Please sign in to post.

Brexit and our Travel Forum

Hi everyone,

You may have noticed by now that several threads discussing Brexit have been removed from our forum. As a reminder, we are accepting of mentioning something that happens to be political in nature as long as the focus of the conversation deals with how it affects travel. Our #1 guideline is to stay on topic, and this is a forum for travel. Replying to or engaging in a political discussion risks removal of the whole thread. Wild conjecture can also result in the same. Let's be grounded, please.

Thanks for keeping it about travel so that everyone reading along can get the travel info they need, especially with these important changes coming to the UK.

Posted by
1084 posts

Thank you. I did notice one over the weekend that was getting political.

Posted by
20556 posts

Gone for week and missed all the fun. On subject ??? Was traveling up and down, sometimes at very high speed, on slippery slopes.

Posted by
4850 posts

Here's a travel-related complication. Some of the RS tour guides are UK (or Commonwealth) citizens. Guessing they wont be able to work in the EU without work visas post-Brexit.

Posted by
23250 posts

that's a guess.

nobody knows.

Thousands of reporters and a similar number of lawmakers are paid large amounts of money to guess too, and they don't know....

Posted by
2901 posts

Part of the challenge is that everything is just speculation at this point. When there are actual facts about travel, it will be great to have a place to share them.

Posted by
631 posts

I wouldn't call that speculation to be nearly as wild as some of the other posts we've seen, but such is the rub with this topic.

Posted by
5817 posts

Trying to work out the exact form that Brexit will take is speculation.
But working out what each type actually means for you as a business or even an individual is less speculative. The range of possibilities usually isn't that huge.
Any sensible business, travel or otherwise, who thinks they will be affected by Btexit should by this stage have an idea of how they will respond. It's perfectly possible to plan even if you aren't 100% clear what you are actually planning for. You just have to be prepared to throw out most of your plans when you finally find out what is going to happen.

Posted by
1648 posts

Part of the challenge is that everything is just speculation at this point. When there are actual facts about travel, it will be great to have a place to share them.

I'll report back. We will be going to London the first of May. In addition, we start in France and will be taking the Eurostar from Paris to London.

This is mostly a working trip for my wife, who will be meeting up with some students for a Studies Abroad Program. Everything is booked, most for months.

Since everything is speculation, we are going to stay optimistic that the repercussions will be minimal. Our first trip to London was part of a People to People European tour, back in 1966 when Deb was 14 and I was 15. I remember the train stopping at the border between Switzerland and Italy so the Italian authorities could check our passports. We stopped at every country border on that trip.

Posted by
3 posts

We will be in London next week, including on April 12--Brexit Day. We are ticketed to fly to Barcelona on April 14. I'm hoping all goes well. I'm not too worried about arrangements, except that I don't want to end up in the middle of demonstrations that could occur. I woke up to police staging outside our hotel for the Anti-Iraq War March in London in February, 2003 and as a tourist trying to avoid potential trouble, it was an unsettling experience.

Will try to remember to post how it goes.

Posted by
1084 posts

sheilafri, please come back and tell us of your experience.

Posted by
2901 posts

I was in London last week. There were demonstrators outside of Parliment, but everything was peaceful and orderly. There was a larger police presence standing around the Parliment area, but there really was nothing that would be concerning in regard to personal safety. One officer, whom I asked for directions, sheepishly told me that he had been brought in from the country just to add to police presence and he didn't know where things were either.

I will say it was extremely interesting listening to the British News and trying to follow all the political implications of this question.

I don't think that people should change their travel plans due to this issue. I would have missed a great trip if I had not continued with my plan to arrive on March 30th. I think travelers will want to keep up on how things turn out with Brexit, but I encourage you to continue with your trip plans.

Posted by
3904 posts

I wouldn't call that speculation to be nearly as wild as some of the other posts we've seen, but such is the rub with this topic.

I would suggest that much of this 'speculation' (from British posters at least) has been very much tongue in cheek born mostly through sheer frustration of the departure process (I really struggle to bring myself to use the 'B' word).

Posted by
3904 posts

It looks like Donald Tusk is urging the EU to extend the UK's decision to leave for up to a year whilst our politicians decide which career saving option is in their interest. If this is agreed then expect travel to and from the UK to remain as it currently is.

Posted by
1377 posts

Still standing by my earlier prediction, but concerned as we are headed to Scotland in August.

Posted by
6024 posts

Halloween? Really going to be the greatest "trick or treat " of all time.

Cannot say the British lack a sense of humor

Until then, no real changes for tourists

Posted by
3116 posts

Now I'm thinking about returning to London in mid October; the airfares are great on Delta now ($505 roundtrip b/w JFK & LHR). While I was in London last month, Theresa May talked about the UK leaving the EU by ~June 20 so maybe the UK will be long out of the EU by October! Still, any excuse to return....

Posted by
2651 posts

As an aside to the topic, with so much “undecided” and “uncertain” and “unknown” (terms constantly used in 2019) it’s not clear to me what people thought they were voting for in 2016.

Posted by
5817 posts

The question was simply whether to stay or remain in the EU,.
No explanation, from either side, about what that actually meant in practise.

Posted by
2651 posts

Another aside: I’m not a fan of the referendum concept, that’s why we have elected governments. Some US states have them but I don’t miss not having it.

Posted by
3904 posts

As an aside to the topic, with so much “undecided” and “uncertain” and “unknown” (terms constantly used in 2019) it’s not clear to me what people thought they were voting for in 2016.

Some voted because they were concerned with unlimited immigration from EU countries, many manual tradespeople were affected by cheaper labour coming in from abroad.

Some people did not like the concept of further integration, a United States of Europe if you will. Many disliked the concept of an EU military (which coincidentally Guy Verhofstadt has recently recommended implementing).

Some people did not like the concept of the huge levels of bureaucracy and the sometimes perceived restrictions that posed on individual nations development and progress.

Some people liked the concept that the EU implements laws that favour the general populace over big business.

Some people liked the freedom of movement concept that allowed them to travel and work freely in any EU country.

Some people liked the fact that the EU is a very powerful trading bloc (others see it as a block to free and independent trade).

Those were the main issues (obviously there were more) but everyone who botheed to vote had one or two primary reasons for voting the way they did. No-one was ever in a position to fully understand each and every impact the decision to leave would have. The UK's relationship with the rest of the EU is so intertwined that it is impossible to ever forsee even a fraction of the issues that would result.

Posted by
2901 posts

This thread has gone away from travel yet again.....

Posted by
3116 posts

it’s not clear to me what people thought they were voting for in 2016.

When I visited Cardiff for the day a few months ago, one of the things I heard often from people is that they did not want unelected bureaucrats writing laws telling the Brits what to do or what they can't do.

On the flip side, I was in London the day of the big march on the 23rd of March in which hundreds of thousands came to march on Parliament in support of a 2nd referendum. The reason I heard the most as to why they wanted that second referendum is that they did not bother to vote in 2016.

Posted by
2 posts

To ask a simple question - we will be in London in September & October - does anyone know or guess how Brexit will affect travel? Would think it would NOT affect the train between London & Paris, and London & Amsterdam? Thanks!

Posted by
1097 posts

"To ask a simple question - we will be in London in September & October - does anyone know or guess how Brexit will affect travel?"

That might be a simple question, but I'm afraid there is no simple answer!

None of us here knows, although we can guess. For what its worth (i.e. zero), my guess is that glorious Brexit will not mean anything for an American travelling to Britain or Europe. But if it does, it will just be a short-term inconvenience at borders which will be quickly sorted out. All the other bollocks about Brexit disasters will turn out to be the usual nonsense.

Posted by
6024 posts

To ask a simple question - we will be in London in September & October - does anyone know or guess how Brexit will affect travel? Would think it would NOT affect the train between London & Paris, and London & Amsterdam? Thanks!

With the 'target' date now Oct 31, I would think you should have no issues. Given the history of the process it seems there is little/no reason to expect something will happen before the target date.

My non-expert opinion is the biggest hazard to travel in/about London, in that time frame, could be masses of citizens filling the streets expressing their feelings about what is ( is not) happening.

Posted by
2901 posts

I went to the UK during the time the original Brexit was going to be happening. I am so glad that I didn't let "possible problems" worry me or keep me from going. I think you should just plan on going and enjoying yourself. If there is an issue, no need to worry about it now. This is such a fluid situation. Plan your trip then go and enjoy your trip.

Posted by
3116 posts

To ask a simple question - we will be in London in September & October
- does anyone know or guess how Brexit will affect travel? Would think it would NOT affect the train between London & Paris, and London & Amsterdam? Thanks!

If you're not a native of an EU nation, when the UK leaves the EU should have zero effect on you except perhaps longer queues. You may want to arrive earlier at the departing rail stations for that reason.

I went to the UK during the time the original Brexit was going to be
happening. I am so glad that I didn't let "possible problems" worry me
or keep me from going. I think you should just plan on going and
enjoying yourself. If there is an issue, no need to worry about it
now. This is such a fluid situation. Plan your trip then go and enjoy
your trip.

Yup, I did also. I actually CHOSE to visit the UK as I wanted to see what was happening in person.

Posted by
5817 posts

Well it’s one man’s opinion.........
It might have been nice if he had visited areas other than London and the South East before writing it and making pretty sweeping generalisations, some, slightly bizarrely, based simply on the (admittedly depressing) Ashford International Station. It seems like he had decided what he was going to write before he wrote it.

And most importantly can we ditch the use of the word “cheerio” when writing ANY article about the U.K.

Posted by
23250 posts

what a load of hogwash that article is!

He still uses the term chunnel 20 years after everybody else gave up using it.

It is unfortunate that he bases his observation on Ashford International. Since the rerouting of the trains several years ago to St Pancras International and the opening of the new Ebbsfleet International, the private company running the Eurostar trains has moved the Kent stop for all but a few trains which still serve Ashford.

Just 2 trains to Paris and 2 or 3 back out of a nearly hourly service stop at Ashford now. Just one a day to Brussels (2 on Saturday). Just one a day back, with one extra on Sunday and Friday. No wonder nobody uses it from there.

I bet if he had gone to St Pancras on that Saturday he wouldn't have found it abandoned. It says more about the town of Ashford which has been on the brink with Brexit for 3 years than it does for Eurostar.

I agree with emma that it looks like it was written before he arrived, with just a few details to slip in. He doesn't mention the brand new and refurbished trains, nor the reduction in travel time.

oh well...

Posted by
1097 posts

Impressive that one person can spout so much arse-water in a single article. Ashford Intl may be depressing, I've never been there, but St Pancras certainly isn't and it knocks spots off grim and run-down Gare du Nord. Presumably, however, that wouldn't suit the writer's metaphor (or is it an allegory?).

As for the rest, it reads like just what you'd expect from someone who has pre-written their "report" whilst living several thousand miles away on the other side of both an ocean and a continent.

MInd, I write as a proud Leaver (though one temporarily, and hypocritically, enjoying the benefits of the EU by working in Spain). At least one of the other responses is, I suspect, from a true Remainer. So if this chap has managed to get both sides to agree he is wrong then he is, at least, following in the successful path of Mrs May.

Posted by
432 posts

Thanks, Emma, Nigel, and Nick.

It should be obvious by now there is no way for most of us in the States to have your perspective, knowledge, or experience on the topic. You could ask me a question about hydroelectric development on the Snake and Columbia Rivers since the early 1900s and the likely social, biological, environmental, and economic impacts of removing some of those old dams to perhaps improve salmon migration, and I could natter on for hours, but you’d still not get the whole picture.

Posted by
5817 posts

I was trying to be polite but basically what Nick and Nigel said. And if Nick and I are in agreement on a topic you know something has probably gone wrong!
Everyone has a right to their own opinion and the opinion of vistors is always interesting even if I don't agree with it.
As we have all said this piece looks like one that has been rushed out to fit an existing opinion. It is very skewed which does a huge diservice to the people who come here to learn. So many seem to take everything that is spouted by this site as "gospel" and assume thst everything is produced by "experts" that I think maybe a little more thought should go into what is published.

Posted by
23250 posts

But thanks for posting it, bogiesan.

I thought when it came up we were going to chat about the tear-stained exit from the job speech of yesterday.

Posted by
580 posts

I vote we ban ‘cheerio’ from this forum and replace with ‘Toodle-pip, old bean’, ‘ta-ra luv’, or ‘TTFN’.

Cheerio!

(Oops).

Ian

Posted by
8293 posts

What about "cheery bye"? My husband always used that when he was doing his Geordie number.

Posted by
6006 posts

Well, you know us Americans. Once we get a word in our cultural lexicon we are loathe to let it go.

Posted by
10158 posts

Are we the "colonials" to whom (it's rumored) UK persons occasionally refer, or is that the Canadians?

Posted by
5817 posts

Joe, it's kind of like a British writer visiting the US and using the darker reaches of Penn Station as a metaphor for US politics. It can be stretched as a metaphor but it isn't particularly balanced or even accurate. Why choose Ashford as a station to tell his story? Why not the main hub, St Pancras? Probably because St Pancras demonstrates close and thriving links between the UK and mainland Europe which isn't the "story" he had decided to tell.
It's not a great approach.

A much more interesting question is why do Americans think we all say cheerio? Where did that come from?

See Ya
Laters
Ta Ra!
Tatty Bye!

Posted by
1062 posts

"Well then it appears it is eurostar that is perpetuating the usage by us in the US by putting it on the site we get here when doing a search for 'eurostar'"

I've always thought it's because Americans are resistant to change, as in calling the tube the subway, Tower Bridge they often call London Bridge, afternoon tea they call high tea, ice cream they call gelato (which shouldn't be completely frozen) etc. The owners of that website probably realise this, hence they call it the "chunnel" so American readers will instantly recognise the name.

Toodle pip.:-)

Posted by
23250 posts

No worries mate

is antipodean - although used here occasionally.

...laters....

Posted by
1097 posts

Leaving aside his strained railway station/Brexit metaphor (or is it a parable?), I thought the strangest part was his belief that Brighton today is filled with "working-class Londoners" visiting because they can't afford to go to Costa del Sol. When was he last in Brighton? Or, indeed, Costa del Sol? 1964?

Posted by
552 posts

I was surprised by "are a few weary-looking Brits, sitting sourly as if in a backed-up NHS waiting room". Has the writer any experience of the NHS at all? I have more experience than I would have liked of going to NHS hospitals and doctor's clinics, but cannot say I seem to spend much time in waiting rooms that are backed-up, or full of people sitting sourly. It just seemed like a cheap jibe with no substance behind it.

Hasta luego

Posted by
5817 posts

The whole thing seems to be a series of cheap jibes ticking buzzwords or cliches but based on very little.
I also thought the comments on Brighton were particularly odd. Has he actually been there?!

Posted by
2651 posts

The “Britain is not Europe” claim has always struck me as tedious, and wrong. At least from an American perspective where Iceland and the British Isles are as European as Germany and Italy, even if not attached to the mainland.

Posted by
1062 posts

"The “Britain is not Europe” claim has always struck me as tedious, and wrong. At least from an American perspective where Iceland and the British Isles are as European as Germany and Italy, even if not attached to the mainland."

Of course Britain is in Europe geographically but I think it's generally true that we are reluctant Europeans (as someone, can't remember who, once described us).

Posted by
5817 posts

‘The “Britain is not Europe” claim has always struck me as tedious and wrong,’

Funny that, because I find the inability of many people on this site to see any difference or nuance within Europe as equally tedious and wrong. Regular statements beginning “Europe is...” or “Europeans are” show a distinct lack of understanding.

The fact that for most of our history we have been completely separate from the main land has huge practical and psychological implications. Ignoring the “whole other kettle of fish” that is our relationship with Ireland we have never had land borders or immediate neighbours to manage or worry about.

As an island nation with, until relatively recently, a vast global empire, it would be odd if we didn’t view ourselves as different to the mainland.
Historically many of our population would be much more likely to visit India or Africa than Europe. My great uncle is a good example of that. Fighting in WWII he spent years in India and Burma, to my knowledge he never crossed the channel. My grandad was a minor officer on the White Star Line. His records show voyages to South and North America, West Africa, Australia again I don’t think he ever visited the mainland. Both were very ordinary working class men who had a global outlook, not a European one.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way anti-EU. I think Brexit is a disaster but I think the expectation/assumption of a single European identity, geographical or otherwise, is part of the reason we are in this mess.

Posted by
4465 posts

On the other hand the reference to bringing England closer to the fold after the Norman Conquest is a bit far fetched as it had spent much of the previous century entangled with the Vikings and before that was the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Also had to laugh a bit at the implication that because Modern English uses words such as art, justice and cuisine from French that the concept itself had been enhanced rather than just a displacement of the words cræft, rihtwíse and cicene (the latter sharing a root anyway).

Posted by
8486 posts

I read the article by the Rick Steves wannabe and came up with the following takeaways.....

1) He is not a fan of the UK especially since they want to breakaway from his beloved Europe. (Too bad he can't differentiate between Europe and the EU.)

2) The examples he uses are to prove his opinion of things and have very little basis in reality? Ashford International over St. Pancras? Poor Londoners in Brighton? (Perhaps in the Victorian era. Today they are more likely in Spain.) The idea that all foreign workers in the UK are there for fun.

There is an arrogance to his writing. And one sidedness. He might think it's good writing but I don't. Sadly, there will be many people who will read this and have a negative outlook of the UK.

Brexit is a complicated issue. What his article had to do with it confounds me.

Posted by
2651 posts

Emma: I suspect the French would also claim a former global empire, at least to a smaller degree.

In any event, times oscillate between exaggerating differences (esp for political gain) and exaggerating similarities and the world is mostly in the former right now. It will swing back again.

Posted by
5817 posts

Not just France. Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany all had "empires" of some form or another but I don't think any if them had an impact on the scale of the British empire, both for good and bad.
The "successor" of the Britsh Empire the Commonwealth is still seen as of relevance by many today in the UK, and to varying extents in the commonwealth countries themselves. It will be interesting to see if it survives a change in the monarchy.
All that said I think the most important factor in UK apathy towards Europe is simply the stretch of water that divides us. As an island nation we are always going to feel separate with all the "baggage" that brings.

Posted by
1062 posts

"Not just France. Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany all had "empires" of some form or another but I don't think any if them had an impact on the scale of the British empire, both for good and bad."

The success of the British Empire has been generally put down to having a better navy than the rest of Europe, it also accelerated in the early 1800's and let's not forget that we had a German royal family at that time.

Posted by
12084 posts

My professor in 1970 always reminded us that Britain is in Europe but not of Europe...very true.

The French can be glad of their franco-phone world today, those places where their empire used to be prior to the wars of decolonisation.

Posted by
3904 posts

t I think the expectation/assumption of a single European identity, geographical or otherwise, is part of the reason we are in this mess.

Spot on. The concept of free trade, free movement of goods and people within Europe and the creation of a single bloc with which to have huge bargaining power with other trading partners is the EU that most were supportive of. The continuation with the idealogical United States of Europe where national identity is gradually eroded and replaced with a notion of 'European' rather than 'English', 'German', 'Dutch', 'Romanian' etc was destined to fail, hence the rise in support of nationalist parties.

A European Union comprising of distinct countries with their respective language, cultures, cuisines, traditions et al is a far more attractive proposition than an homogenous EU that has all but smothered and nullified such important differences. I can't think of many people who would want this but this is what the upper echelons of the EU want. Brexit can be viewed (from some perspectives) as being representative of a backlash towards such an idealogy.

Posted by
1756 posts

Forty years of myths perpetuated by a Eurosceptic right wing press, and lies from the likes of Boris Johnson about EU plans to introduce same-size “eurocoffins”, establish a “banana police force” to regulate the shape of the curved yellow fruit, and ban prawn cocktail crisps certainly caused antipathy towards the EU. It’s remarkable that 48% wanted to remain.

I don’t subscribe to the view that national identity has been eroded. Differences between nations endure and continue to do so.

Austerity and increasing changes in technology have made people’s lives more insecure. That leads to a need to blame someone or something – in this case “others” whether it’s immigrants or EU institutions.

The Scots blame English Tories, English Tories blame the EU, Irish Protestants blame Irish Catholics, the French blame north Africans, Americans blame Mexicans, the Chinese, Muslims; and so it goes on.

Posted by
12084 posts

Not surprising that the GBP dropped vis-à-vis the US $ after May announced her resignation.

Posted by
1062 posts

"A European Union comprising of distinct countries with their respective language, cultures, cuisines, traditions et al is a far more attractive proposition than an homogenous EU that has all but smothered and nullified such important differences. I can't think of many people who would want this but this is what the upper echelons of the EU want. Brexit can be viewed (from some perspectives) as being representative of a backlash towards such an idealogy."

+1 to JC.

Posted by
887 posts

I'm with JC and harleydonski.

As for "differences between nations endure and continue to do so" - for now.

"The Scots blame English Tories, English Tories blame the EU, Irish Protestants blame Irish Catholics, the French blame north Africans, Americans blame Mexicans, the Chinese, Muslims; and so it goes on." - I blame Lenin/Stalin, Ted Heath, Robespierre, William the Conqueror, and Ug the Caveman, in that order. And their lawyers, which goes without saying.

Posted by
12084 posts

Robespierre was a lawyer, ie, a petty bourgois lawyer. You can visit his house in Arras too.

Posted by
653 posts

Thoughts on Brexit as it relates to travel.
When we were last in England, 2018, I made it a point to study what the foundations were for the Brexit movement. I also had a deeper question that is related to the fundamental reasons as to why we travel to different countries at all. Bare with me, as this is going to get complicated.
First, lets ask the central questions, as to why we travel at all.
Is it to see monumental/historical sites?
Is it to experience a different culture?
I'd say that both of these reasons are why we travel.
Question 1 will always hold. The monuments and historical places are not going to change.
Question 2 gets tricky. As the world gets more homogenized, experiencing something unique to a region and a local population gets more difficult.

How does this relate to Brexit? I talked to many persons, at pubs, just to understand some of it. The first two things pointed out was that they didn't feel like they, the locals, "owned," London any more. That it had been sold out to foreigners. And that these foreigners have driven up housing prices to the point whereby they felt that they would have to move out of the city. So I looked in to this: And it is true. Look at the London Skyline and only about two building that you see are owned by British Companies. I walked the South Bank and saw all the ghost hi-rises with no one living in them: all owned by foreign companies, the Rental/Condo units being owned by non-UK speculators. It felt like being in another country. Yet, all this has nothing to do with leaving the EU aside from the perception that the EU some how drove this local divestiture. The Skyline isn't owned by other EU members, nor are the Condo/Apartment buildings on South bank. They are owned by non-EU entities. This is a common mis-conception among the Brits, but it does play in to Brexit. Immigration is not a concern to the Brits, as far as the EU is concerned. It never came up as an EU issue. What does come up, once in the country side, is the perceived unfairness of EU price supports. The Brits look at France and Italy and all their little farms and agra tourist regions and get very heated in discussion - and very difficult to follow as an angry Brit speaks another language than American English. :)

The Brits want the same sort of price supports that were doled out to other EU members as a method to protect their small farms and culture.

So that is complicated. It is because of this EU Market manipulation that the Brits feel like they are losing their uniqueness. And they see London becoming a free-for-all of foreign ownership that the locals can't afford to live in any more. And if the locals all leave, is it still the London you expected to experience, or will it become some sort of Dubai /Hong Kong hybrid with a few old castles? These two issues seem to be what drives Brexit. And oddly the issue of foreign ownership doesn't even relate to the EU, yet the Brits don't parse them as entirely separate issues.

Posted by
1239 posts

"A European Union comprising of distinct countries with their respective language, cultures, cuisines, traditions et al is a far more attractive proposition than an homogenous EU that has all but smothered and nullified such important differences. I can't think of many people who would want this but this is what the upper echelons of the EU want. Brexit can be viewed (from some perspectives) as being representative of a backlash towards such an idealogy."

Sorry, cannot leave that lie. That ideology does not exist. It only exists in the warped minds of the tabloid press who have a precedent, how the UK Union treated Wales, Scotland and Ireland.

The Welsh knot, the drop in the number of Gaelic speakers in Scotland from 250 000 to 50 000 in 120 years is due to London.

I voted No in 2014, but the biggest threat to Scottish identity, and even to English regional identity, comes from those parts of the brexit establishment down south. That this thread is in the England thread is telling, brexit threatens the UK union more than anything else, yet is an English matter before anything else.

Posted by
5817 posts

I imagine it’s in the England section because many people on this site, and I imagine elsewhere, don’t know the difference between the UK and England, hence how many times questions on Scotland and Wales end up in the England section. :-)
I’ve never understood why this country is the only one that gets split up on this site.

Posted by
1239 posts

Without any other criteria, we all speak English, and Scotland has more people in it than Ireland. And then the Norte Americanos find it easier that way as it cuts the cake into easier bits.

Posted by
3904 posts

Sorry, cannot leave that lie. That ideology does not exist.

Try the Lisbon Treaty for the small end of the wedge. I pay little heed to the MSM, a little digging around can often reveal an unbiased, factual account.

Posted by
1239 posts

Which Lisbon treaty? The real one or the fake one that is making the rounds?

Posted by
3904 posts

Which Lisbon treaty? The real one or the fake one that is making the rounds?

I only deal with facts, the real one.

Posted by
1239 posts

The Treaty of Lisbon is very clear the EU is a union of nations, there is high flying language, but none of it as far as I can see says anything about a homogenised lump.

Posted by
1097 posts

London was the only English election "region" that voted to stay. The other eight all had a majority to leave, including the "regions" in the north of England. It's fair enough to suggest Brexit was a southern idea if you're living in Glasgow. But for England it certainly wasn't.

Posted by
2 posts

Fellow travellers,

I'm torn as to whether to bring this up again but the Oct 31st deadline is coming and theres a new PM now - so ... planning to travel to UK in Nov this year - what are the odds of any disruption ? I know from the past there has been minimal (food, tube, trains, flights, opening hours etc) but would this time be different or will the dealine be extended again ? Any chance of social unrest (apart from longer queues at the airport) ? as I'd hate to waste a trip all the way there from Asia ..

Understand nobody knows for sure and theres many uncertainty, but just wondering if any experts or locals with Brexit knowledge can weigh in from experience - thanks !

Posted by
6024 posts

I would not, not go, but would not plan arrival for the 1st of November. In case the 'exit' is a bumpy one it could be a good idea to let them have a few days to work on ironing out what wrinkles may occur.

And if the exit does not occur, despite all the pronouncements that it will, showing up a few days later should not have a significant affect on your visit.

My crystal ball is at the cleaners, so the above is just speculative 2 cents.

Posted by
5817 posts

Nobody knows.
Thankfully I'm not working on Brexit at the moment but the guy who sits opposite me is. Yesterday he asked me for another word for "chaos", so make of that what you want. We desperately wanted to get "kerfuffle" into his report but unfortunately it's against corporate standards.
The government have announced they are throwing £2 billion at a No deal Brexit. £180mill on a leafleting campaign, the new "Keep Calm and Carry on"..... I could weep when I think where that money could have gone. Maybe all the people losing their jobs in the car industry could get new jobs as leaflet delivers. We could strap the leaflets to all the sheep Boris has agreed to buy. I'm solutioneering here people.....

To answer your question involves guess work and it hasn't really changed from before. My guess is that every resource will be thrown at the problem when Brexit actually happens so it can be seen to run smoothly ( yes my leave has been cancelled AGAIN). The problems will come down the line, a couple of months later, when the problems haven't been solved but the financial and staffing sticking plasters are no longer in place.

If you do decide to come you will be visiting at a very interesting time in history Other than delays at the border I don't think it will impact most visitors very much, but as I said that is, slightly educated, guess work.

Posted by
3904 posts

I'm torn as to whether to bring this up again but the Oct 31st deadline is coming and theres a new PM now - so ... planning to travel to UK in Nov this year - what are the odds of any disruption ?

You say you're torn as to whether to bring this up again which suggests that you've read the many previous posts stating that nobody knows what it going to happen. Nothing's changed since then and nothing will change until the deadline....nobody knows least of all any of us on this forum. There's no point in asking a question that cannot be answered.

As for civil unrest, we're British, we don't tend to engage is such behaviour other than the poll tax riots or when a load of kids went on a widescale shoplifting spree.

Posted by
6024 posts

At the risk of crossing some indistinct line set by the webmaster, I would like to hear from the UK folks on my understanding (perhaps misunderstanding?) of the situation, which is as follows:

1- Boris -- We leave 31 Oct, with or without a deal!

2- Parliament has voted down 'the deal', and as I understand it, voted that a 'no deal' exit is prohibited.

3- EU says 'no new deal'

4- EU has to agree to extend the exit past 31 Oct. Correct?

So it seems its the debate of what happens when the Irresistible Force meets the Immovable Object.

I suppose one can conclude the impact on tourists is that everyone in the UK will be in therapy or counseling and not on the job driving trains, buses; operating the museums and restaurants. etc.

Posted by
23250 posts

joe, regarding your 4 points, at the risk of sounding repetitious, nobody knows. logic doesn't apply.

he's only been in office for 8 years oops 8 months oops days, yeah that's the one, 8 days. Sure feels like years, and I'm already a lot poorer. Give the guy a chance to really cock it up before trying to clarify the crystal ball.

Posted by
3116 posts

Why would you not go? I’m going to the UK in the end of October. The £ may be so weak that it will be a boon to visitors. It’s now £1 = $1.21 which is absolutely phenomenal.

For all anyone knows, the UK could leave the EU prior to Halloween.

I was in London at the end of March and there was a huge rally of protest on Saturday 23 March. At the time, it was thought the UK would leave the EU on 29 March. Hundreds of thousands of people from all over the UK marched toward the Palace of Westminster. Is that what you mean by “civil unrest“? As a foreigner, I found it fascinating as I got the chance to speak with different people of all ages who shared with me why they were there and what really concerned them.

Emma, what is wrong with the word kerfuffle that your company says it doesn’t meet its standards? It is not slang. It’s also not vulgar. 🤔 So synonyms of chaos: havoc, pandemonium, disorder, confusion, turmoil, uproar, commotion, clatter, mess.

Posted by
5817 posts

We did break out the thesaurus. None of the words were right so I think they went with “confusion and uncertainty”. Not the same thing but the target audience will be able to read between the lines :-)

Posted by
580 posts

Emma -

Could you have got ‘omnishambles’ in somewhere?

As Dominic Cummings is BoJo’s Brexit adviser I’m surprised he’s letting them spend £180 million on leafleting campaigns. Thought that his stance was more social media. That said, he probably never previously had access to £180 million before....

We certainly are living in interesting times - as the old Chinese curse goes!

Ian

Posted by
1038 posts

The government have announced they are throwing £2 billion at a No
deal Brexit. £180mill on a leafleting campaign, the new "Keep Calm and
Carry on"..... I could weep when I think where that money could have
gone.

Wasn't there something about money to the NHS written on a big red bus? :)

(I'm not sure if it's symbolic of anything that the bus was made in Germany.)

Posted by
1038 posts

2- Parliament has voted down 'the deal', and as I understand it, voted
that a 'no deal' exit is prohibited.

Parliament voting down a no deal was a symbolic vote. It was a way for parliament to tell the government what they want but it doesn't change anything. If parliament wants to prevent a no deal-brexit, there are two ways they can to it. Either approve a deal, or withdraw the A50 notification.

Posted by
20556 posts

I think the problem is the same on either side of the big pond --- leadership with no vision. To lead you have to have some sense of where you are going, what you want to achieve, how tomorrow is going to look. Simply being opposed to everything is not leadership. It is being an idiot because you are not required to think. It is easy to be against something but much harder to be for something. It is a little like the running of the bulls in Pamplona. You focus is on what is behind you and not what is in front. Hopefully both countries will survive to have a better day.

Posted by
5817 posts

Ianandjulie, the language in the office has become increasingly "Malcolm Tucker-esque" in relation to the topic, we just can't write it down.

Posted by
552 posts

The situation has changed slightly this morning following a by-election held in the otherwise reatively unimportant Welsh constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. Without going into details, which are more crazy than most would believe possible, the seat was previously Conservative but is now held by the Liberal Democrats, who are strongly pro-remain. This means that Boris Johnson now only has a majority of one in the House of Commons, making it more difficult for him to get a vote passed in favour of a no-deal Brexit.

So it's still unclear what will happen.

Posted by
2414 posts

and the only reason they have a majority is because of the deal they did with the DUP in Northern Ireland.

Posted by
2651 posts

I have not followed the years long Brexit melodrama very closely, so sorry if this idea has already been considered and discarded.

But has anyone proposed that the EU laws be amended to allow a member state to pay an annual penalty for the privilege of being allowed to control its own borders and set its own immigration rules? Seems like that solves a lot of the major problems, and of course no one is happy, but it avoids a reckless result. Why not funnel back a part of all those proposed losses from a hard Brexit as a penalty, and keep the UK in the EU?

Posted by
6060 posts

But has anyone proposed that the EU laws be amended to allow a member
state to pay an annual penalty for the privilege of being allowed to
control its own borders and set its own immigration rules?

That sounds like moral hazard to me. Any nation may want to pay to opt out of (cherry picked) rules it does not like, and that would create a major headache for the whole EU project.

Posted by
1038 posts

It seems like a no deal Brexit is getting more likely. What that would mean for tourists is hard to say, but there will probably be some kind of disruptions. And personally I would not plan a trip to the UK in early November.

Posted by
1829 posts

I would just like to add here that I very much appreciate all the information that has been provided by those actually living in the UK and also those who have made themselves well-informed on the issue whether residing in the United Kingdom or not. I am following this avidly, not that I have a trip to the UK planned for any time soon (at least not yet!) but I am truly interested in how this all shakes out and what the repercussions will be for all the people of the United Kingdom and the travelers who would like to visit. And also how this is going to impact the EU. We live in "interesting times" for sure.

Posted by
6006 posts

That sounds like moral hazard to me. Any nation may want to pay to opt out of (cherry picked) rules it does not like, and that would create a major headache for the whole EU project.

Agnes, I agree with you. Either there's an EU or there's not. Either you're in or you're not. An EU with individual country opt outs for this or that would not last and would defeat the whole purpose.

As an outsider I don't have any personal information or experience to determine whether the UK's exit is good or bad, but my gut says it's going to be a mess and that they're going to regret it. I hope I'm proven wrong.

Posted by
2651 posts

it's going to be a mess and that they're going to regret

I’ll bet that it isn’t that messy, but yes regret will surface later.

Reading about the EEC/EU I’m surprised at all the national referendums over the years about membership: Switzerland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway and the UK at a minimum. Since there are no national elections in the US, only state elections (the states elect the president), a national referendum isn’t possible.

Posted by
985 posts

I don't know all the ins and outs of the matter, but didn't the UK opt out of the Euro while keeping the GBP? Does that open a small window for other independent opt outs? The UK with their history on an island have a more independent streak in their veins, perhaps.

Posted by
2651 posts

Mike:

One could make an interesting matrix of which European nations are in which organization: EU, NATO, Euro zone, and Schengen zone. It’s quite a hodgepodge.

What I just learned is that the main upgrade from the old EEC customs union to the EU (1993) was the free movement of workers between countries. So compromising on that would be a huge deal— but it could still be done recognizing that Eastern Europeans are learning English, not French or German, so the UK is going to be the major destination and bear a special burden.

Posted by
5817 posts

There are a number of opt outs that the UK have applied over the years.
EU law really isn't my area but I know it wasn't that long ago that we negotiated to "opt in" to a number of European law enforcement and justice measures under the Treaty of Lisbon, whilst opting out of a much larger number. This was all done whilst Theresa May was Home Secretary. There has always been a level of flexibility in the relationship something that really wasn't explained during the referendum process.

Posted by
1038 posts

my gut says it's going to be a mess and that they're going to regret
it

A no deal will certainly be a mess. And while the current PM is known for having a flexible relationship with the concept of telling the truth, it seems like the government's plan at the moment is to go for a no deal Brexit and blame the EU for any drawbacks to that approach. So I would certainly not book a trip to the UK in early november, and if I was flying somewhere, not book a flight that involved a transfer in the UK.

I don't know all the ins and outs of the matter, but didn't the UK opt
out of the Euro while keeping the GBP?

The UK has a couple of opt outs, the two most known are the euro and Schengen. The other are more technical.

One could make an interesting matrix of which European nations are in
which organization: EU, NATO, Euro zone, and Schengen zone. It’s quite
a hodgepodge.

No need to, there is a pretty good one at wikipedia.

Posted by
5817 posts

It’s always interesting to read a newspaper article about a topic that you actually know something about! although I haven’t worked on it in a while.
Yellowhammer has been the project name for cross government Brexit work since the start. Despite what the article says the work is not “covert”. The findings for my area of work are widely known within the community. They have to be because a huge amount of effort and money(!) is going into preparing for them. That the government has decided not to publicise them. is another (politically motivated) matter.

The fact that politicians are still using the phrase “project fear” is an absolute disgrace. Yellowhammer is not remainer “scaremongering”. It is preparatory work carried out by professionals who are working hard to prepare for a situation that has the potential to seriously impact on the safety and security of British citizens. This document only discusses the most likely situation. The real “fun” is in discussions around worst case.

Posted by
2651 posts

Brexit supporters say ... the economy will thrive if cut free from what they cast as a doomed experiment in integration that has led to Europe falling behind China and the United States.

I thought this a dubious statement so checked, and since 2015 the GNP of the US has been larger than the EU, and it hadn’t been previously.

Posted by
631 posts

We're getting back to speculation and approaching a point in discussion where the direction is about taking sides in a political matter.

This is not a political forum. Please keep it about travel.

Posted by
985 posts

Absent certainty I fall into the camp of go for it, because really anything is possible and if you live your life with catastrophic "what ifs?" regarding future travel, you would never go anywhere.