On 15 November, the House of Lords Grand Committee convened to debate reports produced by the, now defunct, European Union Committee (EUC) on the impacts of Brexit. The series of reports, entitled ‘Beyond Brexit’, were brought back to the Lords on 6 December for further debate.

The latest debate focused on three of the Beyond Brexit reports, covering:

• The institutional framework
• Trade in services
• Trade in goods

Read more here about the debate on 11 November, covering food, the environment, energy and health.

Former chair of the EUC, the Earl of Kinnoull, spoke of the 50+ years that various Lords committees had been analysing and reporting on all aspects of EU relations. Eleven months on from his committee’s production of the Beyond Brexit reports, he spoke of the relief that the ratification of the trade and co-operation agreement (TCA) had brought. However, he said it was now important to “take general stock of the position and how it matches up to the various words and aspirations of the TCA package”.

The post-Brexit institutional framework

The Earl of Kinnoull raised the issue of the lack of regulatory co-operation for financial services, and the failure to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU). This failure meant that the EU had not assessed the UK for equivalence – a promise originally made in July. He also expressed concerns regarding the UK’s participation in EU programmes, such as Horizon, which currently excludes the UK’s “vast higher education and research community”. He asked that the government commit to providing the committee with a full picture of developments.

Lord Kerr of Kinloch spoke of the lack of structure for handling important discussions with the EU on common, global issues, such as the climate crisis, refugees and covid. Lord Frost had earlier told a committee that such structures would happen “naturally and organically”. Lord Kerr asked how many such meetings had taken place, or had been proposed, as he could not recall any.

Lord Kerr spoke of earlier discussions regarding a ‘parliamentary partnership assembly’ consisting of members of parliament and of the European parliament. This proposal had been welcomed by Mr. Gove, but it appeared that hold-ups were coming from the UK side, despite the EU being “out on the pitch and warming up”. He asked the minister to explain the position of Jacob Rees-Mogg – was it “recumbent”, “laid back” or “supine”?

Trade in services

Baroness Donaghy emphasised the importance of economic services to the UK. In 2019, the UK exported £317bn of services to the EU and imported £217bn, and has consistently run a trade surplus. Donaghy described the UK services sector as “a major success” story, as well as iterating the importance of the creative industries. She added that the government had only succeeded in “minor acts of mitigation”.

The Baroness expressed concern regarding the creative industries, which she described as “hugely important and influential”, being worth £100m in 2019. Lord Hannay of Chiswick added that discussions with the government regarding the creative arts felt “more like a dialogue of the deaf than a constructive and concerned response to the dire situation into which one of the most vibrant and profitable sources of our invisible exports has been cast following Brexit”.

Baroness Donaghy, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle all spoke of the damage caused by the loss of the Erasmus scheme and in the inadequate substitution of the Turing scheme.

Trade in goods

Chair of the sub-committee on the protocol, Lord Jay of Ewelme, spoke of his concern regarding the provision of medicines in Northern Ireland, and the impact on the vulnerable. He also raised the issue of threats to trigger article 16, and the lack of parliamentary scrutiny.

Shortages of labour and drivers was raised by Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top, who also mentioned the “poor quality of facilities for those moving goods”. She said she was “severely embarrassed” to hear of the conditions facing drivers stuck on motorways or in car parks who were “unable properly to use services to look after themselves, let alone the goods they are seeking to move”.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick raised the issue of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) controls, and questioned why the government were not looking for an SPS accord. He said that even though this had been considered during the pre-Brexit negotiations, that did not mean it should not be revisited.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle said she came to this debate from a different position from other noble Lords, because she does not go “Yay – trade! More trade!” She said her interest was in “the well-being of the people of the UK and of the planet”, and the well-being of the planet itself. She expressed concern that the government often seemed to push for free trade agreements with other parts of the world “at great cost to the environment and to existing businesses”

Lord Desai begged the government to consider taking “care of our citizens, trade and economy which are suffering”. He suggested his noble colleagues “read the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility which talks about ‘scarring’ due to Brexit. It is costing us 4 percent to 5 percent of GDP. This is a serious matter, and the government ought to let go of their pride and get some business done”.

Relations with the EU

Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top spoke of the importance of developing good working relations with the EU, and said we would be far more successful in our negotiations if only we “act as grown-ups, treating others with respect and as we would wish to be treated ourselves, while keeping our word and acting with integrity”. She described the view that this approach would be seen as “rolling over” as “absolute nonsense”, reflecting “old-time male attitudes”:

Criticism of the government approach was also made by Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who spoke of the need for rebuilding the trust with the EU, that had been “so undermined in recent times”. He said liberal democracies needed to “work together, not pull apart”. Former MEP, Lord Inglewood, described “the bed we have made” and which “we are all now lying in” as a “hard Brexit with a deal”.

Lord Kerr asked who was responsible for bilateral relations with our 27 EU neighbours – was it the foreign secretary or Lord Frost? And if it was Lord Frost’s responsibility, Lord Kerr added, “can he and does he draw directly on [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] expertise?” Lord Kerr went on to cite the “unfortunate letter” to President Macron that “could have been better drafted had an expert eye looked at it”.

Government rhetoric, “that discourages co-operation”, was again raised by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. He said, “The only way we will succeed in competition is by friendly co-operation, with a keen eye on our long-term goals. This is a long game, and we must not lose it by rhetoric that does not foster co-operation”.

Lord Desai described the current situation as a “car crash that is causing enormous damage” and likened discussions between the UK and the EU to a divorced man not caring about the children, and who thinks he is free to walk away without talking about the necessary future arrangements. He said it was symptomatic of the approach taken by the “winning section in the Conservative Party”, who were so hostile to Europe. They said they would conduct “free trade agreements with 100 countries in no time whatsoever”, he added, “as if they had not held a responsible job in their lives”.

Lord Frost missing in action

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard referred to the fact that Lord Frost was unavailable to attend the debate and speak on behalf of the government. Frost’s place was taken by Lord True, whom Kerr described as “a genial, subtle debater, and not at all frosty”.

Baroness Chapman of Darlington, speaking of Lord Frost’s absence, said, “he has taken to making statements on the last day of term, or when the Commons is not sitting, and issuing Written Statements rather than Oral Statements. I hope that will not become a habit”.

Government response

Lord True began his half-hour response by stating that it had never been the government’s intention “to be triumphalist, aggressive or divisive on these questions”. He said the government saw the EU as “a close friend and partner” and wished for “nothing other than good relations”. He described parliamentary scrutiny as “invaluable and essential”. He said the ratification of the TCA had been a “landmark moment” which fulfilled the promise to “take back control of our laws, borders, money, trade and fisheries”.

In regard to SPS checks, the EU were deemed to be at fault in failing to agree to proposed equivalence commitments – a decision described by Lord True as “surprising”. He also complained of an EU failure to grant the UK “full listed status” regarding, for example, the movements of molluscs or pets.

On the finance sector, Lord True welcomed the European Commission’s extension of an equivalence decisions re clearing houses. On the MoU, he said that technical discussions had concluded and that the MoU could be signed once formal EU procedures are concluded.

The government is committed to being “a science and research superpower”, and are awaiting the EU’s formalisation of UK participation in collaborative international programmes. The priority, said Lord True, must be in “supporting the UK’s scientists and researchers”. The decision regarding the Erasmus programme was to pursue a global exchange programme rather than contribute “a large net contribution” to Erasmus.

On the creative arts, again the blame was levelled at the EU for failing to adopt a UK proposal, which had been accepted by Norway and Iceland. Lord True stated that it is not government policy to negotiate a visa waiver. Lord Hannay responded by saying the minister had replied, “exactly as I predicted”. The government had again failed, he said, to propose any solution to limit the damage. Lord True’s rejoinder was merely to say he had set the record straight, drawn attention to “progress that has been made” and had reasserted “the government’s concern for the well-being of these industries”.

In response to Lord Kerr’s questions about responsibilities for ongoing bilateral discussions, Lord True said that Lord Frost, who “works hand in glove with the Foreign Office”, was the person responsible for those discussions. It is unlikely that Lord Kerr will have felt reassured.

Lord True described the gap between the UK and EU positions as “significant” and said progress had been “limited”. The government maintains that, “the threshold has been met to use the article 16 safeguards to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement if solutions cannot be found”.

In summation, the Earl of Kinnoull concluded by referring again to the state of relations between the UK and the EU. He regretted that we “have fallen out with” our neighbours and friends and spoke of the need to “rebuild trust and respect”.

Lord Frost may have had somewhere more important or interesting to be, but Lord True, “true diplomat” or not, certainly towed the party line, even if with rather more decorum. Whether any of the noble lords and ladies present will feel as though they received any straight answers, or feel any the wiser, is highly unlikely.

Read the full transcript from Hansard of the House of Lords Grand Committee debate on 6/12/21 here

The EU introduced full customs controls on 1 January 2021, but the UK chose to phase in border controls over time. On 14 September, chief Brexit negotiator Lord Frost issued a statement in which he spoke of the government’s timetable for the rollout of UK staged customs controls. Frost said that despite having been ready to meet the original timetable, “the Government has decided to delay further some elements of the new controls, especially those relating to Sanitary and Phytosanitary goods”.

Frost placed the blame for the delay on the pandemic, unsurprisingly, despite having had years to prepare. The pandemic did not cause any problems for the EU however, who were ready on time.

On January 1st, another wave of Brexit protectionism kicks in, with new checks on imports from the EU coming into play. This is Brexit: a series of things being implemented that makes the economy weaker, staggered so that the shock is spread out, in the hopes people don't notice.

— Nick Tyrone (@NicholasTyrone) December 5, 2021

Current customs rules

For imports from the EU, UK importers currently have two options for standard goods, until the end of this year. The first option is to file an import declaration immediately on entry. The alternative is to register the goods, but not submit a declaration until six months later. In practice, this means there are currently relatively few delays at the British border.

There are, however, many exceptions where full border controls already apply, eg excise goods, such as alcohol and tobacco, controlled drugs and chemicals. Live animals and ‘high risk’ agricultural goods are additional exclusions, as they require a veterinary or phytosanitary health certificate before UK entry.

The new customs requirements

From 1 January, it will no longer be possible to “delay making import customs declarations under the Staged Customs Controls rules.” Before goods arrive in the UK, a security declaration or entry summary declaration must also be submitted to UK customs.

The government suggests that some businesses might want to involve the help of an intermediary, such as a customs agent, to help with the process. They also suggest applying for a “simplified declarations” form from HMRC, which “allows their goods to be released directly to a specified customs procedure without having to provide a full customs declaration at the point of release”. Unfortunately, it takes up to 60 days to process a simplified declaration application, so this is of little help for those facing the 1 January deadline without one.

Unless goods have a valid declaration, and have received customs clearance, they will not be ‘released into circulation’ or allowed to leave the port. If the necessary checks cannot be carried out at the border, they may be directed to an inland border facility for documentary of physical checks.

Changes still to come

If the measures coming into force at the beginning of next year weren’t enough to contend with, there are many more restrictions yet to be added. As of 1 July, these additional changes include:

Mandatory safety declarations for all cargo
Certification for most veterinary and phytosanitary products
Physical border checks on sanitary and phytosanitary products
New requirements for export health certificates
Further requirements will be added later in the year. From 1 September, certification will be required for all dairy products. From 1 November, certification will be required for all remaining veterinary cargo, including combined products and fish products.

Brexit isn’t ‘done’

By any definition, it is clear that Brexit is far from ‘done’. The hurdles facing UK importers and exporters have made trading with the EU more difficult, more expensive and more risky. For some, dealing with our largest and closest market is no longer economically viable – half of UK businesses have reduced their EU trade or stopped dealing with the EU altogether. Add to that supply chain issues and staff shortages already caused by Brexit and it’s clear that things are likely to get worse before they get better. If they get better.

According to the Federation of Small Businesses, only 25 percent of firms that will be affected by the new rules are ready. Many may not fully understand the implications of the changes or what is required of them. Some may even still be struggling to cope with the earlier impacts of Brexit.

We can only hope that our government, at least, is ready. Though that would be breaking the habit of their parliamentary lifetime.

Additional source documents that might be useful for traders:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/new-customs-rules-for-trade-with-the-eu/

https://business.gov.nl/running-your-business/international-business/brexit/brexit-the-border-operating-model/

https://www.getreadyforbrexit.eu/en/at-the-uk-border-2/

Although cases have been surging across Europe, Spain’s numbers are so far relatively low by comparison, and the vaccination rate relatively high – Spain was the first country in Europe to vaccinate over 80 percent of its population.

Over the last week, according to Worldometers, Spain’s new cases numbered 39,584, ranking 14th in Europe. The UK, by comparison, recorded 289,218 cases over the same period, beaten into second place in Europe only by Germany, with a worrying 349,762 new cases.

Travel to Spain from the UK

It is now a requirement for all UK visitors to Spain to prove they have been fully vaccinated. A negative covid test will no longer be an alternative option.

These latest measures in effect remove an earlier exemption that applied to UK visitors. Travellers from other third countries have been excluded from non-essential travel to Spain, unless double vaccinated, since 30 June. Now, the rules for UK visitors have been brought in line with those of other third-country nationals, over concerns around the new variant.

In an official announcement last Saturday, the Spanish authorities said, “the appearance of new variants forces us to increase travel restrictions. Consequently, together with other measures adopted by Spain’s Ministry of Health, the exemption applicable to people residing in the United Kingdom will be cancelled”.

The requirement for all visitors to complete a Spanish Travel Health Form remains in place. If you are planning to visit Spain, whether from the UK or elsewhere, you can view all the latest requirements on the Spanish Health Ministry website or on the British Government website

Vaccine requirements for Spain

The new vaccine requirements apply to anyone aged 12 and over. Under 12s do not need vaccine certification, and can travel to Spain with fully vaccinated parents – Spain accepts the NHS covid pass. Fully vaccinated means either having received “both doses of a two-dose vaccine or one dose of a one-dose vaccine”, at least 14 days prior to travel to Spain. Certificates of recovery, a medical document proving you have recovered from Covid-19 in the last six months, are also no longer acceptable. As children in the 12–15 year age group are only now being offered a second vaccine in the UK, the new rules will prevent them from visiting Spain for the next few weeks, and certainly for Christmas.

Given the level of concern regarding the Omicron strain, further restrictions, over the coming weeks, cannot be ruled out. Any further tightening of the rules is liable to affect third countries, including the UK, first.

Travel to the UK from Spain

Effective from 30 November, anyone travelling from Spain to the UK will also be subject to new travel restrictions and safety measures. Lateral flow tests will no longer be accepted, but will be replaced by more reliable, and more expensive, PCR tests.

The PCR test must be taken by the end of day two of any visit – the day of arrival counts as day zero. Until a negative result is returned, visitors must self-isolate. Although, in theory, test results can be returned in a matter of hours, in reality, this could take several days. During isolation, you may only venture outside your temporary home in order to take a test, receive emergency medical care, or to buy essential supplies. Those items include food or medication, but only if nobody else is able to buy those items for you

Despite these new measures, it is permissible to use public transport to travel to your destination from airports and ports. Existing rules for non-vaccinated travellers to the UK still apply.

Any new restrictions will no doubt cause anger and fear, not least amongst families long separated and desperate for a return to ‘normal’. How long these new measures will last, in both directions, or whether in fact may be strengthened further, is anyone’s guess. In the meantime, we can only hope that the measures are successful in reducing the risk to public health, and that early action will prevent more extreme measures further down the line.

For those of us in Spain, who watch the actions, or lack of, from the British government, and worry for our friends and families’ wellbeing, we can only but be grateful that the Spanish government take matters more seriously, and act accordingly.

Once the government considered Brexit ‘done’, it wound down the scrutiny committees in both Houses. But before its demise, the House of Lords European Union committee (EUC) produced a series of reports entitled ‘Beyond Brexit’. The committee clearly felt there was much work to be done, and stressed the importance of maintaining good relations with the EU. On 11 November, the House of Lords Library published an article examining the key findings of the EUC report on food, the environment, energy and health, which preceded Lords grand committee debate on 15 November.

Grand committee debate

Committee chair Lord Teverson (Lib-Dem) started by pointing out that, while the report was several months old, the issues facing the UK now are “exactly the same” as they were when it was published. He was grateful we had avoided no deal and secured the trade and cooperation agreement (TCA), but added that the deal was “as good a free trade agreement as we were going to get given the red lines that we had”. Teverson went on to list many of the issues that remain of concern, including fisheries, the environment and health.

Brexit impact: Food and farming

The Duke of Montrose (Conservative) raised the issue that UK agri-food exporters to the EU had lost more than £1.8bn in income since January, according to the National Farmers Union. Not only that, but EU competitors are at a distinct advantage selling into the UK market, having been given extended grace periods.

The Earl of Caithness (Conservative) said recent trade negotiations with Australia and New Zealand had “put the fear of God into our farmers”. He asked how the government intends to support the agricultural industry, and highlighted the support that foreign governments, like Australia and New Zealand, provide to their own farmers.

Brexit impact: fishing

On the subject of fishing, the Earl said that prior to the finalisation of the TCA the government had said there would be “an incremental benefit to the fishing industry to the tune of about £148m by 2026”. He asked, “Where are the figures to justify this?” saying it was “quite wrong that the government have not produced those”. The Earl contrasted the government’s figures with those produced by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), whose own report showed a loss of £300m over the same period.

Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Labour) also drew attention to a recent NFFO report that was critical of fishing quota agreements. The report stated there would be losses of £64m a year unless changes were “secured through international fisheries negotiations”.

Brexit impact: environment

Discussions on both fishing and farming inevitably led to the knock-on effects on the environment. Baroness Hayman of Ullock asked how the TCA could “provide a minimum baseline for future free trade agreements so that we do not have an environmental race to the bottom?” She also raised the issue of chemicals, the setting up of the new chemical regulation UK REACH, and the potential of future divergence from EU rules. Of the 13 hazardous chemicals that the EU have restricted or are restricting, only two of them are expected to be restricted in the UK, according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

On the topic of fishing, the Earl of Caithness said that while he wanted a “vibrant, economic fishing industry”, it must also be environmentally friendly. He drew attention to the damage caused by trawlers, stating that, “bottom trawling fisheries release about 1 billion metric tonnes of CO2 annually”. Of that total, Britain produces about 90 million metric tonnes of CO2. The Earl asked why these figures were not mentioned at the COP26 summit, when Britain “produces more CO2 from the seabed than the aviation industry does”. He pointed out that while the aviation industry is rightly “getting stick”, the fishing industry is not:

Brexit impact: health

Discussions on health and social care were limited. Baroness Hayman of Ullock spoke of “alarming staff shortages in the health sector”, and the fact that 15 percent of NHS staff are non-British. She added that the reduction in numbers of European staff was of real concern, in both the healthcare and social care sectors.

The post-Brexit points-based immigration system was excluding many potential employees, as they were not considered “skilled workers”. The Baroness pointed out that the situation is likely to get worse over winter, and said she did “not think that the government’s winter plan for social care will solve all these problems”.

The government’s approach to negotiations

In his introduction, Lord Teverson said how he was saddened by the “confrontational attitude that we still have between the UK and the EU”. He described the government’s approach as having had “an almost proactively aggressive attitude” towards the EU. He added, “If article 16 is enacted, I believe that is a threat to the TCA altogether and effectively takes us back to a no-deal Brexit”. The Duke of Montrose described the government’s response to the report as “full of the idealism that characterised much of our approach to the whole Brexit deal”.

Fellow Conservative Lord Cormack was similarly unimpressed with the government’s actions. He said he wished that points raised by the committee in their report had been taken more seriously, adding, “one hates to say this”, but “we told you so”.

Lord Cormack suggested that the underlying lesson is that, “when you try to achieve great things to artificial deadlines you almost always fail”. He said he had raised this point before, having practically begged the prime minister “not to be driven by a deadline”. The Northern Irish protocol, he said, was a direct result of being driven by a deadline, and the prime minister and Lord Frost – who were responsible for agreeing it and despite “commending it to parliament” – now seem to find it “full of holes”.

Lord Cormack also referred directly to Frost, quoting a W S Gilbert line from The Gondoliers, which was on the desk of Harold Macmillan: “quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.” He added, “we must not bang drums or issue threats, warnings or deadlines. We must come to an agreement”. In conclusion, Lord Cormack suggested the government re-read the report in full, and realise that “some of the pitfalls could have been avoided”. Only then, he said, would this debate not have been in vain.

Response from Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park – minister of state for DEFRA

Lord Goldsmith started by stating that the government had been elected to “get Brexit done”, and how “we are already realising some benefits of our departure from the EU”. If the committee were expecting a long list of those supposed benefits, there were disappointed.

On the subject of farming, Lord Goldsmith said the goal was to help farmers improve the environment and animal health and welfare. “We are revolutionising the way that we support farmers”, he said.

In what most would describe as an understatement, Lord Goldsmith said that with regards to fishing, the TCA “did not deliver everything that we and the industry hoped for”. He said that the fishing sector was “now showing some clear signs of recovery”, and referred to pre/post-covid levels of trade. Brexit was not, of course, mentioned. He did, however, suggest that the UK’s fishing future was rosy, by adding, “Freed from the common fisheries policy, we can help our fishing fleet recover and strive to be the most sustainable fleet in the world”.

On the environment, Lord Goldsmith said the TCA recognises the UK’s “ongoing commitment to high environmental standards” while also enforcing “our role as a global leader in environment and climate policy”. He promised that, “We will not pursue free trade agreements in such a way that our own standards are compromised”.

Regarding health issues he said the government is “committed to growing and supporting the workforce to ensure that it continues to provide world-class health and care”, though he did admit “there is a gap that needs to be filled”. How that gap equates to his comment that “there are record numbers of doctors and nurses working in the NHS today”, was rather unclear. He added that by waiving the immigration health surcharge for key health and care workers, the government had made it “quicker and cheaper” for international health and care professionals to come to the UK to work.

On the TCA, Lord Goldsmith said, “it was the first time that the EU ever agreed a deal with a trading partner based on zero tariffs and zero quotas. It is an agreement based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals, centred on free trade and inspired by our shared history and values”.

Summing up

The debate was concluded by Lord Teverson who said that for the five years he has been chair of the committee, comments from ministers from DEFRA tended to have a different focus from those from international trade ministers. DEFRA ministers, as was the case on this occasion, have focused on welfare and environmental standards. The emphasis from trade ministers has been on free trade and consumer benefits.

Regardless of the department, it seems our government has plenty of empty rhetoric to go around, but is short on realism and any plans to solve the many issues. Having largely ignored the excellent ‘Beyond Brexit’ report the first time around, this latest debate is likely to do little to open the government’s eyes or change their opinions. As Lord Cormack so eloquently said, it’s not like they haven’t been told before.

Full transcript of grand committee debate from Hansard is available here.

The biggest ‘selling point’ of Brexit was the ending of freedom of movement. Its removal was hailed by Priti Patel, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and many more as a triumphant victory. This attitude always came across as illogical, considering only the British would lose the automatic right to work, live, love, and retire in 26 countries. However, people did vote to remove this benefit. That brought far-reaching consequences, many of which are still becoming known. When the UK left the EU club, it became a ‘third country’ and it, and its citizens, lost access to the club’s abundant benefits.

The impact of ending freedom of movement

Many British nationals were part-time residents of Spain pre-Brexit, and they have been severely affected by this loss. They had to make difficult decisions as to which country to take up permanent residency in. Much had to be considered to make that choice, such as family situation, financial, work opportunities, taxation. They had to give up their dreams of moving freely between two countries, and the hurt and disillusion that this has caused is genuine and raw to those affected.

The current rules

As of 1 January 2021, the EU legislated that British citizens do not need a visa for short stays of up to 90 days in a rolling 180-day period for tourism purposes. This is the standard length of stay that the EU offers to nationals of eligible third countries, in line with existing EU legislation. It is not a benefit given to all third countries.

Pre-Brexit, many British people would spend four or five consecutive months a year in Spain, particularly those with second homes and the elderly who often spent the winter abroad for financial or health reasons. Lower bills, particularly heating, along with warm winters, were a significant pull. This was not strictly legal then as residency should have been applied for after three consecutive months spent in Spain; however, the rules were not strictly enforced. There was no passport stamping and the authorities turned a blind eye. After all, we were all citizens of the EU.

Brexit removed this benefit. The 90-day rule applies to cumulative stays in the whole of the Schengen Area, not just in each single country, and therefore is quite restrictive. Also, if you spend more than 183 days in Spain each year, legally you must become a tax-paying resident. A fine line to monitor if the rule was extended to 180 in 360 as is being suggested.

Spanish authorities lobby government to change the rule

In the past week or so, some Spanish regional authorities have become vocal on this topic. The press has reported them as having conversations with the Spanish government to extend the 90/180 rule to reflect British citizens’ close connections to Spain, particularly second homeowners and those who have family residing here.

Authorities in the Spanish region of Valencia, which encompasses Benidorm and the Costa del Sol, are actively campaigning to allow Britons to spend more time in the country than the post-Brexit rules dictate.

Valencia’s president, Ximo Puig, has raised the hopes of many by saying he wants to make “Brexit as Brexit-less as possible”, “facilitate the visa situation”, and “correct the restrictions”. This is understandable as some British people used to spend months in Spain pre-Brexit, and the British pound brings a lot to the Spanish economy, particularly in regions with high tourism levels. The worry is that British nationals will no longer buy second properties in Spain, and indeed those that already have them will sell up.

The Alicante provincial president, Carlos Mazon, has also been reported as having meetings with José Pascual Marco, the Spanish ambassador to the UK. He stated, “Britons are the main source of wealth in the Alicante Province”, given the high dependence of the Costa Blanca resorts on tourists from the UK.

The 90/180 rule can’t be changed

This recent media attention has understandably piqued interest from those affected and raised the hopes of many that the rules are about to change. It has created much comment on social media, but there is a lot of misconception, and people will be extremely disappointed.

No EU country has a visa-free option for third country nationals to stay more than 90 days, and that is not going to change any time soon. The 90 in 180-day rule for visa-free access to the Schengen area is an EU law. No country within the European Union has the legal right to change the application of this law; therefore, it is not possible for Spain to automatically give the right to British citizens to stay for more than 90 days in 180.

Currently, there are ways to stay longer than 90 days in 180 in Spain, as there are in all EU countries. You have to apply for the relevant visa to do so. Whether you are looking after a sick relative, need to be in Europe for more than three months for work, study, or require an overstay for other reasons, you can apply for a visa. The process, like all visa applications, is not easy; there are multiple documents required – many needing official translations – police records, proof of healthcare, and proof of being financially able to support yourself, to name just a few. There is, of course, also a cost financially and timewise for doing this and no guarantees your application will be accepted.

What could happen?

In the case of Spain, the Spanish Consulate in London provides information in English on the different visas available. The types of visas offered and the requirements to obtain these visas are a matter for the Spanish government alone to set, so, yes, in theory, the Spanish government could introduce a new type of visa for staying longer than 90 days. They could make it a little easier to obtain or have different requirements, for example proof of a second home. However, this would still have to be applied for through the Spanish Embassy and require checks. It is the only way to implement a change, as a Schengen-level agreement would be necessary to change the current law to allow visa-free stays over 90 days.

We also need to note and consider that the UK government does not generally enter into bilateral agreements which allow visa-free travel.

Brexit’s broken dreams

While there is sympathy for British nationals who have been caught up in these changes due to Brexit, there is also a sense from many of ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it’. Britain voted to become a third country; if the rules changed for them, then other countries would expect the same.

Without European Union-wide legislation changing, the only option for nations that want to allow easier overstays is via a more straightforward visa application process. However, it is implausible that any individual government would not still require evidence to show that a person can support themselves financially and get medical treatment without costing the state at the very least. All this would still need to be proven.

Therefore, while changes may be on their way and are being discussed at the highest levels, these changes will not replace the freedoms British nationals had previously; after all, we have heard it often enough, Brexit does mean Brexit.

Here’s a handy link to a Schengen calculator which helps travellers to calculate their days left in the Schengen Area:

Schengen Visa Calculator – Calculate Your Legal Short-Stay in Europe

I am lucky enough to have dual citizenship. I am British but continue to be European.

No rest till all Brits are able to claim EU citizenship again together with their free movement across the continent.

Build the pro EU community by retweeting, liking and following. #FBPE pic.twitter.com/tPZbCkWwwg

— Emmy van Deurzen☀️🌍 🌼🌹🌳🇪🇺🇫🇷🇳🇱🇬🇧🇺🇸⭐️ (@emmyzen) October 15, 2021

How we lost EU Citizenship

When Brexit negotiations first began freedom of movement was still on the table – at least as far as the EU was concerned. Until, that is, Theresa May got out her red pen and started drawing lines through the Withdrawal Agreement. The people had spoken, apparently, and determined that freedom of movement had to go. The implication was that, in an effort to restrict EU immigration, the free movement of people must come to an end.

The fact that the UK always had the power to restrict immigration – even when it was an EU member – but chose not to was a fact that was conveniently glossed over. What many UK citizens failed to appreciate was that the freedom of movement being removed, was their own.

For UK nationals already living in the EU, the new post-Brexit rules mean that the right to live, study, work, retire in an EU country now only applies to the country in which they are legally resident. The ability to move freely from one EU country to another is no longer an easy option.

One way to regain lost EU citizenship rights is to take up citizenship of your country of residence. It’s not a course of action for the fainthearted, and can be a long, painful, expensive process. It requires a good standard of knowledge of the host country’s history, culture and language. In some cases – as in Spain – it even requires giving up your British citizenship, as Spain does not allow dual nationality.

I spoke to some (former, in some cases) British citizens about their reasons for applying for citizenship of their host country. This is what they had to say.

Becoming German

My grandma fled Berlin in 1938. Having been offered citizenship, I have just been to the German Embassy in London to collect my Certificate of Naturalisation. I am officially Anglo-German. They gave me some Gummibärchen and this lovely badge. Now to choose a German football team. pic.twitter.com/jp7tan9UOG

— Matt Lucas (@RealMattLucas) November 2, 2021

I suspect that many of us would take additional EU citizenship if we could:
Matt Lucas has become a German citizen, a year after he criticised Brexit. The Little Britain star posted a photo of his welcome gift from the German embassy in London.https://t.co/V02EeH2BWD

— Slough for Europe 🇪🇺💙 (@SloughForEU) November 5, 2021

In order to obtain German citizenship you must have lived in the country on a residence permit for at least eight years. British citizens who applied for German citizenship before the end of the Brexit transition period – while still EU citizens – were able to retain their British passport. Now Britons are no longer EU citizens, retention of British citizenship is no longer always an option.

On the morning of the Brexit referendum Dale Alison and her husband made the decision to apply for German citizenship, saying the idea was a ‘no brainer’. Dale has lived in Berlin since 1978, and it had always been her dream to retire to Spain. Dale told me, “not only did we apply for German citizenship as a family, but I found myself helping others through the same bureaucratic process. We are now happily settled in Spain, though our children still live in Germany. They, like us, are free of restrictions to come and go as we please thanks to us all remaining EU citizens”.

John Lewis has only just begun the process of applying for his German citizenship. Although he has gathered all the necessary forms and documents, getting his British birth certificate translated into German took longer than anticipated. John has been working as an IT consultant in Germany since 2007, but until last year, had kept a house in the UK. He has now sold up completely, and “has no intention of ever returning to the UK”. The most important thing, he said, was “to get back my EU citizenship and keep all my European rights”.

In 2018, Chris Atkinson-Price became a dual national in Germany. Having lived in the country for 17 years, she says she had many reasons for applying for citizenship. “The Brexit vote left me feeling betrayed and ashamed of the UK and made me even more grateful to feel European”, she said. “I have friends throughout the EU and want to retain the ability to move nearer to them in the future. My freedom of movement is very important to me. My British passport is now locked away in a safe. I doubt I’ll ever bother to renew it”.

Swapping a British passport for a Spanish one

Brexit sparks surge in Brits applying for Spanish citizenship https://t.co/elb5IJd0cX pic.twitter.com/pn3G5k7XUJ

— The Local Spain (@TheLocalSpain) March 30, 2017

To apply for Spanish citizenship you must have been a legal resident in Spain for at least 10 years, have been born in the country or have a Spanish parent. Spain does not allow dual citizenship, so applicants must be willing to renounce their British passport in favour of a Spanish one.

Helen Johnston, a translator, has started the process of application for Spanish citizenship. As her father is from Northern Ireland, Helen already has Irish citizenship. “However, Spain is my home, so in the end”, Helen told me, “I decided I would prefer all the rights and responsibilities of Spanish citizenship, even if that means renouncing my British citizenship”.

Mother of two Sarah Chambers runs her own business with her Spanish husband while studying law. She said, “The UK has forgotten about the Brits living in Europe”. Having lost her right to vote in UK elections, Sarah is looking forward to being able to vote in Spanish national elections once her citizenship is approved. She added, “I wish to keep my freedom of movement, right to reside, work and study in the European country of my choice”.

Having lived in Spain for most of her life, Lydia Biggie never really considered becoming a Spanish citizen until five years ago. “Brexit finally made me make the move and I only wish I had taken the decision sooner”, she said. “My children and grandchildren were all born in Spain, so I’m looking forward to becoming a European citizen again, like them. I can’t wait to travel with my new Spanish passport”.

A marine scientist, who wished to remain anonymous, was unable to continue working across Europe. His UK-based firm told him that post-Brexit, it was more difficult to employ a Brit than a North African. He told me, “Fortunately, I have Spanish heritage on my mother’s side, which has given me the opportunity to attain Spanish nationality. It has been an extremely long-winded and bureaucratic process, but the last stage – actually getting my Spanish passport – has taken the longest. The Spanish consulate in London has been completely inundated with applications. The idiocy of Brexit has effectively made me redundant and driven me out of the UK in order to earn a living”.

Friends David Eldridge and Lawrence Renaudon Smith, who live in Majorca, are both now Spanish citizens. Lawrence considered applying back in 2003, when he first became eligible, but ruled it out as he did not want to renounce his British citizenship. After the Brexit referendum, he decided that was a price worth paying “for the advantages and convenience of being an EU citizen”. He was unable to vote in the referendum and said,

David has only just received confirmation that his application has been successful. He started the process following the 2019 general election “when it was clear that Brexit was going to happen”. He booked the necessary tests, sent off his birth certificate with a Spanish translation, as his own way of “taking back control”. The process was long, and delayed by Covid, but David is now looking forward to his formal pledge of allegiance. He is not, however, looking forward to the tiresome process of updating his details with every Spanish institution from the tax office to the local council, from the social security office to the Direccion General de Traffico (DGT), the Spanish body responsible for issuing driving licences. He believes all the hassle will be worth it though as, “I’ll be European again and be able to vote in Spanish elections”.

Thank EU

Exercising her free movement rights, translator Zoe Adams Green moved from Spain to Italy to marry her Italian partner in 2018. She passed the language test, but Covid made it difficult to obtain the three criminal checks needed, slowing down the application process. Zoe said she is pleased that Italy allows dual citizenship, but said, “if push had come to shove, I’d have reluctantly renounced my British citizenship. It’s a no brainer, really – the right to live and work in a single country or the right to live and work in 27 countries”.

Laura Shields never seriously considered taking Belgian nationality before Brexit, but the referendum “crystallised that decision for me”, she said. “It wasn’t just about protecting my free movement rights (which I rely on for work) but also about positively choosing Belgium. Plus, I wanted to vote, and I wanted my son to have the same European opportunities as me.” Laura says she feels “very lucky that the process went smoothly. Given how destabilising the past six years have been, having Belgian nationality is something I’m grateful for every day. I can’t imagine how stressful it must have been for other people who didn’t have the same options”.

Although Suzanne Davis lives in Spain, she chose not to apply for Spanish citizenship as she wanted to retain her British passport. She said, “After two years, a lot of paperwork and several trips to the embassy in Madrid, I have managed to secure my Slovak nationality, through my mother”. Her two children are eagerly awaiting the arrival of their Slovak passports, as they “want to keep their options open” and may wish to study or work elsewhere in the EU or the UK in the future.

The luck of the Irish

By far the simplest way for UK nationals to retain their prized EU citizenship is by applying for an Irish passport. Anyone born in Northern Ireland or with an Irish parent or grandparent is eligible, and it’s not just Brits abroad that are applying. According to Irish Foreign Affairs Minister, Simon Coveney, 422,000 British citizens in the UK alone applied for an Irish passport between 2016 and 2020. That compares to an average of around 55,000 per annum for the two years prior to the Brexit referendum.

Journalist Sarah Farrell has lived in Spain for 16 years and is now the proud owner of an Irish passport. Sarah said, “I have now spent a lot of time and money getting back the rights I enjoyed before Brexit. I am just so sorry that Brits will not be able to have the same freedom to travel and work in the future”.

Claire McNally, who comes from Scotland but lives in Brussels with her Belgian husband, says she feels much more secure now she has Irish citizenship. Apart from any potential concerns regarding employment, Claire hated the label of third country national and the  inferior status that implied. She told me, “I didn’t want to have to stand in a different queue from my husband and kids at passport control when travelling. I also so wanted to remain an EU citizen and enjoy all the benefits that go with that”. Claire now has a new Belgian ID card that identifies her as Irish and confers on her full EU citizenship rights.

A Northern Irish teacher, who wished to remain anonymous, moved to Galicia in northern Spain in 2015. He described his Irish passport as an “upgrade”, though he admitted he didn’t at first feel comfortable about making the application as it felt “a bit like cheating”. He added, “In 2019, I finally came to accept the way things were going with Brexit and decided to act. Now I just feel very fortunate that this was an avenue open to me that could make a bad situation easier. I don’t think I will bother to renew my British passport when it expires as I can’t see any value in it anymore”.

Debbie Williams MBE is no stranger to moving around Europe. Originally from Wales, Debbie and her family now live in Spain, having previously been residents of Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. She told me:

Debbie said her time in HM forces gave her a unique perspective on “Britishness” and that Brexit has “adversely affected my sense of home, identity and belonging”. Thankfully, due to her Irish heritage, she will soon be the proud owner of an Irish passport and a “new identity” which she will “cherish and be proud of”.

Regardless of your opinions on Brexit, many of us took the benefits of EU membership and the associated rights of being an EU citizen for granted. If we were aware of the advantages at all, we may have been ignorant of who we had to thank for our good fortune and freedoms.

They say you never really appreciate the value of something until you’ve lost it. That is certainly true of the freedom to live, love, work, study and retire in any one of 27 distinct and wonderful countries. We will never take that freedom for granted again. I sincerely hope, one day, that we will all regain the rights we have lost. In the meantime, British citizens at home and abroad will do whatever it takes to be full European citizens again – including the father of the prime minister.

Johnson's ancestors are Frenchhttps://t.co/wWdETivoqQ

— Russell England (@RussellEngland) October 30, 2021

Another West England Bylines writer, Philip Cole, who is the former head of English translation at the European Parliament, found the process of applying for Luxembourgish citizenship relatively straightforward. British citizens need to have become legally resident in the Grand Duchy before 31.12.2020. “I became legally resident in October last year”, says Philip. “You need five years’ residence, but the fifth year has to be the year up to the point when you apply for citizenship”. Philip was previously resident in the Grand Duchy from 1987 to 2015. “After the referendum – we won in Cheltenham with 56% of the vote – I was seriously depressed at the loss of my European identity. Hence the move back to Luxembourg”. In addition to the residence requirement he has to do 24 hours of Luxembourgish language (not exactly a hardship if you know German), although he doesn’t need to pass a test because of his previous lengthy period of residence. Luxembourg allows dual citizenship.

Ed: If you have a story to tell about EU Citizenship, we’d love to hear from you. Just email editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk.