UKC

Long euro road trips will be more of a ballache - you'll only be able to stay in the EU for a maximum of 90 out of every 180 days without a visa:-

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/brexit-passport-visa-e...

...and the visa process is not standardised and can take a long time

https://www.nomadicmatt.com/travel-blogs/how-to-legally-stay-in-europe-for-...

Whilst I'm no fan of Brexit - this has to be high up the list of insignificant whinges.

The number of people who undertake "Long euro road trips" of over 89 days any more frequently than once every 5 years must be miniscule.

Plus the number of people who do such things - at the drop of a hat - who don't plan the whole thing sufficiently far in advance to be hampered by a lengthy application process is also slight

- I would suggest the people who do take such trips would thoroughly enjoy getting beyond Europe - the non-EU countries to the East have so much to offer.

And how exactly would they know how long you have been in the EU ?

Scan passports of non-citizens on the way in and the way out.  Match up the arrivals with departures and flag anyone with an arrival more than three months old and no matching departure.

It's not that simple though is it ?

I could take my van to Europe, get scanned in at the border, spend 30 days in Europe, end up in a non EU country over an unmanned or manned border with a non passport scan checkpoint then come back in 90 days later, i haven't been in Europe for 120 days have i ?

And will the etias exclude anybody who has gone to a muslim country in the last 5 years- as per esta (or Trump's $hit list to be precise)

Hope nobody was planning to climb in Iran

I can think of at least 20 of people I know who do 

Like USA does, passport control

Totally unworkable without a manned border crossing at every crossing in and out of the EU, which is never going to happen.

Wasn't Brexit supposed to make things better though? What have we actually gained from this reduction in our free movement rights?

The reverse situation is also true. My wife (Dutch national) and I will never be able to go on holiday for more than 90 days each year since she will lose her residency permit if we do that. Approaching retirement as we are, this is a fairly major curtailment of our travel rights. A luxury problem maybe but certainly one that will affect thousands of people and definitely not something that I would describe as 'better'.

Alan

Like which one for example?

I'm also approaching retirement and was looking forward to to joining other retired climbers spending long spells abroad.

Although Nempnett Thrubwell might not worry, there are hundreds of thousands of Brits (not just climbers) who have made use of their right to roam at will throughout Europe. Whether in a campervan or cheap apartment in the sun, they certainly feel their quality of life has been significantly enhanced by being able to come and go, for as long as they pleased. Ninety days in 180 is a huge degradation of ordinary people's righst to choose how they spend their lives.

Clearly you have no idea how border enforcement works. The moment anyone checks you passport over the 90 days after you were logged as entering the EU you are an illegal immigrant.

I think he only meant insignificant whine in terms of climbers and trips>90 days.

The massive impact is on those who may wish to live in the EU, and travel to and from the UK regularly Myself and the current Mrs W would love to move to France  on retirement, but would regularly come back here. This is no problem whatsoever currently, but by the time I retire in a couple of years, will be significantly more difficult. I also have friends in the same situation as you with an EU born partner, and they too are struggling to see the benefits. From what i gather from those in favour of the restrictions, the benefits seem to centre around keeping out various foreigners, and preventing them stealing our jobs / benefits / hospital appointments / housing / school places (delete as applicable depending on the prejudice most current).

The loss of free movement is absolutely one of the biggest losses from Brexit,

My underlying point - which my clumsy response obviously didn't highlight - is that such articles / posts highlighting another are very much the sort which enabled the Brexiteers to whip up support.

I would argue that on the face of it the links and sentences added by the OP has the following inference

"Brexit means people cannot have a massive extended holiday in Europe."

Such "downside of Brexit" arguments is never going to convince large proportions of the nation who are only able to dream of a having simply more than a weeks holiday abroad.

There are far bigger  downsides to brexit than  - Long euro road trips being a ballache.

Why can your Dutch National Wife not apply for British Citizenship? 

I suggest you call a lawyer before you try to convince a frontex official that you are perfectly legal in the EU but just happen to use unchecked border crossings every once in a while....

She can do, but it is a massive pain in the butt, plus around £1.5k and she didn't need to before.

I take your point about it being a slightly luxury problem, which may not be appreciated by many who voted leave, but there is a vast long list of little things which are going to be less good - some luxury and some minor but a lot of major ones, especially where trade is concerned.

What is missing is a list of any benefit from leaving. 

Alan

Or the Bundesgrenzschutzpolizei in Germany or possibly even more exciting the Bavarian ones or all the other countries border police. 

Apparently it puts the "Great" back into Britain,  according to many of the interviews with voters that I watched. 

I've spoken with quite a few British long-term campervan dwellers and the like over the last 3 years in Spain and France who knew nothing about the upcoming 90/180 rule. Many would ordinarily take 5 months or so at a time (retired). Occasionally I got great amusement upon discovering that some of these folk I was speaking with  most probably voted to leave the EU (based on some of their statements).

Also, not all countries allow dual citizenship. 

That's the case for me, Scotland has been my home for almost a decade now, but I would need to give up my citizenship (and hence EU citizenship) to get British one. Would it be worth it, for someone who's in late 20s, like myself? I don't know!

In or out of Schengen isnt it really.?  Anyway the only bit that matters is at 90 days at the UKEU border. 

Taking back control  it's what you voted for 

Well I didn’t vote for it, just trying to understand how the hell it would ever work.

So, OK, hypothetically I drive to To France, spend 89 days in France then drive into Andorra or Switzerland (non EU members) via an unmanned border or a simple passport check to ensure you are not a member of ISIS, spend 89 days there and try to get back across the border from France to the U.K. what happens ?

I’m pretty sure I have a decent handle on it, all I’m saying is the infrastructure and logistics simply isn’t there to manage this sort of thing at the moment and won’t be any time soon, it’s unmanageable in a land mass such as Europe to control and log movement of ALL citizens, EU residents or not.

What happens next is you have a lot of explaining to do. Either via an interpreter (Not good) or in an unfamiliar language (Worse!)

Which borders do you see as porous or unmanned?

Why ? Surely the onus is on the people controlling the movement ? 
 

This is my point, it’s unmanageable, unworkable and unenforceable at this moment in time.

You may be right. But try arguing the point in a foreign country in a language you're not fluent in...

I have been in and out of Switzerland via Vallorbe probably 20 times over the years, waved straight through on probably most of them.

I don't know what happens.... I am not working for the law enforcement agencies.

But I don't think they'll be impressed if you tell them you went to Andorra/Russia/wherever and therefore everything should be OK. They'll just check the database and see an entry in the EU more than 90 days ago.

What they'll do? Take you into custody? Throw you out of the union? Mark your name in the database so that any following entry into the EU will be refused/comes with additional checks? Pass this info on to the US? As said, I don't know. Maybe they also just say, don't do this again and good day to you!

The general rule for a happy life is not to mess with law enforcement agencies. So just take the trouble to go through a manned border post for the second entry into the union so that the system is happy that you are there legally.

BTW, there is not only trouble with the border force upon leaving the union, you also have problems if e.g. you're involved in a car accident, police show up, they ask for identification, etc.

because Switzerland is in Schengen. It counts as EU when it comes to migration.

It is your responsibility to get your passport stamped with entry and exit dates. So putting aside that Switzerland is in the Schengen area and looking at Andorra, if you were to enter it you need to make sure they stamp your passport so that you got proof you exited Schengen, and then another one when you get back in for that to work. Were you not to do that the police or border control will look at your passport and calculate based on the latest stamp.

I know loads of commonwealth 'tourists' who are trying to trick the 90 days limit in Europe and they mostly get caught out and fined for overstaying. I doubt brits will be any more sucesful

Switzerland is a Schengen area country.

But this is my point, not all borders are manned or bothered about dealing with people crossing them, I can’t see how it’s manageable.

Surely the onus is on the people controlling the movement ? 

No. This is the same as when someone from e.g. Africa ends up in the UK without papers, UK home office sends him/her back to the country of origin. There is no right to stay simply because the border control missed you on the way in.

So they were manned then?

I guess you're too young to remember real borders. They're a pain in the arse.

Yes bad example but there are shit loads of non Schengen countries that won’t give a toss about who comes in or out or stamping your passport.

Well good luck finding an uncontrolled border crossing into Andorra! And Switzerland is part of the Schengen area.

And what happens after overstaying for 89 days? Depends on which country catches you, France it'll probably only be a fine, deportation AND  a f*ck off big red cross the next time you apply for a visa. You will be logged coming into Schengen and if you don't log out on time you are an illegal immigrant. 

There are more border controls in Europe than you probably think, just in Bavaria there are 500 immigration police checking who drives in from the neighbouring countries and they aren't the only ones, start with Denmark, Sweden, Poland and keep researching.

I’m sure you are right, I just can’t get my head round how this sort of checking is ever going to be manageable for the amount of people moving around the EU.

Moving round the EU/Schengen is easy, it's getting in and proving you left in the 90 days that isn't. And incidentally if the system reverts to pre-EU then after the visa period expires you will be liable for the VAT payable (and whatever import duty is imposed) on your van.

most people fly in and are checked at the airport. same for the ships at harbours in the south and for the transport between UK/Ireland and the mainland.

The next big border is the one in the east with Russia, Belarus, etc. Most of this region is empty with very few roads. Considering the tension with Russia, not a good idea to go for unchecked border crossings.

The internal border with Albania, Serbia, Bosnia, is also seriously checked.

So your best chances are the Greece-Bulgaria and Slowakia/Romania borders?

But the main point remains. Whether these countries care about border patrol or not, it is your problem if your entry in the database does not say you're legally in the Schengen area.

In the context of your previous statement that "My wife (Dutch national) and I will never be able to go on holiday for more than 90 days each year", I would just pragmatically do it.

What country are you from?

Can she have dual nationality, Alan?

But apparently we'll be able to drive over the border from northern Ireland into the eu with only checks on certain goods no passport checks.

Never have understood how that one's supposed to still mean we can stop eu criminals entering the country. 

because there are passport checks between Ireland and mainland EU. And the UK trusts the Irish border control agencies to prevent criminals from entering the country.

It clearly doesn't, but then its only ireland, and our current govt (since Julian Smith got sacked) doesn't give a single sh1t about NI since they no longer need the DUP, and nobody votes tory over there.

Surely you are trolling.

Its pretty straightforward. Schengen member states are required to control all borders to non-member states (the external borders). Passports of third-country nationals are being stamped on entry and exit. Note that the pre-travel authorisation itself does not entitle you to enter the Schengen area it only allows you to show up and ask to enter. Now it’s the responsibility of a border guard to establish the reasons for your travel when you are at the border itself. Missing exit stamps are a pretty good reason to refuse you entry.

This is very different from the actual right to travel within or enter the Schengen area through the ‘Freedom of Movement’. This is the key point.

If you're planning on do that in the future with a UK registered car, be prepared for it becoming difficult

I hoped this wouldn't happen, very sad to see.  There are currently thought to be around 300,000 Brits living in Spain, many of these are retirees who have bought property and spend there pension in the Spanish economy,  the alpine ski industry has thousands of Brits who practically run some resorts,  restricting Brits to 90 days will put a sizeable dents in these countries economies.  Does anyone know if it is possible /legal for individual EU countries to make their own exceptions to this 90 day rule.

The people in Spain can get a multi-entry national visa (assuming they meet the financial criteria). Whether this becomes a bargaining point in the Gibralter negotiations.........

Workers of any type can apply for a work visa.

  Theres already a UK visa system for short term unskilled - can't remember cost - £500?  Expect that to be reciprocated.   Ski resort labour will be easy to replace though

The 90 days is not relevant for Brits wanting to do some work in the EU, ETIAS is a travel access system. If you want to work (even only a single week), you need a work visa. It is to be hoped that in the future relationship negotiations there'll be a deal for easy/automatic visa granting cooperation. But it will come with reciprocal rights for EU citizens getting work visas in the UK, and this is currently politically sensitive in the UK. So this will be some time...

Lithuania. We had a dual/multiple citizenship referendum last year and and it had 73.92% vote for it, but it still failed. As per Wikipedia, "In order for the constitutional amendments to be passed, voter turnout was required to be above 50%, and at least 50% of registered voters would have to vote in favour of the proposal."

While I associate home and future with Scotland, giving up a citizenship feels like something that you cannot back out from easily. 

Wiki on the referendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Lithuanian_constitutional_referendum

https://dispatcheseurope.com/no-deal-no-problem-more-eu-countries-guarantee...

This webpage suggests each EU country can individually choose the criteria to be met in order to receive a residency permit.  It appears most countries are going to make it relatively straightforward for Brits to obtain resident status, maybe it will be straightforward enough that even the four month road tripper can easily obtain resident status somewhere and therefore stay as long as they like.

Or maybe I'm missing something?

That article points out that there needs to be reciprocal right for other nations individuals in the UK - I am not convinced our current government wouldn’t happily send all the ‘foreigners’ home!

Chris

The "What are they gonna do about it-- throw us all out? And how?" argument was used by many Brits I told about the 90/180 rule.

When I was a 3rd-country citizen earlier in life, before getting UK/EU citizenship, I was stopped at Helbronner by armed police after crossing the Vallee Blanche in full climbing kit They checked our passports on a laptop and eventually gave us the go ahead. That was 2001. Much easier to do now.

There are cops everywhere at the moment in Spain and France doing random checks. Have been stopped by 3 in last month in a UK vehicle.

Good luck to the dreamers! 

yep, most countries are looking for reciprocal rights but it does seem as though different countries will have different requirements.

According to Forbes magazine Brits inject 1.32 billion yearly into the Alicante area alone, just for this reason i think we can be fairly confident that Spain are going to do everything they can to allow the continued free movement of Brits into their country, whether or not we offer them reciprocal rights.

Just to be clear, I am not highlighting this because i want our country to kick out the Spanish, just the opposite.  I am saying this because i think it is at least some what reassuring to Brits (like myself) who are planning futures in Spain.

It looks like a regulation for Brits in the EU before 1.1.2021. I don't think it applies to Brits travelling to the EU after the end of the transition. 

Is the Lithuanian reticence to have dual nationality to do with the Russian minority? My memory was that Lithuania had a much smaller Russian minority than Latvia and Estonia, so just gave them all Lithuanian citizenship soon after independence, thus avoiding the big non citizenship problems that Estonia and Latvia have faced? Does Lithuania have conscription?

Edit: just read the Wikipedia article so see that Russian citizens would be specifically excluded. So really not sure why people didn't want it? 

In reply to 

The Brits with a lot of money will definitely be welcome. This is why killing freedom of movement is so sad.

Indeed. Over the border in Portugal they offer Schengen visas to anyone outside the EU willing to buy 500k euros worth of Portuguese property and visit for a fortnight a year (less money required in some areas). It is assumed that Brits will become eligible with Brexit, and given property prices in SE england there will be a lot of retirees who could downsize from the big family home to a smaller place in the UK and a place in Portugal part financed from rental income. So freedom of movement will be possible, for some, but requiring more money, faff, and lawyers.

Even if it doesn't, you'll no longer be covered by the European law that said your insurer must provide third party insurance regardless of your length of stay - I've got dual Irish citizenship so I'll have the right to stay but will still have to return to the UK and switch insurers every few months on a long trip. 

Aside from the cost and hassle, that's going to double the carbon footprint of a van trip every few months.

The effect on people's holidays may not be that important in the bigger scheme of things, but it is the sort of thing that people will soon come to notice.  The loss of freedom of movement will begin to make itself felt in all sorts of ways which will concern ordinary people far more than where the chicken in their takeaway comes from.  A few dirtbag climbers are just collateral damage, but the 90 day rule will disproportionately affect the retired generation (which largely voted for Brexit) who may wish to spend a lot of their time abroad .  Holidaymakers in general will find it takes longer to get through passport control, and may find that there are fewer British guides, ski-instructors, holiday reps, chalet persons etc when they get there.

As for those working abroad, there will be the hassle and expense of visas and the question whether British qualifications will still be recognised.  Any equipment taken into the EU for business purposes must be itemised on a carnet (an additional expense) which will be checked thoroughly at the border (an additional delay). Any items missing or added when they come to leave will cause questions to be asked and possible tax liabilities.

This will especially affect anyone who is not based abroad but travels regularly to the EU for work purposes, who will face this on every trip.  I don't know to what extent this will affect guides and instructors, who I imagine usually base themselves out there for the season, but it will certainly have a big impact on gear manufacturers travelling to trade fairs.  

Off topic, I know a lot of musicians and other artists who are very concerned that the additional costs and bureaucracy could make it uneconomic for them to take gigs abroad (or for EU artists to take gigs here). I know people who travel to Europe several times a month for one-off gigs for whom this may become impossible.

Maybe all these issues will be sorted out when the UK agrees its new arrangements with the EU.  However the politicians are concentrating on the big sexy issues which will most affect the economy, and don't seem to be very interested in these apparently less important matters.  However these are the issues which will most immediately and noticeably affect people's lives and which could quickly begin to undermine political support.

Thanks for the info. Pity that referendum didn't pass.

The figures look like voter apathy. A good majority of those who voted did want it.

Residency permit requires recidency...

4 months road trip does not sadly equal residency.

So most likely your idea of applying fro redicency for a road trip would pretty much be a no-go. Most often, it would require purchasing some land/property (see Portugal example below)... not really feasable for a dirtbag on a van lookin' crack the winter in Oliana etc.

I'm just so sick of voter apathy .. resulting from lack of care, wilful ignorance, nationalistic fantasies, and extreme selfishness.

Mods! Surely this should be in "Off Belay" not  "Destinations"?  Can it be moved please?

The Dutch did historically ask for people to relinquish their Dutch nationality but they have recently changed this.

Our kids have a full hand of passports! If my wife gets a British one then I will be the sad-sucker with just the one!

Alan

I just tried the citizenship test I got 15 out of 24 so that's me out. Just as well I'm a born and breed Brit.

Somewhat ironic that, given the prominence of the future of Northern Ireland in the Brexit debate - strictly speaking, "Great Britain" only refers to Scotland, England and Wales and not Northern Ireland.

Brexit as opposed to Ukexit...

Hmmmm. 
 

https://www.etiasvisa.com/etias-news/etias-visa-how-will-it-affect-uk-citiz...

Alan, providing your wife gets settled status, she will be able to have absences of up to two years at a time for any reason. Have a look at this site and download the Pdf.

https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/en/insights/publications/misc/brexit-immi...

The relevant section is "Can status be lost once it has been granted ?", on page 3.

Hope that helps.

Andy

We have military service draft, but it's fairly minuscule thing as very few get to win the lottery. You can postpone it as it's not very appealing when you are abroad and have financial obligations - you get 300-350 euros a month for 9 months! 

As for the referendum, the vote was for it, but you need to get over 50% of registered voters for it to pass. It's pretty hard to do when we haven't had an election with a turnout of over 60% in last two decades. If same logic was applied to Brexit, it wouldn't have passed it either. 

The parliament didn't seem to oppose the idea, but you need a referendum to change the constitution. 

That's an excellent link. Takes much of the speculation away.

And who will be serving us our coffee in Pret?

 Hi Alan, could you expand on this please? My partner is a Dutch national also and, with settled status, I thought you could continue to travel a lot?

I wanted to check if there's something I'm missing as we have plans for a ban trip not long after Brexit hits next year. 

Yes. Always go to the source rather than believing the newspapers, especially ‘opinion’ pieces from newspapers who have a history of being biased in their reporting. 

Thanks Andy.

Looks like my information is wrong which breaks my rule of properly fact-checking things like this before quoting them since ill-informed speculation and SM rumours are the way we have got into this mess in the first place!

We are still short of an actual benefit from leaving though.

Alan

That's because only the likes of Rees-Mogg and his cronies will benefit

That’s because benefits/disadvantages are totally arbitrary depending on your point of view. 
 

It’s why it’s been so divisive. 
 

Something another person sees as a benefit you may see as a disadvantage. Therefor all you end up doing is arguing over a point of opinion.
 

It’s been done. Things will change. We all have to move on and cope. 

But I still want to know these. Virtually everything we have discussed in this thread isn't a benefit to anyone. Some of it may not be such a big disadvantage, but most of it is something that never existed before.

Yes, we need to cope, but if you are saying that we should shut up, accept it and not complain or point out the shortcomings of the whole Brexit plan, then I strongly disagree. Those of us that think this was a massive mistake need to hold the people that dragged the country into it to account and keep doing that time and again. 

Alan

Though is also the thing that most Brexiteers seem to want most.  So probably the greatest area of conflict, too.

Let’s be honest, they want to stop other people’s free movement, not their own.

Arguing about whether Hugh Grant movies are good or bad is a difference of opinion.

Burning down the cinema to stop everyone from watching movies because you don't like Hugh Grant films isn't.

Claiming that people who are asking you why the hell did you burn the cinema are not respecting your opinion is disingenous at best

For 3 years people have been expressing their opinions. No one has been listening. Why have you decided you’ll start listening now? My guess is you won’t and you’ll still see any ‘advantages’ put to you as disadvantages. 
 

All discussions go round in the same circles. 

Nope. That’s a terrible analogy. 

youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c&

What do you mean no-one was listening? The problem with the Remain campaign was that it concentrated on the facts rather than the emotions. We listened too hard and failed to see that people weren't basing their votes/opinions on facts, but on their feelings.

But if you do want to discuss the facts, then you will find that any fact/opinion you present on this forum as a benefit of leaving will be listened to and debated in full. Try it.

Alan

You've failed to point what the benefits are. Please enlighten me. I'm sure we can all cope, like people cope in war, that doesn't mean war is good. 

Hmmm. There you go. 
 

Your emotional opinions are facts. 
Their emotional options aren’t. 
 

There's an impasse until both sides realise this. 

Really? Have you not been listening for 3 years? Why now the change of heart? There’s pages of it here. Nothing has changed. Do some reading. 

Or they want "free movement for white people of UK descent" more likely.

I've long found it ironic that reducing EU freedom of movement will increase the number of non-white and possibly Muslim immigrants, as our economy won't stand a reduction in immigration overall.  The racists didn't think of that before they voted, did they?

(Note, I'm referring specifically to those who voted Leave for racist reasons; this post is not calling out all Leave votes as racists).

Agreed, that's precisely the problem and is why I call out people on both sides.

Produce some examples and you might have a point. Until then all you are doing is side-stepping the argument with unsubstantiated and meaningless statements.

Alan

So do you think the arguments present by both sides were equivalent in terms of their factual substance?

Alan

Quite. It all gets very tedious and time consuming though. I don’t think you’ll get many people to examine their own deep seated beliefs. You just get into more arguments. 

I think the Remain argument was probably more factual as only they had the basis of "we keep what we have now" which was a known factual context (and a major reason why I voted Remain).

I do however hate scaremongering and lies, and will call them out in all cases.  The Remain campaign was not short of rubbish at times.  "You won't be able to go to France on holiday without applying for a visa in advance and attending the consulate", say, is almost certainly rubbish, as France would not want to lose the tourist trade.  You might need to do an ESTA style application but that's really minor.  Call out the things that are genuinely and provably bad (e.g. the loss of rights to live and work in the EU, or the serious economic damage as companies move out) and you have a better argument.

They don't need manned borders really, they can use licence plate recognition at each border point, then if you break the law you will flag up when you try to catch the ferry back to the UK or be picked up in your onward journey. The vision everyone has of former eastern block fully manned borders is not a requirement anymore.

Doesn't remove the 90 day limit though.

... with facial recognition for all car occupants? That's the only way it could work.

Which is basing arguments on facts albeit facts that are only revealing themselves as we grind through this utterly-depressing process.

I'd still love to be told of an actual perceived benefit that we can discuss but I doubt we are going to get that. Why might that be?

Are people afraid to debate or is it just that no-one knows any?

Alan

The last paragraph says:

This means that the current proposals could change depending on the position of the UK’s position regarding the rights of EU nationals. The UK Government has said that freedom of movement will end at the conclusion of the transition period. However, it has mooted a visa-free travel scheme for EU tourists which should ensure travel continues very similarly to how it does today.

Still not an actual 'benefit' though is it?

I have done my reading and I have seen none. My immigration lawyer sees none. My clients see none. As I said, please enlighten me

But it is more factual than the how-many-billions to NHS? Because from what I've gathered, that was based on nothing. The France Visa has at least something to do with reality (albeit it being slim).

Will you need a visa for Switzerland?

Switz is in the Schengen area, so you will need an ETIAS visa waiver, just as you would for all Schengen countries in any case, given the UK has never been in the Schengen area.

https://etias.com/etias-countries/switzerland-etias

Two different things, ETIAS was coming anyway (that's the visa free part), the change is the 90 day limit for non-EU citizens.

Well in the good old days the car was entered in your carnet which was linked to your passport .......

There were a few Remain-myths around, such as Brexit benefiting hedge fund managers (it won't, at least no more than not-Brexit - that being the point of a hedge fund) and it all being about tax-dodging (most EU tax laws have already been enshrined into UK law, with a couple of minor exceptions none of which are going to make anyone very wealthy). References for these are on FullFact.

That's scraping the barrel though. A Ramon said, I come up short trying to think of any actual benefits to Brexit. Doesn't mean there aren't any, I'd be interested to hear some.

One benefit of Brexit is longer-term, in that it has demonstrated to us Brits that we are not quite as clever as we thought we were. Our systems and our people (at all ends of the socioeconomic spectrum) have failed us. In future we will have to do better, and dig deep to convince ourselves and the rest of the world that we have something to offer. Not just rest on our laurels.

No. You are an apparently illegal alien. Now prove otherwise.

In the context of national infrastructure projects, one benefit could be that the UK will no longer be constrained by EU procurement rules. So if we want work to go to UK companies (rather than to the EU company submitting the lowest possible tender), then we should be able to choose that.

Sorry Rob, but having worked on several major infrastructure procurement projects, I know that this is a gross misrepresentation of reality.  The majority of significant public procurements are awarded on the basis of "Most Economically Advantageous Tender" (MEAT) not "Least Cost", as you imply.  Under MEAT there is huge (almost unlimited, if you want it) scope for accommodating non-financial considerations, such as supply chain management, and sustainability.  If UK procurements haven't sought to utilise this, then that's our problem not the EU's, I'm afraid, so I can't see BREXIT changing anything in this regard.

 Well todate it looks as though Brexit still means that plenty of Europeans want to work here

In October-December there were an estimated 2.31 million EU nationals working in the UK, 36,000 more than a year earlier. That's according to the latest figures on EU/non-EU workers in the UK from the Office for National Statistics.

innes, I am happy to be told I'm 'wrong', and have that explained why. I am less happy to be accused of  'a gross misrepresentation of reality.' When that happens, I generally just lose interest and leave - I don't need the hassle in what after all is simply an anonymous online discussion.

I had not heard of MEAT but have now googled for it. (For the benefit of others, see e.g. https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Most_Economically_Advantageous_Te... )

It isn't obvious to me that that would allow the stipulation of a UK-based company as part of the tender conditions. Perhaps putting the whole thing another way: leaving the EU should mean that the UK no longer legally needs to tender EU-wide at all, should it choose not to do so.

Agree with both of you; projscts can be awarded on the basis of MEAT, but we seem to be spectacularly successful in actually awarding the contract to the lowest cost bidder, on the basis of "value for the taxpayer". We shouldn't do it this way, but do, and no, we aren't required to do it by EU rules, but do it nonetheless.

Hi Rob, apologies if the tone of my reply wasn't the way I intended (I must think more about what I write). Really sorry.  

Public procurement is really complex. That's one of the major critisisms of it.  But, if you think of it as trying to keep public institutions on the straight and narrow (avoiding back-handers, or decisions being based a politician's advantage) then it makes some sesnse.  Its worth thinking about how valuable just that is, before we assume that "UK first" is our priority.  

I've been involved in awarding several £bn contracts to "private" companies for UK infrastructure and  service provisions under PFI projects (don't crucify me!).  But if you look at the shareholding of these companies you frequently see that the majority shareholder is actually another EU national government (e.g. Veolia).  Think of it this way: in many cases the UK hasn't been privitising at all, in fact its been nationalising its infrastructure to another nation!  So, you see "nationalism" in infrastructure development has never been a problem, if that's what you want to do - remember the UK nationalised banks after the crash, and that was completely fine under EU rules.  

So, why does France do this but not the UK?  Well, that's our sovereign government's decision and always has been.  Nothing to do with being bossed around by Brussels.  

The most recent decisions regarding Huawei and 5G infrastructure should tell us everything we need to know about how the current government will run future infrastructure procurement competitions.  

TLR: it was never the EU's fault and BREXIT won't change things.  

^^^ from first hand experience - precisely this.  It's always been our (UK governement's) choice to do it this way....

That technology exists like

Yes, facial recognition technology exists, but won't work for everyone in the car of they are not looking at a camera with an unimpeded line-of-sight.

Plus it never gets it wrong, does it?

Facial recognition is fairly good at saying "is this person X I'm looking at" (this is what FB does, by just iterating your friends list) and still (fortunately due to the implications) fairly bad at saying "who is this person?" (because iterating millions of people takes too long, and because in a few million people you're going to get two with the same measurements).

Which ones specifically are you thinking about? Aside from a few wholly surrounded minor principalities I can't think of any I've experienced.

jk

I'd argue quite the opposite, these aren't overlooked details to be better handled later, this is the point of brexit. Our government is currently focused on the petty crackdowns which motivated our brexit vote and the voter bloc which subsequently returned them to power. The 27's reciprocal response will, with our press (necessarily) still on Johnson's side, simply and convincingly be branded 'EU punishment'. That won't erode public support for the government or brexit (not that it has been required since 2016, this is now a irreversible chain reaction barely guided by the looters funding the Conservatives and fear of a radicalised misinformed electorate). Restrictions will coalesce public support against the common enemy fuelling nationalist belligerence.

jk

This government was brought to power by and in fear of a radicalised electorate motivated by immigration fears. Immigration powered the brexit debate. If you're expecting a significant softening of their position on freedom of movement, even for travel you're completely missing what's happening here.

jk

Like the blue passports?

jk

That's perhaps because we are still in the transition period, which means that all the same rules apply from when we were a member of the EU. We'll only know the difference (if there is one), once the effect of any new rules come into force as a result of negotiations over the coming months. 

Sounds like denial moving on to anger. I know I am. I don't want anything to do with anyone who voted leave. 

^This^,  there is no presumption of innocence in virtually any immigration service or regime around the world. If you've driven/walked/skied/belly flopped out of the schengen area at the tail end of your 90 day period and don't return until after or leave schengen again well beyond the initial 90 days the onus is on you to prove you left the first time. Obvious answer would be at an external border to find a manned check point and get them to mark you out (whether that be a stamp in your passport or a mark in a database). Remember at this point you're a third party national there will be little give given, especially if Boris and co push through there proposed immigration laws there will be reciprocity on the EU side. Being British/ignorant/stupid won't be classed as an adequate defence.

That's never really been an issue in most of the rest of Europe. Tender rules are written in a fashion such that they economically favour the local contractors but without specifically ruling out contractors from other nationalities. It's what the French have done all along but various UK governments have never chosen to follow this model, doesn't mean it can't be done though. 

I have just received a company world-wide email announcing restrictions to the Netherlands for Business travel. And fines to the company for non compliance. This is a multinational company with head office in Europe. It looks to me very much like ETIAS conditions will be imposed within Europe between countries. Unless I’ve read it wrongly. 

Quite. I envisage that if we need fruit pickers and can’t provide them using local labour then visas will be granted to a fixed number of fruit pickers. Setting a financial lower limit on workers won’t work and the current situation where millions of EU workers can flood the market by turning up and then looking for work is unacceptable. 

So now we have a hostile Conservative government acting as the expensive, slugish middleman between seasonal employers with short term weather driven labour needs and a previously willing and mobile, now rather reluctant, workforce? That doesn't sound easy to spin as a benefit to me unless you boil it down to 'less Poles and someone else suffering the consequences'. How many civil servants will be hired to produce fruit picker work permit exemptions at the rate required peak season and what will they do for the rest of the year? Seems to me like an exercise in driving up production costs and waste by adding bureaucracy and engineering labour shortages. The interesting question is who benefits, what is the next step when failure is demonstrated because it appears to be by design? Minford's approach paraphrased so delightfully by Johnson, 'fu*k business', deregulate the finance sector blowing a new a bubble to replace lost real-economy revenue?

jk

Depends who you are whether it’s a benefit. Which is why many people can’t see a benefit when they’re looking at it from one point of view all the time.  
 

If you’re a local and faced with minimum wages because of a flooded labour market then having a restricted labour market pushes labour rates up. 
 

Aren’t we always complaining about a living wage and a gap between the rich and the poor? What’s caused depressed wages? 

The reality isn't nearly as straightforward as simple supply-demand intuition might suggest.

https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-labour-market...

So we agree? It affects low wage workers with substitute labour the most? 

If that's the only thing you're concerned about, then probably yes. But I'd suggest that retaining temporary jobs for unskilled workers shouldn't be the highest strategic priority when it comes to improving employment, pay and conditions. 

It’s all part of the equation. There’s no incentive to improve conditions when you can afford to have a high turnover of staff. If your staff can just walk down the road and work somewhere else leaving you with no one to replace them, you need to make an effort to keep them. 

So there was a 4.8% impact in the lowest earners over 24 years? I’m sure they’ll enjoy pissing their 0.2% Brexit bonus pay rise up the wall next year on luxuries like food which is guaranteed to have gone up by much more than that. 

Are they spending ALL their money on food? 

It’s a bit more complex than that isn’t it. 

Ask yourself why won’t british people do low paid jobs when Eastern Europeans and Chinese will? 

That needs solving properly, not by mourning the lack of people who will toil their backsides off for a wage that can barely be lived on.

I'm really looking forward to paid two quid for a British apple picked by john smith of Coventry (he'll be unemployed cos the car factory will have shut down). Oh no wait, they will just import them cheaper from New Zealand (picked by foreign labour) and obliterate the British agriculture industry. With all Brexit logic it just fails to look at the full picture...

So who do you think benefits?

Well we have near full employment so to tempt people to travel seasonally from the poorer corners of the labour market they're under-employed in locally those wages will have to soar. Soaring labour prices disconnected from a broader economic strengthening mean, as I understand it and do correct me if I have this wrong, some combination of the following: business failures, reduced investor return, reduced revenue, taxpayer funded emergency corporate welfare, increased automation to reduce staff, soaring domestic produce prices necessitating harsh tariffs to choke off competitive imports which will have reciprocal knock on consequences for exporters (and crucially, revenue from them) as the tit for tat retaliation escalates. Forgive me my simplicity, I'm still not seeing the upside.

This looks designed to fail to the degree I can only assume it's deliberate, there's a plan-b waiting in the wings they couldn't sell to the average working man in normal times.

Not my area but AFAIK most studies have found little to no wage depressing effect caused by EU immigration. My bet is on 2008, Thatcherite labour union restrictions, globalisation and the relentless march of technology.

jk

How much of the cost of an apple is down to the Labour picking them (I think apples are done by machine) and how much do you think is profit to the supermarkets?

My wife is also Dutch so would have the same problem. Have you looked into getting Dutch nationality and applying for settled status in the UK?

Nope; its still one of the more labour intensive jobs.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/09/07/437285894/4-labor-intensive...

https://www.growingproduce.com/fruits/the-state-of-mechanical-apple-harvest...

Hi Jus

If you read Andy's reply further down, he points out that  my 90-day information isn't correct and our spouses should be fine for extended holidays with regard to their settled status - https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/destinations/another_brexit_bonus_-_90_da...

I don't quite follow what you mean here but, regarding me getting Dutch nationality, we haven't lived there for anything other than holidays so I doubt it would be an option in the short term.

Alan

Another "bonus" thanks to Boris making threats to the EU. Exchange rate down to 1.16 from 1.2 at the start of the week. Knobhead. 

That’s not significant.
 

They were up earlier this week due to Oil price falls. They’re up and down all the time, the Coronavirus is affecting lots of markets and people are switching money all over the place. 

£2?!

It is significant to UK people living in EU who have to convert their pensions every month. 

Because they don't have to, they can survive on benefits. The eastern europeans and chinese will because UK wages are worth much more in their home countries with low costs of living. Someone I know works in greenhouses picking flowers for 6 months then lives like a king in Latvia for the other 6.  If you have sweatshop workers in Africa / India / china being paid $3 a day minimum UK wage is mega money to them.

That's not the only reason - twenty years ago and more, agricultural gang work on the Fens was the preserve of women. They didn't 'want' to do it, but it was one of the few options available, especially as piece work allowed the flexibility for child sick days, family emergencies, etc.

But today there's much better jobs available with better conditions so the gang work is now done by the next wave of people with fewer options. 

No one spends their days bent double in the wind and rain in December, with freezing fingers picking Brussel Sprouts (or Farage Sprouts as they'll soon be known) when anything else is available.

Interesting, why do you think apples in particular would be significantly off the standard 2-3% margin supermarkets make overall, it's a notoriously competitive sector?

Obviously the picking labour isn't the only cost, there are some other biggies along the way (low oxygen cold storage presumably isn't cheap) but it's a labour intensive industry we've just cut off from the vast majority of its workforce. The impact will be profound whatever happens. Let's hope you're right and we're in for a golden age of prosperity and reducing inequality.

jk

Jesus wept.

E

Someone else selected apples. We could equally have used “working in Sports Direct” as an example. 

Seriously. The money markets have been up and down all over the place since the beginning of the year. Shares drop traders move their money somewhere else. Absolutely any excuse and they’ll bet on something else. 

That’s the danger of living in another country to where your money is held. I’m sure they were all complaining in 2015 when the EU tanked and the pound was forced up to near record levels. 
 

Old British people wingeing. Fancy that.

If a small change in currency rates is significant then maybe they shouldn't have moved to the Eurozone. Just an idea.

Yes, pretty consistent small fluctuations all the time.

But this week's sharp fall in the Pound from around €1.20 to just over €1.16 is all to do with Boris Johnson and Michael Gove trying to talk tough regarding the trade deal talks - nothing else.

The same was happening in 2016 / 2017 and 2018 whenever Theresa may opened her gob.

I'm going to wager 50 quid that when Nissan finally pull out of Sunderland you won't mention Brexit at all and it will be diesel this diesel that.............

E

Pre Brexit referendum the rate was bouncing around with a pessimistic average of 1.37 after the referendum the rate has been bouncing around at an optimistic average of 1.16.  Brexit has not helped the strength of the pound. Set the graph to 5 years to see decline 

https://www.finder.com/uk/brexit-pound

More likely breathing a bit of a sigh of relief that it had gone back to somewhere nearer its pre crash level. he peak of 2015/16 was still well below the average of 2000 - 2008.

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/bank-of-england-spot/historical-spot-exch...

I'm sure you meant the Euro rather than the EU when you mentioned tanking, but that did appear to be a rather temporary thing, as we soon managed to take the lead again in the race to the bottom by voting to leave the EU......

The effect of Boris' (Dominics) outpourings of joy can be better seen on a very detailed graph. DoR is right in that there are always many reasons for a currency to fluctuate, and the effect of oil on the dollar and the effects of industry and trade of Covid19 are having an effect, but there was a 1.36 cent fall in the value of the pound against the Euro within 30 mins of Boris (Dominic) threatening to walk away with an Australian deal mid summer, which cannot be attributed to anything else.

Well yes but then you hypothesised apple prices would be insensitive to labour prices since they're largely supermarket profit which could fall to pull up the labour prices. It's an interesting theory, I just wonder where it came from.

I'm not sure how SportsDirect' shop floor pay relates to soft fruit, it seems a rather different businesss model, the only common factor being low pay and relatively unappealing conditions. The obvious key difference being a lack of extreme and somewhat unpredictable seasonality.

jk

Slovakian republic has complicated laws with regards to this I am told. Germany historically did not allow it for a long time.

Dual-citizenship is taken for granted by a lot of people in the west.

In reply to others

Equally, the idea that's the system that needs to prove you are wrong (re border control and enforcment)

Rather funny actually. 3 people armed with guns start shouting at you in a language you do not understand. You can go all uppity but if they point said guns at you and lead you to jail...there's nowt you can do. Maybe you can record an angry video on your phone and send it to the BBC? Asking the Foreign office to come sort you out?

I said nothing about supermarket profits falling or insensitive to labour price rises.

If 10% of your household budget goes on food and food rises 10%, how much has your budget increased? Not 10%! 
 

Re Sports Direct etc. you have the additional complication of zero hour contracts.

We know that the EU awarded China zero rated tariffs to sell cars into the EU. Where would you build cars if you have to build a new plant every 5 years? I’d select the cheapest labour market if tariffs mean I can import cars for free. That’s what tariffs are for. To stop home markets being out competed by imports. 

I think the issue is that brexit can in principle be used for a lot of admirable outcomes but it won't. E.g. UK could choose to raise minimum wages for seasonal labour, to go for better environmental regulation in agriculture, etc. And keep local industry competitive by taxing imports more.

The reason the UK probably won't (and shouldn't, in my view) pursue these outcomes is that the costs are higher than the gains. It is protectionism at a higher level than that of the EU. It can work, but only if the people are willing to pay for it (see for example food prices in Norway, Switzerland). I don't see the UK willing to accept a decrease in living standards.

I think the UK is going to end up with the worst result of all: accepting a small reduction of living standards for the possibility of more autonomy, and not using it to do anything worthwhile.

No? What was this alluding to then: How much of the cost of an apple is down to the Labour picking them (I think apples are done by machine) and how much do you think is profit to the supermarkets?

1%. Nice comfortable position to be in though spending only 10% on food and of course it's not just food that goes up as our economy weakens relatively.

How does leaving the EU 'fix' zero hour contracts?

jk

Nothing in that statement regarding profits falling. Labour prices rise, fruit prices rose and profits can stay the same can’t they. Labour prices rise, people have more money to buy the food. Basic logic there. 
 

If you want people to work for you, you have to make it attractive for them, or they go work for someone who does make it attractive. We are going round in circles here, I’m just restating what I’ve already written and you’re not reading what I’m writing. This is exactly why the remain-leave argument will never be fixed. It doesn’t fit your view of things so it’s wrong. 

Basic logic maybe but pretty poor economics! If you force up labour prices by engineering a shortage of labour while doing nothing to increase income paying those wages something has to give. Brexit is forecast to decrease that income compounding the problem. You can't increase living standards across the board without addressing both ends of that chain and if you don't increase them acrosss the board you face quickly push back at the ballot box. This is not a socialist government, why anyone assumes their interest is improving the lives of the poor, in the face of a brutal decade of evidence to the contrary, completely escapes me!

Or none of you can afford to and you all go bust, or automate, or cap in hand to the taxpayer.

Well it will be resolved. Now we get to test your theory, to hold those who sold us this project and shielded it from scrutiny to account for the consequences we all now have to live with. Hopefully I'll be buying you a pint, slapping you on the back and humbly congratulating you for your prescience.

jk