Talk:Visa requirements for British citizens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The "B" word[edit]

should we maybe change the freedom of movement bit? or say that it's currently the status due to the transition period for Brexit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.80.121 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EU Visa Requirements[edit]

Why does the chart show British citizens needing a visa after 3 months? Don't the four freedoms apply here? Am I misunderstanding the four freedoms? hawkfrost18 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A visa is not required after three months. However, after three months, a UK national does not have an unrestricted right to remain in the territory of another EU Member State.Qwerta369 (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this have to do with the Schengen agreement? By 'UK national' did you mean a citizen of the UK? hawkfrost18 (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my real question is, why is this only true for British citizens and not, for example, Germans? hawkfrost18 (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not connected with the Schengen agreement. By UK national, I refer to a British citizen who is also an EU citizen. That is, a British citizen who is not from the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. The right to move and reside in the territory of another EU Member State is equal for every citizen of the Union, be he a UK national, a German national, a Polish national and so on. An EU national has the right to reside in the territory of another Member State for up to three months without any conditions or formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid passport or National ID card. After these initial three months however, he must be employed, self-employed, enrolled in a course of study, or be economically self-sufficient, in order to maintain his right of residence in that Member State. Qwerta369 (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I was confused by the fact that this "up to three months" was only mentioned on the list of British visa requirements, and not on those of the other EU member states. Someone may want to look into that... hawkfrost18 (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is because Qwerta is propagating nonsense. British citizens (like all EU/EEA and Swiss citizens) enjoy Freedom of Movement in each others' countries, which is does NOT have a time limit. Some countries require registration/declaration after 3 months, but that is merely a formality. 87.84.103.101 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The right to reside unconditionally is only for the initial three months following entry. Please refer to EU Directive 2004/38/EC. Qwerta369 (talk) 09:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree completely with 87.84.103.101. He seems to be correct. After the three months following entry, some countries require a residence permit, however this depends whether their own citizens require residence permits. This applies to the EU, the rest of the EEA and Switzerland. MJLRGS (talk) 12:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non EU Schengen Visa Requirements[edit]

There seems to be some confusion, with different wiki sites and websites stating different things. The Norwegian embassy site states that anyone from a Schengen state outside the Nordic Passport Union can stay in Norway for up to 6 months without a visa, which doesn't seem to make sense as it's a Schengen visa required? The EU says that non-Schengen EU members have unlimited access to the EU as well as Schengen Area, which just contradicts previously. What was said by the Icelandic embassy was also confusing. On Wikipedia Page Cyprus (same Schengen visa laws as UK and Ireland) it shows Cyprus having unlimited access to Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein. To add to this confusion, the link for Norway on this page is outdated. I myself can't edit it as I can't find a suitable link and I don't know what is real. I suggest that someone who knows the EU non-Schengen rules for Schengen non-EU should edit the page and provide a suitable link. MJLRGS (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This problem is solved now by Qwerta369. Thank you to him. MJLRGS (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albania - travel with UK National ID card - needs ref[edit]

The current ref is http://www.mfa.gov.al/. This is not an English language website. Even if you change it to English (at the top of the page), I see no reference to the claim that British citizens are entitled to enter Albania if holding a valid UK National ID card. If would be grateful if someone would update / clarify this. Thank you. Qwerta369 (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you go onto the website, click 'English'. Then click 'Info for Foreigners'. Then, despite being poorly written, click 'Who enter Albania without a visa'. Next to 'Great Britain' there is a star. Follow to the bottom of the page and it says '* Can enter the Republic of Albania even with ID Card.' Unfortunately, I could only put that ref because if you see when you visit the website, there are no web extensions for the English version. Sorry for the inconvenience MJLRGS (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now. Thank you. Qwerta369 (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National ID Card table[edit]

A recent edit caused the removal of the National ID Card part of the table, for EU travel. National ID Cards are still valid and shall remain so until the Identity Documents Bill is enacted by the UK parliament.[1] Until this time, National ID Cards remain valid travel documents. Qwerta369 (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The invalidation of ID cars is imminent, see http://www.ips.gov.uk/cps/rde/xchg/ips_live/hs.xsl/1691.htm. You are correct that for a month or two these cards are still valid for travel throughout the EU/EFTA (where anything that proves your nationality can be used) plus a couple of countries on the Balkans that also accept ID cards. However given the small numbers of cards that have been issued this is only of interest to a small group of readers.

I would say that a footnote stating that several European countries may be entered with an ID card is sufficient. Most other passport If you believe that it isn't you can re-add the info to the Europe section but do take care not to delete the other updates in the process. Travelbird (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while validity of the UK National ID Card is due to cease, it's validity at the present time is in tact. When the validity ceases, the relevant table in this article can be removed. Until that time, please do not removed sourced data relevant to the article. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, feel free to re-add the text pertaining to the ID cards in the Europe section if you wish and feel that the current footnotes stating the ID cards may be used do not suffice. But again, in the process Do not delete the other updates & corrections. Travelbird (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll go and reinsert the sourced info that you removed, while making sure that the other updates and corrections that you made are not removed. Qwerta369 (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As of January 21, ID cards are no longer valid travel documents. See [2] and [3] Travelbird (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expand content to other British nationalities / change name ?[edit]

I was pleased to see that this page also covers BN(O), but this has been a bit disguised by the name of the wiki. I think it would therefore be good to change it. On a related note, we could use this place to expand it to visa requirements for all types of british nationality. I realize probably we can not become very reliable/complete in BPP, BOC or BS, but at least we could treat the commonalities, the implication of the text “right to abode” and thus come to a more encyclopedic /less than a list. To do this, the name should be visa requirements for British nationals (or: holders of british passports?). If we don't expand the content the name could be visa requirements for British citizens and British Nationals (Overseas) . Let me know what you think! L.tak (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction was: Sure why not. The problem is however that finding reliable sources for those other categories will be next to impossible. It is already very hard (and in many cases impossible) for BNOs and I really don't see that being possible for categories such as BPP. Travelbird (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is certainly misnamed, as people from Northern Ireland carry UK passports but are not 'British' - it's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The article needs to be renamed to reflect the fact that it covers UK nationals, not 'British' nationals.182.240.29.141 (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If someone from Northern Ireland chooses to hold a British passport, he is a British citizen and is described as so in the "Nationality" field of his passport. The term "UK national" is used throughout the EU to describe, quite specifically, a British citizen who is also an EU citizen. That is, not a British citizen from the Isle of Man or from the Channel Islands (who has no right of free movement among the EU Member States). Such British citizen is not a UK national. A person who holds any other type of passport, such as a BN(O) passport, is also not a UK national. Qwerta369 (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to expand a bit on what Qwerta says above, the relevant British nationality legislation gives us the term "British citizen" (rightly or wrongly – but that's what these people are called, and also what it says in their passports). British citizenship and British nationality are not identical, and non-British-citizen British nationals can be termed "British nationals". The term "UK national" is purely an EU term used to describe British nationals who are also EU citizens – e.g. British citizens not from the crown dependencies (Isle of Man and the Channel Islands), British subjects with the right of above in the UK, and British nationals who derive that nationality from Gibraltar (although this last-named category is now somewhat redundant). Ondewelle (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is India not on here?[edit]

Why is India not on this table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.229.66.56 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is India not on the table? (Different person to the original) It should be easy... Visa prior to arrival required (Background colour Red)109.202.232.126 (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi Kurdistan?[edit]

How come this is listed and not the actual nation of Iraq?--TinTin (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted! Presumably this was someone's attempt at cute vandalism at some point or other. I have update the article now. Qwerta369 (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay length rules[edit]

For a UK citizen going to the USA the article states 90days. But it is not clear if that is 90 days continuously, 90 days in a calendar year or 90days for a year from the first day of entry. Think it could be an important inclusion easytiger (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suriname[edit]

Suriname isn't on here... i believe it's the S. American country in which brits need a visa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.8.33 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia appears to be missing too. --kingboyk (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia isn't on here either. Cerumol2 (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Sahara Africa[edit]

Why is Nigeria not listed but most other countries are mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.23.212.21 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed[edit]

So many links are dead or not very specific, this article requires a major update and overhaul. I will try to do it. Also the BOC merger proposal obviously failed, 3 years it's been standing there, so I guess this information should definitely be split in two articles, and this should be a British citizens article.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update done.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somaliland - No visa on arrival, must be obtained prior in either London or Addis Ababa. Also links are dead, updated links provided. [341] https://www.lonelyplanet.com/somaliland-puntland-and-somalia/somaliland/visas [342] http://somalilandgov.com/country-profile/tourism/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashecorven (talk • contribs) 21:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Burma/Myanmar[edit]

I see there is an edit war going on about whether a certain SE Asian country should be listed as Burma or Myanmar. I don't have a strong opinion, it'd be nice to hear both sides. I am leaning towards "Myanmar" because we are talking about governments here and their regimes. It's not about whether you can enter the land of Burma or Siam or Ceylon but what do the Governments of Myanmar, Thailand or Sri Lanka say. There can only be the visa policy of Myanmar (standing for a longer Visa policy of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar), there is no such thing as "Visa policy of Burma" as simple land mass can't have a visa policy, only a Government can. But I am welcome to other views. While this is unresolved I'll go ahead and just write Burma/Myanmar.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule in general - on all lists where there is no context-specific reason to do something else - should be that we use the name of the article on the country in question. That way, we don't have to repeat this kind argument from first principles on every article individually.
The only exceptions needed are where it includes unneeded disambiguation (e.g. Georgia (country)) and where country-specific style guides say differently (e.g. WP:IMOS).
The article is called Burma, so we should call it "Burma". If someone wants us to call it "Myanmar", then they're welcome to open an RM on the article in question, though they should be aware that it has been discussed repeatedly in the past and that editors there may not appreciate its being discussed again. Kahastok talk 12:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal from EU[edit]

Editor Norvikk has changed 'withdrawal from the European Union' to 'possible withdrawal'. I'm fully aware of the 3RR rule so I'm bringing it to the talk page instead. Please see this edit summary - 'UK will not leave EU. The government will find a way to circumvent the results of the referendum.' The EU referendum, whilst not binding, is being respected by the UK government. What this editor is saying is a complete farce: how does he know the ulterior motives of the UK government? To any other editor: feel free to revert back to the section's original title 'Withdrawal from the European Union'. --st170etalk 23:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, held a consultative referendum. The result is not bound to accept the legal consequences. The UK government will decide on future of UK in EU later.
You are sure in the activation of article 50? You have secret information from the government? But the Government and the Parliament can will make a decision to stay in the EU. And if the decision be postponed until the referendum on Scottish independence? Or a referendum on the Union of Ireland and Northern Ireland? This is all alternative history. No one knows how it will be. all this speculation.
Before the Government will make a final decision this information should be with the word "Possible". --Norvikk (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Russian for St170e. В Великобритании состоялся консультативный референдум. Результат не обязывает принимать правовые последствия. Правительство Великобритании примет решение о будущем Великобритании в ЕС позже.
Вы уверены в активации статье 50? У вас есть секретная информация из правительства? Но правительство и парламент может принять решение остаться в ЕС. Решение модет быть отложено до референдума о независимости Шотландии? Или референдум об объеденении Ирландии и Северной Ирландии? Это все Альтернативная история. Никто не знает как оно будет. Все это домыслы.
Прежде чем правительство примет окончательное решение, эта информация должна быть со словом "возможно". --Norvikk (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Russia. I do not believe in a results of referendums after the referendum of 1991. Decides a political elites, not a people. So this is my opinion.

Personal opinions have no place in an encyclopaedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion, based on which I made this is a controversial change. I explained my logic. While there are no legal actions all this 'Possible'. --Norvikk (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically he is right to say possible, since it isn't legally binding and nothing will happen until if and when the Prime Minister invokes Article 50.  — Calvin999 08:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why has a purely speculative section even been included in this article? You're both right - nobody knows what will happen - so why is this section in a purely factual article? Have a look at WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV and ask yourselves if this section should be included. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know a lot of things but a lot of articles include info on possibilities. I bet you that most people looking on this article are looking at that very section first or alone to see what will happen to British Citizens and their freedom of movement/travel restrictions.  — Calvin999 08:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know and that's exactly the problem - this section doesn't answer anything. It's merely speculation. Why is it in an encyclopaedia? Exemplo347 (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because loads of people come to Wikipedia for answers, and someone will always add this back if it's removed.  — Calvin999 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So that's the reason an uncited, unreferenced totally speculative section was added? A section that might as well say "there is no current information about the effects of a possible UK withdrawal from the EU" does not seem to have a place in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with the person that added it then. I didn't add it. I haven't edited it. I'm just giving my opinion of what readers are looking for. WP is not a newspaper but an incredible amount of people look on WP first to find out info.  — Calvin999 09:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Exemplo347: Of course it is right for this section to be added to the article. The withdrawal from the European Union will have effects on visa requirements for British citizens, so mentioning this is definitely worth it. You say that Wikipedia is 'not a newspaper' - we didn't say that it was one. Having up to date information on the page is what we need, and in ever changing circumstances around the whole debate, it's hard to keep on track of everything. It wasn't me who added the section on the article but I summarised it entirely. A quick Google search would show that there are mountains of sources to verify the information; but to save you looking, I'll add them into the article. st170etalk 11:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
St170e. Hi. Do you agree to leave the title with "possible" until legal clarification of the situation? --Norvikk (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Norvikk: No, I don't. For anyone coming to this page for information, it's going to give them a false impression. If you disagree on the naming of the section 'Withdrawal from the EU', then maybe we can change it to 'Impact of the EU referendum' or something of the like. --st170etalk 12:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's find a compromise. --Norvikk (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Norvikk: I would be happy to go with 'Impact on travel from Brexit'. Do you have any suggestions? st170etalk 15:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good St170e Because when we leave, out passport will not longer be an EU one and thus we no longer have rights in Europe, so it's likely freedom of movement will be taken away and we will get stamped in and out of the EU countries.  — Calvin999 15:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's apply it. --Norvikk (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thank all of you for the discussion. I hope the problems of Brexit will be resolved satisfactorily. --Norvikk (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not crystal-ball here. Even if something is likely if it hasn't happened there is no need to analyze it in the sense of this article. When and if the UK leaves the EU we will swiftly add the information to the article. Until then it's pointless to fight over that. So far there's been zero effect of Brexit referendum on travel.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USA, Canada and Australia[edit]

It is my opinion that USA, Canada and Australia shall have a different color in the map than the countries painted dark green, where you can just show up at the border control and show your British passport. The ESTA, eTA and eVisitor must be applied for before the journey and can be denied even if they are legally not a visa. If the same color as eVisa can't be used, a new color is needed. Since this affects citizens of several countries maybe there is some other Talk page which has had this discussion.--BIL (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. British citizens don't need a visa for these countries; the ESTA or eTA for example only provide authorisation to travel and so I think the green colour should remain as it is for the USA and Canada. eVisitor is not a visa either, but an 'authority to travel' according to the Australian Government's website. It is only the small minority who are unable to secure travel authorisation that they must apply for a visa, but this is only in certain circumstances. I do understand what you mean, but this is highlighted in the table. Strictly speaking, British citizens do not require a visa and the colour should remain as is. st170etalk 18:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to claim that a visa or similar is needed, only that it is different compared to countries without any pre-authorisation. Visitors to USA, Canada and Australia need to know this in advance.--BIL (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTTRAVEL: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. I understand where you're coming from, but these concerns are highlighted in the table below the map. The green colour highlights that the country is visa-free (which they are; it's just that some require travel authorisation). --st170etalk 20:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then how should we label (in the table) and paint (in the map) Cuba and Suriname, requiring a Tourist Card, and Sri Lanka, requiring an Electronic Travel Authorization. These are not visas.--BIL (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Cuban Tourist Card functions as a visa and should remain the same. Sri Lanka functions the same as the US, Canada and Australia. st170etalk 15:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your recent edit on the page - ESTA and eTA are only required if arriving by air and this is noted on the page. If arriving by land, there is no such requirement, which is why the page should remain as it is. The US Visa Waiver Program has the UK as a participant, so this is in the column. ESTA and eTA are located in the column and aren't visas so this is why I've undone your edit. st170etalk 15:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with st170e and would add only that the European Commission, after some member states raised this issue, found that these systems do not constitute a visa requirement. Overall I think everything that needs to be explained is explained in the notes and that no changes to the color in the map or the table is needed.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

@Norvikk: Per your edit here - I added the table because the information wasn't clear in its previous format. If there's a better way of laying the information, let me know and I'd be happy to do it, but I thought that was a good interim measure. The flags can be removed also, I took the format from a Visa policy page. st170e 14:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Visa Requirements articles are article-tables. I think this information shall be in the form of text.
Initially this was - first version [4]
Second version [5]
Third version [6]
My opinion. I don't like the third version - another table with flags for the article - it's overkill. I don't like the second version. First version is more acceptable.
Any changes to the format of this section should be done in other articles. I think the format should be universal for all articles. --Norvikk (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Visually I think the current table with all the flags is an overkill. Not sure about the best way to present the information but it definitely needs to be simpler than this.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the flags are overkill, but the information needs to be clear and I thought the table would be the best way to show it. If we remove the flags would that be better? st170e 21:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different colour on map for CTA with Ireland[edit]

The Common Travel Area between Ireland-UK existed long before Freedom of Movement by the EU, and is a different set up. I think Ireland shoudl be a different colour to reflect this, and this will be the case post-Brexit too, as Ireland-UK will still have the CTA freedom.  — Calvin999 08:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The future status of CTA is part of Brexit negotiations. As it is right now, the CTA does not have a significantly different meaning from the EU freedom of movement for British citizens in terms of their status. The main difference is in the lack of border control but the rest of the EU is not shown on the map regarding Schengen membership but regarding the personal status of EU/British citizens. --Twofortnights (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not really. The CTA is nothing to do with the EU, it has existed far longer and is out of EU jurisdiction because it's a treaty signed between Ireland and the UK. The EU and UK are discussing the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which they have already said won't have a hard border. Don't forget that the Isle of Man, and the Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey, are also apart of the CTA and not part of the EU or Schengen.  — Calvin999 14:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, it's only a travel arrangement, CTA stands for Common Travel Area. There is no CTA personal status and the map deals with that. The fact that it precedes the EU is not relevant as in the meantime the Republic of Ireland has become a member state of the EU and thus it cannot have separate border control arrangements that are not part of the EU legal system. Isle of Man and Channel Islands have such rights in full agreement with the EU. For example Croatia had a simplified border regime with Bosnia but when it became an EU member state it had to drop it, and yes it preceded the EU membership by many many years. But the EU had no intention of endorsing an open border with a non-EU member state so likewise here Ireland has no right to maintain an open border with a non-EU member state unless allowed by the EU, even if it's the United Kingdom. What the EU and the UK have said is just that, until it's part of the final agreement it is not something to be considered as definite. Anyway, this is all unrelated to this particular map. It shows personal status rights and not the border arrangements.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Covid Restrictions[edit]

I'd like to suggest that the Covid restrictions should be listed in full in the Covid travel restrictions section, and the table should list the usual situation - in a similar manner to how the Visa requirements for United States citizens page represents restrictions vs the normal situation. Mbdxecw2 (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is more consistent (and easier to remove). Stifle (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed. January 1, 2021.[edit]

There are obvious restrictions to UK travel in Europe, post Brexit finalisation. (90 days, EU, etc). Some of this needs to be updated. Hanoi Road (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia being an evisa country[edit]

Hello, apparently as of November 2021 British tourist can apply for an evisa to Mongolia, valid for 30 days. Also can be found on the official Mongolian consul website. Should the map and table be updated to reflect this?PlayStation 20 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Missions[edit]

What is this 'map' doing in an article about visa requirements? This would be all very well if the article was entitled 'Look how many foreign embassies the UK has! - about the same as most western countries!' I don't think it's called that. Is it? 109.146.93.50 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visa_requirements_for_British_citizens&oldid=1210870501"