The UK ETA: A necessary security measure, or a political and economic tool?

By April 2025, anyone visiting the UK without British or Irish citizenship will need a UK ETA before arriving into the country. iVisa Co-Founder Sergio Merino takes a deeper dive into the reasons behind this decision and whether it will serve the purpose it claims.

By now, most people worldwide are familiar with Brexit and its significant impact on the UK’s place in Europe. As a European, witnessing one of the EU's founding members depart was disheartening. But rather than diving into the myriad complexities of Brexit, I want to focus on a specific development that has caught my attention: the launch of the UK’s Electronic Travel Authorization (ETA).

Having spent over a decade running a global travel visa company, I've seen countless border control measures rolled out across the world. With this experience in mind, the introduction of the UK ETA merits deeper scrutiny.

Many readers are probably wondering about the practicalities of the UK ETA – when it starts, what it costs, and how to apply. However, a more compelling question might be: Why has the UK decided to introduce this ETA, and does it truly serve the purpose it claims?

Australia was a pioneer in electronic immigration systems, introducing its ETA back in 1996

To answer this, it’s useful to compare the UK’s move with the immigration policies of countries with similar systems, such as Australia and the United States. Both nations have implemented electronic travel authorizations, and their experiences offer insight into why the UK might be following suit.

The Australian ETA: A precedent for control and revenue

Australia was a pioneer in electronic immigration systems, introducing its ETA back in 1996. At the time, it was a practical solution to manage the anticipated influx of travelers for the 2000 Olympics. For countries already requiring visas, immigration procedures were stringent, but the ETA allowed Australia to monitor visitors from nations that previously did not need a visa, thanks to reciprocal agreements.

Initially, travelers were barely aware of the ETA because it was seamlessly integrated into travel booking systems like Sabre and Amadus, making the process almost invisible. But as the program expanded, Australia began charging a fee, and now, with 10 million ETA-eligible travelers annually, the system generates about $200 million annually.

Interestingly, this revenue is reinvested into promoting Australian tourism, demonstrating that while security may have been the initial driver, financial and political factors have become just as important.

The US ESTA: Security or economics?

The US followed a similar path with its Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).

The US ESTA now generates substantial income – around $300 million annually. In addition to its revenue generation, ESTA has become a political tool

Introduced in 2008, the US ESTA was a response to the 9/11 attacks, and its primary purpose was framed as national security. But just two years later, the US started charging for ESTA under the Travel Promotion Act, redirecting this revenue toward promoting tourism.

Like Australia's system, the US ESTA now generates substantial income – around $300 million annually. In addition to its revenue generation, ESTA has become a political tool. While most applicants are approved, those from or who have visited countries under US sanctions, such as Cuba, are often denied. This underscores the point that ETAs are as much about diplomacy and economics as they are about security.

The UK ETA: A political and economic move?

Given the precedents set by Australia and the US, it was only a matter of time before the UK introduced its own ETA, especially in the aftermath of Brexit. The UK’s departure from the EU has allowed it to reclaim control over its immigration policies, and the ETA fits squarely into the government’s broader goal of tightening border control.

However, unlike the US, which offered the ESTA for free initially, the UK is charging for the ETA from the start. This suggests that the UK has learned from its counterparts – that travelers will pay for entry, especially if the fee is framed as a security measure. But is security the real reason for this move?

I believe there are deeper motivations. The estimated 20 million visitors who will need an ETA each year will generate significant revenue – around £200 million – for the UK government. This money will likely be funneled into promoting British tourism, much like the US and Australia have done.

In addition, ETAs help shape diplomatic relations. By requiring visas from certain countries while granting ETA eligibility to others, governments can exert pressure or extend goodwill. This is a clear example of how immigration policy can be used as a political tool rather than solely a security measure.

In the case of the UK ETA, it feels like a financial and diplomatic strategy cloaked in the language of security – a pattern we’ve seen before, and one we will undoubtedly see again.

The bigger picture: Are ETAs really about security?

With the EU also set to launch its own version, ETIAS (European Travel Information and Authorization System), it seems that ETAs are becoming the global norm. But are they truly about enhancing security? In my view, while security may be part of the equation, the broader motivation behind these systems is political and economic. Countries use ETAs to generate revenue, promote tourism, and influence diplomatic relations. Furthermore, the fact that many countries are developing their own systems rather than collaborating on a unified, global solution raises questions about whether security is really the driving force.

In the end, ETAs do provide a layer of control over who enters a country. But if security were truly the primary concern, wouldn’t nations work together to create a shared global platform rather than building separate, revenue-generating systems? The trend toward individual ETAs suggests otherwise: these measures are as much about politics and economics as they are about safety.

In the case of the UK ETA, it feels like a financial and diplomatic strategy cloaked in the language of security – a pattern we’ve seen before, and one we will undoubtedly see again.

Read more about the UK ETA