SchmeckFlyer

Except when you work out the net contribution and EU money spent in the UK (in the form of subsidies for farmers for example) the amount decreases from £350 million to about £120 million. And as the UK government has promised to reimburse farmers and fishermen and so forth who will loose their subidies, there will precious little remaining to fatten up the NHS. And even less for a third runway at LHR. (Plus, according to a recent Economist article. Dublin will be able to build another runway with precious little opposition for a couple hundred million, while the third runway at LHR (if it gets approved) will take 20,000 years to build and cost £100 trillion.)

But back on topic... how does this affect open skies between the EU/UK and the USA? I did not find a definitive answer to the question posed earlier in the thread. Do old agreements come back into force? Would the USA agree to simply copy/pasting the existing agreement while replacing 'EU' with 'UK'? Or would the current agreement remain in force until a new bilateral agreement could be reached? I personally doubt it: the US and UK may have a 'special' relationship, but it is clear who the big brother is, and big brother will always choose himself over little brother, every single time. Unless the UK guarantees US airlines substantial more slots at Heathrow (and then the EU could cry foul) or some other such demands, the UK may have to completely renegotiate a bilateral open skies agreement, and then from a very weakened position. If the City looses business and demand for traffic into London decreases, the US may have even less of an incentive to quickly negotiate a fair agreement. Possibly all doomsday thinking here...

But if not, would this not be the worst possible outcome for BA? If they are hobbled by limited growth for years as a new agreement is hammered out while their EU- and US-based competitors can open any route they want, where will BA be in a few years time? Some has been playing catch up?

tmac100

Flying to LHR on Friday the 1st. Went to the Foreign Currency ATM here in Doha (Banks closed on Friday here in the GCC) and there were NO GBP. Lots of USD, though. Maybe some GBP in a couple of days once the ATMs get refilled

ExpatSomchai

I see IAG issued a profit warning today.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...-eu-referendum

Fitch

I think the Irish border is a bit of a red herring tbh.

There is no reason why the UK could not carry on allowing free entry to EU citizens while at the same time imposing a visa requirement for employment and/or residence.

I don't think people were voting against tourism or business trips - rather it is the pressure on school places, hospital waiting times and jobs (especially lower-paid work) that motivated so many to support Leave...

T8191

Valid call, Fitch, provided the UK Border Agency (renowned for its efficiency and effectiveness) can tell the difference. Sadly I've seen too many of those UK Border programmes where they say "Report to the Police Station next Thursday", at which point another one disappears into the immigrant underworld.

Similar programmes also exist exposing Australia and NZ ... the depressing face of afternoon TV for pensioners!

MPH1980

It's really straightforward and isn't a red herring.

Right now - we have the right to live and work in each other's countries - so there's a low risk to those who travel between them.

In a post-brexit world - with people needing work permits on either side of said arrangement - there has to be someone checking those permits on entry.

It might be 'easy' to do - e.g. someone checking the permit - but it means erecting a border. That border has to exist between NI and IE as well. Erect a border there - massively upset the republicans.

If there's no worry about work permits and you can check them post entry - then there's no need for border checks anywhere else is there!

Edit: As an example - just think about the US/Canada border. Both countries have reciprocal visa wavier rights. Both countries require a work permit if you want to stay and work. It requires a border check to actually work.

The problem with the CTA isn't working out the visas - it's the inherent border that comes with it.

FreakingFlyer

Borders work in both directions. The EU would have to be comfortable admitting UK citizens the other way too. The costs aren't all on the UK here.

henkybaby

SteveF

It beats working for a living .

Marcusm

The real issue is that the border control which previously existed wasn't an immigration issue but a security and customs one. It is not a border that was ever designed to keep people out as there was free movement within the common travel area. The twin issues were smuggling and terrorism. The issue of illegal immigration would best be dealt with by means of checks at the points of embarkation from NI into GB but that is a political non starter.

bd95

These checks already exist. Home Office staff can be sporadically found hiding inside the security channel in BHD checking documents of departing pax at times when there are no international departures. I'd guess this is because of the open border to the South.

Don't forget the Irish already impose random immigration checks on traffic heading south - they can and do because the CTA only applies to Irish and British citizens born and resident in the CTA.

OPENROAD

And long waits.

Would imagine we will see the reintroduction of the Irish border which as you say won't go down well with some.

capin

I voted leave. I've no complaints about immigration but i want everyone to have the same shot at migrating to the UK wherever they are from. I want a Thai doctor to have the same opportunity to come to the UK as a German doctor. Fairness!!

sfozrhfco

The price in pounds still went UP due to the massive fall of the GBP.

henkybaby

And you believe that is what will happen now?