providers

Tesco Mobile, EE, Vodafone, Sky Mobile, O2 and Three all have different policy when it comes to how much customers pay when using their mobiles in the EU post-Brexit

Tesco Mobile has extended its free-roaming policy so customers can use their minutes, texts and data for no extra cost when in Europe.

Since leaving the EU, people living in the UK have been excluded from the bloc’s 2022 Roaming Regulations, which ban mobile operators from charging customers extra when they travel into other EU countries with their phone.

While some providers have allowed their customers to keep the perk, others have started charging considerable sums. Today, Tesco Mobile announced that it will not charge its users extra for texts, calls, and data made across 48 EU destinations “into 2026 and beyond.” Until this point, Tesco Mobile had hinted that the perk would end at the beginning of next year.

Laura Joseph, chief customer officer at Tesco Mobile, said: “We know how important it is for families to stay connected—whether you’re sharing holiday snaps, checking in with loved ones, or finding your way around a new city. That’s why we’re proud to extend our roaming offer, giving customers the freedom to use their UK data, minutes, and texts across 48 destinations in the EU and beyond, at no extra cost. With no setup, no hidden fees, and no stress, it’s one less thing to worry about when you’re away.”

Here is a rundown of the other major mobile providers in the UK and how much they charge for roaming in EU countries.

Under EE you can use your minutes, texts and data allowances in its European roaming zone – which includes most countries on the Continent – for £2.50 a day (up until midnight UK-time). You don’t need to do anything to opt in. If you use your allowances you’ll pay £2.50 for that day, and if you don’t, you won’t be charged anything. You can also buy a £10 ‘roam home’ seven day package.

The phone company offers free data roaming in the EU, so your data (subject to roaming limit), minutes and text allowances will work in the Europe Zone, just like they do at home.

If your UK monthly data allowance is over 25GB, you’ll have a roaming limit of 25GB when roaming in the firm’s Europe Zone. This means you can use up to 25GB of your allowance at no extra cost. O2 sends customers a text if they’re getting close to the limit, and again if they reach it. Then they can buy a ‘bolt on’.

For Pay Monthly customers, it’s a daily charge of £7 per day for unlimited calls, texts and date. For Pay As You Go customers, it’s a daily charge of £1.99.

Those customers whose plans started on or after October 1, 2021 can unlock their data, call and text for a daily roaming charge. For Pay Monthly customers, roaming costs £2 a day in Europe and £5 a day in Go Roam Around the World destinations. The Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man are excluded from the daily roaming charge.

If you’re on a Three Your Way plan, it comes with up to 56 days of roaming included. If you run out – or you’re on a Standard plan – you can also buy three, seven, or 14-day Go Roam Passes. With a £5 a day Data Passport, you can get unlimited data to use when roaming.

Mirror Travel WhatsApp group

Sign up for a selection of the best travel stories, straight to your phone

Mirror Travel

Click here to join the group

You can get a breaking travel stories along with some of the most interesting, important and fun travel stories sent to your phone every day by subscribing to the Mirror Travel WhatsApp. It’s completely free and takes minutes to do.

If your plan doesn’t have inclusive roaming in the firm’s Europe Zone – which includes all European countries other than Ireland, the Isle of Man, Iceland and Norway – then it will cost you £2.57 a day to roam. You can reduce this cost with a European Roaming pass, available as £15 for eight days or £20 for 15 days (a cost increase of roughly 25% in two years)

A day starts from the time when roaming is detected and lasts for 24 hours. For example, if roaming is detected at 10am, the daily roaming fee would be valid until 10am the next day. If you bought your plan before 11 August 2021, roaming is included up to 25GB of data usage.

‘Roam Like Home’ is available to all BT Mobile customers at no extra cost. It lets you to use your minutes, texts and data allowances within our Roam Like Home zones without paying extra roaming charges.

From 15 June 2017, if your plan gives you 20GB or more of data each month, a surcharge may be applied if you use more than 15GB, while roaming, in one billing cycle.

GiffGaff has one of the most generous policies out there. The company’s plans can be used in the EU and selected destinations just as customers would use them at home and at no extra cost. If you opt to pay as you go and use credit instead, data, calls and texts will be charged at the firm’s pay-as-you-go UK rates while you roam in the EU.

There’s a fair use limit on data of 5GB. If you go over it’ll cost 10p/MB, or you can start a new plan early which will give you another 5GB allowance.

The company has a roaming passport which costs £2 a day and lets you access your UK data, calls and text allowances in over 55 popular holiday destinations, including the EU, the USA and Australia and more.

If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded “public benefit” programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court.

The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state’s emergency healthcare system, the officials said.

Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said.

In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate “chilling effect” on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader “ripple effects” — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as “a critical safety net” for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers.

“Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,” Jaime-Milehan said.

Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote.

Tony Thurmond, California’s superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the “chilling effect” from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to “seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.”

Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states’ lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations.

The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants.

The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”

Trump’s order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain “life or safety” programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.

The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.”

California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.

“We’re not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we’re talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues.

The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out.

Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens.

“Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,” she wrote.

Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county’s “safety-net” care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities.

“But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,” Chawla wrote. “This will exacerbate their health conditions.”

Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county’s residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county’s children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country.

The administration’s changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote.

“The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara’s emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,” Hansen wrote.

The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court.

In response to the states’ motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it.

They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies “merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,” and “restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.”

The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Friday over efforts to end gender-affirming care for transgender, intersex and nonbinary children and young adults nationwide — calling them an unconstitutional attack on LGBTQ+ patients, healthcare providers and states’ rights.

The lawsuit was brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and officials from 15 other states and the District of Columbia. It challenges a Jan. 28 executive order by President Trump that denounced gender-affirming care as “mutilation” and called on U.S. Justice Department officials to effectively enforce a ban, including by launching investigations into healthcare providers.

The lawsuit notes the Justice Department last month sent more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics that have provided such care nationwide, with justice officials suggesting they may face criminal prosecution.

Bonta’s office, in a statement, said such efforts “have no legal basis and are intended to discourage providers from offering lifesaving healthcare that is lawful under state law.” The lawsuit asks a federal court in Massachusetts to vacate Trump’s order in its entirety for exceeding federal authority and undermining state laws that guarantee equal access to healthcare.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Trump made reining in transgender rights a key promise of his presidential campaign. Upon taking office, he moved swiftly to do so through executive orders, funding cuts and litigation. And in many ways, it has worked — particularly when it comes gender-affirming care for minors.

Clinics across the country that had provided such care have closed their doors in response to the threats and funding cuts. That includes the renowned Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, one of the largest and oldest pediatric gender clinics in the U.S.

The clinic told thousands of its patients and their families that it was shuttering last month. Other clinics have similarly closed nationwide, radically reducing the availability of such care in the U.S.

Republicans and other Trump supporters have cheered the closures as a major win, and they praised the president for protecting impressionable and confused children from so-called woke medical professionals pushing what they allege to be dangerous and irreversible treatments.

Bonta said in the Friday statement that Trump and his administration’s “relentless attacks” on such care were “cruel and irresponsible” and endangered “already vulnerable adolescents whose health and well-being are at risk.”

“These actions have created a chilling effect in which providers are pressured to scale back on their care for fear of prosecution, leaving countless individuals without the critical care they need and are entitled to under law,” Bonta said.

Mainstream U.S. medical associations have supported gender-affirming care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria for years. They and LGBTQ+ rights organizations have accused Trump and his supporters of mischaracterizing that care, which includes therapy, counseling and support for social transitioning, and can include puberty blockers, hormone treatment and, in rarer circumstances, mastectomies.

Queer advocates, many patients and their families say such care is life-saving, alleviating intense distress — and suicidal thoughts — in transgender and other gender-nonconforming youth. They and many mainstream medical experts acknowledge that gender-affirming care for young people is still a developing field, but say it is also based on decades of solid research by medical professionals who are far better equipped than politicians to help families make difficult medical decisions.

However, as the number of children who identify as transgender or nonbinary has rapidly increased in recent years, that argument has failed to take hold in many parts of the country. Conservatives and Republican leaders have grown increasingly alarmed by such care, pointing to young people who changed their minds about transitioning and now regret the care they received.

“Countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated and begin to grasp the horrifying tragedy that they will never be able to conceive children of their own or nurture their children through breastfeeding,” Trump’s executive order stated.

Trump and others have escalated tensions further by spreading misinformation about kids being whisked away from school to have their gentials mutilated without their parents’ knowledge — which is not happening.

The battle has played out in the courts, in part as a state’s rights issue. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that conservative states may ban puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender teens, with the court’s conservative majority finding that states are generally free to set their own standards of medical care.

The Trump administration, however, has not taken the same view. Instead, it has aggressively tried to eradicate gender-affirming care nationwide, regardless of state laws — like those in California — that protect it.

Trump’s Jan. 28 executive order, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” claimed that “medical professionals are maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex through a series of irreversible medical interventions.”

It defined children as anyone under the age of 19, and said that moving forward, the U.S. wouldn’t “fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called ‘transition’ of a child from one sex to another,” but would “rigorously enforce all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures.”

The states’ lawsuit focuses on one particular section of that order, which directed Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to convene state attorneys general and other law enforcement officials nationwide to begin investigating gender-affirming care providers and other groups that “may be misleading the public about long-term side effects of chemical and surgical mutilation.”

The section suggested those investigations could be based on laws against “female genital mutilation,” or even around a 1938 law known as the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to regulate food, drugs, medical devices and cosmetics.

On July 9, Bondi announced the Justice Department’s subpoenas to healthcare providers, saying doctors and hospitals “that mutilated children in the service of a warped ideology will be held accountable.”

On July 25, The Times reported that Bill Essayli, the Trump administration’s controversial pick for U.S. attorney in L.A., had floated the idea of criminally charging doctors and hospitals for providing gender-affirming care, according to two federal law enforcement sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

The targeting of gender-affirming care is part of a wider effort by the administration to eliminate transgender rights more broadly, in part on the premise that transgender people do not exist. On his first day in office, Trump issued another executive order declaring there are only two sexes and denouncing what he called the “gender ideology” of the left.

His administration has sought to limit the options transgender people have to get passports that reflect their identities, and the Justice Department has sued California over its policies allowing transgender girls to compete against other girls in youth sports. Many transgender Americans are looking for ways to flee the country.

Still, many in the LGBTQ+ community fear the attacks are only going to get worse. Among those who are most scared are the parents and families of transgender kids — including those who believe their health records may have been collected under the Justice Department’s subpoenas.

One mother of a Children’s Hospital patient told The Times last month that she is terrified the Justice Department is “going to come after parents and use the female genital mutilation law … to prosecute parents and separate me from my child.”

Bonta is leading the lawsuit along with the attorneys general of Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York. Joining them are Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and the attorneys general of Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.