ToBeFrank123 wrote: » There will be a need for mini deals. What happens if an EU citizen visits the UK and gets injured? And vice versa. There will have to be deals done like that.
CrabRevolution wrote: » So you're saying we will give the UK everything they want at no cost?
54and56 wrote: » He's the Comms Director fur leave.eu, nuff said.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » There will be a need for mini deals. What happens if an EU citizen visits the UK and gets injured? And vice versa. There will have to be deals done like that. Also roaming charges. Deals done in the financial area to allow EU banks operate in the UK and vice versa. It would be great to think the EU would just pull out entirely of the UK including all private EU companies. In reality that would be difficult to do.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » What currently happens if an EU citizen visits an non EU country and gets injured?
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » They need a no deal in my opinion. The EU should be prepared to restrict ever more access to EU markets. The UK keep going on about damage to the EU in a no deal. What the people there are not being told is what the EU can do to the UK overnight if it needs too. Many magnitudes of times worse than the other way round.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Depends if they have travel insurance or not.
Patser wrote: » Leave.eu are just taking the pis$ now. They must know they're about to get banned, because how's this for a double downhttps://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1181577524754731008 What's good though is the amount of responses quoting Churchill's desire for a European brotherhood, a union. Also lots of slagging about how many World Cups Germany and Italy have.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Very likely in the event of No Deal, there will be a large number of mini deals to cover reciprocal arrangements such as roaming charges, air travel, pensioners rights, social welfare, Medical care, ex pat rights rights and so on.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » There will be a need for mini deals.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » What happens if an EU citizen visits the UK and gets injured? And vice versa. There will have to be deals done like that.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Coveney speaking todayhttps://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1181588905025425408
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Wow, well done for putting words in my mouth. I said real politick dictates that mini deals will need to be done in numerous areas, despite the aspirations of some not to do them. If you go to the UK and break your leg, you will depend on the NHS for free care. And similarly if someone from the UK comes here and does the same.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » So why would it be any different when the UK leaves the EU?
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Everybody in Europe has health cover in a member state. We’re all entitled to those European health insurance cards. Not sure what limits are kinds of procedures they cover but fairly sure any kind of accidents see you covered.
Leroy42 wrote: » Because most people, it appears, equate No Deal with simply leaving on the UK terms. So everything stays the same except the EU can't tell them what to do. And this where journalists and opposition MPs are falling down. Instead of deep questions, simple questions like 'what are the laws on roaming charges on 1st Nov?' What happens to GB pensioners on 1st Nov? What plans are in place to deal with a falling pound?If you are abroad, are you covered for EU medical on 1st? What happens to GDPR? Is dury free available from 1st Nov? A series of questions like these to highlight the real impact on peoples lives.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Unless a reciprocal arrangement is made, it will revert to needing travel insurance for EU citizens to visit the UK and vice versa. We know that travel insurance doesn't cover everything, so without an agreement you'd be left to pay your own medical fees if not covered by travel insurance or if you didn't get cover. In the end it would be so messy with paperwork and the like, that a reciprocal arrangement would likely be made. Like roaming charges its in no-ones interest to not have an arrangement, unless you fancy needing travel insurance everytime you cross to NI.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » But after a No Deal Brexit? It actually wasn't me who initiated this question, it was Leroy.
CelticRambler wrote: » No, there won't. Not on the EU's side.
farmchoice wrote: » no it will be exactly the same as if you traveled to USA Canada Australia new zealand etc, you would need travel insurance, the policy you will buy will provide the correct cover required for the place you are traveling. that is why insurance for the USA is at present much more expensive then cover for france for example.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » So what do you call the mutual recognition of divorce between Britain and Ireland recently announced? And will southern customers have to pay roaming charges if they go up the north?
CelticRambler wrote: » A "no deal" Brexit means no deals. The Brits are on their own, and EU citizen who goes to visit them will need to make the same arrangements as they would when visiting North Korea, Serbia or Uzbekistan.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » So what do you call the mutual recognition of divorce between Britain and Ireland recently announced?
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » And will southern customers have to pay roaming charges if they go up the north?
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » So if you go up the north or even cross the border for a short time, you will need travel insurance? Also car insurance...if you travel up the north will your car insurance be recognised?
josip wrote: » Different arrangements need to be made visiting the countries you have listed so I'm not exactly sure what your point is? For example, an IDP is required and valid in Uzbekistan. It is not valid in North Korea where a DPRK license is required. EU driving licenses are valid in Serbia. A green card is not required when visiting Serbia by car. It is required when visiting Uzbekistan by car. I have no idea what colour card is needed when visiting North Korea by car but if you've managed to get it that far, well done.
When Boris Johnson unveiled his Brexit plan last week it was far from a punt in the dark. The week before, on the fringes of the United Nations in New York, the prime minister met with his Irish counterpart Leo Varadkar and discussed the potential for a compromise. Downing Street believed they came away with an understanding: If London moved on aligning Northern Ireland with the EU single market then Dublin would move on customs regulations. The level of trust was such that Mr Johnson dispatched his chief of staff, Eddie Lister, to Dublin the day before his announcement to brief Mr Varadkar on the plan before it was even shared with Brussels. But as soon as it was made public the private understandings fell apart. Mr Varadkar deliberately enraged the DUP by raising the prospect of a united Ireland as one way to break the Brexit impasse. Simon Coveney, Ireland’s foreign minister, publically dismissed the new British proposals as unworkable. Behind the scenes things were even worse. Dublin shut off back-channel discussions with London and insisted that all talks go through Brussels and Michel Barnier. Mr Barnier then ruled out the British plan as the basis for any agreement. The whole episode has left Downing Street feeling bruised and angry. Government figures believe that they are being deliberately played. They think Mr Varadkar and other EU leaders are making a calculation that if they play hardball then the Benn act will force Mr Johnson to ask for an extension. They don’t believe that he has a secret plan to take Britain out without a deal on October 31 and even if he tried parliament would stop him. Such an extension would then lead to an election or, less likely, a second referendum. If it is an election this either leads to a victory for Mr Johnson or a softer Brexit or no-Brexit at all under Labour or a coalition. If it is a second referendum then they do not expect parliament to allow no-deal on the ballot paper. Even if Mr Johnson returns triumphant to Downing Street from the election the EU will be calculating that it is still in the prime minister’s interests to get a deal. A no-deal Brexit would be disruptive and at some stage talks would have to start again. So why would Mr Johnson not give it another go? Downing Street’s reading is that Brussels has decided that if it is going to compromise on a customs deal in Northern Ireland why not do it at the last possible moment rather than now when it doesn’t really have to? That is why today’s leaked government memo makes explicit the threat that the prime minister will go into an election on a no-deal platform. Both sides are calling each other’s bluff. It is a risky strategy for all concerned.
