Brexit discussion thread II

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

Driving licences are a real issue. You're looking at it from the perspective of a UK tourist visiting the EU, which to my mind should not pose any problem.

The issue is UK licence holders who will be living elsewhere in the EU on Brexit day. The legal framework that recognises their UK licences as equivalent to a domestic one will vanish overnight. The UK licence will immediately be a third country licence.

.

I'm well aware of that. The point I'm trying to get across is that there are mechanisms available to UK citizens resident in the EU to get a local licence. Those mechanisms are not in any way contingent on the UK's Brexit arrangements. Best case scenario, their UK licences will continue to be recognised. Worst case scenario, they get a local one in then same way any other non-EU national can.

mickoneill31

Nody wrote: »

Well since people requested a new topic here's a popular one; flying. May's secretary for transport stating:
Which of course goes against what Daniel Davis was saying last week in parliament but expecting May's government to speak with one vision is of course in lala land these days. There's only one minor problem of course which is the ECJ is the arbitrator for the Open Skies agreement which is a red line for May (supposedly) which may be why they stated it with "hoping". Of course without Open skies UK planes can still fly to Europe (and vice versa) but they have to be a single city and then leave he European union and land somewhere else ; they can't go between cities in Europe (or UK) which will hurt all UK airlines a heck of a lot more than European once as it greatly reduces flexibility in planning.

Well we'll have to know one way or the other in 4 months. Airlines have to plan at least a year in advance. If they don't have this bit sorted by then they'll have to assume the worst.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

I'm well aware of that. The point I'm trying to get across is that there are mechanisms available to UK citizens resident in the EU to get a local licence. Those mechanisms are not in any way contingent on the UK's Brexit arrangements. Best case scenario, their UK licences will continue to be recognised. Worst case scenario, they get a local one in then same way any other non-EU national can.

This is contingent on the Brexit arrangements.

If the UK crashes out sans deal then UK licence holders living in the EU will have to stop driving immediately because (in most cases) they will already be living in the EU 27 state longer than the max period allowed for driving on a third country licence.

Only once their host country updates its own laws to allow an exchange may the UK licence holder get a licence again. This will (going by current examples) likely be limited to cars only.

"If you hold a driving licence from a state that is not a member of the EU or the EEA, this licence will be valid for six months after you have established your normal residence in the Federal Republic of Germany. After this period, your driving licence will no longer be recognized."

https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/LA/validity-foreign-driving-licences-in-germany.html

Edit: Also from that link in the section covering EU licences...

"If your foreign driving licence is about to expire or is no longer valid, you will receive a German licence of the same category upon request."

So hopefully Brits in Germany will actually be allowed to exchange their licences even if they have plenty of validity left on them!

Nody

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Well we'll have to know one way or the other in 4 months. Airlines have to plan at least a year in advance. If they don't have this bit sorted by then they'll have to assume the worst.

Well the under the table answer to this is that the airlines have told May's government they will add a clause about it and expect the government to back them up on it basically. So they will book as usual but have a new clause stating for any tickets after 30th March 2019 that in case of Brexit related issues they will not be held responsible for any additional costs. Not sure if that would hold up in actual court or not though.

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

Well the under the table answer to this is that the airlines have told May's government they will add a clause about it and expect the government to back them up on it basically. So they will book as usual but have a new clause stating for any tickets after 30th March 2019 that in case of Brexit related issues they will not be held responsible for any additional costs. Not sure if that would hold up in actual court or not though.

2nd bit in bold doesn't matter, if airlines get (1st bit in bold) an indemnification from HMG about Brexit outcome-frustrated contracts (air tickets cancelled on the back of Brexit outcome).

The issue wouldn't even need to see a Court and have such niceties as “Force Majeure” debated and considered: peeps can just go straight to No.11 for a refund.

Indemnification which airlines are sure to get, when they present their (commonsensical) liability-mitigating alternative to No.10, which shall be to simply not sell air fares (I'll let you imagine the PR fallout from that one!)

Did someone mention "taxpayers", "over" and "barrel" in the same sentence here?

ArmaniJeanss

Nody wrote: »

Well the under the table answer to this is that the airlines have told May's government they will add a clause about it and expect the government to back them up on it basically. So they will book as usual but have a new clause stating for any tickets after 30th March 2019 that in case of Brexit related issues they will not be held responsible for any additional costs. Not sure if that would hold up in actual court or not though.

Westminster government might accept such a clause, but I wonder if there'd be a problem at the EU side. It wouldn't particularly surprise me if it's against some reg/rule for airlines to sell tickets for flights in a years time that they don't actually have a license for?

Peregrinus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Westminster government might accept such a clause, but I wonder if there'd be a problem at the EU side. It wouldn't particularly surprise me if it's against some reg/rule for airlines to sell tickets for flights in a years time that they don't actually have a license for?

But right now they do have a licence for it. And, by the time they don't (if that happens, of course) UK residents will no longer have recourse to the European legal system to vindicate whatever rights they may once have had under EU law. It'll be a matter for UK law as to whether they have any recourse in the UK courts against airlines which sold them tickets that they cannot now honour, but I think the airlines would have a strong (and reasonable) objection to making them liable for the consequences of the Government's Brexit policy.

In real life, I expect this to get sorted; regardless of the bigger picture there will at the very least be agreements to allow UK airlines to fly to the EU and vice versa. If necessary May will accept ECJ jursidiction over aviation to the extent necessary to make this possible. Her advisers will beat her about the head and neck with a broken bottle until she sees the political necessity for this.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I think this is probably another issue that isn't worth getting the goosebumps over. Again this is another issue that is in the interests of both parties to resolve. Israel has a flight arrangement to land in the EU without accepting ECJ oversight. There's no reason why this couldn't be agreed for Britain.

It is Halloween, but again I don't see this stuff as being much more than project fear round two. Provided all parties are reasonable this can be hammered out. If one party decides to be unreasonable it is a decision that will harm both parties so it isn't really worth exploring.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Panrich

Peregrinus wrote: »

But right now they do have a licence for it. And, by the time they don't (if that happens, of course) UK residents will no longer have recourse to the European legal system to vindicate whatever rights they may once have had under EU law. It'll be a matter for UK law as to whether they have any recourse in the UK courts against airlines which sold them tickets that they cannot now honour, but I think the airlines would have a strong (and reasonable) objection to making them liable for the consequences of the Government's Brexit policy.

In real life, I expect this to get sorted; regardless of the bigger picture there will at the very least be agreements to allow UK airlines to fly to the EU and vice versa. If necessary May will accept ECJ jursidiction over aviation to the extent necessary to make this possible. Her advisers will beat her about the head and neck with a broken bottle until she sees the political necessity for this.

That is reasonable and sensible but it looks and feels ‘a la carte’ regarding ECJ jurisdiction. That might be a wedge that the EU side will use to expand to other areas that might not be too palatable to the UK extremists.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think this is probably another issue that isn't worth getting the goosebumps over. Again this is another issue that is in the interests of both parties to resolve. Israel has a flight arrangement to land in the EU without accepting ECJ oversight. There's no reason why this couldn't be agreed for Britain . . .

I think the fear is not that, in a fit of petulance, one side or other will refuse to agree such issues. Rather, it's that there will a simply colossal number of such issues, and they have to be dealt with one by one, and the task of identifying them all and taking the appropriate legal and official steps to resolve each of those issues on all sides (and, remember, there will typically be 28 sides) is a huge one.

Putting in place a practical and effective no-deal Brexit, in other words, isn't any simpler and doesn't involve less work,than negotiating a Brexit deal. If anything, the reverse is the case.

Which comes back to the point I made earlier; if the UK decides as a matter of policy to pursue no-deal Brexit and starts work on that now, it's doable. But if no-deal Brexit happens because, late in the piece, it becomes apparent that a Brexit deal simply isn't going to happen, then no-deal Brexit could be chaotic.

I remain of the view that in fact there won't be a no-deal Brexit; it is very much in both sides' interests to make to a deal. But political instability in the UK makes me slightly less confident about this than I was before. And, if there is a no-deal Brexit, then I'm afraid it's probably going to be of the chaotic type; not something pursued as a matter of policy, but something pursued because, late in the day, political disunity in the UK means they can't commit to whatever deal is hammered out with the EU.

Peregrinus

Panrich wrote: »

That is reasonable and sensible but it looks and feels ‘a la carte’ regarding ECJ jurisdiction. That might be a wedge that the EU side will use to expand to other areas that might not be too palatable to the UK extremists.

Yup. The question is whether the extremists will command enough support to get the UK government to prefer aviation chaos over ECJ compromise. I think if there were to be such chaos the political price to be paid at the ballot box would be huge, and the government would realise this.

The UK government can continue to participate in the Aviation Space much as they do now, but the price will certainly include accepting EU regulation of, and jurisdiction over the Aviation Space.

Or, they can negotiate third country rights in much the way that Israel and the US (and many other countries) do. That involves a huge contraction of the UK's aviation industry, but it avoids cancellation of flights and tickets - provided it's put in place before people are booking flights or buying tickets for dates after March 2019.

This is an example, in short, of the kind of detail that, in a no-deal scenario, has to be dealt with long before March 2019.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

I think this is probably another issue that isn't worth getting the goosebumps over. Again this is another issue that is in the interests of both parties to resolve. Israel has a flight arrangement to land in the EU without accepting ECJ oversight. There's no reason why this couldn't be agreed for Britain.

I don't think there's a problem with UK flights landing in the EU provided the flight started outside the EU. My understanding is a UK operator can't fly within the EU, from 1 EU airport to another EU airport.
There's plenty of EU carriers to meet demand.

Gerry T

solodeogloria wrote:

It is Halloween, but again I don't see this stuff as being much more than project fear round two. Provided all parties are reasonable this can be hammered out. If one party decides to be unreasonable it is a decision that will harm both parties so it isn't really worth exploring.

One party has decided to hurt the other....it's called brexit. The UK can't decide to leave and the next day get all the benefits of being a member. That's not the EU being unreasonable.
Why is it that all countries around the world haven't got free trade agreements? So why should the UK expect this from the EU

First Up

murphaph wrote:

Only once their host country updates its own laws to allow an exchange may the UK licence holder get a licence again. This will (going by current examples) likely be limited to cars only.

All countries already have processes for such exchanges and these will be available to UK licence holders in the EU.

The only issue is if or when they will have to use them and I fully expect that to be clarified in good time.

It is not a "UK crashes out" issue. There are plenty of those already.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

All countries already have processes for such exchanges and these will be available to UK licence holders in the EU.

The only issue is if or when they will have to use them and I fully expect that to be clarified in good time.

It is not a "UK crashes out" issue. There are plenty of those already.

Depending on the details of the arrangements in each country, the processes may have to be updated or amended before the holders of UK licences can use them. For example, there may be a legislated or regulated list of countries whose licences can be exchanged and the UK may not be on that list; the list will have to be updated before UK licences can be exchanged.

That may not be a big thing but it is at least a thing. And there will be thousands of similar things which, individually, may be no-brainers but, collectively, add up to a huge amount of work to be processed. Which is why, if you only start a month before Brexit day, you're not going to get it done.

murphaph

Yeah it's one thing of very many. Many of these things presumably have higher priority than this thing but this thing would have the highest priority for a UK licence holder living in the EU and needing to drive!

On air travel... don't be so sure that the EU side is just as desperate for the status quo to continue. I read reports that major EU legacy airlines and airports that have little to no interest in the UK internal market would-be more than happy for the UK to lose access to the EU.

Look at it from KLM's perspective...lots of EU citizens fly to the rest of the world on long haul flights from Heathrow. Wouldn't it be nicer if Heathrow wasn't an option and they had to choose Schiphol or CDG instead?

Quite apart from the various freedoms...the UK itself has no safety board accepted by the rest of the world. Their maintenance regimes are certified by an EU body. They'll need to set one up pretty sharpish.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

That may not be a big thing but it is at least a thing. And there will be thousands of similar things which, individually, may be no-brainers but, collectively, add up to a huge amount of work to be processed. Which is why, if you only start a month before Brexit day, you're not going to get it done.

True, but linking what is essentially a piece of administrative homework to the terms of the UK's exit from the EU is over-stating it.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

True, but linking what is essentially a piece of administrative homework to the terms of the UK's exit from the EU is over-stating it.

Not at all; the need for the "administrative homework" (and note that in many cases it will be legislative homework) arises because, and only because, of Brexit, and (if disruption is to be avoided) it all needs to be in place by Brexit day. It's totally linked with Brexit.

And note that most of the work needs to be done by countries other than the UK. In the drivers licence case, for example, the UK needs to update its licence recognition/exchange arrangements so that the licences of each of the EU-27 states are recognised/exchangeable in the UK. But each of the EU-27 needs to update its arrangements so that UK licenses are recognised/exchangeable.

So, everybody has to do it, but the political odium if it's not done will largely fall on the UK. Slovakian (say) drivers resident in the UK will blame Brexit if their licences can no longer be used in the UK, but also can't be exchanged. But UK drivers resident in Slovakia will also blame Brexit for their plight. Because, in fact, it is Brexit that is breaking all these eggs, but not producing much of an omelette in exchange.

ambro25

Seema Malhotra (Lab) asked again, but DExEU has again refused to release details of sectoral studies.

Adverting to earlier promises of court action in case of refusal, I'd hope for the claim to be ready-sealed, and it'd be nice for HMG to get served today.

Accessorily, and somewhat topically, I sealed my fate last night, by accepting my new (EU27) employers' revised offer. The dice is cast, we're getting off this divided island for good, by end Q4 2017 or very early Q1 2018. "Sigh of relief" does not quite cover it (there's a goodly amount of bitterness and pity, but much less of those than optimism).

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I think this is probably another issue that isn't worth getting the goosebumps over. Again this is another issue that is in the interests of both parties to resolve. Israel has a flight arrangement to land in the EU without accepting ECJ oversight. There's no reason why this couldn't be agreed for Britain.

The problem is not landing in EU; the problem is open skies gives all EU airlines the possibility to fly between any EU cities where as any non EU airline can only land in one city before they need to leave for a non EU airport. The first half is what gives such flexibility for airlines to move planes around as needed and has enabled the likes of Ryanair or Easy Jet to exist. Secondary to this is the fact in the same arrangement is the US-EU open skies arrangement which allows EU flights access to multiple locations in the US and limited security checks which UK airlines would lose on day 1 (this may later be renegotiated back but it's not going to be in place on day 1 as UK can't negotiate with a third party while in EU).

murphaph

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not at all; the need for the "administrative homework" (and note that in many cases it will be legislative homework) arises because, and only because, of Brexit, and (if disruption is to be avoided) it all needs to be in place by Brexit day. It's totally linked with Brexit.

And note that most of the work needs to be done by countries other than the UK. In the drivers licence case, for example, the UK needs to update its licence recognition/exchange arrangements so that the licences of each of the EU-27 states are recognised/exchangeable in the UK. But each of the EU-27 needs to update its arrangements so that UK licenses are recognised/exchangeable.

So, everybody has to do it, but the political odium if it's not done will largely fall on the UK. Slovakian (say) drivers resident in the UK will blame Brexit if their licences can no longer be used in the UK, but also can't be exchanged. But UK drivers resident in Slovakia will also blame Brexit for their plight. Because, in fact, it is Brexit that is breaking all these eggs, but not producing much of an omelette in exchange.

But assuming the purpose of the great repeal bill is to transpose existing EU law into domestic law then the Slovakian in the UK is unaffected in this regard. The problem is for the Brits in the EU really because the EU 27 don't have equivalent repeal bills and have no plans for such currently.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

And note that most of the work needs to be done by countries other than the UK. In the drivers licence case, for example, the UK needs to update its licence recognition/exchange arrangements so that the licences of each of the EU-27 states are recognised/exchangeable in the UK. But each of the EU-27 needs to update its arrangements so that UK licenses are recognised/exchangeable.

I know, I know but it is still just a matter of administration. All countries have existing procedures to deal with foreign licence holders; nothing new needs to be drafted by anyone.

If it is agreed that current reciprocity continues, then nothing needs to be done. If current reciprocity is not continued, EU/UK licence holders revert to the systems already in place and used for licencees from other countries.

The implication earlier in the thread was that if the UK leaves with "no deal", licences would become invalid and people would be thrown off the road. All that might happen is that people have to do a bit of paperwork that they currently don't have to do as EU citizens.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

I know, I know but it is still just a matter of administration. All countries have existing procedures to deal with foreign licence holders; nothing new needs to be drafted by anyone.

If it is agreed that current reciprocity continues, then nothing needs to be done. If current reciprocity is not continued, EU/UK licence holders revert to the systems already in place and used for licencees from other countries.

The implication earlier in the thread was that if the UK leaves with "no deal", licences would become invalid and people would be thrown off the road. All that might happen is that people have to do a bit of paperwork that they currently don't have to do as EU citizens.

No, stuff does need to be done. If it's agreed that reciprocity is to continue, then legal or administrative steps need to be taken in each country to ensure that it does continue. What steps these are will depend on the laws and practices in each of the countries concerned, and this will vary from place to place. In one place, it may simply be a matter of the Ministry of Transport issuing an amended circular which includes the UK in a list of countries whose licences are recognised and/or can be exchanged. In another, the relevant Minister may have to draft and sign regulations and lay them before Parliament, and publish them in the official gazette. In a third, there may be legal requirement to consult relevant stakeholders before amending the arrangements. There may be a statutory consultation period that has to elapse before the changes can be made, or a notice period before they can take effect. In a fourth, legislative or administrative action may be required at provincial/state level (and therefore in every province or state) rather than at national level. And so on.

Individually, none of these things is onerous or impossible. Collectively, they add up to a lot of work, with a lot of people in different countries having to take responsibility for ensuring whatever needs to be done (a) is identified, and (b) is done in a timely fashion before Brexit day. And it's not like they don't have other work to do!

And that's just drivers licences. Multiply that by everything else that needs to be continued, or replaced, to avoid unnecessary disruption.

And that's before we start to think about new stuff that needs to be done. For example if there's a no-deal Brexit, customs and quarantine facilities need to be constructed and equipped, and relevant staff recruited and trained, at EU ports that receive goods from the UK, and at UK ports that receive goods from the EU. That's not going to happen in a month or two.

Legislatively and administratively, no-deal Brexit is not the simplest or easiest option; far from it.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Legislatively and administratively, no-deal Brexit is not the simplest or easiest option; far from it.

No deal Brexit is by far the hardest option but there are no circumstances in which drivers in the EU or UK will be thrown off the road with no way of getting back on.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

No deal Brexit is by far the hardest option but there are no circumstances in which drivers in the EU or UK will be thrown off the road with no way of getting back on.

There could be, if no-deal Brexit is the outcome of a late collapse of negotiations for a Brexit treaty, and there simply isn't time enough to organise and implement plan B before Brexit day.

To some extent these problems can be managed in the short term by policy actions - e.g. the Slovakian police announce that for the (say) three-month period it will take to organise recognition they won't prosecute people who are driving in Slovakia on unrecognised UK licenses. But that only gets you so far; for example insurers may point out that the police have no power to order them to provide cover (or comprehensive cover) to drivers who, in breach of their policies, are driving without a valid licence. Is the Slovakian state going to indemnify drivers whose insurance arrangements are imperilled in this circumstance? I doubt it. Is the UK? I doubt that too. Or Uk holidaymakers may find that they can't hire cars in Slovakia, or drive hired cars into Slovakia.

But the real issue here is not drivers licences. They are just an instance which serves to illustrate that "continue existing arrangements" is a simple concept to express, but not at all simple to realise. In the event, driver licensing may be fine, but something else may be stuffed up. The scale of the work needed is such that, in a crash-out situation, it's a racing certainty that a lot of things will be stuffed up by a short-notice no-deal Brexit.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

There could be, if no-deal Brexit is the outcome of a late collapse of negotiations for a Brexit treaty, and there simply isn't time enough to organise and implement plan B before Brexit day.

The Slovak police may not have a big problem but the Spanish and French police have better things to do than go checking on thousands of UK pensioners doing their shopping.

If a time window is needed for people to regularise their situation it will be provided.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The Slovak police may not have a big problem but the Spanish and French police have better things to do than go checking on thousands of UK pensioners doing their shopping.

The police dont' have to be particularly targetting UK pensioners for this to be a problem. If a UK pensioner is involved in a motor accident, for example, and turns out to have been driving unlicensed, they have a problem.

First Up wrote: »

If a time window is needed for people to regularise their situation it will be provided.

You miss the point. Providing a legally robust window for people will probably require legislative/administrative action similar to the action that would be required to continue mutual recognition/interchangeability. If one of these is overlooked or neglected or there simply isn't time to do it, it's not likely that the other is going to get done instead.

We're talking about matters of law here. Simply deciding that something should be the law and actually making it the law are two very different things, even if the decision is a government decision. We don't live in Nazi Germany where the Will Of The Fuhrer automatically had the force of law. If the government wants the law to say something, they actually have to legislate for that, in whatever mode is constitutionally required in the country concerned. It's a pain, but that's the rule of law for you.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

The Slovak police may not have a big problem but the Spanish and French police have better things to do than go checking on thousands of UK pensioners doing their shopping.

If a time window is needed for people to regularise their situation it will be provided.

That still requires possible legislation. The plod can't simply turn a blind eye and all is well (no valid licence means no insurance).

Read my links to the German advice on foreign licences. In short, if you have been living in Germany for more than 6 months and your licence is not from an EU or EEA country you are driving without a licence and if detected will be prosecuted as such (it actually says that).

First Up

I don't know if there is any point in saying it again; there are are systems available whereby people can exchange their national licence for a local one. Yes, procedures need to be followed and yes, there are consequences if people don't. But the systems exist and there is no risk of people being prevented from using them.

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

I don't know if there is any point in saying it again; there are are systems available whereby people can exchange their national licence for a local one. Yes, procedures need to be followed and yes, there are consequences if people don't. But the systems exist and there is no risk of people being prevented from using them.

I really don't mean to come across offensive here, but...the systems do exist indeed, and others and I have linked to some of them (France, Germany), so can I just ask: what part of "a third party (non-EU, non-EEA) UK is not part of these systems and would therefore need onboarding into such systems first, for people to be able to use them" can you seemingly not understand?

No-one is saying that the EU27 will somehow bar (Brexited) UK nationals from accessing such systems. But for the system to be accessible to (Brexited) UK nationals, the UK has to be included in the system first. Whether through the EU-UK deal (if there is one), or through bilateral agreement between the UK and each of the EU27 (if there isn't a deal). Otherwise, the computer-system will simply say 'does not compute'.

And the real, personal, measurable and fundamental risk is in the case of a no-deal scenario, the period between the no-deal crash-out date (say, end March 2019 at the latest) and the entry into force of such bilateral agreements: during that transition period, UK licenses would likely be deemed invalid for EU27 residents (mostly Brits) who rely on them for living, commuting, <etc> there. It would certainly be the case for Brits in Germany, avderting to murphaph's posts.

oscarBravo

First Up wrote: »

I don't know if there is any point in saying it again; there are are systems available whereby people can exchange their national licence for a local one. Yes, procedures need to be followed and yes, there are consequences if people don't. But the systems exist and there is no risk of people being prevented from using them.

I don't know why you keep making your point over and over and over again as if anyone is disagreeing with you.

Yes, the problems created by Brexit are surmountable. No, that doesn't mean that they are not problems.

A surmountable problem can be hand-waved away. Tens of thousands of surmountable problems can't, no matter how much you want us to believe they can, and no matter how much Theresa May wants us to believe they can.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

I don't know if there is any point in saying it again; there are are systems available whereby people can exchange their national licence for a local one. Yes, procedures need to be followed and yes, there are consequences if people don't. But the systems exist and there is no risk of people being prevented from using them.

You make a fair point. However, it would be dependent on the goodwill of all parties concerned which may be a serious sticking point for May and her merry band at this stage. If it is an acrimonious separation (most are!), then driving licences will be just another speed bump to be put in Britain's way.

First Up

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't know why you keep making your point over and over and over again as if anyone is disagreeing with you.

Because some people don't seem to understand the difference between world-wide systems and internal EU arrangements. The UK will simply move from the latter back to the former.

There were assertions earlier that arrangements for UK driving licences could not be put in place or into action until "everything is agreed". This is not the case.

oscarBravo

First Up wrote: »

Because some people don't seem to understand the difference between world-wide systems and internal EU arrangements. The UK will simply move from the latter back to the former.

Which is a reasonable point as far as it goes, but not when you blithely ignore the fact that "simply moving" requires that 27 sovereign countries will have to make administrative and/or legislative changes in order to make it happen.

I'm starting to wonder if your laser focus on driving licences - which, albeit not as simple an issue as you'd like to make out, will be one of the easier problems to solve - is simply a way of avoiding talking about Open Skies, or customs checks at Calais, or the Irish border, or any of the problems that won't involve "simply moving".

ancapailldorcha

Grim news from the Bank of England:

BBC wrote:

The Bank of England believes that up to 75,000 jobs could be lost in financial services following Britain's departure from the European Union.

The BBC understands senior figures at the Bank are using the number as a "reasonable scenario", particularly if there is no specific UK-EU financial services deal.

The number could change depending on the UK's post-Brexit trading deal.
But the bank still expects substantial job losses.

I am told the Bank believes that many jobs will move to the continent.

The Bank of England has asked banks and other financial institutions, such as hedge funds, to provide it with contingency plans in the event of Britain trading with the EU under World Trade Organization rules - what some have described as a "hard Brexit".

That would mean banks based in the UK losing special passporting rights to operate across the EU.

Loss of EU passporting rights certainly won't help.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Because some people don't seem to understand the difference between world-wide systems and internal EU arrangements. The UK will simply move from the latter back to the former.

No, the UK won't "simply move"; the UK will have to be moved. This doesn't happen by magic.

First Up wrote: »

There were assertions earlier that arrangements for UK driving licences could not be put in place or into action until "everything is agreed". This is not the case.

No, it's not. But what is the case is that UK driving licences won't be in place until the appropriate officials take the appropriate steps are taken in each of the EU-27 to put them in place; it doesn't happen by magic, and it takes a definite amount of time. Who those officials will be, what those steps will be and how much time it will take, will vary from place to place.

In Ireland, for example, you can exchange a foreign licence if its from an EU/EEA country, or if its from a "recognised state". There are 15 recognised states; the UK is not one of them. Appropriate steps will have to be taken to declare the UK to be a recognised state; this involves the making of a ministerial order, and there's a process for making and publishing ministerial orders that will have to be set in train and executed. Until this happens, UK licences will not be exchangeable in Ireland.

And something similar will be true of each of the other EU-27 member states. And of course some or all of those states may not be willing to do this until they are satisfied that the UK will do the same on a reciprocal basis.

So, no, it won't happen automatically. It will only happen if the relevant people decide that it will happen, and follow through on that decision, and do so in sufficient time before Brexit day. Which might not happen in every case, given that in the chaos of a no-deal Brexit, this won't be anybody's biggest or most pressing problem.

First Up

oscarBravo wrote:

Which is a reasonable point as far as it goes, but not when you blithely ignore the fact that "simply moving" requires that 27 sovereign countries will have to make administrative and/or legislative changes in order to make it happen.

No they don't. All countries already have systems in place for dealing with non-EU licences.

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm starting to wonder if your laser focus on driving licences - which, albeit not as simple an issue as you'd like to make out, will be one of the easier problems to solve - is simply a way of avoiding talking about Open Skies, or customs checks at Calais, or the Irish border, or any of the problems that won't involve "simply moving".

The complete opposite. I am one of the strongest critics of the idiocy that is Brexit. You will find many posts from me about the disaster that's going to hit British industry as supply chains are disrupted and how the (almost inevitable) imposition of border controls wil hurt Irish exports.

I am irritated that this driving licence stuff is distracting people from far these more important issues.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

No, the UK won't "simply move"; the UK will have to be moved. This doesn't happen by magic.

No magic needed, just a bit of paperwork.

Peregrinus wrote:

In Ireland, for example, you can exchange a foreign licence if its from an EU/EEA country, or if its from a "recognised state". There are 15 recognised states; the UK is not one of them. Appropriate steps will have to be taken to declare the UK to be a recognised state; this involves the making of a ministerial order, and there's a process for making and publishing ministerial orders that will have to be set in train and executed. Until this happens, UK licences will not be exchangeable in Ireland.

Which can be done without any reference or dependence on the UK's exit "deal"

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

No they don't. All countries already have systems in place for dealing with non-EU licences.

They do. But, mostly, those systems don't apply to the whole world (ex.EU); they apply only to selected countries. And the UK is not one of those countries. Nor will it become one by magic.

First Up wrote: »

I am irritated that this driving licence stuff is distracting people from far these more important issues.

The driving licence stuff is just a specific illustration of a general problem. Multiply the issues that the driving licence stuff throws up by ten, by a hundred, by several hundred. Now add the number you first thought of. You're not even close yet to the amount of legislative and administrative work that needs to be done to address the consequences of no-deal Brexit.

I'm not saying that the driving licence issues won't be addressed. But, actually, there will be other much, much bigger issues to be addressed that will take priority over sorting out the exchangeability of driving licences. Depending on the time available and the resources and priorities of each of the EU-27, some issues won't be addressed by Brexit day, and it's not impossible that driving licences might be one of them, in some countries at any rate.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

No magic needed, just a bit of paperwork.



Which can be done without any reference or dependence on the UK's exit "deal"

Yes, just a bit of paperwork, and it can be done without an exit deal. The point is that it won't be apparent that it needs to be done until it's known that there will be no Brexit deal and, when that happens, an awful lot of stuff will need to be done; this will be a drop in the ocean, and by no means the most important drop, nor the one that will be first attended to.

Which is the point I've been making; if there's to be a no-deal Brexit, everybody needs to know that sooner rather than later, so as to maximise the chances that everything that needs to be done will be identified, and done.

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

Which can be done without any reference or dependence on the UK's exit "deal"

Am I correct in understanding that sentence, as your presuming that one or more or all of the EU27 can take proactive steps to include the UK onto their (respective) list of countries providing exchangeable driving license, in advance of end March 2019?

If I am correct, then can I just ask: what's in it, for the one or more or all of the EU27, at this stage of the EU/UK negotiations and considering where they're at (and through whose fault, mostly)?

This is all not a useful distraction, about an elementarily-simple fact of legislative and procedural life within an international context, tbh.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

Am I correct in understanding that sentence, as your presuming that one or more or all of the EU27 can take proactive steps to include the UK onto their (respective) list of countries providing exchangeable driving license, in advance of end March 2019?

If I am correct, then can I just ask: what's in it, for the one or more or all of the EU27, at this stage of the EU/UK negotiations and considering where they're at (and through whose fault, mostly)?

This is all not a useful distraction, about an elementarily-simple fact of legislative and procedural life within an international context, tbh.

It's not appropriate to do this ahead of time. It may not need to be done at all if there's a Brexit treaty with catchall provisions which cover the point - in that case it will be effected by operation of EU law, and national governments are not going to waste their time and money legislating for something that EU law covers. Even if there's no provision covering it in the Brexit deal, the date with effect from which it needs to be done at national level won't be apparent until we know what (if any) transition period will operate, and adding the UK to the list of non-EU/EEA countries shouldn't be done until it actually is a non-EU/EEA country; we need to know that date.

In short, it's premature to legislate for this yet; we need to know when, and on what terms, the UK will leave the EU before we can draft legislation which will be apt.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Grim news from the Bank of England:



Loss of EU passporting rights certainly won't help.

Not to mind the many thousands of indirect job losses as a result of the 75,000 direct losses.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

I'm not saying that the driving licence issues won't be addressed. But, actually, there will be other much, much bigger issues to be addressed that will take priority over sorting out the exchangeability of driving licences. Depending on the time available and the resources and priorities of each of the EU-27, some issues won't be addressed by Brexit day, and it's not impossible that driving licences might be one of them, in some countries at any rate.

It is not in anyone or any country's interest to make UK driving licences a problem and it will not be a bargaining chip in reaching an "everything is agreed" conclusion.

My opening (and final) contribution to this topic was that driving licences are not an EU/Brexit issue and that comment stands.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not appropriate to do this ahead of time. It may not need to be done at all if there's a Brexit treaty with catchall provisions which cover the point - in that case it will be effected by operation of EU law, and national governments are not going to waste their time and money legislating for something that EU law covers. Even if there's no provision covering it in the Brexit deal, the date with effect from which it needs to be done at national level won't be apparent until we know what (if any) transition period will operate, and adding the UK to the list of non-EU/EEA countries shouldn't be done until it actually is a non-EU/EEA country; we need to know that date.

In short, it's premature to legislate for this yet; we need to know when, and on what terms, the UK will leave the EU before we can draft legislation which will be apt.

For the avoidance of doubt: I'm well aware, Peregrinus. I'm just trying -like you I suspect- to narrow down First Up's apparent issue with the simple procedural principles underlying the problem

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not to mind the many thousands of indirect job losses as a result of the 75,000 direct losses.

The real story is not the potential loss of x thousands of City jobs and their associated income tax (all non-trivial that it may be): the real story is how many of those x thousands jobs are tied to trading activity under the UK's passporting rights (I'd anticipate particularly strong correlation between both notions), and the economic cost to the Exchequer of losing the UK's passporting rights (which, I daresay, will be significantly higher than 75,000 high-earning City jobs and even including indirect jobs/activities - possibly orders of magnitude higher).

This is what the BoE alluded to, in coded fashion, in its brief (BBC article extract, "The Bank of England has asked banks and other financial institutions, such as hedge funds, to provide it with contingency plans in the event of Britain trading with the EU under World Trade Organization rules"): WTO rules are wholly unconcerned by banking (services) activity, that's effectively code for 'what are your plans in case the UK loses its passporting rights'.

breatheme

I hope they don't get passporting rights, unless there's also Freedom of Movement.

ambro25

breatheme wrote: »

I hope they don't get passporting rights, unless there's also Freedom of Movement.

I can't see the UK holding onto them regardless, unless the UK ends up not Brexiting at all.

I've long held it as a part-business minded, part-realpolitik minded belief (since before the referendum), that at least Germany and France (but also Ireland and Luxembourg, to a somewhat lesser extent) would be making a play for grabbing as much of the City's passported financial trade (and closely-associated know-how, networks and activities) to put some fiscal oil into their respective domestic socio-economic machineries, and help level up Paris and Frankfurt as global financial turnplates, if the UK was to Brexit - softly or not.

Yes, London is and has long been an important financial turnplate for the EU. And it might still be that, to a somewhat lesser extent after Brexit. But passported financial trade is fiscal manna, and the medium to long term gains from repatriating ('appropriating', really) those activities from the UK are worth the short-term inconvenience/pain of stripping those rights from London.

Merkel and Macron must be thanking their lucky stars for the referendum result and the British government's moronic approach to Brexit since.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

Merkel and Macron must be thanking their lucky stars for the referendum result and the British government's moronic approach to Brexit since.

I don't know. The UK is a very big slice of the European pie to lose. Merkel didn't seem keen even on Greece leaving a few years ago, never mind an economy like the UK's. Obviously, they'll be keen to reap as many rewards as possible but the European project has no doubt taken a serious hit with Brexit.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know. The UK is a very big slice of the European pie to lose. Merkel didn't seem keen even on Greece leaving a few years ago, never mind an economy like the UK's. Obviously, they'll be keen to reap as many rewards as possible but the European project has no doubt taken a serious hit with Brexit.

Greece was (still is) in the €zone, and that difference relative to the UK was very far from insignificant at the material time.

Look at how €zone private sector heavyweights have consistently and unanimously played the dual unity & stability cards in all things Brexit since very early after June 2016: they'd been through a similar politico-economical mill with Greece in 2015. They know they'll take a hit, but they also know that this hit is far less harmful than the alternative (kicking Greece out of the €zone BITD, letting the UK having its cake and eating it present day).

No doubt about the hit to the EU, for sure. But at the end of the day, the respective and collective best interests of the EU27 have not aligned with those of the Brexit-seeking UK since July 2016, and arguably still less so now than then.

So, well, you know...[Jack Sparrow]take everything, give nothing back[/Jack Sparrow]

It may be a glib observation or just bias confirmation, but after spending the last week over there, the local vibe just reinforced my impression, developed from Continental newsreading over the past year and months, that the UK leaving the EU is by now generally seen as a blessing on the Continent. There is this feeling that the trouble-fête has (already) left the building, and that the EU project is getting bootstrapped in anger. That is not an attempt at diminishing the scale of the problems yet to solve, but likewise there is this sense that Continentals are effectively just putting up with the UK's domestic shenanigans as best they can, essentially by waiting on the UK to come out clean with what it wants, and taking a (typically Continental - and quite Germanic, one might say) pragmatic and procedural approach to the whole exercise, having already long worked out possible outcomes and respective flowcharts. Including a no-deal hard Brexit, if that's what the UK wants...or snookers itself into.

Vronsky

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know. The UK is a very big slice of the European pie to lose. Merkel didn't seem keen even on Greece leaving a few years ago, never mind an economy like the UK's. Obviously, they'll be keen to reap as many rewards as possible but the European project has no doubt taken a serious hit with Brexit.

Greece, being in the euro was different. Had Greece left it would have been a huge blow to the currency which would have immediate and visible problems for Germany. The currency was under a lot of pressure at the time of the first Greek bailout and certainly the perception at the time was the Euro was only just holding together.

The UK has been in the outer orbits of the EU ever since its joined, and while integrated in many ways it is demonstrably less so than the core nations.