Jump to content
Complete France Forum

Britons in EU could lose access to UK bank accounts under no-deal Brexit


Cathar Tours

Recommended Posts

Warning comes in government ‘technical notices’ telling businesses and public how to prepare in event of no deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/aug/23/britons-in-eu-could-lose-access-to-uk-bank-accounts-under-no-deal-brexit

Interesting for me in a way, how do I pay back my government student loan? Normally it is paid back through your tax but as I have left I have to pay a monthly amount by standing order. To do that I transfer my Euros to Barclays and the DD is taken from there. Happy days at the moment with GBP being almost worthless against the Euro (compared to two years ago) but if I am not allowed to access my UK bank account because I am resident in Germany how can I pay back my debt? Could it be my gain and their loss? Seems as normal with the rest of Brexit, not thought out very well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, as a talking head explained very clearly on this lunchtime BBC news, the UK has made clear that it will not be rescinding the right for E.U financial companies to operate iin the UK. Thus, an Italian living in London who has a pension with an Italian provider can still easily and legally access their money after Brexit, as the Italian provider will still legally have access to the UK market il

The EU, however, will withdraw the right of UK companies to operate in its member states, so if you're living on the Costa del Sol and your private pension is administered by Prudential, they won't be able to transfer your money to you after Brexit because they would in doing so be breaking the law.

Another example, I'm afraid, of you poor Brits living abroad finding yourselves worse off after Brexit than E.U national living in the UK thanks to the intransigent negotiating stance of the E.U and not that of the UK.

You'll probably be fine paying back your student loan...I'm sure that will thrill you.? Plus, according to the news at lunchtime, the transfer of that money will cost you more and take longer to achieve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

‘Intransigent negotiating stance of the EU’

You make it sound as though all things are equal. This is another example of the UK cherry picking, how can anybody expect the EU to back down on their fundamental policies to allow one country who is leaving the club to benefit at the expense of the other 27 members. Have you been overdosing on the Telegraph and Express?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accurate Guardian reporting:

"Customers of UK banks living in the EU “may lose the ability to access

lending and deposit services, and insurance contracts”, the paper says" in the article -

- becomes, in the headline:

No-deal Brexit: Britons in EU could lose access to UK bank accounts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Another example, I'm afraid, of you poor Brits living abroad finding

yourselves worse off after Brexit than E.U national living in the UK

thanks to the intransigent negotiating stance of the E.U and not that of

the UK."

I would say that  it is the result of Brexit itself..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you can't deposit funds into the account from an EU country I can't pay the money to HMRC? That would really be a shame.

As to " intransigent negotiating stance of the E.U" I believe the UK decided to leave the EU and not the EU the UK.

Prior to the referendum the EU has said and keeps saying that the four freedoms of the European Union, freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital across borders are not for negotiations and cannot be separated as they are the core of the Treaty of Rome. You can't have one or more without the others and because the UK does not want the freedom of movement of people it can't have the other three which includes goods and services. This has been repeated by all the other 27 member states individually. So it's not being intransigent, difficult or anything else, even a child would work that out, it is what it says "on the tin". The UK should leave the EU with no deal then negotiate afterwards the sort of trade deal it wants like Canada and all the others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is from a Daily Mail reader......who'd have thunk it?[:)]

So migration from outside the EU is higher than ever,people who have

worked all their lives may lose their pension and the ONLY land border

we have with the EU cannot be closed. It's going well then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look...i voted remain. But if the UK is perfectly willing to let E.U residents in the UK do certain things and the E.U won't reciprocate, then there's a teeny tiny part of me that says perhaps in some small but not insignificant ways the E.U is going out of its way to justify some of the reasons that made people vote leave.

And Cathar Tours, if you want to patronize me, try not to bleat next time you perceive I'm doing it to you. Or are you another "do as I say, not as I do" poster?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Betty's comment.

This is like proper divorce when one party is flexible and the other employs a rot weiller lawyer........ and boy do I know of some couples who have lived through that. Never ends fairly or well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Betty what are these certain things, enlighten me because I don't have clue what they are?

There have been so many different comparisons since this started like leaving the golf club etc. and also divorce. If it were like a divorce the reason would be abandonment on behalf of the UK but really it's none of these, it's simple, the UK, by a majority, voted to leave the EU which I think is a wrong decision but it is what it is. Amongst the Brexiteers it would seem they would prefer absolutely no deal with the EU which is stupid but that's their choice.

They say (love to know who "they" are) that 80% or more of the negotiations have been completed to the satisfaction of all parties and the primary issue left now is NI, the Republic and a border. It is something that is unique and it's difficult to find a solution especially when the British government relies on a bunch of bigots that call themselves the DUP. It reminds me of apartheid in SA where the minority control the majority and my personal opinion is Ireland should be one country ruled from Dublin. If they can manage to play rugby as one country I am sure they can sort something out.

So it would seem to many outside the UK that the UK wants to accept the 80% and leave the remaining 20% till later but it has been said from the very beginning, from both sides, that it's agreed when it is all agreed and cherry picking is not an option and neither are the four core principles.

So lets hear what these certain things are please.

P.S. If you think I was calling you in particular a child then I think you have some form of chip on a shoulder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idun - Better a Rottweiler that somebody who only spends 4 hour out of 14 months negotiating with his notes written on the back of a packet of fags. If I assume your talking about Barnier then remember he is only doing what he has been told to do by the heads of the 27 other EU countries. He meets them regularly for feedback and further instructions. He is "their man".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love that . Barnier "only following orders". Sounds vaguely familiar.

I'm perfectly balanced, btw. Chip on both shoulders..?

And for BinB 's info I haven't been reading any newspapers of anu paryicular bent.Online or elsewhere. I bought L'Equipe back in July once but that won't count.Although I'm saved a lot of bother anyway as I can usually rely on this forum to present me with enough links to the Guardian each day to keep me busy, should I choose to open them.

If the E.U doesn't give the UK any concessions on financial services, I hope Brits in France with private pensions etc. will still be totally behind the EU'S firm stance.....after all, they'll be the ones with the problems accessing their money.

CT: "certain things" like being able to access their money in their home country, apply for permanent residency.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the problem with 'no deal' is that there is no default position for banks. Of course banks from all over the world have working arrangements with the EU and other countries that mean they can function and money can change hands smoothly, if not freely. The problem with 'crashing out' is that there is no such backstop. At some point I am sure that even in that extreme scenario, a solution would be reached at some point, but 7 months until exit is not enough time to sort that out, and so banks and individuals could have cash flow problems during that time. Why is this all seeming to be a problem now? Well until a few weeks ago the UK hadn't even agreed what it wanted from Brexit..it is only now it is even suggesting that no deal is a possibility.. I know who I'd blame for that and it isn't the EU..

On a practical level, the best course of action is to make sure you have sufficient resources in France before D day.. to tide people over until things can be sorted. That is the point of these project reality publications isn't it? So that people can prepare and then no one can blame the government when it all goes Pete Tong.

Just so you know where we are heading..my partner lived in France before the Eu existed as it does now, but he still had property in the UK. Because of currency restrictions he couldn't legally transfer enough money back to the UK to pay his mortgage there. That is what people are going back to..that was the status quo before the UK was part of the EU.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When was this? We moved to France in 81 and we never had any problems transferring money in either direction. And I got to know other brits as well as other nationalities in France and they had been in France for some time then, and no one ever mentioned problems with transfers.

As a former bank clerk, I used to be pretty much on the ball with this sort of thing.

The only thing was that it was expensive to make transfers, which meant that we had to think carefully before transferring, and that in effect  would 'restrict' how much we sent in either direction, to make it worthwhile. No point in transferring 300ff to the UK if the cost was about £20 for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="idun"]
When was this? We moved to France in 81 and we never had any problems transferring money in either direction. And I got to know other brits as well as other nationalities in France and they had been in France for some time then, and no one ever mentioned problems with transfers.

As a former bank clerk, I used to be pretty much on the ball with this sort of thing.

The only thing was that it was expensive to make transfers, which meant that we had to think carefully before transferring, and that in effect  would 'restrict' how much we sent in either direction, to make it worthwhile. No point in transferring 300ff to the UK if the cost was about £20 for example.

[/quote]

I can remember going on European holidays with my parents where the length of time away was regulated by the fact that each adult could only take £50 out if the country. There were ways of extending your spending power, my father always pre-ordered and paid for Italian petrol coupons and our RAC breakdown package included credit notes that, if used, could be paid for after returning home.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My partner lived here from about 1984 onwards. He said there were ways around the system..little fiddles etc. but it was not straightforward, and neither was living in France, from check-ins with the gendarmes and having to renew your CdS often..He was going to apply for naturalisation at that time, but then when the EU and freedom of movement came in there didn't seem much point. He has spent more of his adult life in France than the UK, but in the brave new post Brexit world that counts for nothing as it hasn't been continuous residence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betty wrote:

Love that . Barnier "only following orders". Sounds vaguely familiar.

Betty I hope that was written in jest and not through ignorance; but even in jest it is a poorly judged comment. A comment that sits alongside straight bananas and indicates (even if unintended) a complete lack of understanding of the EU and its operations.

Of course Barnier is following the " orders ". The European Commission - which is nothing more than the civil service of the EU and hence unelected before Idun reminds us - is very much a rule based organisation and really has to be because deviation from rules might be construed as providing national bias.

All rules are signed off at national level before becoming enshrined in a directive or a treaty. Sometimes there may be a derogation to allow some countries to circumvent a part of the rules. But the essential point is that all of the rules in place have been agreed by the UK alongside its other EU countries.

Those who have been around for a number of years will remember the French health cover rules that were challenged by our much missed Cooperlola. It was eventually the commission who after much lobbying went to the French health ministry and told them that they had to stop and return to the rules and treat non-French inactives the same way as a French inactive. That is part of their function.

So where that leaves us in the current debate is that Barnier, the commission and the EU as a whole are beholden to a treaty that the UK agreed to that enshrined 4 basic principles. Given that the agreement is at treaty level, the chances of a relaxation (which equals the treaty needing to be re-written and agreed by all member states) was always going to be as close to zero as makes no difference. So the politicians who promised an easy trade deal because the effects on the EU will be more than on the UK, simply were lying or like many do not understand the workings of the EU. I am sure the commission will have pointed out the ramifications and the responses have been clear from Merkel, Macron and others - the 4 principles stand.

As for loss of passporting rights or an accommodation, if that happens then the blame lies clearly with Britain and not the EU. The EU has standards, the UK wishes to degrade those standards and the EU is saying no

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as I said, I arrived in 1981 and had plenty of hoops to jump through, including have every last thing we were moving to France, listed in french, probably including the value and stamped by the local consulate. But money transfers were not one of them. For a substantial amount, the banks wanted to know the provenance, but heyho, they still do. For 'normal' amounts, we never had any explaining to do on either side of the Channel, we just transferred. The thing was that they were pricey so I used to have to work out when was the best time to transfer, not only because of the exchange rates but the hefty fees on both sides . And that was the the only thing, the exorbetant cost of doing so, we never circumvented anything.

Maybe he was rather better off than us and large amounts would require looking into, but for us, never a problem and the large amount was only once, when we had transferred our proceeds from our UK house sale to France.

And we had all the hoops to jump through then, having to renew our Cartes de Sejours quite often, and then once when we did this,  after and attentat in Paris, it was every month at ........ our mairie got a bit zealous with it and I called the Prefecture and found that they had stopped that after about three months.

Remember I have still spent most of my adult life living in France and it will be another few years before that is no longer the case. That is was different was OK, we had moved to another country, we had chosen to go there and it never entered my head to try and apply to be french, because I know I shall never be french, paper work or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy - If memory serves I think it was the European Court of Justice whose job is to ensure that all the rules and regulations of the EU are abided by if it is bought to their attention they are being broken rather than the commission. Some people do get the ECJ and ECHR mixed up as well when they are quiet separate bodies. As proof Russia comes under the ECHR and as far as I know it's not an EU member.

You are absolutely spot on with your comments especially the 4 core principles yet it seems the UK government does not understand them even though they are part of the Treaty of Rome which as you rightly pointed out the UK signed up to.

No doubt the UK government have already written the statements ready to put out when the UK leaves with no deal that it is all the EU's fault and the UK is a totally innocent victim in all this. By fool those back home but the rest of the 27 will at least have a good laugh.

I was wondering how the UK will deal with the loss of access to the now nearly 60 trade deals the EU, as the EU, has signed with countries. It's all well and good saying they can trade under WTO rules but has anyone looked at some of the tariffs involved? Nearly 80% on meat products I read which would be great news for the British farmers. Rather than the supermarkets saying they will buy EU meat if the farmers don't sell it to them cheap the British farmers will be able to raise their prices considerably which of course will be passed on to the consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call them hunches, adding 2 and 2 together and making 5 but here are a couple of thoughts (no more than my thoughts so no need to agree and I promise not to go off in a huff should you tell me I am talking rubbish)[:)]

I think the tory party really wants a no deal brexit because there will be loads of money-making opportunities for the likes of Rees Mogg.  They will say they have tried their damnedest to negotiate a deal but that the EU are being "inflexible and difficult" and so, at one stroke, they achieve their objective and put the hated EU in a bad light[I]

Then there is Trump.  American interest rates have been raised I understand and so the pound will be even weaker against the dollar.  So, what better time to give the Brits a trade deal with CONDITIONS attached.  For example, yes a deal is perfectly possible and in both our interests but we want access to your profitable sectors such as your health services.  Even Trump will not use those words but what's the betting he has long been thinking along those lines?

And I want to agree with Andy and hope that Betty is merely being flippant when she talked about "following orders"!  Not a quip I like......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CT

you are right that the ECJ can get involved, but in the case I cited (IIRC) and many others, it does not come to that and a quiet wrap on the knuckles does the job. After all what chance does an individual country have if the Commission are bringing the case of broken rules to the ECJ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="mint"]  ..........................

...........  I think the tory party really wants a no deal brexit because there will be loads of money-making opportunities for the likes of Rees Mogg.  They will say they have tried their damnedest to negotiate a deal but that the EU are being "inflexible and difficult" and so, at one stroke, they achieve their objective and put the hated EU in a bad light[I] .....................  [/quote]

The tories are not the only party to have conveniently blamed the EU when things go wrong, or to excuse faulty or clumsy legislation. It's been a useful cover-up for years.

I wonder how long this will continue after Brexit?

I still hear TM, in her weekly bleat, blaming the Labour party for current problems, when they left office over eight years and two elections ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There might be something in Mint's comment. I read that a "no deal" would be interesting to many Tories. They are not interested in manufacturing so don't care about exports they would rather turn the UK into something similar to Singapore. I am sure Moggy would jump for joy at the chance. I mean the fella has started three funds now in Dublin to profit from Brexit.

Going back to origin of the thread I would think the biggest issue could be the exchange rate. I looked at historic rates on FX and GBP seems to have lost nearly 40% since the utterance of the word referendum. I wonder if it could go sub 1 to 1. For many, especially those down in Spain for instance who live almost state pension to mouth, it could make a massive difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...