Bremain in Spain Vice Chair Lisa Burton writes for Yorkshire Bylines about post Brexit security issues:

As members of the European Union, Britain played a crucial role in creating policy and the many complex systems on criminal justice and law enforcement. Our post-Brexit arrangements and access to these many systems is not straightforward. The House of Lords European Union committee 25th report of session 2019–21 has recently reported on the challenges the UK now faces as a non-EU third country.

The UK was a leader in developing the European arrest warrant (EAW), the Europol and Eurojust agencies, and some of the shared databases and alerting systems that underpinned cooperation on justice and security among EU member states.

The challenges of law enforcement and security after Brexit

Although use of these systems became an integral part of keeping British citizens safe, very little of it was covered in the political declaration, nor did it receive much attention from the press and public. If the UK had left on a no-deal Brexit basis, Britain would have had to revert to outdated legal systems, that in some instances, had not been used for decades.

However, in December 2020, the UK and the EU signed the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). ‘Part Three’, as it’s known, is the section on law, policing, security and judicial matters.

Schengen Information System

One of the most significant consequences of the UK’s new third-country status is the loss of access to the Schengen Information System (SIS II), which had become an everyday working tool for all countries across the EU. The importance of this system and the real-time access to data it provides about persons and objects of interest, including wanted and missing persons, has been emphasised repeatedly.

In 2019 alone, UK police independently checked the SIS II system 603 million times. The loss of access to this system has been described as a significant blow as it is not legally possible for a non-Schengen third country to cooperate with the EU through the SIS II database.

As a substitute, UK authorities now use the Interpol I-24/7 database; however, the effectiveness of this alternative rests on EU states’ willingness to upload the same information onto the Interpol system that they circulate on SIS II. There’s no clear evidence or policy from the UK government on how it would persuade EU states to do this, when they already have real-time access through SIS.

The UK is also dependent on the completion of technical improvements to UK systems so that I-24/7 data is available to its frontline law enforcement in minutes, not hours. This work has yet to happen. The Lords have requested that the government report regularly to committees of both Houses on the progress of what they have deemed “urgent matters”.

Data and GDPR

Data is now the most valuable commodity on the planet. There have been concerns that post-Brexit, the UK could become a hub for ‘dirty data’, which would have serious international consequences, as detailed here.

UK law enforcement’s capacity to share essential data is subject to an evaluation by the EU of how the UK handles that data. If the UK decides it doesn’t want to stay aligned to the EU in the future around data, this could risk the agreement’s suspension or termination.

In that case, the UK would again be thrown into a situation of not having access to EU information on crime, DNA, organised criminals and terrorism. The UK’s data protection arrangements set out in the agreement are untested, and dispute methods are still undecided. A breach of conditions, particularly on data, would have unknown consequences.

There have been worrying instances of Home Office errors in handling police and criminal justice data, which have raised concerns about the reliability of UK data sharing processes. In January, the Home Office lost 400,000 records which, of course, could seriously compromise criminal investigations.

It is this sort of issue which could lead to a dispute.

Particularly worrying is the clause that Part Three of the TCA can be suspended in its entirety if a “serious and systemic” deficiency occurs within one party as regards to either “the protection of fundamental rights or the principles of the rule of law” or “the protection of personal data”.

It states a party may at any moment terminate Part Three of the agreement with nine months’ notice. Oddly, all other sections of the TCA state 12 months’ notice for termination.

European arrest warrant

The EAW is a much-praised system that allows a streamlined extradition process between EU states – used for high-profile terrorists, drug smugglers and murderers. The EAW has now been replaced by the ‘surrender agreement’, which tries to replicate the EAW broadly, but 10 EU countries have already stated they will not extradite their nationals to the UK post Brexit.

The UK may have to attempt prosecutions in other countries or circulate wanted criminals on Interpol, bringing more complex, costly and time-consuming processes to the justice system.

Family law

The UK government chose not to negotiate an agreement on family law, which the Lord’s showed great concern around. Previously, three cooperation agreements upheld laws around maintenance, divorce, and international child abduction and brought much-need clarity and certainty to cross-border family relationships’ intricacies. These were The Brussels 1 regulation, Brussels II a regulation and the maintenance regulation.

In 2017, the Lords committee suggested the UK join the Lugano Convention, which could provide a partial solution. Unfortunately, the UK only just applied this month, April 2021, and the EU is yet to approve its membership.

Human rights

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) dates back to the 1950s and is widely considered the most influential international treaty for human rights protection in the world. This agreement is between Council of Europe member countries and is, therefore, not a European Union construct as many people believe.

The TCA states the UK, as a third country, will continue to collaborate with the EU on a range of policing and criminal justice mechanisms. “Adherence to the ECHR is an important provision”, said report contributor Professor Mitsileg, “particularly if the UK decided to abolish the Human Rights Act and, therefore, change the way ECHR rights are enforced within the UK”.

One of the most severe aspects of the TCA is that if either the UK or an EU member state denounces the European Court of Human Rights, then termination becomes effective on the date of that denunciation.

We have all heard concerning language from the media and UK government ministers around human rights. Home Secretary Priti Patel has attacked “lefty lawyers and human rights campaigners”, and Prime Minister Johnson has repeatedly made threats over current human rights law. It will do the UK no favours globally or domestically to dismantle human rights.

Brexit isn’t over and negotiations on security will continue for years

Worryingly, the UK institutions that will oversee the operation and development of the agreement – the partnership council, and (of particular relevance to Part Three), the specialised committee on law enforcement and judicial cooperation – have yet to be constituted, let alone meet, even though these areas are vital to the security of the UK.

Brexit is not done. The TCA is detailed and complex, but it isn’t an encompassing agreement, and there’s an incredible amount of work still to be done. Hammering out the details will rely on close dialogue, cooperation and trust between the UK and the EU.

The EU and Britain will need to negotiate for years, not just around security but also in many other areas where close and ongoing collaboration is vital and necessary. If the UK and the EU are to flourish, their citizens to be safe, prosperity and peace maintained, then the political game-playing must stop.

Following the Brexit referendum, those of us with strong feelings about the outcome, exchanged our former political identities for Brexit ones. Instead of categorising ourselves as socialists, centrists, or conservatives – whether with a small ‘c’ or a big one – our most important labels became Remainer or Leaver. No longer brought together, or pushed apart, by our attitudes to party politics, how you voted in the Brexit referendum carried far more weight.

Now the UK is no longer an EU member state – even in Brexit is still far from ‘done’ – are those labels still relevant or helpful? Do the vast majority of the British public even care about Brexit anymore?

Who still cares about the ‘Leaver’ and ‘Remainer’ divisive labels?

While it’s clear there is still a considerable divide, for many there are more pressing problems, not least the wide-reaching effects of the pandemic, or the climate crisis. While Brexit is still a considerable cause of concern to many, especially those directly affected, it’s understandable many would prefer to close the Brexit door and move on.

If the pandemic has taught us anything, it’s perhaps that life is too short.

If putting the past behind us is a desirable outcome for the majority, it’s something that is proving quite difficult for those with strong views, on both sides. You don’t have to look too far on social media to witness plenty of evidence of anger and frustration, from Leavers and Remainers alike.

Put the two together, and the level of vitriol, from both “winners” and “losers”, is enough to make anyone switch off.

An angry nation

Most Remainers will, at some point over the last five years, have been on the receiving end of jibes like “you lost, get over it”. In turn, Remainers have taunted Leavers with various versions of “I told you so”. Even for those of us that have tried, and on the whole, succeeded in avoiding such comments, the temptation to lash out has been compelling.

Just logged onto twitter and noticed that the top trends currently appear to be ‘gammon’ and ‘remainers’. Logged off again.

— Brian Cox (@ProfBrianCox) April 9, 2021

Brexit has discovered an anger in the British public that is often ugly and toxic, yet totally understandable. We all have a lot to be angry about. Leavers and Remainers alike. Maybe the important question is – who should that anger be directed at?

I’ve always believed that the blame for Brexit lay at the door of the liars, not the lied to; that many who voted to leave honestly believed they were making the best decision for themselves and their families. I still believe this was the wrong decision, but I also accept that they likely would disagree with that assessment.

Focus on the present and the future

Extremists on both sides are hanging on to their anger, as is their right. But let’s not pretend we – yes, I’d classify myself as an extremist, as far is Brexit is concerned – speak for the country. We don’t.

So, how do we ever hope to move forward, when it’s so hard to forgive and forget? Reactions to Brexit by Remainers have been described as like those experienced by the bereaved. The various stages of grief, such as depression and anger, are all too familiar to pro-Europeans, though the acceptance phase has yet to be reached by many.

Leavers may be experiencing some of those same emotions now, as they see promises they were made come to nothing. Some of the Leave Campaign’s promises were compelling. It’s not surprising that so many people wanted so much to believe them. When they won the referendum, they were full of hope and optimism. Almost five years later, the mood is rather more sombre.

No matter how you voted, or where you stand on Brexit now, trying to fight old battles is neither useful nor healthy. Despite my belief that the UK’s place is, and always should be, at the heart of Europe helping to make important decisions for a continent, I have to accept that is not where we are.

The fight is far from over

Accepting Brexit is ‘done’ does not mean the fight is over, just that the battles are different now. Remainers might rib Leavers about not knowing what they voted for, but very few voted for what we have now. Most people voted for a better life, or at least not a worse one.

Healing the division is not going to be easy. The experience has been extremely painful for so many, and the realities are biting us all. The deal we ended up with – and which hasn’t even been ratified yet by the EU – is one very few wanted. Theresa May’s red lines were responsible for much of the harm, but Boris Johnson’s position only made matters worse.

I would never suggest we all kiss and make up. That’s never going to happen, and it would make me a hypocrite. I have lost friends over Brexit that I will never see again. But I do believe we have more in common than we are ready to accept.

Extremists on both sides will never shake hands, but there are many others that don’t fit that description: honest, decent people who want a government that looks after them, that keeps its promises and that doesn’t get rich at their expense.

They want an NHS that is valued and well-funded, an electoral system that is fair, and a government that does more than pay lip service to the climate emergency.

Maybe most of all, they want their elected representatives to show some compassion, take responsibility and not be afraid to admit to their mistakes. Maybe if the government started to act a bit more human, we all could too.

This article was written by Bremain Chair Sue Wilson and was first published in Yorkshire Bylines on 11 April 2021. 

Bremain Chair Sue Wilson recently wrote this piece for Yorkshire Bylines about the impact of Covid and treatment of Brits in the EU:

Ever since the Brexit referendum, Brits living in the EU have complained about being invisible, and with good cause. In the early stages of the negotiations, the lack of representation for British citizens in the EU, alongside our EU friends in the UK, was notable.

Brits in the EU are traditionally ignored by mainstream media

Not only were we largely ignored by politicians, but by the mainstream media too. Our voices gradually came to be heard in both Europe and Westminster, thanks to the efforts of campaign groups across the EU.

Stories of our plight occasionally made the papers, but more focus was given to the dire situation facing EU citizens, and quite rightly. Their situation was, and is, worse than ours, thanks to the toxicity of the (Go) Home Office. Our European hosts, by comparison, have been far more welcoming and sympathetic.

When stories of Brits abroad did make the headlines, they were far more likely to be about British tourists behaving badly, than tales of rights removed from overseas British citizens. But thanks to the actions of overzealous immigration officials at Alicante airport, British residents of Spain hit the headlines bigtime this week.

British citizens refused entry to Spain

When 40 passengers returning to their homes in Spain were refused entry, there was an indignant outcry. It was claimed that, due to covid restrictions, no returning resident could be admitted to Spain without producing the new Tarjeta Identidad Extranjero (TIE, or foreigners identity card).

Whilst it’s true that returning Brits must produce proof of legal residency, it is not a legal requirement to produce – or even possess – a TIE. Existing residency documentation that pre-dates the TIE is equally valid and confers the same withdrawal agreement rights. What those passengers produced on arrival should have been sufficient to allow their entry.

It appears those passengers had all the necessary documentation required for travel, even checking directly with the airline in advance. Although specific reasons for their journeys have not been reported, it’s likely many were simply trying to return home, having been prevented from doing so earlier by covid restrictions.

The British Embassy in Madrid was quick to act, and immediately issued a statement offering assistance. We can only hope that – similar to an earlier incident at Heathrow around Christmas – this will prove to be an isolated episode.

The impact of Brexit and covid

When stories of this nature hit the media, the tendency – of the right-wing press especially – is to erroneously seek to blame the EU, or the EU country concerned. But in this case, clearly the fault did lie with certain officials who over-stepped the mark, and our sympathies are with those personally affected.

Lockdown is a necessary evil we have all have to face. To be stuck in a country for weeks or months longer than planned – especially one you no longer recognise as a green and pleasant land – is an added nightmare. Although covid can legitimately be claimed as the cause, this situation would not have arisen had we still been EU citizens, rather than third country nationals.

As a British resident of Spain, I appreciate the fact that the British media has cottoned on to our existence. But there’s certainly room for improvement. Thanks to Spain hosting the largest British resident population in Europe, it’s often the focus of UK media coverage. You’d be forgiven for thinking that the third country 90-day in 180-day rule only applies in Spain, for example.

You might be forgiven for thinking only Spain could be about to deport illegal Brits for overstaying 90 day allowance.
Think you'll find there are 26 others countries about to do the same.
The UK government knew this. They helped write 3rd country national rules.@BremainInSpain

— Sue Wilson (@Suewilson91) March 29, 2021

Sovereignty of EU member states

Although many of the ramifications of Brexit on Brits abroad are the same EU wide, there are significant differences. EU countries – regardless of what the Brexiters said – are sovereign nations with the ability to make their own rules. So, while we appreciate the focus on Spain, it is not entirely representative of the treatment of Brits across the EU.

We’re fortunate here to have a system whereby any pre-Brexit legal resident can switch to the new TIE. If they choose to – it is not a legal requirement, though it is recommended, especially for travel! Not all EU countries have adopted this system.

France, for example, requires residents to re-apply for a status they already have, at the risk of being refused. It’s akin to the settled status system in the UK for EU citizens.

Maybe we expect too much from the media in wanting our stories to be told. To some extent, the mainstream media merely reflect the interests of their readership. Are the British public really that interested in problems faced by Brits abroad thanks to Brexit, or covid? Aren’t they, naturally, more concerned with how the current crises affect their own lives?

Perhaps we’re the lucky ones?

It’s been pointed out to us that, thanks to the withdrawal agreement, Brits abroad have more rights post-Brexit than Brits in the UK. Certainly, it’s true that, for those of us that moved abroad and took up European residency, certain rights we assumed were ours for life, have been protected. But not all of them. Freedom of movement has been lost to us all.

Is there an element of jealousy from Brits in the UK that we’ve taken advantage of life-changing opportunities to live abroad? Opportunities that are no longer available to others? Are we truly the lucky ones to have left a country that we no longer recognise, or that shames British citizens at every turn?

Damn right we are! But that doesn’t mean we give up the right to hate Brexit with a passion, for what it has taken away from all of us, no matter what country we call home.

Bremain Chair Sue Wilson recently summarised the conclusions and recommendations from the House of Lords EU Select Committee for Yorkshire Bylines:

You’d be forgiven for thinking the government prefers to avoid scrutiny at all costs. Whether it’s Brexit or covid, it’s been playing its cards close to its chest. Bills have been rushed through parliament at breakneck speed, and any criticism has been countered with suggestions that there is nothing to fear, as the government has it covered and can be trusted to do the right thing.

Those that welcomed the scrutiny provided by Hilary Benn’s House of Commons committee on the future relationship with EU – commonly referred to as the Brexit committee – were disappointed when it was disbanded in January.

The House of Lords equivalent – the EU select committee – is also about to close down, to be replaced by a new Lords European affairs committee. Whilst the chair and members of the new committee – expected to be formed at the beginning of April – are still unknown, it is likely that many of the existing members will move across to the new forum.

Beyond Brexit reports from the Lords EU select committee

Before they disband, the Lords committee, and its four subcommittees, have produced a final five reports, all under the heading ‘Beyond Brexit’. The reports each cover a different aspect of Brexit, and highlight areas of concern, with recommendations and suggestions on how those issues might be addressed.

Beyond Brexit report 1: the institutional framework

The first report, published on 22 March, speaks of “the haste with which the Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA) was agreed”, resulting in “many items of ‘unfinished business’”. Those items include “regulatory cooperation on financial services”, “suitable practical arrangements on asylum” and an agreement to complete negotiations “as soon as is reasonably practicable”.

In reference to the recent decision to unilaterally extend the ‘grace periods’, the committee concludes that the government “have so undermined trust that the possibility of ‘no deal’ – in other words, a failure to ratify the TCA – has now resurfaced”.

The complexity of the proposed governance structure underlines the need for transparency, accountability and Parliamentary oversight 4/7 pic.twitter.com/pnXwN5RNjO

— Lords EU Committee (@LordsEUCom) March 22, 2021

The committee call on the government “to commit to supporting effective scrutiny by both Houses”, including regular appearances of the minister overseeing relations before select committees. Given recent events, the committee recommends the government take all appropriate measures “in good faith to fulfil their obligations under the Agreement” and stresses the importance of rebuilding the trust “so undermined in recent times”.

Beyond Brexit report 2: food, environment, energy and health

The report expresses relief that the TCA achieved tariff and quota-free trade, though significant barriers to trade still exist. Those barriers have reduced the profitability of parts of Great Britain’s food and agriculture sectors, and the subcommittee recommends the government seek supplementary agreements with the EU.

But the committee is dismayed that the agrifood sector is facing “increased trade frictions” and says the sector is facing “very difficult challenges” thanks to increased paperwork and preparation required for food.

We found that food and agricultural producers 🍎🐄🐖🥔 find themselves facing new trade barriers in the form of #sanitaryandphytosanitary measures, extra paperwork, increased haulage costs, and outright export bans on some products 5/6 pic.twitter.com/muIU7c71dw

— Lords EU Committee (@LordsEUCom) March 23, 2021

On fisheries, the committee disagree with the government assessment that UK fishers will have 25 percent more quota in five and a half years’ time, saying the real figure is just 16.6 percent, and that the species whose quota will increase are “not necessarily those of value to the UK fishing industry”.

The need to export to the EU has to be balanced against the desire to acquire more fishing rights. The report points out that many difficulties facing the fishing industry “are a direct result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and its new status as a third country and thus represent unavoidable, long-term impacts on the sector”.

Compromises on the environment and climate change are welcomed, though the committee voices concerns about “the enforceability of some provisions”. Concerns are also raised over the possibility of rises in electricity prices, and the government is urged to provide guidance on current and future plans for cross-border electricity trading.

The #COVID19 #pandemic will compound the existing and alarming shortages in the 🇬🇧 #healthcare sector 🚑 We found in our #BeyondBrexit inquiry that the #TCA does nothing to relieve these pressures 1/6 https://t.co/SAVNpxR23t pic.twitter.com/Ey3Ekdn7qB

— Lords EU Committee (@LordsEUCom) March 23, 2021

On health, the committee appreciates the new arrangements for UK citizens when travelling, as well as the tariff-free exports of medicines and medical equipment.

But regarding staffing issues in the NHS and social care – exacerbated by the pandemic – the committee sees “no evidence of a credible plan from the government to address the shortage”. Although it supports measures to encourage more ‘homegrown’ care workers, it says that such measures “will take years to materialise, and the need is immediate”.

Beyond Brexit report 3: trade in services

With service industries accounting for 80 percent of the UK’s economic output in 2019, they are central to the economy. The report says that whilst the TCA is preferable to no agreement, “significant challenges remain”.

The financial sector contributes £132bn to the UK economy – that’s 6.9 percent of total economic output and more than 10 percent of UK tax receipts (2019/20). Exit from the passporting regime has already resulted in the movement of activity and jobs to the EU, which may, in time, lead to a further export of people and assets.

While the TCA alleviates some of the uncertainty for professional and business services, it represents “a major change from Single Market membership”. UK service providers are facing a “patchwork of complicated rules” which act as a barrier to trade, hitting smaller businesses the hardest. Tourism and travel sectors will be particularly hard hit, “undermining opportunities especially for young people”.

The committee recommends that the government does as much as possible to persuade and incentivise service providers to maintain their economic activity in the UK, as well as encouraging EU providers to establish themselves in the UK.

The lack of recognition of professional qualifications is “disappointing” and could affect many sectors. The committee urges the government to seek an agreement with the EU to resolve this issue.

The report does not recommend divergence from EU regulation for divergence’s sake alone, nor alignment for alignment’s sake.

We found that 🇬🇧 providers of professional and business services face a patchwork of different rules across the 🇪🇺 3/5 pic.twitter.com/sELjqTVrJf

— Lords EU Committee (@LordsEUCom) March 24, 2021

The creative industry sector was worth over £100bn in 2019. It grew at twice the rate of the rest of the UK economy and employed over two million people. Beyond the financial benefits, the committee notes that a thriving creative industry brings “a sense of pride, community and joy, as well as promoting UK values and ‘soft power’ abroad”.

The mobility provisions of the #TCA could have a major negative impact on the creative industries 🎼🎨🎭🩰 4/5 pic.twitter.com/zHoSKAJe57

— Lords EU Committee (@LordsEUCom) March 24, 2021

The committee was “deeply concerned” about the impact the loss of freedom of movement is having on the sector, making touring “prohibitively bureaucratic and expensive”. It urges the government to negotiate a bilateral and reciprocal agreement, as a matter of urgency, to make mobility arrangements for touring performers, creative teams and crews.

On research and education, the committee regrets the government’s decision not to participate in the Erasmus scheme, and draws attention to the shortcomings of the replacement Turing scheme – namely that it makes no provision for inbound student mobility and doesn’t cover tuition fees or travel costs. It also expresses concern about the costs of the new scheme and says there are “significant gaps in current proposals”.

The committee notes that a future relationship with the EU would be “critical to the continuing success of the UK’s research and education programme”.

Beyond Brexit report 4: trade in goods

The committee recognises that the TCA is preferable to a ‘no deal’ outcome, but that it “does not rectify significant regulatory, logistical and administrative barriers to trade arising from the UK’s status as a third country”. It suggests an “ambitious” approach to trade with the EU and urges both parties to work together in a “spirit of cooperation and openness”.

Considerable barriers to 🇬🇧-🇪🇺 trade in goods remain, says EU Committee in new #BeyondBrexit report 1/5 https://t.co/IDCSeqRt9R pic.twitter.com/SGJuphSaVM

— Lords EU Committee (@LordsEUCom) March 25, 2021

The government’s commitment to maintaining high labour and social standards is welcomed. Should any changes to these standards be considered in future, the report recommends caution, transparency and consultation.

Amongst the biggest issues facing traders are rules of origin requirements, which present both short-term administrative issues and long-term structural challenges. Businesses have had little time to adapt, and implementation has been exacerbated by administrative difficulties.

The government is advised to ensure full awareness of the need to follow the rules and to embark on a programme of industry engagement “to identify and pursue simplifications to adherence processes”. The rules of origin requirements mean that a substantial supply chain shift in certain sectors is likely, adding significant costs for many UK businesses, as well as exporters in developing countries.

We found that rules of origin requirements are causing major changes and introducing significant costs for UK businesses 3/5 pic.twitter.com/z7T7RdMFha

— Lords EU Committee (@LordsEUCom) March 25, 2021

Traders in animal and plant products have perhaps been hardest hit by additional red tape. Many of their products cannot be stockpiled and face the most stringent of checks. Physical sanitary and phytosanitary measures could become “a permanent barrier to trade”, unless both parties can agree mitigations to the current scheme.

The government is advised to seek agreement for a “trusted trader scheme” to enable some businesses to benefit from simplifications to customs or safety and security processes.

Funding for the development of physical customs infrastructure has been “insufficient”, and further funding should be released before checks are imposed. The government must adopt “a pragmatic approach to border inspection as new requirements are phased in”.

Guidance for traders needs to be easier for businesses to understand, “and honest about the complexity of some of the new requirements”. The committee recognises that the government is starting to take these messages on board, but further steps to improve the advice and support to businesses are needed.

Beyond Brexit report 5: policing, law enforcement and security

The final report, published on 26 March, welcomes provisions for the sharing of passenger record data between the UK and the EU, and for continued UK access to EU databases covering fingerprints, DNA and criminal records, and agreement on extradition arrangements.

Also welcome are commitments to the rule of law and the European Convention on Human Rights – described as “essential elements” of the TCA, and to data protection rights. Should the UK decide in future not to stay aligned with EU data protection rules, the agreements could be suspended, or even terminated.

The committee notes that an unavoidable consequence of the agreement is that it no longer provides the “same level of collaboration” as when the UK was an EU member state. The influence and leadership the UK previously enjoyed, in the shaping of instruments of EU law enforcement and judicial cooperation have ended.

There are significant gaps, however, including the end of UK access to the EU #SchengenInformationSystem, which provides vital policing information in real time. The alternative, the I-24/7 database, does not provide such real-time data 2/6 pic.twitter.com/hMgKD8UyCF

— Lords EU Committee (@LordsEUCom) March 26, 2021

One of the most significant consequences is the loss of the Schengen Information System, and the real-time access to data it provided. This data included persons/objects of interest, and wanted or missing persons.

The committee says there are many reasons “to be cautious” about drawing conclusions as to the effectiveness of the TCA in practice, noting that many of the provisions of the agreement are detailed, complex and untried.

The report highlights concerns over the government’s decision not to negotiate an agreement on future cooperation on family law. In 2017, the EU justice subcommittee warned of the effect on the lives of many UK citizens if important EU regulations on child maintenance, divorce and international child abduction were not replaced after Brexit.

The committee calls on the government to explain the delay in applying to join the Lugano Convention, and asks it to outline steps being taken to reach a resolution.

Beyond Brexit in summary

What comes across time and again in the five reports is the fact that there is much work still to be done. The importance of maintaining good relations with the EU cannot be understated.

Recent UK government actions have caused considerable friction and are counter-productive for a good working partnership. The government must make every effort to undo the damage and to rebuild trust and good will between the two parties.

In recent correspondence with Lisa Burton – Bremain in Spain vice-chair – EU select committee chair, Lord Kinnoull, said of the forthcoming replacement committee:

We look forward to its establishment, and to the continuing scrutiny of life after Brexit and government actions.

As we approach 100 days of post-Brexit reality, we have already witnessed considerable harmful effects to the UK economy and trade, and negative impacts on lives and livelihoods. Thanks to the ‘grace periods’, many measures have yet to come into effect.

Even allowing for improvements in trade as companies adjust and come to grips with new requirements, any steps forward are unlikely to compensate for further steps backward as stricter measures start to bite.

Companies that have exported assets and jobs to protect their interests are unlikely to reverse measures already taken. Those EU (and in some cases UK) citizens that have emigrated thanks to stricter rules, and ill treatment, are unlikely to return.

Welcome to the sunny uplands of Brexit. It’s only going to get worse before it gets better.

If it gets better.

Our Chair Sue Wilson recently wrote this article for Yorkshire Bylines about the stereotypes of the British abroad:

When the British press write about Brits abroad – most especially about Brits in Spain – we’re often depicted as a collection of stereotypes. We play golf or bowls, drink too much, spend all day on the beach and complain about the weather.

I’ll give them that last one – we are British after all, and complaining about the weather is a national sport, no matter where you live. The rest of it is inaccurate and irritating.

The stereotype of Brits abroad is hugely inaccurate

Let’s get some facts straight to start with. If you’ve read an article about us, you could be forgiven for thinking we’re all retirees. In fact, only 20 percent of British citizens living in Europe are pensioners, though that figure rises to 25 percent in Spain. The majority of UK nationals in Europe are younger, working, with families, and well integrated into local society. Many of the children are more Spanish than British, and most are fluent in at least two languages.

The ‘expat’ label

Despite how much the term ‘expat’ is despised by many of us, it is widely used by the media. It’s understandable, as it’s understood by the British public and is an easy shorthand.

Personally, like many of us that would fall into that category, I refer to myself as a British immigrant. Not only is it a preferable description of who I am, but it comes without any connotations of being different, or superior to any other migrant. Until such time as EU citizens in the UK are regularly labelled expats, then I won’t be.

Where does the stereotype of Brits abroad come from?

Of course, stereotypes are not made up out of thin air. If you go to certain parts of Spain, you’ll find gin-drinking, bowls-playing Brits in many an English pub, enjoying their ‘full English’ or Sunday roast.

The Brit-heavy centres of the Costa del Sol and Costa Blanca are favoured haunts of the British press. The rest of Spain, and those of us desperate to avoid that stereotypical ‘expat’ life, are largely ignored by the media.

The role of the media

As chair of Bremain in Spain, I’ve been approached many times by journalists looking for Brits in Spain to interview. They usually contact me with a pre-set agenda and a specific area of Spain in mind.

In the pre-covid days when interviews were conducted face-to-face, that was understandable. Visiting journalists with limited budgets and time chose to focus on areas of high emigrant density. In an effort to talk to as many people as possible, they would visit unrepresentative British-only enclaves. There’s no excuse for that now though, when interviews are conducted by phone, Skype, Zoom or email.

The other issue is the pre-determined criteria. I am often asked to find pensioners worried about their healthcare, as if those were the only people suffering from Brexit, and healthcare the only concern.

Younger, working Brits are not concerned about healthcare – they pay into the excellent Spanish health service. Similarly, pensions are not a worry for them, as they’ll receive a generous Spanish pension, rather than a meagre British one. What concerns them more is how Brexit has affected their employability, and removed their opportunities to live and work in another EU country.

Or the opportunities that have been taken away from their children.

Misleading news accounts

A recent Sunday Times article claimed that, “Tempers fray among expats as Brexit rules cast shadow over Costa sunspots”. The reason for our anger, apparently, is that we’re being asked to apply for residency cards and being forced to switch to Spanish driving licences. As a result, “it has forced many to abandon their sunny retirement and resettle in the UK”.

It’s true that Brexit and third country national rules have forced many with second homes in the sun to decide which country to call home. But anyone previously spending more time in Spain than in the UK, should have already applied for residency, and switched to a Spanish driving licence. Those are not new rules.

What is different now is that those previously choosing to live ‘under the radar’, for whatever reason, will no longer be able to do so.

English exceptionalism

Despite numerous warnings from legal residents, Brexit supporters were largely convinced that Brexit would change nothing. Even now, there are still a worrying number convinced that Spain will turn a blind eye to their lawbreaking, or that the UK and Spain will come to some hastily agreed arrangement to keep everything as it was.

We still hear – too often for comfort – how Spain needs the Brits, and their spending power, more than we need them.

There’s no doubt that British tourists are important to the Spanish economy, and that third country national rules may affect how long visitors stay in the future. But, to suggest that Spain – or any other EU country – would allow UK visitors to stay longer than other non-EU citizens is wishful thinking.

Any European government would much rather, I’m sure, have those staying for more than 180 days a year register as legal, tax-paying residents. Even if tourism income declines, there will be a measure of compensation from those now paying taxes they’ve conveniently, and in many cases deliberately, avoided paying for years.

The real impact of Brexit

Despite media stories to the contrary, I haven’t witnessed a mass exodus of Brits leaving the country. But then I don’t live in a Brit-only enclave on a Costa, described by the Times as a “Brexiteer hotbed”.

For all those whose tempers are fraying over having to register, or switch driving licences, there are tens of thousands of us whose tempers have been fraying for the last five years. For very different reasons.

Whether or not you voted for Brexit, we all have plenty to be angry about. Let’s just make sure the anger is directed at those responsible for our woes. In case you weren’t sure, that isn’t Spain, or the EU. It’s the British government that sold the country a series of lies and promised us a future of opportunities.

Instead, we ended up with less than we had. If that doesn’t make your temper fray, nothing will.

Bremain in Spain’s Vice Chair Lisa Burton recently wrote this piece about her company’s post Brexit experience for Yorkshire Bylines:

For many sellers on Amazon, Brexit is causing significant problems. Last week my company decided to attempt our first shipment into one of Amazon’s European fulfilment centres since Britain left the European Union on 1 January 2021.

As I explained in a previous article, the UK’s departure from the European Union means UK sellers are no longer eligible to participate in Amazon’s European Fulfilment Network or Amazon’s Pan-European service. Around 12 percent of our sales came from participation in Amazon’s Pan-European programme.

After three months of lost revenue on those European sales, it was time to face the issues and send a shipment to an Amazon European distribution centre. We picked Germany for our first ‘test’ run. Initial delays seemed to have settled; we had already successfully imported and exported to EU business customers under the new rules, so we had some experience by now of what was required and the possible issues.

Sales to Amazon, prior to Brexit

Pre-Brexit, as an FBA (fulfilment by Amazon) seller, we shipped our inventory directly into Amazon UK fulfilment centres only. We signed up to the Pan-European scheme several years before, which meant we already had tax registration numbers in several EU countries.

Amazon would analyse our stock holding to see what was required and then locate our products throughout their distribution centres in the European Union, opening our products for next-day, Prime delivery to their European customers. Amazon knows their marketplaces best, so for us, there was no effort required once set up except for supplying our tax agents monthly sales reports.

Planning for Brexit and future Amazon FBA sales

Preparing for Brexit was impossible to a point, not just for us but for all businesses involved in importing and exporting. After all, it was only days before the end of the transition period that we had any idea of what the trade deal was going to look like.

My team and I put in many hours of research, reading, speaking with shippers, HMRC, tax agents. We watched Amazon videos, webinars and more, to be as prepared as we possibly could be. From this research, this is what we ensured we had in place.

• Every item on our stock inventory had to have country-of-origin codes – this required many staff-hours and an IT solution.
• Tax registration in every EU country we wanted Amazon to hold our products.
• An authorised tax agent (Required in some EU countries for non-EU based businesses) to handle tax obligations in that country.
• A UK Economic Operators Registration and Identification number (EORI number). One for our wholesale company and our online company from the UK Government.
• A European EORI number (EUEORI) obtained from the authorities in the relevant EU countries.
• A Duty Deferment Account (DDA) as advised by HMRC, this acts like a suspense account where any customs duties, import VAT and excise duties incurred can be added to that account and paid monthly to avoid hold-ups with unexpected costs.

What will sales to Amazon look like post-Brexit?

With all that in place, we had to decide what stock to send. Amazon had always made those decisions for us. Their analytics looked at our stock items. They had access to all the necessary data to move the required stock items to their other EU marketplaces. Amazon’s selling and storage fees are not cheap. Maintaining optimum stock levels in multiple countries is going to be challenging. One we are about to face.

With that done, we moved to the requirements of the shipping invoice. We quickly realised that sending stock from ‘yourself’ in the UK to ‘yourself’ in another EU country, was going to be different and slightly more complex because although it was going to Amazon, they are not the receiver or importer of the goods.

Bureaucratic challenges posed by Brexit

We asked our shipping company representative to look over the paperwork to ensure we had the correct EORI numbers and VAT numbers, and that the seller, shipper and receiver were correctly listed. Amazon takes no responsibility for the importation of the products, so this was vital. He then had to speak to a ‘Brexit expert’ as even for him; this was a first. He came back to me, and the conversation went along these lines:

“You need the address for the IOR” (importer of record), he informed us.

“We are both exporter and importer, so it is our address” was my reaction.

“No, you need a physical address in Germany.”

“But we have a legal tax representative in Germany, is that it?”

“No, your company needs a physical business address in Germany!”

Luckily, I have people I know in Germany. A friend pointed me in someone’s direction, and we manage to get an address. So today, after a week of back and forth, ensuring we had everything in place, our first shipment to Amazon EU left our premises. We now have to repeat the process for France, Italy, Spain.

Widespread difficulties for Amazon FBA seller

150,000 UK Amazon FBA sellers lost easy access to the European marketplace on 1 January 2021* and with that access to a potential 447 million EU customers. As you can tell by this article, it’s not impossible to sell your products FBA in the European marketplace after Brexit.

But as you can also tell, for the vast majority of sellers who used Amazon European Services pre-Brexit, the whole process becomes far too costly and complicated. We now have to consider more staff-hours, higher shipping costs, customs fees, and more accounting time due to more complex VAT submissions.

The sad reality is that all these additional costs will have to be passed on to the consumer, making products more expensive for the customer and the business less competitive.

Exporting to the EU, post-Brexit

I was not surprised by the Office for National Statistics report, that showed exports to the EU plunged by £5.6bn (40.7 percent) in January, with imports down 28.8 percent. It will take a significant amount of time and effort before we know whether replacing these sales will be cost-effective or even successful. I may even be counting my chickens before they have even hatched.

The stock hasn’t arrived in Germany yet, let alone been checked into Amazon’s distribution centre so there is still a lot that could go wrong. Let’s hope that isn’t ‘literally’ another story.

* There are 281,000 UK Amazon sellers in total – 57 percent of Amazon sellers are solely FBA sellers.