Forum Topic

Freedom of Movement shock horror

The DM is fulminating over the so-called “new” rules which are actually the old ones applied by the EU to citizens of any non EU country, which we, or at least 52% of us and no doubt a much higher % of DM readers, voted to become. Freedom of Movement, remarkably, is reciprocal, so there is a solution if anybody wants to vote for it. Spare a thought for UK citizens who actually live in the EU. Their lives have been turned upside down by Brexit and many of them couldn’t even vote in the referendum. It’s all very sad and of course was totally avoidable. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9000815/Furious-British-expats-blast-EUs-new-post-Brexit-travel-rules.html

Jonathan Callaway ● 1948d52 Comments

Umm I couldn't access the Telegraph link but can the FT - very odd.Yes Michael I agree with retraining etc especially since the retirement age will probably be 120!Interesting ft for those than can access it showing the failure of sensible compromise:https://ig.ft.com/brexit-second-round-indicative-votes/

Ed Robinson ● 1941d

Ed, I'd agree with that. The FT seems to be behind a paywall but I read about the cut in railway investment elsewhere: something Sunak failed to mention in his HoC statement. I believe broadband upgrade rollouts that were planned will slip as well; not good for Johnsons plan of a high tech economy ...I feel it's likely to affect lower paid jobs in manufacturing and office work; they'll also be affected by more automation/"AI" as well as offshoring and Brexit. Interestingly, higher skilled jobs in IT, finance, design, etc could benefit from remote working: if you've got the education, skills, knowledge and experience one has the opportunity to apply for jobs around the globe while being able to stay at home and not have any visa hassles ... so the message is get a good education and keep updating ones skills and knowledge. But I bet government cuts will make that more difficult for the less privileged?

Michael Ixer ● 1941d

Michael, I think that issues will actually be amplified due to the lack of investment.Freight would possibly be a way of making up some of the lost time. International freight is still a small percentage of total freight. It looks like that investment may be cut.FT: Budget to upgrade Britain’s railways cut by £1bn.https://www.ft.com/content/3ce5a1ea-a3e2-47a4-8ec5-66f40ad9220f

Ed Robinson ● 1942d

Ed, even if the UK had been investing in people and infrastructure those internal investments wouldn't help with external connections: fresh food supplies, medicines, JIT supply chains, European financial services and data imports requiring equivalent recognition of regulations, ... where does one stop? Oh yes, the CBI head was complaining yesterday that the government was telling them to be prepared but not what for. Fishermen squabbling over a diminishing resource won't matter. And you know after years of austerity investment hasn't happened! 

Michael Ixer ● 1942d

Jonathan after 10 years of investing in people and infrastructure the UK is in the best possible position for whatever comes.Unless it hasn't spent the last 10 years investing in people and infrastructure that is!

Ed Robinson ● 1942d

Sue has conceded that “after 1st January ... post-Brexit some logistical problems will ... undoubtedly emerge”.  Here is the possible scale of it thanks to a leaked govt planning document seen by ITV/Peston:  https://www.itv.com/news/2020-12-06/the-12-reasonable-worst-case-outcomes-if-brexit-talks-collapseGood grief. Makes Project Fear pale in comparison. I think the OBR’s projection of a 4% hit to GDP next year might be an underestimate. Those Brexit triumphs are going to have to be pretty impressive.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1942d

Ms HammondThis is a disgusting response.Are you unable to exercise self-control over what you write on this Forum ?Is it some medical condition you have ?If it is I can understand why you do it.If not some civility please.

John Hawkes ● 1943d

I was thinking more Nige Fraaaaaag actually. Slightly to the right in relative terms.

Freddie Francis ● 1945d

"someone at the immoderate end of that scale"?https://quavid.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/raymond-lowry.jpg"A wild-eyed Trot from the lunatic fringe".

David Ainsworth ● 1945d

Try:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55163730https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-brexit-did-not-speed-up-uk-vaccine-authorisationhttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-vaccine-matt-hancock-mhra-brexit-b1765005.htmlI suppose you will point to these sources as biased Remainer strongholds or whatever but I view all three as reputable news media outlets.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1945d

Hi Jonathan.  Can you point me to the proof please because I've obviously missed the reports.Don't restrain yourself after 1st January, enjoy all the inevitable negative Guardian reports, and fill your boots on here. 😸You do seem to know plenty of regretful Brexiteers ...

Sue Hammond ● 1945d

Yes it has been proven, and fact checked by multiple sources.Sue, I promise to try to be restrained post Jan 1st but it will be difficult not to highlight obvious failings.  It won't be just the logistical problems of course, though one factor here will lessen over time - Irish exports to the rest of the EU will soon be bypassing the UK entirely.  This will cause jobs to be lost in Holyhead and Fishguard when the Dublin-Calais cargo ferry starts up.I fear the govt is still failing to be clear with people just what will change after Jan 1st.  Less than a month to nirvana though.  Do tell us post Jan 1st where the winners will be. I know even some Brexiteers are no longer quite so sure there will be anything like enough upside to offset the predicted economic hit.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1945d

Ha, Ha.

Barbara Stevens ● 1945d

Everything's relative of course but I'd hate to meet someone at the immoderate end of that scale.

Freddie Francis ● 1945d

@Jonathan 10.55Hi Jonathan.  How do you know it is definitely spin?  Has that been proven?  So what if it was, would that make the vaccine less effective, and would all the anti-Brexit and anti-Govt whingers on here refuse to have on principle?  No of course not, on both counts. As for triumphalism...after 1st January when post-Brexit logistical problems emerge (as some undoubtedly will) just think what fun you, Richard, Michael, Ivonne, Lucille etc will have on the forum! 🤡

Sue Hammond ● 1945d

I was going to add that their triumphalism has somewhat decreased my willingness to have the vaccine. It damages trust. Speed is not always the ideal, in many aspects of life.

David Ainsworth ● 1945d

 David, I was going to say your summary was quite good but if we're such good shoppers why have Debenhams and Arcadia hit problems? But again, people were queuing outside Primark so perhaps it's to do with the quality of shop keepers ...Back to the serious point;: the reason Hancock and Rees-Mogg should be pulled up over the disinformation they're trying to disseminate about the vaccine approval and Brexit is because there's so much distrust around vaccines already that any fudging of the issues just helps the anti vaccine argument and creates doubts about whether the approval did cut corners. In particular, because of his position, Hancock has a duty to be scrupulous in his comments around this matter so there are no doubts about the approval process. (Ok, I know using scrupulous along side anything to do with Johnson's cabinet and Brexit is an oxymoron ...)

Michael Ixer ● 1945d

What they are really saying is that the UK may not be best at inventing things or making things nowadays, but, by gosh, we can still buy things quickly?

David Ainsworth ● 1945d

"This is the most telling sentence for me from the BBC article  "UK to approve a Covid vaccine more quickly than other European Union (EU) countries"  Well we are the first so logic tells me that Hancock and Rees-Mogg are probably right."Actually, no, they are NOT right 😾😾😾 because, as the article points out perfectly clearly at the end, "the fact that the UK is the first country in the world to approve this vaccine has got nothing directly to do with Brexit." And you really can't claim that it is Remainers who have dragged Brexit into this because it was hapless Hancock and silly Rees-Mogg, who never saw a stick without firmly grasping it by the wrong end, who did that.

Richard Carter ● 1945d

It’s the spin that is the issue. Brexit played no role in our decision to approve ahead of other countries. Trying to claim a win for Brexit was just plain wrong. And Gavin Williamson on LBC this morning was frankly toe-curling. There’ll be no end of triumphs for Brexiteers to point to after Jan 1st so you’ll get your chance then, Sue!

Jonathan Callaway ● 1945d

Yesterday Alok Sjarma, one of the governemnt's dimmer ministers, has made the foolish claim that “In years to come, we will remember this moment as the day the UK led humanity’s charge against this disease.”Er, the vaccine was developed by a Turkish-born couple (Özlem Türeci and Ugur Sahin) running a German company (BioNTech) to make a vaccine that's produced by an American company (Pfizer). Yes, that really is a real triumph for Britain!And now the even dimmer Gavin Williamson has told LBC that “Well I just reckon we’ve got the very best people in this country and we’ve obviously got the best medical regulators. Much better than the French have, much better than the Belgians have, much better than the Americans have. That doesn’t surprise me at all because we’re a much better country than every single one of them, aren’t we.” And this man is in charge of the country's education!.

Richard Carter ● 1945d

Depending on one's position Ms Hammond may actually be moderate I guess.

David Ainsworth ● 1945d

Oh gawd more Brexit related angst on Putney forum!  Does it really matter whether approval was obtained via the EMA or the MHRA?  I am sure this confusion about its approval won't prevent all the anti-Brexit moaners on here from accepting the vaccine.  We've got the green light for the roll-out programme to start and that's all that matters.  This is the most telling sentence for me from the BBC article  "UK to approve a Covid vaccine more quickly than other European Union (EU) countries"  Well we are the first so logic tells me that Hancock and Rees-Mogg are probably right.

Sue Hammond ● 1945d

Hello Michael,I do think the terms misleading and ignorance in your message are incredibly polite! Both Hancock and Rees Mogg are trying to display the victorious feathers of peacocks because, sadly, they do believe we are all stupid.To say that the UK was able to approve the vaccine thanks to Brexit is really massaging the truth!  It is because the UK is still the transition period that it happened, under EU law.  Oh, the irony!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1945d

Misled is an interesting word Michael.There are other words that may be more appropriate if this has been stated knowing it not to be true.If it was stated believing it to be true then that is not very reassuring.Is there anything in the ministerial code I wonder?? If there isn't what does say something about our democracy.

Ed Robinson ● 1945d

One owners why they, Hancock and Rees Mogg have to mislead about this. Is it because those in favour of Brexit  have just go so used to disseminating misinformation? Silly to do it when it's so easy fact checked and it contradicts what ones own expert has said about using EU emergency procedures while the UK is still in transition! Or perhaps it was just ignorance?https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55163730

Michael Ixer ● 1945d

The moderators are missing in action unfortunately.

Freddie Francis ● 1945d

Does nobody moderate this forum? This post is offensive and should be withdrawn. How is this acceptable?

Mark Phillips ● 1946d

This hasn’t stopped Brexiteer cheerleaders like Nadine Dorries and Michael Fabricant from loudly repeating the claim today - one that is so easily debunked, but who cares at this late stage when we’re so close to nirvana?

Jonathan Callaway ● 1946d

Matt Hancock was boasting this morning that we were able to licence the Pfizer vaccine because we were now outside the European Medicines Agency: a first tangible benefit of Brexit, hooray!Except this claim turns out to be as false as all the other supposed benefits, because, as June Raine, the chief executive of the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA), has pointed out:  “We have been able to authorise the supply of this vaccine using provisions under European law, which exist until 1 January.”Oh dear, so we're *still* waiting for the Brexiteers here (or anywhere else, actually) to set out what the benefits actually are. So, Sue Hammond and other enthusiasts, where's the beef? Do tell us, as it will be good to have some cheerful news for once.

Richard Carter ● 1946d

I think the no deal option has always been the government's preference as they were banking on an immediate deal with the US.  The latter, if it happens, will take a lot longer than expected so, no deal with the EU and no deal with the US. Also, Parliament will be in recess as from next week.  So nothing will be in place for 1 January 2021.The world has had a very difficult 2020 with COVID-19.  The UK will have a very difficult time in the near future, all of its own making.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1946d

The betting now seems to be that no deal a more likely outcome than the deal as currently being negotiated.  Deal = 2% hit to GDP while no deal = 4% hit. Anyone going to remind me of the benefits of this?  This is pricing a purer form of sovereignty in the hundreds of billions.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1946d

The only sane thing about Brexit : the Dutch Brexit Muppet? Does it reflect a Dutch view that Statler and Waldorf represent typical Brexit voters :-)https://www.politico.eu/article/dutch-government-unleashes-the-brexit-muppet/

Michael Ixer ● 1947d

OMG, this is shocking! The EU is arguing that if we want access to the single market we will have to follow its rules. Whoever would have thought it, when that nice Mr Gove assured us in the referendum campaign that we would be able to retain all the benefits but without the constraints afterwe've left?From The Times today:Britain will remain bound “over time” by the European Union’s single-market rules as the price of a tariff and quota-free trade deal, Ursula von der Leyen insisted today.The European Commission president has spelt out the EU’s “level playing field” demands, which are a major sticking point in Brexit negotiations and have been dismissed by the government as “unfair”.“If our British friends want access to the single market without quotas, and without tariffs — so, total access to the single market — then it must be clear that all in the single market play by the same rules. That’s what we call level playing field,” she told a meeting of MPs from national parliaments.  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/brexit-talks-there-has-to-be-a-level-playing-field-says-ursula-von-der-leyen-00tpp7dn0

Richard Carter ● 1947d

To be fair to the DM it was news to the Telegraph too. Suspect it won’t affect that well known pair of brothers living on a low tax offshore rock near Jersey.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1948d

 I don't see why this is news in the DM. This was obvious to anyone who understood what they were voting for in the referendum! It can be easily resolved: we give freedom of movement to EU citizens as part of the Brexit deal a and the EU reciprocates by giving freedom of movement to UK citizens -but let's just rejoin the EU! Is the DM saying its readers are stupid for voting for Brexit ? (Going by comments, been on Zoom all day so no time to read articles.)

Michael Ixer ● 1948d

At the risk of repeating myself Lucille, new rules or old rules call them what you like.  Rules can be changed if all parties want them to be made reciprocal.  I am not aware that Britain has asked, or indeed wants, to be treated differently to any other non EU country, have I missed that demand?

Sue Hammond ● 1948d

At risk of repeating myself Sue these are NOT new rules. The UK cannot expect to be treated any differently to any other non EU country now we have left. We revert to the situation we were in before we joined. Thing is people have got used to the ease of travel, reciprocal health benefits, lack of pet passports etc for the past 45+ years and stupidly haven't realised that much of what they have taken for granted will no longer be so.

Lucille Grant ● 1948d

Cross purposes and all that!  Reciprocity is the key so we can agree on that.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1948d

I was referring to to EU nationals already living here Jonathan.  Our new immigration rules should only apply to new migrants wanting to move here.

Sue Hammond ● 1948d

Well you never know. The EU is a rules-based organisation and as we have seen set much store by uniformity and a level playing field.  Could they adapt the rules for one non-member country? Of course, but it would have to be negotiated like everything else and some reciprocity would be expected. So life is made easier for UK expats and in exchange we would have to relax some rules for EU nationals wanting to come here. Do you see that happening?  Not this side of the next election at the very least, in my view anyway.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1948d

But it's not a new rule Sue, those are the rules for non-EU members unless they are in the Schengen zone. So it's not a 'move', it's the rules that were always going to apply when we leave.

Matt Palmer ● 1948d

Hi Jonathan,  please see my post to. Lucille.  The EU have a habit of changing the rules to suit themselves and I am sure plenty of pressure will come from the 27 countries who will not want to lose the British 'pound'.  Expect a big u-turn from Brussels or we will have to reciprocate.  All very pointless.

Sue Hammond ● 1948d

@LucilleWe've all moved on since then Lucille.  This move by Brussels is pure spite, they make their own rules and new ones can be made to accommodate ex-pats living in the EU countries.  To enforce this proposed rule would simply be cutting off their nose to spite their face.  I don't think it will go down too well with the EU countries that will lose out financially if British ex-pats cannot live there as they do now.  Stupid move by Brussels.

Sue Hammond ● 1948d

Sue, as I said in my original post these are the standing EU rules for third country citizens. They’re not new. What is new is our status as a non-member. Also new is our Immigration Act which has possibly unintended consequences for UK citizens with non-UK partners living overseas who will now be subject to the minimum income rules if the couple move here. This is UK rule and nothing to do with the EU. Changes to it could be made if pressure is applied.  Some of the work and residency rules vary country by country within the EU but while we were members we got equal treatment and could stay anywhere in the EU as long as wanted.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1948d

These  rules  are not set by the EU Sue. They are as a result of no longer belonging so we revert back to how things were before we joined. But just 'blame the EU' why don't you rather than let facts speak for themselves.

Lucille Grant ● 1948d

@Sue Not entirely the response I predicted but you did show up as I expected. Nice to know you still care. Missing the swearing, though scrote is borderline isnt it. Care to tell us something good that's happpened due to Brexit?

Freddie Francis ● 1948d

@JonathanI feel sorry for them but these are new EU rules, not ours.  The clue is in the title.  However I expect Barnier et al will back down because they will want ex-pats to keep living and spending in the EU.

Sue Hammond ● 1948d

This is the Guardian take on the new Immigration Act which appears to discriminate against UK citizens living abroad. This seems grossly unfair to me. Maybe if the right wing press take up the issue we might see some movement from the govt on this. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/29/its-impossible-how-brexit-has-left-british-families-unable-to-return-to-the-uk

Jonathan Callaway ● 1948d

Just ignore the little scrote Barbara, I do.

Sue Hammond ● 1948d

Freddie, it's not necessary to use other people's names for them to make a comment because not many have replied. I myself have been E=mailed after being sarcastic on the war memorial thread. It appears it's OK for them to be rude or sarcastic but heaven help if your rude about Richard or his wife Jane. Then Johnathan gets involved as well and his name pops up on your E-mail from Jane. It's a one way argument so it's better to just ignore.

Barbara Stevens ● 1948d

Any wagers on how long before Ms Hammond pops her head up and tells you to "get over it"?

Freddie Francis ● 1948d