Major European holiday destination will let Brits use e-gates to avoid queues
UK passport holders can now skip lengthy waits to get their documents stamped at the airport in Sofia, Bulgaria by using the e-gates system as part of the new deal EU-UK deal
Holidaymakers heading to Bulgaria will be able to avoid nightmare queues this summer as e-gates are rolled out to Brits.
UK passport holders can now skip lengthy waits to get their documents stamped at the airport in Sofia by using the quicker e-gates system. Last year, nearly half a million Brits visited the popular holiday destination.
It comes after Keir Starmer sealed a deal with the EU last month, which agreed there would be no legal barriers to allowing British travellers to use e-gates abroad.
Since Brexit, UK passport holders have generally had to queue for manual checks at border control. But under the pact, the EU has agreed to ease checks universally on British travellers.
EU Relations Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds told the Mirror: 'Today's eGates win is great news for Brits travelling to the EU – and a clear sign of the Government's pragmatic reset of our relationship with Brussels and European capitals.'
Keir Starmer hails 'common sense' deal with EU as a 'win-win' - with boosts for shoppers and tourists
Faro Airport, in Portugal, was the first to start the rollout last month, with cities like Paris, Lisbon and Rome following suit. More countries are set to follow suit, with Tallin, in Estonia pencilled in for next year.
The Government has faced criticism over the pace of the rollout of e-gates after the Prime Minister initially said it would apply immediately.
However the EU plans to launch its new Entry/Exit System (EES) in October 2025, which will scrap the requirement for non-EU citizens to have their passports stamped.
It is thought that more European airports will allow Brits to use the e-gates after this new system is brought in.
The full list of airports with confirmed e-gate access
Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport
Paris Orly Airport
Bordeaux–Mérignac Airport
EuroAirport Basel Mulhouse Freiburg
Marseille Provence Airport
Lyon–Saint-Exupéry Airport
Nice Airport
Eurostar Paris Gare du Nord Terminal
Eurostar London St Pancras Terminal
Eurotunnel Folkestone Terminal
Eurotunnel Calais Terminal
Port of Calais
Alicante
Mallorca
Tenerife
Lanzarote Egates
Gran Canaria
Ibiza
Naples Airport
Rome Fiumicino Airport
Rome Ciampino Airport
Bologna Guglielmo Marconi Airport
Venice Marco Polo Airport
Cagliari Airport
Milan Malpensa Airport
Milan Linate Airport
Bari Airport
Brindisi Airport
Bergamo Airport
Treviso Airport
Verona Villafranca Airport
Florence Airport
Pisa International Airport
Turin Airport
Olbia Costa Smeralda Airport
Catania Airport
Palermo Airport
Lisbon Airport Terminal 1
Faro Airport
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol (exit only)
Larnaca International Airport
Paphos International Airport
Brussels airport
Budapest Ferenc Liszt International Airport
Dublin airport
Prague airport Terminal 1
Helsinki airport
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
'Uber is bringing driverless taxis to London but one UK city need them more'
With one of the world's most efficient network systems, why on earth has Uber chosen London to trial its driverless robotaxis? There's a much more obvious choice - argues Liam Gilliver In what feels like a new episode of Black Mirror, driverless taxis could soon be whizzing around the perpetually congested streets of London. Fully autonomous robotaxis - which carry passengers without a human driver - are set to be deployed across the Big Smoke as early as spring 2026, as taxi firm Uber deepens its partnership with UK artificial intelligence (AI) firm, Wayve. Similar trials have already taken place across the pond, in cities such as Austin, Texas, offering passengers a chance to ride in a robotaxi at no extra cost. There are, of course, multiple concerns with the announcement. While the Department for Transport says the industry could create a whopping 38,000 jobs and generate £42 billion for the UK economy by 2035 - it poses a huge job threat for the 100,000-something drivers who work for the company in the UK (many of which had little choice but to abandon their traditional taxi job to join the popular competitor). Naturally, mistrust around these futuristic cars also remains rife - and Brits aren't afraid to voice their dislike towards the concept. "Not only would I not get in one, I wouldn't want to drive on the same road as one," one person fumed on X (formerly Twitter). Another agreed, scathing: "I wouldn't trust them but also wouldn't use them because it's taking people's jobs away!" while a third added: "It's hard enough to trust an ordinary taxi." According to the BBC, numerous studies based on US data have suggested these driverless vehicles are 'less accident-prone' than human drivers. Of course, there have still been a number of incidents, including road accidents and passengers being locked in. On the flip side, many social media users have pointed out that they would feel 'safer' being driven by, well, nobody, as opposed to being in close proximity to an effective stranger. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the driverless taxis itself, but I do think Uber is missing a trick when it comes to where it's trying to pilot such a huge scheme. Does London desperately need more transport options? If people refuse to show demand for the invention, the trials won't lift off the ground - and Uber drivers will keep their jobs. However, it feels similar to the pseudo-outrage that came after supermarkets started opening up self-checkouts, which are now used by the majority. If you use them, you are part of the problem. But Uber's futuristic foray highlights a much deeper issue, one that has seen the north-south divide grow stronger over years of austerity: London will always come first. Yes, the Big Smoke has the highest population density compared to any other UK city, and yes - this explicitly means a higher demand. However, with one of the world's most efficient transport networks (which can accommodate up to five million passenger journeys a day) - trialling robotaxis here feels a tad disappointing. It's only a trial - one where presumably a small fleet will be deployed - so there's no reason it has to take place in London. Why Leeds will benefit more than London Leeds is the largest city in West Europe that doesn't have a mass transit system. Its train station is chaos at the best of times, with delays and cancellations blaring out of the tannoy every five seconds, and most of the suburbs are cut off from any decent public transport links. Earlier this month, Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced the allocation of £2.1 billion of local transport funding to West Yorkshire which will enable the Combined Authority to get spades in the ground on West Yorkshire's tram project by 2028. While this promises to bolster connectivity to the city - it's certainly no quick fix. In a Reddit thread posted four years ago, Leeds locals were already complaining about the lack of taxis and long wait times. One user said getting home from work had become increasingly hard, even at off-peak times. "Over the past six months the volume of Uber drivers in my area has declined massively and at times I haven't been able to book a trip at all," they wrote. "When checking the 'around you' screen there's honestly not a single car in my entire postcode or the surrounding region - it's a shame that both my local Taxi firm and now Uber are running with such lower driver numbers (due to many known issues)." Another agreed, commenting: "I've had a lot of problems. When I'm making a longer trip (e.g. £15-20) it's been ok, but when it's a shorter £5-7 trip I've had multiple cars just decline it. Took five minutes to get one from the station home last night, and I had about 10 different drivers decline before one accepted," while a third added: "So far I've been ok getting to/from north Leeds to city centre but is definitely harder than it was. Coupled with crap buses getting around Leeds is not easy sometimes." So, Uber. Why London? Why not Leeds? Or Sheffield, or Manchester, or Newcastle or Belfast? Come Guinea Pig test in the north, if you're brave enough.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Little-known car insurance could save you £5,000 if your car is written off in accident – everything you need to know
A HIDDEN car insurance trick could save you £5,000 if your vehicle is written off. Motorists claiming on this insurance stand to gain big - as average payouts have tripled in the past four years. 2 The average payout for Guaranteed Asset Protection - or GAP insurance - has soared from around £1,600 in 2021 to nearly £5,000 this year. This little-known insurance hack is rarely used - with a Financial Conduct Authority probe revealing that the average driver with GAP insurance makes a claim just once every 300 years. This product is mainly used to cover a potential shortfall between a car's value and the amount owed on finance if the vehicle is written off or stolen. Drivers who need to make a claim are likely to receive larger payouts, as those who've financed their cars currently face several financial risks. GAP insurance is used not only by those with financed cars but also by owners who bought cars outright—they can claim if the insurer's payout is less than what they paid for the car. Several factors have contributed to the soaring cash value of GAP claims. These include the fast depreciation of certain vehicles - especially EVs - and a rise in insurance write-offs caused by soaring repair costs and parts shortages. Rising motor thefts, targeting models like Range Rovers, have also driven up the cash value of GAP claims. Experts say GAP insurance has shifted from a 'nice-to-have' policy to a 'vital financial safeguard' for today's car buyers. The increase in the value of payouts "underscores the growing financial risk faced by car owners" in 2025, according to MotorEasy, a leading car ownership platform. Ford is forced to immediately shut down factories and halt car production as CEO admits 'day to day' struggle for brand However, this type of insurance has been controversial in the past, as it's often sold by dealers alongside cars - sometimes with limited explanation or inflated prices. It's usually cheaper to buy GAP insurance through brokers. The increase in the value of payouts "underscores the growing financial risk faced by car owners" in 2025, according to MotorEasy, the leading car ownership platform. MotorEasy says the rise in average claim amounts is linked to the lasting effects of Covid-19. However, since so few motorists were using GAP policies, the Financial Conduct Authority launched an investigation in 2023 over concerns about their value. This led to many policies being withdrawn, with about 80 percent of products pulled from the market. Experts now advise car buyers to compare policies carefully and consider brokers rather than accepting dealer offers. Meanwhile, insurance experts have shared eight tips to help drivers slash the cost of covering their cars. Tom Banks, a coverage expert for told SunMotors that one effective way is to choose a higher excess. This means you agree to pay more out of pocket if you make a claim, which lowers the amount the insurer has to cover. Tom explained: "You want to make sure that you will be able to afford to pay it should you need to make a claim. "But it's worth bearing in mind that choosing a higher voluntary excess will usually bring your car insurance premium down." What is car insurance? Consumer reporter Sam Walker talks you through what car insurance is and what it covers you for... Car insurance pays out if your vehicle is stolen, damaged, catches on fire or is involved in an accident. As a minimum, it protects you against any damage you case to other road users, the public or their property - these are called third parties. You only need to claim on your car insurance when an accident is your fault. If another motorist is to blame, their insurance should pay out instead. Car insurance, unlike home insurance, is a legal requirement and if you don't have it you can be fined up to £1,000. You can also have your vehicle seized and destroyed. However, you don't need to insure your car if it is classed as "off-road", or holds a statutory off road notification (SORN). The vehicle has to be kept on private land and not a public highway though. 2
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Outrage as travellers 'destroy' tranquil New Forest village with 'illegal' land grab - as ex-minister rages 'civil rights' of those shamelessly flouting planning laws should be 'forfeited'
Fury has exploded over an 'illegal' traveller camp which threatens to 'destroy' the tranquillity of a tiny village in the heart of one of the UK's prized national parks. Residents living in the quintessentially British community of Burley, in the New Forest, have lashed out over the unauthorised development on the outskirts of the village. Those behind the project have been accused of shamelessly flouting planning rules by paving over part of a field and installing a number of caravans and mobile homes. It's led to a months-long row, with a judgement on whether a retrospective planning application to allow it to stay or not, set to be made in a matter of weeks. However, it has sparked a fierce backlash, with one ex-minister raging those behind the scheme should have their 'civil rights... forfeited' over the flagrant rule break. One villager fumed: 'The travellers have shown complete disregard for the community... It's a level of disrespect. They have come in and destroyed protected lands without permission.' The woodland idyll, nestled between Southampton and Bournemouth, is home to about 1,350 people and is heavily reliant on tourism in the summer. It has no railway station, one primary school, a village shop and a sporadic bus service. Those living there are fiercely protective of their historic home's unspoilt, natural surroundings and have been left outraged by the gypsy development. The site, on a former pony field off Ringwood Road, was converted without permission several weeks ago. It's a stone's throw away from the luxury Burley Manor hotel, which is a medieval Grade II-listed building. Those on the camp have since submitted a retrospective planning bid for two static caravans, two touring caravans, parking, bin and cycle stores, e-bike charging points, boundary fencing, and an extension of existing hardstanding. MailOnline understands the site is home to two families. The proposals - which are yet to be decided by the New Forest National Park Authority - triggered a furious response, with dozens of objections lodged. Local Tory MP Sir Desmond Swayne is also among those attacking the development, which he says had 'alarmed' his constituents. 'It's not been helped by the rather aggressive sign put up, that strikes fear into the community,' he added. 'What sort of people are these, who are putting up this intimidatory sign telling people to "keep out" or the dogs will get you'?' A deadline for a decision on the application is July 2 - however, officials at the NFNPA hope to have made a judgement before this date. However, former minister Sir Desmond feared the controversial scheme could be approved on the basis of 'human rights', allowing travellers to remain on the land instead of dismantling all the work that has already been undertaken there. Hitting out, the New Forest West MP told MailOnline: 'When you break the law you should forfeit your civil rights. Breaches in the law – even in planning regulations - should not be whipped through on the basis of human rights.' One 43-year-old villager accused the group of 'steamrolling' their way into the tranquil rural community by 'running roughshod' over planning laws. She added: 'Burley is like a little, sleepy, lost village in winter months. It's a beautiful, quaint and it's historic. 'There has been no attempt [by the travellers] to join the community or to be part of it. They have steamrolled their way in. 'The damage has now been done. You can't put back all the species in the hedges that were residing in there that were torn up for the fencing. 'This is a very passionate village. We're passionate about protecting it and preserving it... It's hugely disappointing that you have people who have not adhered to planning policy.' The development comes amid a 'land grab' blitz blighting Britain, which has seen travellers across the UK building camps in rural beauty spots without permission. A probe by the MailOnline has already revealed how the blight has rocked villages and towns in Buckinghamshire, West Sussex, Nottinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Gloucester, Worcestershire and Cheshire. This week, the rural north Devon hamlet of Charles became the latest community to be hit. Diggers bulldozed through a large grass bank to gain access to the secluded field in the picturesque north Devon hamlet - which is home to just a few dozen homes. The work, which is believed to be part of an unauthorised project to build a new traveller site, started at about 5pm on Monday evening, locals said. Within 24 hours, the tranquil patch of grassland had been transformed into a grey eyesore, standing out against the rolling green hills of the surrounding countryside. Elsewhere, travellers have been accused of carrying out brazen bank holiday 'land seizures' to rapidly build camps under the noses of council chiefs while their offices are closed. Allegedly weaponising the national breaks, industrial diggers, excavators and lorries carrying gravel, are mobilised to rip up and pave over fields in protected green belts during 'deliberate and meticulously planned' operations. Cynically, the 'illegal' conversions are done without any planning permission, flouting development rules - with 'retrospective' applications later submitted to councils to allow the newly-constructed sites to remain. Sir Desmond added he was worried about the number of unauthorised traveller sites, which he warned is now happening 'more and more often'. 'This is an established pattern. This isn't ignorance. This is gaming the system,' the veteran Conservative MP said. The exact date of when work started at the New Forest pony field in Ringwood Road is not known. However, officials believe it could have begun as early as March. A retrospective application was submitted shortly after, which prompted more than 80 letters of opposition. Andrew and Rachel Holloway, whose home overlooks the site, are among those calling for the scheme to be refused. In their written objection, they said: 'Until the site was developed six weeks ago, we looked out onto fields and hedgerows teeming with wildlife. The landscape had completely changed since the site has been developed.' Criteria for approving gypsy and traveller sites is set out in the New Forest Local Plan. It states: 'The New Forest has a long history of travelling communities and their needs are recognised in national planning policy. 'Planning policy [has] the overarching aim to ensure the fair and equal treatment of gypsies and travellers in a way that facilitated their traditional way of life, while respecting the interests of the settled community.' 'It requires proposals to demonstrate a proven need for accommodation, minimise harm to the landscape, and ensure developments do not negatively impact nearby residents or overload local infrastructure. 'The policy also states that occupancy should be limited to people with a local connection to the New Forest and emphasises the importance of conserving the area's natural beauty and tranquillity' The application has been submitted by Michael Chalk and Tom Butler. Planning consultant Tony White, who is representing the pairs' development bid, told MailOnline: 'Nationally councils have persistently failed to meet the statutory obligations to provide sites and pitches to meet the identified needs of gypsies and travellers. 'Faced with tougher policing powers to prevent roadside stopping, many gypsies and travellers feel they have no choice but to move on to their own privately-owned land before obtaining planning permission and are often forced to do so because of prejudice they encounter when roadside. 'The site prior to the two young families moving on, consisted of a brick built stable bock, large area of hardstanding and paddocks, they have carried out very little work to facilitate the occupation of the site, all of which can and will be removed should they be unsuccessful in the planning process. 'It is recognised that some residents will have concerns about the change or by travellers moving in nearby, but Mr Chalk and Mr Butler have in large part been made to feel very welcome in the village and are looking forward to their children attending the local schools and the families integrating with the settled community. 'Mr Buttler would like to add that they wish to reassure those residents who have expressed to the Mail they have fears or concerns, that it is only Mr Chalk's family and my family, that intend to live here and we want to make a home where we can raise our children, giving them access to education and medical facilities that we never had growing up, we just want to improve our children's futures and our families living standards.' Mr White added the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Amended) contains provisions to 'regularise unauthorised works, through retrospective applications and lawful development certificates'. 'These are utilised for many reasons and by all sectors of communities, but I can assure you, that any decision on the planning application, will not be swayed or influenced by the applicants having moved on to their property ahead of the decision,' he said. The deadline for a decision on the site is July 2.
