VSMUT wrote:

OA260 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Well that's all great but as is clearly said: a legal protection and an enforceable right is lost and its at best replaced by a commercial goodwill, not even in the hands of the contracted operator alone... it remains to be seen how long it takes before they succeed at reworking their tariff plan so it makes a revenue difference for them after all but I certainly wouldn't bet my house on it not being changed. If you want to do so, be very careful. Mobile phone operators are real crooks! Ask anybody who flew through GVA//BSL for instance what happens if you accidentally end up on the Swiss network iso the French network which are both active at these airports as you get your mails push delivered to you: on the 'wrong' network it sets you back the price of a stamp per e-mail while on the right network, its included in your contract. It hurts when you hear 7 or 8 'beeps' as the mails roll in and you realise your screen says Swisscom at the top!
Such is life in Switzerland and such life will become in the UK too. both are soon to sit in the same regulatory boat.

I never pay roaming in Switzerland either .In fact 71 destinations .

“ Go Roam lets you use your call, text and data allowance in 71 destinations around the world at no extra cost (up to fair usage limits). So, you can sit back, relax and get your ‘gram on without worrying about roaming charges.”

http://www.three.co.uk/go-roam

For those that do maybe time to change network !

3 offers a really useful product for frequent travellers. Don't be fooled though, they charge a hefty premium for it. If I only travelled in EU countries, I could get away with paying as little as 25% of what I pay for my 3 subscription.

A mate of mine was concerned about this and about EU roaming being lost after Brexit . Due to being laid off could not renew the contract . Turns out for £20 a month pay as you go top up he will get unlimited calls and texts with free roaming and 12GB of data a month . Thats a pretty good deal. Never understood why people tied themselves into 24 month contracts for a handset . Better to buy outright. Even after Brexit I don't see a race to ramp charges up as they could have been doing that with non EU roaming for years .

OA260 wrote:

On the EU list of things that the UK are loosing it says roaming rates will apply yet the major mobile operators have issued statements to refute the Brexit outcome will mean roaming charges .

IIRC, UK providers said they had “no plans” to introduce roaming charges upon leaving the EU. However, the reality is that it isn’t their call - it will be the EU providers that will decide whether or not UK mobiles are charged roaming fees.

scbriml wrote:

OA260 wrote:

On the EU list of things that the UK are loosing it says roaming rates will apply yet the major mobile operators have issued statements to refute the Brexit outcome will mean roaming charges .

IIRC, UK providers said they had “no plans” to introduce roaming charges upon leaving the EU. However, the reality is that it isn’t their call - it will be the EU providers that will decide whether or not UK mobiles are charged roaming fees.

You are indeed correct but don't forget it works both ways. It would not be a case of say Vodafone UK customers for example getting roaming fees from Vodafone DE and not vv . Then of course big multi market operators such as Vodafone and Three promote free roaming as part of attraction. Vodafone for example also covers much of Europe with their sister companies. It may mean you have to choose VF Spain in Madrid instead of Movistar but then again would smaller operators want to loose the ability for their customers to be able to access the Vodafone network while EU roaming .

OA260 wrote:

You are indeed correct but don't forget it works both ways.

Yes, of course it’s a reciprocal arrangement, but with 67 million Brits visiting the EU in 2019 vs less than 25 million in the opposite direction, the EU providers would seem to have more to gain than lose.

Numbers from statistica.com

scbriml wrote:

OA260 wrote:

You are indeed correct but don't forget it works both ways.

Yes, of course it’s a reciprocal arrangement, but with 67 million Brits visiting the EU in 2019 vs less than 25 million in the opposite direction, the EU providers would seem to have more to gain than lose.

Numbers from statistica.com

Sure but there is nothing to suggest roaming charges will come in both by statements issued by the operators and the track record of the UK telecoms market prior to the EU rules coming in. As I stated companies based in the UK had moved to offer free roaming and not just in the EU well before other EU member states . So to say that Brexit will mean roaming charges is not really factual currently. Of course we can never say never but then that is true of many things in life. The EU in future could decide to tax SMS messages and emails anything is possible.

A101 wrote:

[
Really the Irish sea border already contravenes the Belfast agreement in-respects how NI interreacts with UK sovereign constitutional law unto NI with Acts of the Union 1800 by having two separate customs territories laws applicable which goes against Article Six & Eight within the Acts of the Union 1800

Isn't parliamentary sovereignty an important issue in the UK? Including the fact that no Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament)? (To quote wikipedia.)

So since the parliament ratified the Withdrawal Agreement, didn't they de facto repeal those parts of the Acts of the Union at the same time?

Bostrom wrote:

A101 wrote:

[
Really the Irish sea border already contravenes the Belfast agreement in-respects how NI interreacts with UK sovereign constitutional law unto NI with Acts of the Union 1800 by having two separate customs territories laws applicable which goes against Article Six & Eight within the Acts of the Union 1800

Isn't parliamentary sovereignty an important issue in the UK? Including the fact that no Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament)? (To quote wikipedia.)

So since the parliament ratified the Withdrawal Agreement, didn't they de facto repeal those parts of the Acts of the Union at the same time?

Nope Article 6 still on the books and yet to be repealed or amended. Also there may be scope in the future under Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless the Stormont agrees to revoke the EU powers or NI inducts a border poll, but all those are political decisions

Strange how Miller went to court on a constitutional grounds to try and stop Brexit,but has no qualms about throwing the constitution under the bus for the WA

sabenapilot wrote:

You find exactly the same setup back in this EU-UK agreement, going by the number of joint committees, meetings, stearing teams and all of that: the list of them in the annexes is 10 pages long! I guess that will keep quite a bit of civil servants (at the technical level) and MPs (at the poltical level) busy for the rest of their carreers as well as that of their successors, come January next year!

Indeed, and I wonder if this is what many Brexiteers have voted for (judging by the comments in the Express the answer is is negative). However, good times ahead for Eurostar with all those civil servants travelling between Brussels and London.

LJ wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

You find exactly the same setup back in this EU-UK agreement, going by the number of joint committees, meetings, stearing teams and all of that: the list of them in the annexes is 10 pages long! I guess that will keep quite a bit of civil servants (at the technical level) and MPs (at the poltical level) busy for the rest of their carreers as well as that of their successors, come January next year!

Indeed, and I wonder if this is what many Brexiteers have voted for (judging by the comments in the Express the answer is is negative). However, good times ahead for Eurostar with all those civil servants travelling between Brussels and London.

Well considering the alternative of "No-Deal" it is pretty much the same, do I like it not particularly but it was always going to happen its the nature of the beast

But then again when we were in the EU bureaucrats were always scurrying back and forth between Brussels/London like goblins

A101 wrote:

LJ wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

You find exactly the same setup back in this EU-UK agreement, going by the number of joint committees, meetings, stearing teams and all of that: the list of them in the annexes is 10 pages long! I guess that will keep quite a bit of civil servants (at the technical level) and MPs (at the poltical level) busy for the rest of their carreers as well as that of their successors, come January next year!

Indeed, and I wonder if this is what many Brexiteers have voted for (judging by the comments in the Express the answer is is negative). However, good times ahead for Eurostar with all those civil servants travelling between Brussels and London.

Well considering the alternative of "No-Deal" it is pretty much the same, do I like it not particularly but it was always going to happen its the nature of the beast

But then again when we were in the EU bureaucrats were always scurrying back and forth between Brussels/London like goblins

No, it is because of Brexit: the red tape increased and the total number of bureaucrats increased. The cost of doing business increased. It is a known consequence of doing this. So this is what you and 17million others voted for.

Trade after Brexit in any shape or form is one of the first, if not the first trade agreement that makes doing business harder, less free and more costly.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

LJ wrote:

Indeed, and I wonder if this is what many Brexiteers have voted for (judging by the comments in the Express the answer is is negative). However, good times ahead for Eurostar with all those civil servants travelling between Brussels and London.

Well considering the alternative of "No-Deal" it is pretty much the same, do I like it not particularly but it was always going to happen its the nature of the beast

But then again when we were in the EU bureaucrats were always scurrying back and forth between Brussels/London like goblins

No, it is because of Brexit: the red tape increased and the total number of bureaucrats increased. The cost of doing business increased. It is a known consequence of doing this. So this is what you and 17million others voted for.

Trade after Brexit in any shape or form is one of the first, if not the first trade agreement that makes doing business harder, less free and more costly.

Yep we are out of the EU trading under a FTA. While it’s far from a perfect deal it still satisfies removing ourselves from under the yolk of the EU bureaucracy and retuning full sovereignty to the UK from the EU

Faultline that would lead to Brexit evident in Haughey-Thatcher meetings

State Papers: Prime minister exoriated European Commission, calling it a ‘politburo’

The nascent faultline between Britain and the EU that would eventually lead to Brexit was evident 30 years ago during private meetings between taoiseach Charles Haughey and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

During the course of the meetings Thatcher excoriated the European Commission as an undemocratic “politburo”, belittled the European parliament as “not a parliament at all” and was wholly dismissive of a suggestion of greater political union.

www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/faultl ... 5?mode=amp

More Brexit benifits: the UK has pulled itself from the Erasmus program. It will be "replaced" by a UK only program, but the House of Lords EU Committee warned in a report that the benefits of the Erasmus programme would be very difficult to replicate with a national programme as the government is planning.

Another sign of two systems, one country: Students at universities in Northern Ireland will continue to participate in Erasmus, as part of an arrangement with the Irish government.

So all in all, the Northern Irish citizens seem to be best off, but will, of course, take a hit because of Brexit, abeit a smaller one.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well considering the alternative of "No-Deal" it is pretty much the same, do I like it not particularly but it was always going to happen its the nature of the beast

But then again when we were in the EU bureaucrats were always scurrying back and forth between Brussels/London like goblins

No, it is because of Brexit: the red tape increased and the total number of bureaucrats increased. The cost of doing business increased. It is a known consequence of doing this. So this is what you and 17million others voted for.

Trade after Brexit in any shape or form is one of the first, if not the first trade agreement that makes doing business harder, less free and more costly.

Yep we are out of the EU trading under a FTA. While it’s far from a perfect deal it still satisfies removing ourselves from under the yolk of the EU bureaucracy and retuning full sovereignty to the UK from the EU

still holding on to the old rhetoric. I could argue that the UK is less sovereign with two systems one country, more bureaucracy, EU standard will be defacto the UK standard without UK influence just as it is in many countries around the world, but. what is the use, many Brexiteers haven't grasped it in 5 years, so why would they now?

OA260 wrote:

Faultline that would lead to Brexit evident in Haughey-Thatcher meetings

State Papers: Prime minister exoriated European Commission, calling it a ‘politburo’

The nascent faultline between Britain and the EU that would eventually lead to Brexit was evident 30 years ago during private meetings between taoiseach Charles Haughey and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

During the course of the meetings Thatcher excoriated the European Commission as an undemocratic “politburo”, belittled the European parliament as “not a parliament at all” and was wholly dismissive of a suggestion of greater political union.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics ... 5?mode=amp

It always baffles me. Calling the EU undemocratic (which it isn't, although it could be better), while we have the House of Lords which is totally non-democratic but somehow that is no problem at all. Another sign that this isn't about the EU at all, but has more to do with internal UK politics who now have no scape coat anymore in the EU.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

No, it is because of Brexit: the red tape increased and the total number of bureaucrats increased. The cost of doing business increased. It is a known consequence of doing this. So this is what you and 17million others voted for.

Trade after Brexit in any shape or form is one of the first, if not the first trade agreement that makes doing business harder, less free and more costly.

Yep we are out of the EU trading under a FTA. While it’s far from a perfect deal it still satisfies removing ourselves from under the yolk of the EU bureaucracy and retuning full sovereignty to the UK from the EU

still holding on to the old rhetoric. I could argue that the UK is less sovereign with two systems one country, more bureaucracy, EU standard will be defacto the UK standard without UK influence just as it is in many countries around the world, but. what is the use, many Brexiteers haven't grasped it in 5 years, so why would they now?

Agree the EU has control of parts of UK sovereign territory (NI) hence why I’m am all for rescinding the WA

The next Northern Ireland Assembly election is due on or before 5 May 2022, the consent mechanism must be voted on every 4 years


Will be interesting to see what roadblocks the EU put up towards the UK before then and how the Northerners react to it

A101 wrote:

Will be interesting to see what roadblocks the EU put up towards the UK before then and how the Northerners react to it

Easy answer: none. Unless the UK does something where the EU has got to react to. The sovereign EU27 has to decide on that. The UK is sovereign - as always - and can do whatever it likes, but doing something comes with consequences. So it is all up to the sovereign government and Parliament of the UK.
And if the North Irish citizens want to have full access to Britain and the Internal Market Bill introduced including all clauses, then the consequence is a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland or/and the possible return of the troubles and/or a unified Ireland.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Will be interesting to see what roadblocks the EU put up towards the UK before then and how the Northerners react to it

Easy answer: none. Unless the UK does something where the EU has got to react to. The sovereign EU27 has to decide on that. The UK is sovereign - as always - and can do whatever it likes, but doing something comes with consequences. So it is all up to the sovereign government and Parliament of the UK.
And if the North Irish citizens want to have full access to Britain and the Internal Market Bill introduced including all clauses, then the consequence is a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland or/and the possible return of the troubles and/or a unified Ireland.

Remember it’s a matter of the EU amendments in its customs territory which will affect all EU 27 plus NI, No one can’t say for sure it will be beneficial all member or even NI that is what I’m talking about, so not just the UK that stormont has to look out for.

Duty free return looms as UK and EU agree Brexit deal on Christmas Eve


As expected, duty free liquor and tobacco sales for EU-bound travellers from the UK will restore on 1 January 2021.

Travellers to the EU from England, Wales and Scotland will no longer be subject to UK excise taxes or duties on these items at British ports, airports, international train stations, on ships and airlines.

Non-EU and EU travellers to Great Britain will also enjoy a significant lift in their inbound personal allowances as a result of the new rules, including an alcohol quota of 42 litres of beer and 200 cigarettes.

EU arrivals to the UK can continue to carry an unlimited quantity of goods (including excise goods) into the country provided they are for personal consumption/gifting, are transported by the traveller, and the duties and taxes have already been settled in the originating country.


http://www.trbusiness.com/regional-news ... eal/200502

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Will be interesting to see what roadblocks the EU put up towards the UK before then and how the Northerners react to it

Easy answer: none. Unless the UK does something where the EU has got to react to. The sovereign EU27 has to decide on that. The UK is sovereign - as always - and can do whatever it likes, but doing something comes with consequences. So it is all up to the sovereign government and Parliament of the UK.
And if the North Irish citizens want to have full access to Britain and the Internal Market Bill introduced including all clauses, then the consequence is a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland or/and the possible return of the troubles and/or a unified Ireland.

Remember it’s a matter of the EU amendments in its customs territory which will affect all EU 27 plus NI, No one can’t say for sure it will be beneficial all member or even NI that is what I’m talking about, so not just the UK that stormont has to look out for.

uhmmm, the EU has been very predictable, the UK government has been, shall we say, more populistic. And the UK government was more than prepared to throw them under the bus. But in the strict sense, you are right, but I guess you want to distract from the facts and taking the formalistic approach sometimes works.

BTW now I have learnt that Stormont refers to Parliament Buildings of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its location is at the Stormont Estate area of Belfast. Would be easier if you would refer to it as Northern Ireland Parliament or the Parliament in Belfast or something like that. But I guess you choose to do that to either look pseudo-intellectual or just to make the rest of us look it up or something.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Easy answer: none. Unless the UK does something where the EU has got to react to. The sovereign EU27 has to decide on that. The UK is sovereign - as always - and can do whatever it likes, but doing something comes with consequences. So it is all up to the sovereign government and Parliament of the UK.
And if the North Irish citizens want to have full access to Britain and the Internal Market Bill introduced including all clauses, then the consequence is a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland or/and the possible return of the troubles and/or a unified Ireland.

Remember it’s a matter of the EU amendments in its customs territory which will affect all EU 27 plus NI, No one can’t say for sure it will be beneficial all member or even NI that is what I’m talking about, so not just the UK that stormont has to look out for.

uhmmm, the EU has been very predictable, the UK government has been, shall we say, more populistic. And the UK government was more than prepared to throw them under the bus. But in the strict sense, you are right, but I guess you want to distract from the facts and taking the formalistic approach sometimes works.

BTW now I have learnt that Stormont refers to Parliament Buildings of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its location is at the Stormont Estate area of Belfast. Would be easier if you would refer to it as Northern Ireland Parliament or the Parliament in Belfast or something like that. But I guess you choose to do that to either look pseudo-intellectual or just to make the rest of us look it up or something.

We refer to the NI Parliament as Stormont in the UK.

I agree though, living outside the UK, does mean that any non UK citizen will always struggle to understand the terms or public perception from within the UK.

Much like I have no idea about life in Holland.

With a general UK-EU deal now struck, the race against the clock to solve the issue of Gibraltar is well underway: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... rexit-deal

With just days left before the transition period ends, the high stakes of the negotiations have taken on new importance. Spain’s foreign minister Arancha González Laya pointed to the scenes of stalled lorries stretching for miles and parking lots filled with trucks that played out across England’s southern coast this week as an example of what an external EU border with Gibraltar could look like, with an average of 28,500 people crossing such border per day.

The PM of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo has long advocated that fluidity could be protected by Gibraltar joining the Schengen area – a move that would see Gibraltar establish closer ties to the EU just as Britain leaves the bloc and see Gibraltar join the 26 European countries that currently allow free movement of people through Schengen and turn the airport and seaport of the overseas territory into the EU’s newest external border.

In what could become a highly sensitive point, the deal would subject British nationals that arrive in Gibraltar to passport control while Spaniards (and other EU citizens) would be able to cross freely into the territory.

sabenapilot wrote:

With a general UK-EU deal now struck, the race against the clock to solve the issue of Gibraltar is well underway: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... rexit-deal

With just days left before the transition period ends, the high stakes of the negotiations have taken on new importance. Spain’s foreign minister Arancha González Laya pointed to the scenes of stalled lorries stretching for miles and parking lots filled with trucks that played out across England’s southern coast this week as an example of what an external EU border with Gibraltar could look like, with an average of 28,500 people crossing such border per day.

The PM of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo has long advocated that fluidity could be protected by Gibraltar joining the Schengen area – a move that would see Gibraltar establish closer ties to the EU just as Britain leaves the bloc and see Gibraltar join the 26 European countries that currently allow free movement of people through Schengen and turn the airport and seaport of the overseas territory into the EU’s newest external border.

In what could become a highly sensitive point, the deal would subject British nationals that arrive in Gibraltar to passport control while Spaniards (and other EU citizens) would be able to cross freely into the territory.

Ironically Brexit maybe the best thing that has happened to Gibraltar . A win win . So what if UK citizens have to show passports . Small price to pay for the benefits for locals.

Dutchy wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

uhmmm, the EU has been very predictable, the UK government has been, shall we say, more populistic. And the UK government was more than prepared to throw them under the bus. But in the strict sense, you are right, but I guess you want to distract from the facts and taking the formalistic approach sometimes works.

BTW now I have learnt that Stormont refers to Parliament Buildings of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its location is at the Stormont Estate area of Belfast. Would be easier if you would refer to it as Northern Ireland Parliament or the Parliament in Belfast or something like that. But I guess you choose to do that to either look pseudo-intellectual or just to make the rest of us look it up or something.

We refer to the NI Parliament as Stormont in the UK.

I agree though, living outside the UK, does mean that any non UK citizen will always struggle to understand the terms or public perception from within the UK.

Much like I have no idea about life in Holland.

point being A101 doesn't want to use inclusive language for some reason but chooses to use jargon. Fine by me, now I actually learned something of A101.

Well, if I would refer to our house of Parliament as "het Binnenhof" of "Tweede Kamer", because I know foreigners wouldn't know what I was talking about, I would never do that on an international forum because the aim here is to engage with eachother and not just showing who's got the....

Parliament over here, is often referred to as the Commons.

But it is good that we can learn from one another. I had no idea what the Dutch Parliament was called.

OA260 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

With a general UK-EU deal now struck, the race against the clock to solve the issue of Gibraltar is well underway: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... rexit-deal

With just days left before the transition period ends, the high stakes of the negotiations have taken on new importance. Spain’s foreign minister Arancha González Laya pointed to the scenes of stalled lorries stretching for miles and parking lots filled with trucks that played out across England’s southern coast this week as an example of what an external EU border with Gibraltar could look like, with an average of 28,500 people crossing such border per day.

The PM of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo has long advocated that fluidity could be protected by Gibraltar joining the Schengen area – a move that would see Gibraltar establish closer ties to the EU just as Britain leaves the bloc and see Gibraltar join the 26 European countries that currently allow free movement of people through Schengen and turn the airport and seaport of the overseas territory into the EU’s newest external border.

In what could become a highly sensitive point, the deal would subject British nationals that arrive in Gibraltar to passport control while Spaniards (and other EU citizens) would be able to cross freely into the territory.

Ironically Brexit maybe the best thing that has happened to Gibraltar . A win win . So what if UK citizens have to show passports . Small price to pay for the benefits for locals.

They’d have to anyway. We don’t have ID cards unfortunately and you cannot get on an aircraft with ID.

We should have brought them in 15 years ago (ID cards). It would have been good in our EU days to have travelled across the EU with something the size of a credit card to get us across the borders.

noviorbis77 wrote:

OA260 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

With a general UK-EU deal now struck, the race against the clock to solve the issue of Gibraltar is well underway: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... rexit-deal

With just days left before the transition period ends, the high stakes of the negotiations have taken on new importance. Spain’s foreign minister Arancha González Laya pointed to the scenes of stalled lorries stretching for miles and parking lots filled with trucks that played out across England’s southern coast this week as an example of what an external EU border with Gibraltar could look like, with an average of 28,500 people crossing such border per day.

The PM of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo has long advocated that fluidity could be protected by Gibraltar joining the Schengen area – a move that would see Gibraltar establish closer ties to the EU just as Britain leaves the bloc and see Gibraltar join the 26 European countries that currently allow free movement of people through Schengen and turn the airport and seaport of the overseas territory into the EU’s newest external border.

In what could become a highly sensitive point, the deal would subject British nationals that arrive in Gibraltar to passport control while Spaniards (and other EU citizens) would be able to cross freely into the territory.

Ironically Brexit maybe the best thing that has happened to Gibraltar . A win win . So what if UK citizens have to show passports . Small price to pay for the benefits for locals.

They’d have to anyway. We don’t have ID cards unfortunately and you cannot get on an aircraft with ID.

We should have brought them in 15 years ago (ID cards). It would have been good in our EU days to have travelled across the EU with something the size of a credit card to get us across the borders.

True I always wanted ID cards . Im a dual national so have the luxury of both. Im also a firm believer of clocking everyone in and out . Eventually security and other issues will demand it in future anyway .

noviorbis77 wrote:

We should have brought them in 15 years ago (ID cards). It would have been good in our EU days to have travelled across the EU with something the size of a credit card to get us across the borders.

I agree.
I never understood why the UK does not want to adopt the idea of ID cards, Brexit or no Brexit? What is the problem with something as common sense as this?
It makes life easy, especially in this day and age where they can upload everything on the ID card chip: in Belgium we have our blood group on it, it serves as social security card and in future also as drivers license, all in one card. And it allows for a quick identification of persons as citizens, permanent residents or indeed illegals.
One of the main reasons of the appeal of the UK to illegal immigrants is that it is a perfect place to disappear under the radar, as there's no easy way to single them out.
In the rest of Europe, the first question asked when you address yourself to some public service is always to read your ID card out: even a visit to a general practicianer now starts with that, given the ID also serves as social security card.

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Well considering the alternative of "No-Deal" it is pretty much the same, do I like it not particularly but it was always going to happen its the nature of the beast

But then again when we were in the EU bureaucrats were always scurrying back and forth between Brussels/London like goblins

No, it is because of Brexit: the red tape increased and the total number of bureaucrats increased. The cost of doing business increased. It is a known consequence of doing this. So this is what you and 17million others voted for.

Trade after Brexit in any shape or form is one of the first, if not the first trade agreement that makes doing business harder, less free and more costly.

Yep we are out of the EU trading under a FTA. While it’s far from a perfect deal it still satisfies removing ourselves from under the yolk of the EU bureaucracy and retuning full sovereignty to the UK from the EU

You are far from full sovereignty, as long as you follow the rules of the EU. That is why the whole deal is pointless.

sabenapilot wrote:

noviorbis77 wrote:

We should have brought them in 15 years ago (ID cards). It would have been good in our EU days to have travelled across the EU with something the size of a credit card to get us across the borders.

I agree.
I never understood why the UK does not want to adopt the idea of ID cards, Brexit or no Brexit? What is the problem with something as common sense as this?
It makes life easy, especially in this day and age where they can upload everything on the ID card chip: in Belgium we have our blood group on it, it serves as social security card and in future also as drivers license, all in one card. And it allows for a quick identification of persons as citizens, permanent residents or indeed illegals.
One of the main reasons of the appeal of the UK to illegal immigrants is that it is a perfect place to disappear under the radar, as there's no easy way to single them out.
In the rest of Europe, the first question asked when you address yourself to some public service is always to read your ID card out: even a visit to a general practicianer now starts with that, given the ID also serves as social security card.

When I moved back to the UK after a couple of decades around Europe, I was quite annoyed by - ironically - the amount of stupid red tape I suddenly had to deal with. As a British Citizen, it was very difficult to get a UK bank account (unlike for my EU colleagues) due to laws and internal rules expecting British Citizens to have a fixed postal address etc. Of course, I needed the bank account before I was able to rent a house - and don't get me started on the endless (and IMO pointless) credit checks and requests for references. I literally never had to do that anywhere else, yet here it's for every single major commitment (employment, banks, housing, etc.).

I expect this is actually *because* there is no ID card. The UK drivers' license is kind of a de-facto ID card since it seems to be accepted as proof of who you are and where you live in nearly all of those cases. No help if you don't have one, of course...

Here goes Britain's participation in Erasmus+, so much for those wanting to study in the UK or vice versa. What a shame that EU students now have to face massive tuition fees (something that ought to be abolished in favour of government sponsored "free" education), and British students now face a greater barriers in search of tuition in the EU. I hope the Brits are happy about the mess they created and hopefully future generations will manage to revert this in due time and do away with petty nationalism as well.

A101 wrote:

Nope Article 6 still on the books and yet to be repealed or amended. Also there may be scope in the future under Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless the Stormont agrees to revoke the EU powers or NI inducts a border poll, but all those are political decisions

I know that some brexit supporters try to argue that the WA was illegal, in that case they should argue about in the courts. Not in blogs, where the discussion seems to take place. I don't think that they will be successful though.

fallap wrote:

Here goes Britain's participation in Erasmus+, so much for those wanting to study in the UK or vice versa. What a shame that EU students now have to face massive tuition fees (something that ought to be abolished in favour of government sponsored "free" education), and British students now face a greater barriers in search of tuition in the EU. I hope the Brits are happy about the mess they created and hopefully future generations will manage to revert this in due time and do away with petty nationalism as well.

I think the biggest effect will be on UK universities when EU middle class cannot afford to enter there, nor will be able to use the diplomas to work within EU.. UK universities is a big UK export success.

How will this effect EU students currently in UK universities? Will their diplomas have any value?

Diplomas taken until en 2019 will their diplomas have a value?

olle wrote:

fallap wrote:

Here goes Britain's participation in Erasmus+, so much for those wanting to study in the UK or vice versa. What a shame that EU students now have to face massive tuition fees (something that ought to be abolished in favour of government sponsored "free" education), and British students now face a greater barriers in search of tuition in the EU. I hope the Brits are happy about the mess they created and hopefully future generations will manage to revert this in due time and do away with petty nationalism as well.

I think the biggest effect will be on UK universities when EU middle class cannot afford to enter there, nor will be able to use the diplomas to work within EU.. UK universities is a big UK export success.

How will this effect EU students currently in UK universities? Will their diplomas have any value?

Diplomas taken until en 2019 will their diplomas have a value?

While according to the text qualifications will not automatically be recognised is there anything to stop individual countries actually recognising such on a bilateral basis ?

OA260 wrote:

olle wrote:

fallap wrote:

Here goes Britain's participation in Erasmus+, so much for those wanting to study in the UK or vice versa. What a shame that EU students now have to face massive tuition fees (something that ought to be abolished in favour of government sponsored "free" education), and British students now face a greater barriers in search of tuition in the EU. I hope the Brits are happy about the mess they created and hopefully future generations will manage to revert this in due time and do away with petty nationalism as well.

I think the biggest effect will be on UK universities when EU middle class cannot afford to enter there, nor will be able to use the diplomas to work within EU.. UK universities is a big UK export success.

How will this effect EU students currently in UK universities? Will their diplomas have any value?

Diplomas taken until en 2019 will their diplomas have a value?

While according to the text qualifications will not automatically be recognised is there anything to stop individual countries actually recognising such on a bilateral basis ?

Has UK requested negotiations for this?

olle wrote:

OA260 wrote:

olle wrote:

I think the biggest effect will be on UK universities when EU middle class cannot afford to enter there, nor will be able to use the diplomas to work within EU.. UK universities is a big UK export success.

How will this effect EU students currently in UK universities? Will their diplomas have any value?

Diplomas taken until en 2019 will their diplomas have a value?

While according to the text qualifications will not automatically be recognised is there anything to stop individual countries actually recognising such on a bilateral basis ?

Has UK requested negotiations for this?

Are you saying its not allowed ? Does the EU forbid bilateral agreements on recognitions ?

seahawk wrote:

A101 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

No, it is because of Brexit: the red tape increased and the total number of bureaucrats increased. The cost of doing business increased. It is a known consequence of doing this. So this is what you and 17million others voted for.

Trade after Brexit in any shape or form is one of the first, if not the first trade agreement that makes doing business harder, less free and more costly.

Yep we are out of the EU trading under a FTA. While it’s far from a perfect deal it still satisfies removing ourselves from under the yolk of the EU bureaucracy and retuning full sovereignty to the UK from the EU

You are far from full sovereignty, as long as you follow the rules of the EU. That is why the whole deal is pointless.

As I have pointed out before everyone exporting to the EU follows EU rules. That’s very different from followingEU rules domestically.

Most western nations have what we refers to as junkets which are what the US call fact finding missions with other countries they look at certain policies of other nations, if they think someone has come up with good policy them they might want to try an emulate it in some way or form.

Whilst the UK/EU are starting it’s new trade agreement from a set of common rules both side equally have the opportunity to diverge from them, it’s up to each other if they think it’s in there interest to follow or not, and that is what being sovereign is about. Whilst being a member of the EU has a number of restrictions placed on you if you happen to disagree with policy coming from the EC but which a majority of member nations want you are forced to implement that new directive

Bostrom wrote:

A101 wrote:

Nope Article 6 still on the books and yet to be repealed or amended. Also there may be scope in the future under Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless the Stormont agrees to revoke the EU powers or NI inducts a border poll, but all those are political decisions

I know that some brexit supporters try to argue that the WA was illegal, in that case they should argue about in the courts. Not in blogs, where the discussion seems to take place. I don't think that they will be successful though.

I agree that someone should have take up the mantle on this, but unfortunately I don’t have deep enough pockets or the political lawyer network to challenge such a case. I think you would be very suprised on the outcome.

Truth be known no one is taking up the mantle as it’s not actually stopping Brexit which was the whole point of the Miller/Remain court cases and the many others remain had taken like Elizabeth Webster to court to stop Brexit

A101 wrote:

As I have pointed out before everyone exporting to the EU follows EU rules. That’s very different from followingEU rules domestically.

And what has been pointed out to you many times before: it makes no sense to have two production lines for EU export and domestic UK use. That's why the UK producers probably won't deviate from EU standards, regardless of the standards of the UK. On the other hand, I think it is extremely likely that the current UK government will want to lower its standards. And I. think it is highly likely that the EU will continue to raise its standards. And the UK has to choose if it is worth it not to follow it, all in their sovereignty of course.

A101 wrote:

Bostrom wrote:

A101 wrote:

Nope Article 6 still on the books and yet to be repealed or amended. Also there may be scope in the future under Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties unless the Stormont agrees to revoke the EU powers or NI inducts a border poll, but all those are political decisions

I know that some brexit supporters try to argue that the WA was illegal, in that case they should argue about in the courts. Not in blogs, where the discussion seems to take place. I don't think that they will be successful though.

I agree that someone should have take up the mantle on this, but unfortunately I don’t have deep enough pockets or the political lawyer network to challenge such a case. I think you would be very suprised on the outcome.

Truth be known no one is taking up the mantle as it’s not actually stopping Brexit which was the whole point of the Miller/Remain court cases and the many others remain had taken like Elizabeth Webster to court to stop Brexit

So hardcore Brexiteers don't mind the WA as such, otherwise, they would have taken the issue to court, right? Or there might not be such a valid argument to make, even to make change of winning and therefore it is pointless to do so.

Even my experience is that the standardization work of EU is a big export success.

Many countries copies EU standards like for example GDPR without changes.

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

Bostrom wrote:

I know that some brexit supporters try to argue that the WA was illegal, in that case they should argue about in the courts. Not in blogs, where the discussion seems to take place. I don't think that they will be successful though.

I agree that someone should have take up the mantle on this, but unfortunately I don’t have deep enough pockets or the political lawyer network to challenge such a case. I think you would be very suprised on the outcome.

Truth be known no one is taking up the mantle as it’s not actually stopping Brexit which was the whole point of the Miller/Remain court cases and the many others remain had taken like Elizabeth Webster to court to stop Brexit

So hardcore Brexiteers don't mind the WA as such, otherwise, they would have taken the issue to court, right? Or there might not be such a valid argument to make, even to make change of winning and therefore it is pointless to do so.

There are a lot of people whom take exception to the WA just have to look across the net to see that, one also has to take it why they didn't at the time was the Benn Act was and still is enforceable. So actually taking it to court could have given remain a leg up as that might have had implications to revoking A50(not that revoking A50 can be done now). Where as the remain court challenges were about stopping Brexit period.

But then there is the conundrum if challenged now would scuttle the FTA, I still have yet to make my mind up if I support the FTA or was it better to just trade on No Deal

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

As I have pointed out before everyone exporting to the EU follows EU rules. That’s very different from followingEU rules domestically.

And what has been pointed out to you many times before: it makes no sense to have two production lines for EU export and domestic UK use. That's why the UK producers probably won't deviate from EU standards, regardless of the standards of the UK. On the other hand, I think it is extremely likely that the current UK government will want to lower its standards. And I. think it is highly likely that the EU will continue to raise its standards. And the UK has to choose if it is worth it not to follow it, all in their sovereignty of course.

On the flip side and in defence of historic patterns I have noticed that the UK have often had standards higher than the specified EU ones especially when it comes to electrical and construction. When EU rules have been implemented often the UK has not had to do much as its aimed at poorer countries especially in Southern European nations.

I think that much of the British desire to deviate regulatory, was situated in the service sector: contrary to the manufacturing and agricultural industry, banks, insurers, consultants, auditing firms etc probably all had tons of ideas to make more money by 'modernizing' the rule book for their sector, similar to what has happened in the US too in the past.

Nothing prevents the British government from giving in to this tempation under pressure from a wealthy and powerful lobby in future, but since this agreement sadly doesn't cover this all important service sector of the British economy, any deviation is not remotely going to bring the competitive advantage is was once hoped it would as none of those banks, insurers, consultants and auditing firms can do any more business in the EU and what's more they can't even do business for EU based companies from London if the British rules change!

Stepping back a bit from all the practical little details, the textual analysis and the political spinning, what we see is a rather thin deal that simply prevents the default position WTO terms from happening.
The agreement simply brings zero tariffs/zero quota for goods in which the EU has a huge trade surplus with the UK, while it does nothing for services and very little for finances where the UK has a trade surplus with the EU. I honnestly don't see where the win is for the UK?
As good as everything the UK claimed it has 'won' in this negotiation was to be the default position anyway?

I read BoJo is already talking about a new round of talks with the EU, this time to open up the SM to third party services...
Seems like he knows too this deal is very thin for the UK economy: all it does is it prevents short term food shortages and medium term factory closures, period.
But why on earth would the EU give the UK what it wants in a second round, when it refused all of this in this round?
The UK has nothing more to offer, it's stripped naked already with this zero/zero deal?!

OA260 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

A101 wrote:

As I have pointed out before everyone exporting to the EU follows EU rules. That’s very different from followingEU rules domestically.

And what has been pointed out to you many times before: it makes no sense to have two production lines for EU export and domestic UK use. That's why the UK producers probably won't deviate from EU standards, regardless of the standards of the UK. On the other hand, I think it is extremely likely that the current UK government will want to lower its standards. And I. think it is highly likely that the EU will continue to raise its standards. And the UK has to choose if it is worth it not to follow it, all in their sovereignty of course.

On the flip side and in defence of historic patterns I have noticed that the UK have often had standards higher than the specified EU ones especially when it comes to electrical and construction. When EU rules have been implemented often the UK has not had to do much as its aimed at poorer countries especially in Southern European nations.

The EU has always set the minimum standards. If the UK wants higher standards it isn't a problem with this deal nor was it for EU members.

Dutchy wrote:

OA260 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

And what has been pointed out to you many times before: it makes no sense to have two production lines for EU export and domestic UK use. That's why the UK producers probably won't deviate from EU standards, regardless of the standards of the UK. On the other hand, I think it is extremely likely that the current UK government will want to lower its standards. And I. think it is highly likely that the EU will continue to raise its standards. And the UK has to choose if it is worth it not to follow it, all in their sovereignty of course.

On the flip side and in defence of historic patterns I have noticed that the UK have often had standards higher than the specified EU ones especially when it comes to electrical and construction. When EU rules have been implemented often the UK has not had to do much as its aimed at poorer countries especially in Southern European nations.

The EU has always set the minimum standards. If the UK wants higher standards it isn't a problem with this deal nor was it for EU members.

Yes but we keep hearing about the UK lowering standards but without any proof or links to back it up. People saying that any deviation from EU standards will mean action but if certain UK standards are actually higher then it seems to me that the UK could indeed lower some standards if it so chose but still be within EU rules thus no actions needed.

I know over the last 4 years of threads there has been a lot of nonsense and lies posted by various people on both sides of the argument but what would be nice is actual facts about here and now.

Another fact that no one here seems to be qualified to answer despite many claiming that UK citizens will be waiting hours in Non EU lines at EU airports is that true ?

OA260 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

OA260 wrote:

On the flip side and in defence of historic patterns I have noticed that the UK have often had standards higher than the specified EU ones especially when it comes to electrical and construction. When EU rules have been implemented often the UK has not had to do much as its aimed at poorer countries especially in Southern European nations.

The EU has always set the minimum standards. If the UK wants higher standards it isn't a problem with this deal nor was it for EU members.

Yes but we keep hearing about the UK lowering standards but without any proof or links to back it up. People saying that any deviation from EU standards will mean action but if certain UK standards are actually higher then it seems to me that the UK could indeed lower some standards if it so chose but still be within EU rules thus no actions needed.

I know over the last 4 years of threads there has been a lot of nonsense and lies posted by various people on both sides of the argument but what would be nice is actual facts about here and now.

Another fact that no one here seems to be qualified to answer despite many claiming that UK citizens will be waiting hours in Non EU lines at EU airports is that true ?

The issue of lower standards came up with respect to food standards - whether the UK would lower standards on hormone beef/chlorinated chicken (critical for trade with the US), and what this would mean for stuff seeping into the EU single market. That then resulted in NI’s new status as being in both markets. It’s since morphed into possible lower standards on labour etc, but it’s unlikely to happen.

On pax processing, the initial take is that they will end up in a non-EU line, albeit a differentiated one. The EU has been rolling out kiosks for certain nationalities (US, Canada, Japan, Singapore etc) - seen them at MUC. Expect UK will be able to use those too. Ditto on the UK side (there’s now a new faster e-lane for some non-EU (US, CA etc). Expect EU nationals will be able to use that too. I used it as a non-EU person last December - much needed improvement after spending 2 + hrs in line the year before.

A101 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

A101 wrote:

Yep we are out of the EU trading under a FTA. While it’s far from a perfect deal it still satisfies removing ourselves from under the yolk of the EU bureaucracy and retuning full sovereignty to the UK from the EU

You are far from full sovereignty, as long as you follow the rules of the EU. That is why the whole deal is pointless.

As I have pointed out before everyone exporting to the EU follows EU rules. That’s very different from followingEU rules domestically.

Most western nations have what we refers to as junkets which are what the US call fact finding missions with other countries they look at certain policies of other nations, if they think someone has come up with good policy them they might want to try an emulate it in some way or form.

Whilst the UK/EU are starting it’s new trade agreement from a set of common rules both side equally have the opportunity to diverge from them, it’s up to each other if they think it’s in there interest to follow or not, and that is what being sovereign is about. Whilst being a member of the EU has a number of restrictions placed on you if you happen to disagree with policy coming from the EC but which a majority of member nations want you are forced to implement that new directive

No, a gloobal Britain that wants to be a highly dynamic and modern economy needs to completely free itself of EU rules and aim to perform on the global level. Singapore and other Asian Tiger states should be the role models.

sabenapilot wrote:

I think that much of the British desire to deviate regulatory, was situated in the service sector: contrary to the manufacturing and agricultural industry, banks, insurers, consultants, auditing firms etc probably all had tons of ideas to make more money by 'modernizing' the rule book for their sector, similar to what has happened in the US too in the past. !

The thing is that the UK never had the level of regulatory oversight in the financial sector that we have in the Euro countries + a few others. Many regulation in the fianncial sector are applicable to countries whose ultimate regulator is the ECB (thus Euro countries only). Take for example regulation like AnaCredit. When EU member, it was one of the few countries which didn't implement this, whilst many of the non-Euro countries did this voluntarily. As such we didn't have regulatory equivalence even when the UK was a member of the EU. I personally wouldn't be surprised if the EU will make implementation of such regulations a precondition to getting regulatory equivalence. However, I sincerely doubt the UK will do this as this will seriously harm its position as global financial marketplace (anyone who's familiar with Euro regulation will attest that it's a costly business and increases transparancy, which is never a good thing for financial firms).

Moreover, there is a lot of talk in making the UK a tax haven. However, as it has left the EU, it's not protected anymore in becoming listed on the "black list" of tax havens. One can argue about the fact that The Netherlands and Ireland are bigger tax havens, but they are EU countries, which gives them a voice in compiling the list. As such the UK can theoretically lower its tax rules, but that can have very severe negative consequences, of which the UK is well aware of (it used to protect some tax havens in the Commonwealth from being listed).

Seems despite being told otherwise UK citizen's will keep healthcare .


Britons to keep free healthcare access across Europe after Brexit through UK Global Health Insurance Card

Millions of Britons will still have access to free healthcare across Europe after the Brexit transition period ends.

The 27 million people with a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) issued before the end of 2020 can still use it after January 1 until its expiry date.

In 2021, Britain will begin issuing a replacement to be called the UK Global Health Insurance Card.

This will allow state-provided medical treatment if people fall ill or have an accident in the EU, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein while on holiday, similar to the EHIC. It will cover chronic or existing illnesses, routine maternity care and emergency care.

The blue EHIC cards last up to five years, which means that some people could keep using theirs until 2025.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scramble-to- ... -50k3k8p0f

Has this GHIC been created already.

If not, which I think is the case, it will be interesting to see the details.

ElPistolero wrote:

The issue of lower standards came up with respect to food standards - whether the UK would lower standards on hormone beef/chlorinated chicken (critical for trade with the US), and what this would mean for stuff seeping into the EU single market.

Indeed. And it has come up with the constant criticism of the EU. It is not just the standards of the product itself, it also has to do with. environmental standards and working conditions. The hardline Brexiteers in British politics seem to favor deregulation of all sorts and thus environmental and working standards could be lowered as a result.