before arriving (such as to enter the US). Even those handful of countries that we do need to apply for a visa before travel most of them are going to be fairly straight forward. It's really only the likes of Russia, China, Iran or North Korea where its tricky.

I think sometimes people don't realise just how lucky we are in the UK in just quite how easy it is for us to travel across the whole world. Certainly entering the EU is now more painful than it was before and that's extremely frustrating (even more so when you travel with someone who still has an EU passport and they breeze through immigration ) but in terms of ability to gain easy entry to countries the British Passport is one of the best in the world to hold. Go and compare it with somewhere like Gambia or even Thailand where you'll need a visa or to arrange a visa prior to travel in order to enter vast swathes of the world.

But how does it compare to a French passport? Or German? Or Irish? Or Swiss? Or Norwegian?

That was what I was trying to compare with, hence 28th (at best) most valuable in Europe. I wasn't trying to compare it with a Gambian passport.

I suspect there are few, if any, countries that you can access with a UK passport that you cannot access visa-free with any of the above.

 

[JamesT]

But how does it compare to a French passport? Or German? Or Irish? Or Swiss? Or Norwegian?

That was what I was trying to compare with, hence 28th (at best) most valuable in Europe. I wasn't trying to compare it with a Gambian passport.

I suspect there are few, if any, countries that you can access with a UK passport that you cannot access visa-free with any of the above.

https://www.henleyglobal.com/passport-index/ranking has the UK at 3rd= in terms of countries you can visit without a visa. Above Switzerland, but below France. The Swiss require a visa for Gabon, Sierra Leone, and Vietnam that we do not, whereas they can get into Iran visa-free. The difference with France appears to be they can get into China without a visa.
(All based on eyeballing the compare page for those three countries)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

https://www.henleyglobal.com/passport-index/ranking has the UK at 3rd= in terms of countries you can visit without a visa. Above Switzerland, but below France. The Swiss require a visa for Gabon, Sierra Leone, and Vietnam that we do not, whereas they can get into Iran visa-free. The difference with France appears to be they can get into China without a visa.
(All based on eyeballing the compare page for those three countries)

It's actually not quite as good for us as that: Henley Global have 6 countries equal 1st, which means their '2nd' is really 7th place. And with four countries placed equal '2nd' their 3rd really means '11th', so we're in equal 11h place (alongside Sweden, Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg). Even so, the difference between us (192 countries that we can visit visa-free) and the 194 countries that French citizens can visit visa-free is hardly significant. On approximate eyeballing by scrolling to roughly halfway down the list of countries, it appears that the median countries' citizens can visit about 100 other countries visa-free, while Afghanistan is bottom with 28 (not that many Afghani's would even be able to get past their own Government to get out of the country anyway)

 

[SynthD]

I did think this was a parody but then i actually saw it on the Tory twitter account, wow.

View attachment 155773

Is this a party political poster using the king? I hope that’s crossing a line and the media see this. They should have asked him, Nolan, Aston and the footballers for permission.

 

[najaB]

The vast majority of people use their passports simply to go on short holiday or business trips abroad, and for those people, the British passport remains of very similar value in Europe to a passport from most EU countries, since it still gives comparable freedom to make those trips.

Comparable, but still less than it was pre-Brexit since we will have at least 27 fewer countries than EU passport holders for which we don't need any form of pre-clearance to enter.

 

[edwin_m]

It's actually not quite as good for us as that: Henley Global have 6 countries equal 1st, which means their '2nd' is really 7th place. And with four countries placed equal '2nd' their 3rd really means '11th', so we're in equal 11h place (alongside Sweden, Denmark, Ireland and Luxembourg).

That makes the caption actively misleading. In that situation the normal thing to do would be to describe the first six countries as first equal and the next group as seventh equal.

 

[najaB]

That makes the caption actively misleading. In that situation the normal thing to do would be to describe the first six countries as first equal and the next group as seventh equal.

Yes and no. It depends the definition of 'rank'. Are they ranking countries or creating tiers - first-rank countries have access to 194 countries, second-rank countries have access to 193, third-rank countries have access to 192, etc.

That's likely because countries in the each rank don't have access to the same list of countries. As an example, Germans need an e-visa to visit Azerbaijan but French citizens do not. Does that make them 'equal'?

 

[edwin_m]

Yes and no. It depends the definition of 'rank'. Are they ranking countries or creating tiers - first-rank countries have access to 194 countries, second-rank countries have access to 193, third-rank countries have access to 192, etc.

That's likely because countries in the each rank don't have access to the same list of countries. As an example, Germans need an e-visa to visit Azerbaijan but French citizens do not. Does that make them 'equal'?

If they were talking about ranks or tiers then the wording should be "second rank" or "second tier". Which is obviously not impressive enough for this purpose but has the advantage of being true.

 

[najaB]

If they were talking about ranks or tiers then the wording should be "second rank" or "second tier". Which is obviously not impressive enough for this purpose but has the advantage of being true.

Err...

Global Passport Ranking
With historical data spanning 19 years, the Henley Passport Index is the only one of its kind based on exclusive data from the International Air Transport Authority (IATA). The index includes 199 different passports and 227 different travel destinations. Updated monthly, the Henley Passport Index is considered the standard reference tool for global citizens and sovereign states when assessing where a passport ranks on the global mobility spectrum.

And


Image is a screenshot from the website with the column header 'Rank in 2024' highlighted.

 

[edwin_m]

Err...


And
View attachment 155849

Image is a screenshot from the website with the column header 'Rank in 2024' highlighted.

I'm not disputing that someone claiming they UK is in the second rank. I'm objecting to the Tories using this (if indeed they did) to claim we are the "second most powerful". If you got 90% in an exam and six people got 95% you couldn't truthfully claim to be second to top of the class!

In any case, if the Tories are basing the whole thing on the "power" of a passport then they are being doubly disingenous. To be fair, nobody has provided any evidence that they are claiming this, it popped up the thread about half way down the last page. As someone posted upthread, that isn't a very important thing for most people. The pictures imply the are talking about military, economic or "soft" power. I don't believe we are anywhere near second place and maybe not even second rank on these measures.

 

[Enthusiast]

Comparable, but still less than it was pre-Brexit since we will have at least 27 fewer countries than EU passport holders for which we don't need any form of pre-clearance to enter.

What "pre-clearance" do UK citizens need now that they didn't need pre-Brexit?

 

[najaB]

I'm objecting to the Tories using this (if indeed they did) to claim we are the "second most powerful". If you got 90% in an exam and six people got 95% you couldn't truthfully claim to be second to top of the class!

Ah, okay. Then yes, that would be wrong to say that we're the second most powerful. However, I don't think they actually used this specific ranking as evidence for their claim.

What "pre-clearance" do UK citizens need now that they didn't need pre-Brexit?

Today, none. But unless things have changed, we will soon need to apply for European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) clearance before travelling to the EU.

 

[Enthusiast]

Today, none. But unless things have changed, we will soon need to apply for European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) clearance before travelling to the EU.

Will that be such a chore (one application every three years)? Or is that, no matter how insignificant it is, it's simply something that we never had to do and shouldn't have to do now"

 

[najaB]

Will that be such a chore (one application every three years)? Or is that, no matter how insignificant it is, it's simply something that we never had to do and shouldn't have to do now.

Nobody said it is a chore. But it is one more thing that has changed and, in the context of this thread, it is one way in which the UK passport has lost some of its power.

 

[Enthusiast]

How has it lost some of its power? A UK passport holder can still visit the EU countries. How does the requirement to complete a short application for a visa waiver every three years result in a passport's "loss of power"?

 

[najaB]

How has it lost some of its power? A UK passport holder can still visit the EU countries. How does the requirement to complete a short application for a visa waiver every three years result in a passport's "loss of power"?

Because we have to apply. Surely you can see that having the right to something is a superior position to having to ask for it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm not disputing that someone claiming they UK is in the second rank. I'm objecting to the Tories using this (if indeed they did) to claim we are the "second most powerful".

They aren't. As you say, this website was quoted on a discussion within this forum. Nothing to do with the Tories. I do agree with you though that the way the website lists countries as 1st or 2nd or 3rd is misleading.

 

[nw1]

Because we have to apply. Surely you can see that having the right to something is a superior position to having to ask for it.

I agree, and AFAIK that is something we didn't have to do for the long-standing EEC/EU countries (France, Germany etc) in 1972 and before.

So it basically means that our rights to enter the long-standing EEC/EU countries will, presumably, be the lowest they've ever been in modern times, and presumably you'd have to go right back to the immediate aftermath of WWII to find a time when we had less rights to visit nearby EEC/EU countries.

Brexiters might want to reflect on that observation: is that really what they wanted?

And, in any ESTA scheme, presumably there is always a risk that you might get turned down, for unstated reasons. Such a risk basically didn't exist before.

To take an example: in theory, could you be prohibited from entering the USA if, say, Trump was in power and you publicly posted harsh criticism of him under your own name on the internet, I wonder? Might you be considered a "security risk"? Certainly, IIRC, they implement things such as barring you if you've visited Cuba, for example.

 

[edwin_m]

Ah, okay. Then yes, that would be wrong to say that we're the second most powerful. However, I don't think they actually used this specific ranking as evidence for their claim.

Can anyone shed any light on what evidence they did use for the "second most powerful" claim?

 

[JamesT]

Can anyone shed any light on what evidence they did use for the "second most powerful" claim?

Possibly https://brandfinance.com/press-rele...akes-third-place-overtaking-japan-and-germany ?

Soft power is defined as a nation’s ability to influence the preferences and behaviours of various actors in the international arena (states, corporations, communities, publics, etc.) through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. Each nation is scored across 55 different metrics to arrive at an overall score out of 100 and ranked in order from 1st to 193rd.

 

[najaB]

Certainly, IIRC, they implement things such as barring you if you've visited Cuba, for example.

It's not a complete bar, but having visited certain countries makes you ineligible to entry under the visa waiver scheme.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Because we have to apply. Surely you can see that having the right to something is a superior position to having to ask for it.

Yes, it's slightly more convenient if you don't have to ask. But if the having to ask takes the form of filling in a short form to which the reply is basically a near-guaranteed 'yes' unless you have done something in the past to make yourself unwelcome such as committing crimes or being involved in terrorism, then the difference is so marginal as to be scarcely significant.

 

[najaB]

Yes, it's slightly more convenient if you don't have to ask. But if the having to ask takes the form of filling in a short form to which the reply is basically a near-guaranteed 'yes' unless you have done something in the past to make yourself unwelcome such as committing crimes or being involved in terrorism, then the difference is so marginal as to be scarcely significant.

Doesn't matter how small the inconvenience is - it represents a loss. That's like saying "It doesn't matter that you got mugged because you didn't have much in your wallet".

Brexit is, and will continue to be, death by a thousand cuts.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So it basically means that our rights to enter the long-standing EEC/EU countries will, presumably, be the lowest they've ever been in modern times, and presumably you'd have to go right back to the immediate aftermath of WWII to find a time when we had less rights to visit nearby EEC/EU countries.

Depends a bit how you'd define 'nearby'. You only really have to go back 30-ish years, so nowhere near WWII, to find that it was next to impossible to visit many countries that are now in the EU (including even a huge chunk of what is now Germany) without a lot of complex form filling etc. and no guarantee that you'd be given permission. And within that timeframe the practical problems and expense involved in travelling to just about any country was much greater, as noted above: Fewer/more expensive travel options, less information, much harder to convert currency, stricter controls on how much/what goods you could bring with you without paying customs duties, etc. etc. - which is why in times past, numerous countries felt less need to use immigration control to restrict numbers/who was coming into the country: The travel barriers then in existence did that well enough by themselves. So overall, I'd say our freedom to visit our European neighbours is much greater today than it was 30-40 years ago.

Doesn't matter how small the inconvenience is - it represents a loss.

That's like saying "It doesn't matter that you got mugged because you didn't have much in your wallet".

Not a good comparison because being mugged generally has a huge impact on people that is separate from the financial loss. A better comparison might be, it doesn't matter that you accidentally dropped some money and lost it because it was only 50p.

 

[najaB]

A better comparison might be, it doesn't matter that you accidentally dropped some money and lost it because it was only 50p.

Except that was an accident, something that "just happened". Brexit (and specifically the Brexit that we got) was a deliberate action.

 

[nw1]

Back on topic, but perhaps slightly related to the recent discussion.

I wonder if the election date might be influenced by the possibility of Trump winning the US election?

IMV this could be important. While the Tories are nothing like as bad as Trump - I want to emphasise that - if Trump wins, or it looks like he is going to win, that could, perhaps, put off swing voters from voting for a party with something of a right-wing populist tendency (i.e the Tories) here, perhaps?

I say again that the Tories are nothing like as bad as Trump, but even still, perhaps there could be a small but significant effect in ultra-marginal seats?

If Trump wins, might that cause non-US countries to forge stronger alliances (which might include improved relations between the UK and EU, compared to now), which Labour are more in favour of compared to the Tories?

For that reason, might the Tories do well to hold the election well away from the US date, so that US considerations do not influence our own vote? I do suspect that a Trump win would be bad for the Tory vote, for reasons I've stated above.

 

[najaB]

For that reason, might the Tories do well to hold the election well away from the US date, so that US considerations do not influence our own vote?

By the same token, they might try to use the US election has cover, even though that's a terrible idea as far as national security is concerned.

 

[nw1]

Not a good comparison because being mugged generally has a huge impact on people that is separate from the financial loss. A better comparison might be, it doesn't matter that you accidentally dropped some money and lost it because it was only 50p.

It's basically to do with lost rights though.

Perhaps a good comparison would be: we've been used to free access to public footpaths (subject to conditions, e.g. don't litter, don't disturb wildlife or farmers, etc) since a long time back, for most of us since before we can remember.

Let's say a government held a referendum on "giving landowners more input to countryside access law", and it passed by 52 to 48 due to many people supporting harsher penalties for those who dropped litter in the countryside, started fires, performed vandalism, etc.

But then let's say that what actually happened, as a result of landowner pressure (and this was not promised in the referendum) was that people from "out of county" had to fill in an online form and pay a small fee to obtain a licence to use footpaths outside their county, valid for three years. So for example Hampshire residents would have to apply to use footpaths in Wiltshire or West Sussex. The application process would involve checking the applicant to ensure they have not been convicted of any offences such as littering or vandalism in the past, but, if the application was rejected, the applicant would not be told the reason. So in principle, it could be be rejected because the applicant was considered a threat to the countryside due to being a hunt saboteur 30 years ago.

While it could be argued to have a rationale, many people would perceive this as a loss of freedom.

 

[jfollows]

I've said it before, but I won't ever forgive Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and the Conservative party for giving away my right to live and work in the other countries in the EU, which was something I valued considerably and regret losing through no action of my own.

The reality may be that I'll spend the rest of my life travelling to countries I was formerly entitled to go to and, under new rules, will still be able to visit but under their permission and their conditions.

But, to me, this was my primary reason for voting to remain in the EU. I lost, and I'll live with it. But I won't forgive the people who won because of it. And I'll never vote for them again.