EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[anme]

R/e Passports; if memory serves in the 1980's my old man and lady had a day trip to France using their driving licences as *passports* - they were caravanning in the south of the UK and fancied a day trip. Add to that the licences didn't even have photographs.

Can anyone confirm that in those years ID was all that was required - or is my memory playing - what's the word - ??

I doubt that was officially allowed, but I've heard similar anecdotes from other people dating from that era. It's certainly true that there were sometimes no passport checks for ferry journeys between the UK and France.

My biggest doubt is that a ferry operator would have let them on the boat without passports - in the end, the ferry company is responsible in case people are not allowed into the destination country and have to be returned, and they did normally check.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

as for the exchnage rate, true its not too good at the mo, but certainly not the worst i remeber going to Holland must have been 10 years ago now, 99p to the Euro ! (even worse at the Port!)

It was actually 8 years ago, at the beginning of 2009, that £1 was very briefly worth less than 1 Euro. However, quoting that in isolation is a bit misleading. The issue then was largely that the Euro was very strong - so you saw a bad exchange rate when you converted to Euro's, but if you'd been trying to convert to any other currency, you'd have got a much better rate.

Today, the issue is exclusively that the pound is very weak, which means that converting the pound into any currency will not get you very much. I just dug around on fxtop.com and produced the last 22 year's worth of £- US$ rates (attached graph), which I think well illustrates how bad the situation for the £ is today: Far worse than at any time since 1994 (although note this graph is also influenced by how strong the US$ is)

 

[Howardh]

I doubt that was officially allowed, but I've heard similar anecdotes from other people dating from that era. It's certainly true that there were sometimes no passport checks for ferry journeys between the UK and France.

My biggest doubt is that a ferry operator would have let them on the boat without passports - in the end, the ferry company is responsible in case people are not allowed into the destination country and have to be returned, and they did normally check.

Think there's a point there about the ferries, maybe the case was if you bought a day-return (or similar) then you could use your ID and the ferry company was covered if you overstayed?

Could do with input from anyone who may have done that? Unfortunately my parent's clear memory has long gone, but dad kept a diary of every single caravan trip (including tickets and other souviners) which is in a box in the garage. Will take some looking through - don't fancy that much...!!

 

[Abpj17]

More than I thought but I said work and you have given the stats for live. I also note that the top two countries making up about half the total are Spain a big retirement destination so probably a high proportion of live v work, and Ireland which is something of a special case as movement between us and them is also covered by older bi-lateral arrangements. The third country France is also a retirement destination, although perhaps not on the same scale as Spain. So I think it is still probable that the number of Brits working in the EU is still less than 1%.

The working numbers aren't collected (due to freedom of movement...). You can estimate it by deducting the pensioners though. It's about 800k (including dependents) which is 1.3%- still certainly not the fraction you imagine...I'm not quite sure how small you were thinking but it's not tens of thousands.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/354

(I'm not old enough for the pre-EC travel debate I'd imagine it was by bilateral agreements though. Visa is worse case scenario...I guess we'll stay [*ahem* could join - I've not been awake long!] part of Schengen but we'll loose any influence/control of it)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yet paragraph 107 of the Appeal Court judgement reads: "Further, the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians explaining that the referendum would have advisory effect only.

Fascinating find. I wonder who wrote it though - the government or the Houses of Parliament library?

 

[Howardh]

The working numbers aren't collected (due to freedom of movement...). You can estimate it by deducting the pensioners though. It's about 800k (including dependents) which is 1.3%- still certainly not the fraction you imagine...I'm not quite sure how small you were thinking but it's not tens of thousands.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/354

(I'm not old enough for the pre-EC travel debate I'd imagine it was by bilateral agreements though. Visa is worse case scenario...I guess we'll stay part of Schengen but we'll loose any influence/control of it)

? UK isn't part of Schengen!

Actually, although it's improbable - after Brexit the UK could join Schengen as part of the single market deal!!! Wonder if the UK could - in theory - join the Euro? Not saying they should or would, so don't shout, just wondering if it's technically doable?

 

[radamfi]

Wonder if the UK could - in theory - join the Euro? Not saying they should or would, so don't shout, just wondering if it's technically doable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro

Some small countries and territories not in the EU use the Euro by agreement:

Andorra
Monaco
San Marino
Vatican City
Akrotiri and Dhekelia
Clipperton Island
Saint Barthélemy
French Southern and Antarctic Lands
Saint Pierre and Miquelon

and Kosovo and Montenegro use it unilaterally.

 

[anme]

? UK isn't part of Schengen!

Actually, although it's improbable - after Brexit the UK could join Schengen as part of the single market deal!!! Wonder if the UK could - in theory - join the Euro? Not saying they should or would, so don't shout, just wondering if it's technically doable?

It can be done. Montenegro unilaterally uses the Euro as its currency despite not being an EU member and not an official member of the currency union. The ECB has not formally objected to this. Previously Montenegro used the Deutschmark as its de facto currency from independence in 1996, then officially but unilaterally in 1999. This changed to the Euro in 2002. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro_and_the_euro

Kosovo is a partially recognised state which also uses the Euro unofficially (and previously the Deutschmark) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo

It's unlikely the UK would choose to do the same. However, if the pound continues to weaken and remains unstable, it might be that expats and professionals working in the UK start to be paid in hard currency, i.e. Euros or US dollars. This is not uncommon in other countries with less stable currencies (even in Europe). Such people typically convert their hard currency to local currency only as needed for local expenses, and hold all their savings in hard currency. Products and services aimed at them, or with largely international costs (such as imported goods) are often priced in hard rather than local currency.

 

[radamfi]

However, if the pound continues to weaken and remains unstable, it might be that expats and professionals working in the UK start to be paid in hard currency, i.e. Euros or US dollars.

Where I sometimes work there are a number of foreigners working there, some EU and some non-EU, and they are now considering whether to stay there because their salary has now dropped considerably compared to a similar job in the Eurozone or elsewhere. If they left it would be bad for the company as they are highly skilled and hard to replace, but it would please Brexiters of course.

 

[Howardh]

Thanks for the information about the Euro. After Brexit it will be interesting to see how widely accepted the Euro will be in Northern Ireland, especially if Stirling continues to sink.

 

[Phil.]

R/e Passports; if memory serves in the 1980's my old man and lady had a day trip to France using their driving licences as *passports* - they were caravanning in the south of the UK and fancied a day trip. Add to that the licences didn't even have photographs.

Can anyone confirm that in those years ID was all that was required - or is my memory playing - what's the word - ??

Not sure how long that they lasted but in the 70s certainly one could obtain a 24hour - or was it 48 hour? - passport from the Post Office for a few quid. I'm pretty sure that there was no photographic requirement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm British, I'm nearly fifty years old, and to be honest, large parts of what's going on bloody terrify me.
An MP murdered in the street, vicious cuts to the benefits for the most needy, mainstream media publishing scare stories that wouldn't look out of place in a fascist dictatorship, large percentages of the population being vilified for things that are in absolutely no way anything to do with them, disgusting attacks on people that just happen to not be from here and a Government that seems happy to let it all happen.
What have we become?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So what continent does the UK belong to then? 'Cos I'm pretty sure it ain't Africa.

The UK is a European collection of islands. It is not part of mainland Europe.

 

[EM2]

The UK is a European collection of islands. It is not part of mainland Europe.

But it is part of Europe. So is Malta, so is Cyprus, so is Iceland, so is Ireland.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The UK is a European collection of islands. It is not part of mainland Europe.

No-one said it was part of mainland Europe.

 

[J-2739]

The UK is a European collection of islands. It is not part of mainland Europe.

It has to belong somewhere...

Where would Japan be, to you?

 

[NSEFAN]

Surely the argument about the geographical allocation of Britain and Europe is irrelevant to the EU? Or is it another case of "small island syndrome"?

 

[J-2739]

I think it's a case of historical relationships. British people would rather soley refer to themselves as British only, while our continental cousins are more flexible in that approach.

 

[NSEFAN]

I think it's a case of historical relationships. British people would rather soley refer to themselves as British only, while our continental cousins are more flexible in that approach.

Being an island nation may be behind that, but I don't see why that's relevant to EU membership? Being a member doesn't make us any less British, same as any other of the member states.

 

[anme]

I think it's a case of historical relationships. British people would rather soley refer to themselves as British only, while our continental cousins are more flexible in that approach.

I don't think that's true. In my experience British people think of themselves as European on the obvious grounds that they are European.

Having said that, British people have a very simplistic view of nationality. Many parts of Europe have changed hands many times over the course of history, even in the 20th century, often in traumatic circumstances. This tends to promote local over national identity, and also teaches that national identity is arbitrary and changeable and perhaps not even that important - something that terrifies many British people who build their whole self image around the fact that they are special because they are British.

Sadly, you should now probably replace the word "British" with "English" in this post.

 

[Garmoran]

The working numbers aren't collected (due to freedom of movement...). You can estimate it by deducting the pensioners though. It's about 800k (including dependents) which is 1.3%- still certainly not the fraction you imagine...I'm not quite sure how small you were thinking but it's not tens of thousands.

And that figure is a snapshot. Most people who work abroad do return home at some point. I worked in Spain myself for 5 years during the 1980s when job opportunities of any kind near my home were non-existent. Of about 30 other UK citizens who I can remember who were also working there, I am only aware of 3 that are still working abroad. The number of people who have made use of the ability to work in the EU during their lives will be many times the 1.3% - unlikely to add up to a large percentage of the population, but still not a tiny number.

Now that I think of it, though, I don't remember meeting anyone from Yorkshire: my workmates came from the Thames Valley, Hampshire, London, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall so I am prepared to accept that Yorkshire folks have not used the privilege as much as others and that would make it understandable that forum members living there (and, presumably, in some other regions) might expect the number to be much lower.

The ability to work in the EU was a lifesaver to many in the 1980s in the days of 4 million unemployed. The characters in the series "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet" were fictitious, the historical background was not.

 

[Howardh]

Not sure how long that they lasted but in the 70s certainly one could obtain a 24hour - or was it 48 hour? - passport from the Post Office for a few quid. I'm pretty sure that there was no photographic requirement.
.

Thanks, yes, that rings a bell and could have been done quite easily where they were staying on the south coast. If they were on a caravan rally there's a chance it was an organised group day out that they weren't expecting - as they would have already full passports but would have left them at home (so couldn't use them). Of course they would have had their driving licences to match the day passport.

Mystery solved...and I'm glad I wasn't imagining things!!

 

[J-2739]

Being an island nation may be behind that, but I don't see why that's relevant to EU membership? Being a member doesn't make us any less French, same as any other of the member states.

It makes us more integrated with the Continent, which many British don't like.

I don't think that's true. In my experience British people think of themselves as European on the obvious grounds that they are European.

Having said that, British people have a very simplistic view of nationality. Many parts of Europe have changed hands many times over the course of history, even in the 20th century, often in traumatic circumstances. This tends to promote local over national identity, and also teaches that national identity is arbitrary and changeable and perhaps not even that important - something that terrifies many British people who build their whole self image around the fact that they are special because they are British.

Sadly, you should now probably replace the word "British" with "English" in this post.

I think it varies. Many people wouldn't mind being called European for the purpose of we are in the political European continent. Some others though, who are very passionate about the UKs independence would call themselves 'English' instead, like how you said it.

But doesn't the word 'British' sound more aligned to the culture and people compared to 'English', which is more suited to its language?

 

[anme]

I think it varies. Many people wouldn't mind being called European for the purpose of we are in the political European continent. Some others though, who are very passionate about the UKs independence would call themselves 'English' instead, like how you said it.

But doesn't the word 'British' sound more aligned to the culture and people compared to 'English', which is more suited to its language?

To me, "English" is sunburnt, drunk, aggressive men (who are terrified inside) throwing chairs across foreign piazzas, terrible football, Nigel Farage doing his attention-seeking dance in the European Parliament, endless, featureless suburbia, and, well, Brexit. "British" seems more civilised - Darwin, Shakespeare, Austen, the Brontes, the Scottish Highlands, etc.

Having said that, I'm a frequent traveller and I can tell you that in much of the world British equates to the British Empire, and means oppression, slavery and death, so I guess there are pros and cons to both.

 

[Howardh]

To me, "English" is sunburnt, drunk, aggressive men (who are terrified inside) throwing chairs across foreign piazzas, terrible football, Nigel Farage doing his attention-seeking dance in the European Parliament, endless, featureless suburbia, and, well, Brexit. "British" seems more civilised - Darwin, Shakespeare, Austen, the Brontes, the Scottish Highlands, etc.

Having said that, I'm a frequent traveller and I can tell you that in much of the world British equates to the British Empire, and means oppression, slavery and death, so I guess there are pros and cons to both.

Where am I from?
People's Independent Wetlands Of Lancashire.
It's only part of England by the grace of God on England's part.
Although on t'other side, they will tell you God's a Yorkshireman, but there can only be one God, so it has to be one of Freddie Trueman, Geoff Boycott or the Almighty. Think I know who comes third....

 

[Senex]

I think it varies. Many people wouldn't mind being called European for the purpose of we are in the political European continent. Some others though, who are very passionate about the UKs independence would call themselves 'English' instead, like how you said it.

But doesn't the word 'British' sound more aligned to the culture and people compared to 'English', which is more suited to its language?

I don't agree. I see the use of "British", like the use of "UK", as purely political -- or geographical for all those of us who live on the island of Great Britain. I would never use it to describe my nationality, which I would assert to be English and then European. (Quite different from my "Staatsangehörigkeit", which is unfortunately "Citizen of the United Kingdom".)

The English, the Scots, and the Welsh inhabit the island of Great Britain, and although the Lowland eastern Scots have a common origin with the English (and started off with a common language), they have been a separate nation for long enough to be very conscious of being Scottish, not English. If the Scots feel Scottish and describe themselves as Scots, why should the English not feel English and describe themselves as English? After all, that's what we were right through the union of the crowns and up to the union of the kingdoms under Queen Anne.

As for the language, that has always been described as English, even when there were still separate kingdoms in Anglo-Saxon England.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

"British" seems more civilised - Darwin, Shakespeare, Austen, the Brontes, the Scottish Highlands, etc.

Darwin, Shakespeare, and Austen were English. The Brontes were English with an Irish background. And the Scottish Highlands belong of course to Scotland.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where am I from?
People's Independent Wetlands Of Lancashire.
It's only part of England by the grace of God on England's part.
Although on t'other side, they will tell you God's a Yorkshireman, but there can only be one God, so it has to be one of Freddie Trueman, Geoff Boycott or the Almighty. Think I know who comes third....

The red rose of Lancaster!

I'm thoroughly mixed up red and white roses, with a little bit of County Palatine of Chester thrown in and Ireland several generations in the background. And proud to be English (until the vote of 23 June).

 

[anme]

Darwin, Shakespeare, and Austen were English. The Brontes were English with an Irish background. And the Scottish Highlands belong of course to Scotland.

Thanks for the clarification. I was already well aware of all of those things, but maybe others weren't. Anyway, all British.

 

[J-2739]

I don't understand how someone can be proud of their nationality (*), which is arbitrary and merely down to luck. It's like being proud of having size 8 feet or of having brown hair. We might all have been born anywhere.

(*) It might be different for the small number of people who actively choose their nationality and actually have to do something to attain it, e.g. through naturalisation.

I think it's to do with the fact that it's something we can't control, but you're gonna have to put up with it. And some may develop a liking to it. For example, someone born deaf or with a disability is something out of their control, but later , they might get accustomed to that, and even do things they can do that they take pride in. Or being born in a country of misfortune. This is out of your control, but because it's a part of you, you might develop a bond to it.

 

[anme]

Deleted

 

[J-2739]

Yup. These things are all part of you, so why not at least recognize it?
(though I get what you mean)

 

[Howardh]

I understand how you might develop a bond with it, but being proud of it?

As a Brit who opposes Brexit, I'll do a little bit of "why I'm proud to be English/British/Wet Through.

Think - and I may be wrong but not far off - we have the most "valuable" passport in the world - the one that lets you into the most countries visa-free. A lot of that is down to how difficult it is to obtain one in the first place, unless you're Zola Budd, and it's trusted and revered throughout the world, and copied, no doubt.

I'm proud of that, and having "European Union" on it doesn't devalue it, although if you said it dis I kind of see where you are coming from.

The EU angle now means that it's possible, even if unlikely, that it will be insufficient on its own to allow free travel to our next-door neighbours, thus devaluing it. I have a British Passport, and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has asked, personally, that with it I am allowed freedom of movement through another land.

Not really happy to add "but only if I fill in an internet form" on top of that.

 

[anme]

In more interesting news, see the video on this page: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-prevents-uk-from-being-a-tin-pot-dicatorship

Speaking today, Theresa May talked about getting (quote) "the best possible deal for trading with and operating within the single European market". Unlike Fox and Davis, May is not an idiot. There are many negative things one can say about her, but she is careful with words, and it's likely she said this deliberately, and did not mis-speak.

"[...] trading with and operating within the single European market" is a very interesting statement and suggests a big change of position since since her vile Tory party speech. It suggests that the UK may indeed remain within the single European market - "operating within" is clear, although the fact she also said "trading with" presumably expresses some doubt, and "and" makes the statement a contradiction in terms.

How should we read this? While the statement doesn't make any logical sense (the UK is either in the single market - i.e. "operates within" it - or is outside it - i.e. "trades with" it), she is clearly stepping back from her previous extreme position that the UK would completely drop out of the single market, presumably to WTO rules. And given that the EU member states have clearly said that to be in the single market, a country must also respect freedom of movement, it shows us remainers that there is still hope for preserving the four fundamental European freedoms from this whole brexit disaster.

 

[Howardh]

In more interesting news, see the video on this page: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-prevents-uk-from-being-a-tin-pot-dicatorship

Speaking today, Theresa May talked about getting (quote) "the best possible deal for trading with and operating within the single European market". Unlike Fox and Davis, May is not an idiot. There are many negative things one can say about her, but she is careful with words, and it's likely she said this deliberately, and did not mis-speak.

"[...] trading with and operating within the single European market" is a very interesting statement and suggests a big change of position since since her vile Tory party speech. It suggests that the UK may indeed remain within the single European market - "operating within" is clear, although the fact she also said "trading with" presumably expresses some doubt, and "and" makes the statement a contradiction in terms.

How should we read this? While the statement doesn't make any logical sense (the UK is either in the single market - i.e. "operates within" it - or is outside it - i.e. "trades with" it), she is clearly stepping back from her previous extreme position that the UK would completely drop out of the single market, presumably to WTO rules. And given that the EU member states have clearly said that to be in the single market, a country must also respect freedom of movement, it shows us remainers that there is still hope for preserving the four fundamental European freedoms from this whole brexit disaster.

Hope so, but there's been so many twists and turns..

What we can be sure of is, behind the scenes, her civil service advisors will be working out what can and can't be expected with negotiations, and if they and business leaders have come to the conclusion that we are better off being as close to the EU as we can if we HAVE to leave, that's the line a Tory PM will take.

Out of two groups, which one will a Tory MP listen to most? A group who keep saying "we won the vote now do what we say even though you don't know what we said" or the banks, major businesses, civil servants and the like?

Money talks with the Tories, and they know full well that if Brexit fails there are an awful lot of businesses they will be obliged to bail out, if they carry on down the Nissan route. Do they want to go into the election in 2020, or more likely 2025 on the back of tax rises, lower pensions, deeper cuts?

Virtual full access would also keep Scotland and Norn happy(ish) and could also save Gibraltar from and Spanish difficulties.

In which case people might say "isn't that the same as being IN the EU"?. Indeed.