Category Archives: Brexit

The Brexit deal may be done and dusted, but the repercussions are far from over. The UKs messy exit from the EU continues to cause enormous upheaval.

Ten months on from the withdrawal agreement, Downing Street is still wrangling with Brussels over arrangements for Northern Ireland hoping that some of the signed commitments can be ripped up and rewritten.

Britain is struggling with labour shortages and supply chain chaos, European citizens in the UK face unresolved problems proving their legal status, and the mood music from the latest London-Brussels is forever changing. Keeping up can feel like a full-time job.

But dont worry:The Independentis here to help. We are launching a new, weekly Brexit and beyond newsletter to help keep our readers up to date with all the latest news, analysis and opinion.

Well be updating you every Thursday morning on the latest developments, as well as looking ahead at whats likely to happen next.

Our free email newsletter will fill you in on the latest post-Brexit impacts and what Britains status outside the single market and customs union means for our food supplies, bank balances and the business environment.

Well also be filling you in on the latest from London and Brussels, as Brexit minister Lord Frost threatens to trigger Article 16, suspend the Northern Ireland Protocol and risk an ugly trade war with the EU.

As well as providing the crucial details, the newsletter will bring in views from all sides of the debate to give some insight from those who look at Brexit as a positive as well as those who see the downsides.

Signing up to The Independents Brexit and Beyond email is easy, it takes just one click in the box at the top of this article after filling out your email address or you can click here.

Should you ever change your mind, each email comes with a link to unsubscribe.

See the original post here:

Brexit and beyond: The Independent launches new weekly newsletter - The Independent

The British TV industry is losing the arguments around Public Service Broadcasting and hasnt yet found the words to make an effective case, according to Brexit: The Uncivil War and Quiz creator James Graham.

Graham, who is also behind BBC1s upcoming drama Sherwood, said a new case needs to be forged to keep broadcasting in public hands, with Channel 4 potentially on the verge of being sold to a private buyer.

More from Deadline

Unless we can find that language and case I worry about the decline of broadcasters which, if they didnt exist, would deplete our cultural language, said Graham. We are losing the arguments around PSB.

Graham was arguing passionately at todays Freeview Outside the Box event in a VT alongside historian and broadcaster David Olusoga, presenter Mobeen Azhar and former Endor Creative Director Sara Johnson, who has just launched disability advocacy group Bridge 06.

Olusoga called on creatives to shout and convince our leaders to recognize what a success story British broadcasting is, while Azhar said broadcasters should learn from the big tech companies and streaming services to respond to the demands of an increasingly savvy and increasingly knowing audience.

Speaking later on an Outside the Box panel, PSB champion Jane Bonham Carter said PSBs can bring the UK government on side with powerful arguments about the PSBs global soft power and economic success.

The streamers are only here because of the incredibly successful PSB industry and talent, explained Bonham Carter, whose cousin is The Crown star Helena Bonham Carter.

Our PSBs represent our culture as well as the cultures of beyond and that is not something the streamers are interested in.

Story continues

Best of Deadline

Sign up for Deadline's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Read more:

Quiz and Brexit: Uncivil War Creator James Graham: We Are Losing The Arguments Around Public Service Broadcasting - Yahoo Entertainment

The value of trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland has rocketed since Brexit with cross-border business increasing in both directions, official data shows.

Figures released on Wednesday by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) in Dublin show that the value of imports from Northern Ireland surged by 60% in the first nine months of 2021 and are now valued at 2.8bn (2.37bn).

Trade in the other direction has also increased, with a 48% rise in exports to Northern Ireland from the republic, bringing the total value of trade to 2.57bn for January to September 2021.

Comparative figures are not available to show any changes in trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain since January as the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency does not collect such data.

However, the CSO figures alone will bolster the arguments by the Brexit minister, Lord Frost, that the UKs departure from the EU has damaged trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland but boosted traffic with the republic.

He is currently in Northern Ireland for talks with business and political party leaders and told BBC Radio Ulster on Wednesday that the trade links between the region and Great Britain were being worn away.

I think in aggregate, the trade links with Great Britain and Northern Ireland are about three times as big as those with Ireland and the single market. So in aggregate those links in Great Britain are incredibly important. So its those [links] that are being sort of worn away by the way the protocol is working, and thats why its so important to deal with them, he said.

While the trade flows between the republic and Northern Ireland are increasing, the CSO figures show they also represent a fraction of the countrys overall business, accounting for just 2% of exports and 4% of imports.

They also show the negative impact of Brexit on trade between the republic and Great Britain, once its single biggest trading partner.

Although exports were up by 36% to Great Britain, where no Brexit checks yet apply, imports almost flatlined, rising just 2%.

September figures from the CSO showed a 32% year-on-year drop in exports from GB to Ireland in the first seven months of the year, with notable declines in food and live animals, all now subjected to documentary and physical checks on arrival in the republic.

The 2% rise in exports from Great Britain in September compared with the same month in 2020 suggests the decline has been arrested with the overall value of imports for the first nine months down by 21%.

Business leaders have blamed the Brexit checks and controls that now exist at Irish ports and airports, with paperwork and health certification required for all imports from Britain.

Data collected by the CSO is a valuable measure of the impact of Brexit. From January the statistics agency separated out all trade to Northern Ireland in its data to produce monthly reports to account for Brexit.

Here is the original post:

Trade surges between Northern Ireland and Ireland after Brexit - The Guardian

An Amazon sign is pictured at the Amazon Fulfilment Centre in Peterborough, east England.Photo: Daniel Leal-Olivas / AFP (Getty Images)

Amazon will stop accepting credit cards from Visa as early as January, according to multiple reports early Wednesday. Why? Its yet another thing that can be blamed on Brexit, the UKs split from the European Union in 2020.

Last month, Visa raised the fees it charges online retailers for each transaction, something it blamed on the UK leaving the EU. In turn, Amazon says it simply doesnt want to pay higher fees and will stop accepting Visa credit cards, though Visa debit cards will still be accepted through the online retailer.

Visa obviously isnt happy with the situation, but the company is trying to put a positive spin on the immediate situation. Visa pointed out that Amazon will still be accepting all Visa credit cards in the UK through Christmas and suggested they might be able to get things sorted out by the January 19 deadline imposed by Amazon.

UK shoppers can use their Visa debit and credit cards at Amazon UK today and throughout the holiday season, a spokesperson for Visa told Gizmodo by email early Wednesday morning.

We are very disappointed that Amazon is threatening to restrict consumer choice in the future. When consumer choice is limited, nobody wins, the spokesperson continued.

We have a long-standing relationship with Amazon, and we continue to work toward a resolution, so our cardholders can use their preferred Visa credit cards at Amazon UK without Amazon-imposed restrictions come January 2022.

Amazon did not respond to a request for comment early Wednesday.

Visa wasnt the only financial institution to start charging higher fees after Brexit. Mastercard did something similar, though higher credit card fees are really the least of Britains worries at the moment. The UK is suffering from a shortage of truck driversa profession that formerly relied on a large immigrant populationleaving empty shelves in many grocery stores across the country.

The UK is trying to get more drivers by instituting a streamlined immigrant visa system, but there have been few takers, according to the BBC. Great work, Britain. Or, more specifically, Britains Boomers. You really knocked it out of the park with this whole Brexit thing. Surely, food shortages and higher credit card fees are just the beginning in a long line of great innovations youve brought to your country.

Read the original post:

Amazon to Stop Taking Visa Credit Cards in the UK Thanks to Brexit - Gizmodo

One early complaint made by British Eurosceptics about EU membership was the undue influence of unelected bureaucrats. So there is some irony, or perhaps just hypocrisy, about the power wielded by Lord Frost over a vital area of national interest.

Lord Frost sits in the cabinet as Boris Johnsons Brexit minister by virtue of a peerage. He has never faced election. He has been a bureaucrat (at the Foreign Office) and an industry lobbyist (for scotch whisky). In the latter role, he was unimpressed by the economic case for Brexit. Even the best-case outcome cant be as good as what we have now, he wrote in 2016.

Lord Frosts current position is different, but it unintentionally vindicates his old view. He is upset by the barriers to trade raised by Brexit, especially as they affect Northern Ireland. Last week, he repeated a warning that the government was prepared to trigger article 16 an emergency brake clause in the Brexit deal if British objections to the Northern Ireland protocol are not satisfied. The EU responds that significant concessions have already been offered with no reciprocal engagement and that UK demands regarding European court jurisdiction are unreasonable, being peripheral to the practical matter of trade flows.

The treaty envisages article 16 as a remedy for specific problems with the operation of the protocol. But Lord Frosts complaint is the imposition of EU law as adjudicated by the European court of justice. That is a function of Northern Ireland remaining in the single market for goods a choice agreed by all sides to avoid imposing a land border on the island of Ireland. If the UK is now rejecting that compromise, it is, in effect, repudiating the whole deal. Article 16 triggered on that basis would be seen as a hostile act and met with robust counter-measures.

A trade war is not inevitable. A landing zone for agreement is discernible through the rhetorical fog. Ending European court involvement is a non-starter, since it means rejecting the unique regulatory status carved out for Northern Ireland in deference to the Good Friday agreement, which is at the core of any Brexit agreement. But governance structures could be tweaked to filter the courts judgments through bilateral arrangements that allow Downing Street a face-saving new sliver of sovereignty. If that ideological itch is scratched, technical solutions on customs follow.

It is plainly in Northern Irelands interests for the UK government to focus on the implementation of the protocol and stop raising doubts about its legitimacy. The UK economy, struggling to bounce back from Covid, does not need any more uncertainty or trade disruption. Those imperatives are understood in Whitehall, where not everyoneshares Lord Frosts fundamentalism. The Brexit minister himself has said he prefers a consensual way forward, easing the governmentsfinger from the article 16 trigger as thehazards loom larger.

But a deal requires a change in direction from Downing Street and Mr Johnson does not like to be seen to compromise with Brussels. Nor does he engage with Brexit detail before a crisis forces his hand. That crisis is imminent. If the primeministerthinks article 16 is a lever for strengthening the UKs position, he is badly mistaken. If escalation is the route advised to him by Lord Frost, he needs new counsel.

Read more:

The Guardian view on Brexit escalation: leave Frost out in the cold - The Guardian

Voters now want to rejoin the EU, polls show, in evidence that goods shortages and spats with Brussels are fuelling disillusionment with Brexit.

A four-point surge in support for reversing the 2016 referendum means 53 per cent back membership in a survey by Savanta ComRes, with 47 per cent wanting to stay out of the EU.

One in ten Leave voters want to rejoin the bloc, as do one in five Conservative supporters, the poll found while 40 per cent of adults back a fresh referendum within the next five years.

Strikingly, it is the second survey in recent days to have produced the same six-point margin in favour of EU membership nearly one year after Brexit was completed.

Savanta ComRes pointed to momentum shifting towards a majority who would now vote to rejoin the EU, despite no political party advocating the policy.

Issues such as disrupted supply chains and spats with fellow European leaders over fishing and vaccines may have cut through, although the results are still on a knife-edge, said research director Chris Hopkins.

He pointed to the 77 per cent of 18- to 34-year-olds who support rejoining and no fewer than 80 per cent of those who failed to vote in 2016, adding: The Brexit story isnt going away any time soon.

All eyes will be on those who did not vote in 2016 and younger voters who may have not had the opportunity to, who are both overwhelmingly in favour of the UK becoming a member again.

The polls come as the economic damage from leaving the EU becomes clearer after the Office for Budget Responsibility said GDP will fall by 4 per cent, twice the loss from the Covid pandemic.

Since what Boris Johnson called his excellent trade deal came into force on 1 January, exporters have protested at huge costs and barriers, which swiped 17bn from trade in just three months.

Ministers were also forced to concede that Brexit was a key cause behind the autumn food and fuel shortages which have put Christmas deliveries at risk.

However, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats are shying away from any attempt to rejoin the EU question, Keir Starmer making clear his determination to make Brexit work.

Meanwhile, the prime minister is thought to see advantage in stoking Brexit battles, as a way to hang onto the Labour-switching Red Wall voters who delivered his 2019 landslide.

However, the Savanta ComRes poll found that one in six Leave voters would support a referendum within the next five years.

* The pollster interviewed 2,231 UK adults between 5 and 7 November, excluding dont knows from the results obtained

Visit link:

Voters want to reverse Brexit amid shortages and EU clashes, polls show - The Independent

Royal Dutch Shell said on Monday it would scrap its dual share structure and move its head office to Brexit Britain from the Netherlands, pushed away by Dutch taxes and facing climate pressure in court as the energy giant shifts from oil and gas.

The company, which long faced questions from investors about its dual structure and had recently been hit by a Dutch court order over its climate targets, aims to drop "Royal Dutch" from its name - part of its identity since 1907 - to become Shell Plc.

The firm has been in a long-running tussle with the Dutch authorities over the country's 15 percent dividend withholding tax on some of its shares, making them less attractive for international investors.

Shell introduced the two-class share structure in 2005 after a previous corporate overhaul.

The new single structure with all shares under British law means none of its shares would be under this tax. It would also allow Shell to strike swifter sales or acquisition deals.

The Dutch government said on Monday it was "unpleasantly surprised" by Shell's plans to move to London from The Hague.

In a political long-shot, Dutch Economic Affairs Minister Stef Blok contacted the heads of political parties in parliament on Monday to gauge support for scrapping the dividend tax, broadcaster RTL reported.

The government was forced to withdraw the same plan in 2018 following widespread opposition to the move, which was seen by the public as a gift to foreign shareholders.

Reacting to the Dutch government's attempt to convince Shell to stay in the Netherlands, Italian MEP Marco Zanni delivered a strong attack on Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

The Lega politician said: "Royal Dutch Shell says goodbye to the Netherlands and moves its tax office to London in a large operation that simplifies the corporate structure.

READ MORE:Macron humiliated as his OWN culture guru plans to leave

"So Brexit is not the failure they want us to believe. The Dutch government's reaction to the announcement seems desperate.

"Rutte, who never missed an opportunity to give lessons to Italy, is trying in every way a parliamentary majority to eliminate the 15 percent tax on dividends and persuade Shell to step back before the assembly on December 10.

"A bitter fate for those who have made tax dumping their fortune: the Netherlands attract more than 100 billion in profits from abroad every year - 5 billion from Italy alone - for the low taxation promised by the Dutch government.

"It is also curious that those who fill their mouths with the green revolution and the energy transition then end up kneeling to the demands of the fourth-largest oil group in the world."

DON'T MISS:Sturgeon told to halt Brexit 'grandstanding' after Frost sent letter[INSIGHT]Brexit: Frost's Article 16 masterstroke pays off![LIVE BLOG]Macron backlash over decision to snub EU with French flag change[ANALYSIS]

Shell's decision will be seen as a vote of confidence in London after Britain's exit from the European Union triggered a shift in billions of euros in daily share trading from the UK capital to Amsterdam.

Shell's shares, which will still be traded in Amsterdam and New York under the plan, climbed more than two percent in London on Monday morning after the news.

"The current complex share structure is subject to constraints and may not be sustainable in the long term," Shell said, as it announced its plan to change the structure.

The dual structure means Shell now has primary listings in both London and Amsterdam, as well as two overarching legal headquarters despite operating as one economic group.

Such set-ups are expensive and complex, requiring the replication of board-level functions in two jurisdictions as well as being incorporated under two different legal regimes.

The change requires at least 75 percent of votes by shareholders at a general meeting to be held on Dec. 10, the company said.

"Among other benefits, the proposed changes will increase Shell's ability to buy back shares," Jefferies said in a research note.

Shell has said it would return $7billion from selling US assets to ConocoPhillips in addition to an ongoing share buyback programme.

Here is the original post:

'Desperate' Dutch PM blasted as he scrambles to stop Shell's move to UK - Daily Express

A simple analysis about the unfolding crisis in Northern Ireland has established itself as settled wisdom among almost all informed observers across Europe, the United States, and even Britain: Its all Londons fault.

The story is convincing. It was Britain that voted for Brexit despite warnings about the threat it posed to peace in Northern Ireland; Britain that imposed Brexit on Northern Ireland even though the people there voted to remain in the European Union; Britain that chose the hardest possible version of Brexit, one that it knew would be the most disruptive for Northern Ireland; and, finally, Britain that signed a treaty with the EU that it is now threatening to partially revoke over issues in Northern Ireland. All of these charges are true.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is publicly committed to unilaterally abandoning core parts of the 2019 Brexit deal he signed unless he can negotiate significant changes, insisting that the move is necessary because the practical impact of the agreement is undermining the fragile social, economic, and political consensus in Northern Ireland established by the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. But with trust having collapsed between Britain and the EU over Brexit and a raft of other related issues, the EU believes that Johnson is acting in bad faith and has threatened to retaliate, up to and including scrapping the entire Brexit agreement.

And yet even if Brexitand the specific form of Brexit that Britain has pursued since 2016lies at the root of this crisis (which is true), it does not necessarily follow that London is wrong about the current threat to stability in Northern Ireland, or that it is wrong to try to combat this threat. It can be true both that Johnson is an untrustworthy and irresponsible leader who has made the situation worse and that the deal he signed (which he claimed was great and won an election to ratify) really does threaten the very peace settlement in Northern Ireland that it was meant to protect. What is more, if this is the case, the EU must share some responsibility for the mess, for the deal was made as much in Europe as in Britain.

The worsening rhetoric between Britain and the EU is setting the two on a course to a permanently hostile relationship, and the United States will inevitably be dragged into the mess. The crisis, in other words, risks metastasizing into an ongoing geopolitical challenge among historic Western allies in which everyone loses.

At the heart of the problem is Northern Irelands unique politics, which only functions based on a carefully constructed balance of power between its British-unionist and Irish-nationalist communities in which both sides must give their consent to any major changes. The former favors staying part of the United Kingdom, while the latter wants to secede and reunify with the independent Republic of Ireland, which remains an EU member state. The lesson of Northern Irish history is that power is either shared between these two communities or imposed upon them in one form or another by the U.K., leading to instability and unrest. Naomi Long, the leader of the Alliance Party, which does not identify as either unionist or nationalist and has seen its support grow in recent years, told me that this setup needs overhauling, arguing that it disenfranchises her own party and its supporters. I dont want my future to forever be dictated by sectarian tribes, she said. Yet this is the system in Northern Ireland, and as of today, first with the vote for Brexit and then with the form Brexit has taken, power is being imposed, with the inevitable consequence that support for power-sharing is draining awaya threat to the very foundations of the Good Friday Agreement.

For the exhausted onlooker, the obvious question is: Why is this an issue again? In 2019, after three years of crisis following the Brexit referendum, the U.K. and the EU finally agreed on a divorce package. A central part of the deal was something called the Northern Ireland protocol, which on its face was supposed to protect the peace settlement that has held since the Good Friday Agreement. That peace agreement, now more than 20 years old, kept Northern Ireland in the U.K. but established power-sharing between its unionist and nationalist communities, paving the way for the Irish Republican Army to give up its war against the British state, which in turn allowed the British state to remove most of its military and security infrastructure from Northern Ireland.

The protocol ensured that even though Northern Ireland would leave the EU with the rest of the United Kingdom, there would be no need for a return to any kind of hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which nationalists feared would disrupt their ability to move and trade freely across the frontier. The problem is that the protocol did this by moving the border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. instead, which to many unionists disrupts their ability to trade easily within their own country.

To Johnsons critics, this is the inevitable consequence of Britains own policies: first to leave the EUs single market and customs union (rather than to pursue a soft Brexit) and second to promise that no border infrastructure would be erected anywhere on the land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Because Brexit necessarily means borders where once there were none, this meant that the only other place where required checks on goods could be carried out was between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In this telling, the latest crisis over Northern Ireland is just another example of Johnsons cakeism, in which he tries to have it all ways, avoiding the consequences of the choices he has made. And there is much truth in this.

Close inspection of what Johnson is actually asking for, however, reveals something less radical. He is seeking not to reopen the fundamental question of where the new border is placed but to reduce the scale of its impact, to make it palatable to Northern Irish unionists. The specific ways in which he proposes doing this may be unreasonable or go too far in the minds of his opponents, but they are not as significant a proposition as they might first appear. Johnson is threatening not to suspend the Brexit agreement if he doesnt get his way, but to use an emergency provision within it that was specifically included in case there were economic, societal or environmental difficulties or a diversion of trade as a result of Brexits implementation. The British government argues that this bar has clearly been met.

Understanding the risks of inaction, or even insufficient action, is also crucial. Since the Brexit agreement was reached, Northern Irelands unionist representatives have all opposed the deal. To assuage their concerns, the British government has sought to limit the borders practical impact, unilaterally extending grace periods for businesses and the like (something initially opposed by the EU). Yet this has not proved enough.

Today, unionist partiesone-half of Northern Irelands delicate political balanceall reject the protocol, even in its half-administered form. According to prominent figures within Northern Irish unionism whom I spoke with, unless significant changes can be agreed on within the next few weeks, power-sharing is likely to collapse.

With elections for Northern Irelands assembly due in May, political shifts in unionism and nationalism suggest that power-sharing would not easily be resurrected. Within unionism, if the protocol is not significantly amended, the main unionist party, the Democratic Unionist Party, believes that it would have no choice but to leave government or risk losing support to a rival, and much more hard-line-unionist, party that opposes the Good Friday Agreement. That would almost guarantee that the largest nationalist party, Sinn Finfor so long the political wing of the IRAwould win elections for the first time in Northern Irelands history. Such a result would further destabilize and radicalize unionism, making the resurrection of power-sharing even harder.

We will be in this perpetual cycle, Doug Beattie, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, which negotiated the Good Friday Agreement and which has historically been the most moderate of Northern Irelands unionist parties, told me. Everything weve gained could be lost in the blink of an eye.

In one sense, why should anyone outside Britain or Ireland care about a political breakdown of this nature? Northern Ireland is about the size of Connecticut, but with half of the population and nowhere near the wealth. It has no significant natural resources or strategic economic interests. In almost every way, it is irrelevant to the core interests of Europes great powers and certainly to the U.S., even if there are obvious moral and political reasons to resolve the dispute.

And yet the internal political dynamics of this small bit of the U.K. now threaten to grow into the most serious long-term political crisis within the Western alliance. The EU and what was its second-largest economy are on the road to an ever more fractious relationship, bedeviled by distrust and animosity, that risks descending into an all-out trade war that could undermine core diplomatic and security cooperation.

Both the U.K. and the EU have long known this but ignored the warnings, believing that whatever deal they thrashed out could be imposed on Northern Ireland without the consent of both sides of the political-sectarian divide there. This is essentially the position still taken by the EU, Ireland, and parts of the U.S. establishment, which have concluded that Johnsons governmentif it wishedcould back down in its demands and reach a compromise with the EU broadly along the lines already agreed upon, and Northern Irelands unionists would, in the end, have to swallow it.

A more nuanced argument made by some Irish nationalists I spoke with, as well as opponents of Brexit in the U.K., the EU, and beyond, is that the tension we are now seeing was an inevitable consequence of Brexit. Matthew OToole, an Irish-nationalist member of the Northern Ireland assembly who supports the protocol, told me that the only long-term solution is a stabilized relationship between Britain and the EU, which, in his view, London is deliberately avoiding with its antagonistic stance toward the EU and its member statesprincipally Franceon a number of issues.

This analysis is clearly true insofar as Northern Irelands future does rely on a stable relationship between the U.K. and the EU, but it implicitly assumes that the tension is all the fault of Johnson. More fundamentally, though, the analysis also works in reverse. The relationship between the U.K. and the EU cannot be stabilized until the situation in Northern Ireland is resolved. And right now it is far from resolved. Northern Ireland today is a rot in the heart of the Western alliance that is being left untreated.

Both the U.K. and the EU believe that they have learned lessons from the past few years of Brexit negotiations, but in reality, both are repeating mistakes that led to this situation in the first placeimposing deadlines, marking red lines, threatening maximalist retaliation.

The conclusion London has drawn is that the only way to get the EU to move is to ramp up the pressure. The lesson is, you have to be tough, tough, tough, one senior U.K. official close to Johnson told me, speaking on the condition of anonymity to candidly discuss the negotiations. In return, the EU has decided that it cannot afford to give the impression of weakness over Northern Ireland, partly in case that encourages further moves against the blocs sovereignty from within the EU itself, especially given ongoing disputes with Poland and Hungary about the extent of EU power over member states. Yet, according to those in 10 Downing Street, this has only had the equal and opposite effect in Britainconfirming the need to be independent of such calculations in Brussels. And so the merry-go-round continues.

The truth is that the EU simply does not trust Johnsonand for this Johnson must take some of the blame. In London, though, Johnsons most senior advisers are deeply frustrated that the EU does not seem to understand the scale of the crisis potentially coming unless a consensus can be reached over how to manage the border. For the U.K., which already has an ongoing security threat to deal with in Northern Ireland, maintaining stability within its territory has become a first order matter of state, more important than any kind of crisis in relations with Washington, according to two senior figures close to Johnson who asked for anonymity to discuss government strategy.

From 10 Downing Streets perspective, Britain has taken a major political hit to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland and to protect Irelands place in the EUs single market. As a result, it needs far more help to limit the scale of the internal border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Too often, officials close to Johnson feel, the situation is dismissed by the EU as something being used simply to score political points, when, according to those familiar with Johnsons thoughts on the matter, he has become the most hard-line of all on the issue, seeing it as a question of territorial integrity and internal stability.

The ultimate risk is that either a deal is made that does not go far enough to stop the collapse of power-sharing in Northern Ireland and the feared spiral of disorder or a deal cannot be reached and the work of the past five years negotiating Britains withdrawal from the EU is undone, meaning, in time, the return of a border in Ireland, which would present just as much of a challenge to the peace settlement as the political crisis being faced today.

The EU and much of conventional wisdom argue that any move by Johnson to undo the Northern Ireland protocol will lead to such an outcome over time, creating momentum that will inevitably destabilize Northern Irelands and Britains relationship with the EU. Yet this analysis fails to acknowledge that the status quowhich many have been defending until recentlyis itself now a destabilizing factor.

After five years, then, we are back to square one, with each side effectively declaring that no deal is apparently better than a bad deal. This would represent a total failure of politicsone that would damage not only Northern Ireland but Britain and Europe as well, and so, by extension, the Western alliance more broadly. A plague on all your houses.

Continue reading here:

Why Northern Ireland Is an Unlikely Threat to the Western Alliance - The Atlantic

The Spanish government have scrapped visa requirements for UK artists touring the country post-Brexit, in a deal hailed as a big victory.

Last month, a number of figures from the music industry spoke toNMEabout how new visa rules, as well as prohibitive costs and admin rules, meant that many UK artists could no longer afford to tour in Spain cutting off one of the biggest markets for UK talent.

It has now been announced that, after conversations between UK-based live music association LIVE and the Association for British Orchestras (ABO) alongside Spanish organisation Asociacin Promotores Musicales, UK touring musicians and their crew will no longer need visas if they are touring in Spain for less than 90 days.Craig Stanley, Chair of the LIVE Touring Group, commented: We are delighted that our hard work has paid off and the Spanish Government has agreed to lift the restrictive visa process for touring artists, ending the complicated and painful process of expensive visa applications. A whole host of people came together both here and in Spain to fix this situation and this shows what we can achieve as an industry when we work together.Despite the scrapping of visa requirements, major issues surrounding touring in Spain, particularly relating to transporting merchandise and cabotage rules, which currently state that trucks travelling from the UK are only allowed to make one stop in an EU state before having just seven days to make a maximum of two more before returning home.Stanley added: We are calling on the Government to follow our lead and urgently work to fix the rules with the remaining member states so that we can continue to tour across the entirety of the European Union.

Frank Carter performing at Primavera Sound festival 2019 in Barcelona, Spain. Credit: Xavi Torrent/WireImage.

Rising post-punk bandsSquidandBlack Country, New Roadare among those to have recently pulled out of Spanish shows without any hint of rescheduling their respective tours as promotersPrimavera Sound noted, and figures from within the industry spoke to NME about the problems being faced.

Ina Tatarko is one of Squids managers and usually works as their tour manager. Speaking toNME,she explained how COVID restrictions coupled with crippling costs meant theyd be unable to perform in the country.

Its been super-frustrating that you now have to pay customs to take your merch items into the EU, she said. You have to get carnets for all your equipment and all the costs that werent there before are just adding up.

For emerging artists, these are costs that they cant front from anywhere. A European support tour would be a really great way to elevate their career and profiles, but this just filters a lot of them out because youd have to have the funds to do it.

Despite the positive news regarding visa-free touring being allowed in Spain, many countries in the EU currently still require expensive visas for UK artists to tour.

Last month, the UK government was accused of more spin and misinformation and no progress over the ongoing Brexit touring fiasco. Criticism continues after the government jeopardised the future of touring for UK artists when theBrexitdeal secured with the EU failed tonegotiate visa-free travel and Europe-wide work permitsfor musicians and crew.

Problems remain when it comes to new rules and red tape, creating huge costs to future live music toursof the continent for both musicians and crew which could create a glass ceiling thatprevents rising and developing talentfrom being able to afford to do so.

In another knock-on effect of leaving the EU, UK independent artists and labels have spoken of the outrageous impact and spiralling costs of sending music and merchandise to Europe in the wake ofBrexit.

Read the original:

Brexit: UK musicians will be able to tour in Spain visa-free after deal achieved - NME.com

From the end of 2022, British holidaymakers will need to pay a fee to simply step foot in the Schengen Zone.

The European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) is due to be rolled out next year. The visa-waiver scheme means all third country nationals, including those from the UK, must fill in a form and pay a fee in order to travel to the EU.

The new document adds another step to the growing list of pre-holiday admin, which now includes proof of vaccine certification, testing requirements, and possible quarantine, depending on your destination.

So what is the ETIAS, how much does it cost, and when will it start? Below, we answer all your questions on the new scheme and how it will affect you.

The ETIAS is a visa-waiver scheme, similar to the ESTA system in the United States. Now the United Kingdom is considered a third country after Brexit, British travellers going to Schengen Area countries will have to pay a 7 ETIAS fee before travel.

All Schengen countries, so: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

No. Since Ireland is not part of the Schengen Area, you will not need an ETIAS to enter Ireland.

The ETIAS scheme was supposed to come in from January 2021, but European authorities have delayed the launch date. It is expected to be phased in from early 2022 and then to become fully operational by the end of 2022.

No. There are a number of official-looking websites containing information about ETIAS, but it is best to wait until the scheme officially launches on the European Commission website.

Yes and no. The scheme has been in the pipeline since 2016, and will apply to nationals from 63 countries including the USA, Australia and Canada. The ETIAS was not introduced because of Brexit, although because the UK left the European Union, British citizens are now considered to be third country nationals and therefore will need to apply for an ETIAS.

No. It is a visa-waiver scheme. This means there is no need to go to a consulate to make an application, and considerably less information will be required during the application process. Nationals from some countries will still need to apply for a visa to enter the European Union.

Applicants will be able to pay for their ETIAS via an official website and/or app, yet to be launched.

According to the European Commission advice page, the 7 fee is required for applicants aged between 18 and 70. Those aged under 18 or over 70 will be exempt from paying the fee.

The visa will last for three years, or until your passport expires, at which point you will need to apply for a new one.

The ETIAS application will take no more than 10 minutes to complete. It is suggested that the automated approval will be communicated within minutes of payment, via email.

You will need a travel document (passport, or equivalent), and you will be asked to provide basic personal information such as your address, email address, full name, job status, and so on.

The European Commission says that it estimates more that 95 per cent of applications will be successful. You may be rejected if you are using a travel document reported as stolen, if you pose a security or immigration risk, if you pose an epidemic risk, or if there is reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the information provided.

When verifying your information the system will automatically cross-check against Interpol databases, Europol data and the Schengen Information System among others.

If you have a clean criminal record, a legitimate travel document and have not previously broken any immigration rules, you can expect your application to go through without a hitch.

No. Only a very small number of applications will have to attend in-person interviews, if their application raises any issues.

The USA has a similar process called the ESTA. This costs $14, and in most cases comes through in a matter of minutes.

The ETIAS is one in a number of changes to have come in, since the UK left the European Union.

British travellers can only spend 90 days in Europe over any 180-day period. This means that in any year, the maximum number of days you can spend in the EU is 180 days.

There is also confusion over passport expiry dates. The EU puts a 10-year limit on the overall validity of a British passport (or, to be precise, nine years and nine months after the date it was issued). But some British passports have a few extra months added to their expiry date. Some travellers have been caught out by this rule, so be sure to check in good time before you travel.

There are also new limits on how much alcohol and tobacco you can bring into the UK. The new limits are 42 litres of beer, 18 litres of still wine, four litres of spirits and nine litres of sparkling wine. For tobacco, the limit is 200 cigarettes.

Some phone operators are scrapping free data roaming in Europe, and bringing a pet into the continent has become trickier business. It is also worth checking what documentation is required to drive in your destination. See our full explainer for more information.

Originally posted here:

The post-Brexit fee that will make holidays to Europe more expensive - The Telegraph