Brain Burning 🔥🧠🔥

Yep, just came as bit of a surprise to me - so figured I'd flag it here - and as it turned out, I wasn't alone in being confused about what the rules actually say.

Ofc, since I have a UK license, none of these EEA-specific rules apply to me and my license, so it was a good thing I replaced it ASAP.

Well, there's a saying about fighting city hall...

As for citizenship, while it does smooth some aspects of existence, it also usually comes with a whole set of new and intriguing surprises, few of which typically show up pre-lubricated.

That said, I'll still go for citizenship when/if I qualify.

Could be it allows for it, but so far, I haven't found a MS that requires it - if you have a license from another EEA MS, you're good to go.

At least until you, e.g., have your license revoked and have to retake it, or if you want to alter it, e.g., by adding another class of vehicle to it.

All the ones I've checked today, it has applied in.

Tbf, I didn't check France or Spain before, but I just checked France: "No exchange required: your license is recognized in France."

...and same for Spain.

So in EEA, if you have a valid license from a MS, you're good to go. No swap needed.

Thanks for double-checking!

Yeah, I checked around a bit and it was the same everywhere (~3 different MS) I looked, so I figured it was probably the EEA rule (I think I got confused and wrote EEC, though).

But until today, I was convinced residency meant you had to swap it, even as a 🇪🇺European. 😬🤷‍♂️

No, actually not. They very explicitly differentiated between EEC MS citizens and non-EEC MS citizens, and only the latter are required to change after acquiring residency.

The former can keep driving on valid licenses, according to what I read.

I really thought everyone had to change, but nope.

I was sure that you had to get a local driver's license after being a resident for a year, and found many sites making this claim.

However, looking up references, I found out you seem to be correct: Licenses from EEC (not EU) MS seem to be valid indefinitely?!

Still, had to change as a Brit, tho.

Similarly, even if the UK signed an international treaty to that effect, that could also be legally circumvented.

Ironically, Brexit has clearly demonstrated to other MS the nature of EU's "golden manacles". It's not that you can't leave, it's just that you stand to lose so much from doing it.

As I said earlier, it was already untenable. Brexit, in some form, was necessary, b/c I doubt we'd be willing to just give up our rebate and opt-outs.

EU giving us the old heave-ho would, however, have been incredibly damaging, so us pushing it helped the EU a whole lot.
bsky.app/profile/brai...

Harder still to change treaties that require that 27 nations, that all hold veto power, agree to every change.

Which ought to tell people that they need to provide really good reasons, and possibly incitements, if they want to see changes made to them.

Somehow, that rarely happens.

I've lived in Philadelphia, those South Jerseyans are weird people. I'll stay on the west side of that nice bridge, thankyouverymuch.

Well, it makes sense if you consider that one reason why those two experienced heightened hostility was because of the fear that they would eventually "overrun" WASPs, and, indeed protestants in general, due to their higher, um, fecundity.

Has much really changed, today, other than who fears who?

I'm sure he does, but the point is that this contradiction is important to confront: He got what he voted for, yet regrets it.

Probably true of increasing numbers of Americans, too.

Were they lied to? Yes, absolutely, but most knew this, and all should have known.

So... WTF? What did they expect?

Why? He got everything he voted for?

Getting away with breaking the law at one time does not in any way grant any right or license to continue doing so in all future times.

Further more, real estate ownership does not confer any rights of residence, or even of visitation. Unless you secure the appropriate visa, you're just a tourist.

If they stayed for more than 90 days w/o registering as residents, they were, de jure, illegal immigrants, even back before Brexit.

Even more so if they spent more than 182 days in a year w/o declaring world-wide income to Spanish tax man, in which case they also committed tax fraud/evasion.

I think most Brits realized that Ireland had skin in the Brexit outcome, and Ireland, I believe, was careful only to involve themselves with the outcomes that obviously directly affected them.

I don't think we can free ourselves of them, but we can make sure that it is identified, we can fight it in our domestic media, and where appropriate, we can correct the record.

We can also stop pussyfooting around what Russia and China are doing, at home and abroad, and expose their hypocrisy.

One man's informing is another man's interference.

EU did what it could - it made sure information was easily available _from EU sites_, and they even made sure to rebut false claims and conclusions from them.

But even as a Remainer, I'd have had a bad reaction to perceived oversteps by the EU.

Agree to all of it.

Fundamentally, the UK needs to change in some major ways. Not just to join the EU, although it's needed for that, too, but to become a functional "democratic" nation in today's world.

In quotation marks, b/c no nation is free of the influence of the rich, nor can be, really.

At that point I think most in the EU had realized that even the already existing opt-outs and rebates were untenable, so adding more would only make the problem bigger, and the time until it all collapses shorter.

As for help - the EU being seen as interfering in a UK election would be REALLY bad.

No, joining is at least 15-20 years away (more like ~25, really) for the very simple and practical reasons that it will take the UK at least that long just to meet the practical requirements of membership.

The political angle, otoh, is likely generational, question being if one or two is needed?

Precisely. It's an obvious non sequitur.

Exactly - if we in the UK aren't interested in joining the EU such as it is, we're not interested in joining the EU. Case closed.

So the very premise of EU offering to change itself or the deal to entice the UK to join is as dead in the water today, as it was in 1973, if not even more dead.

Well... There's Russia and Belarus, not sure I'd rate the management of them as brilliant, exactly... And Serbia?

They can't, Australia is self-governing now.

The era of England shipping its rejects down there is well and truly in the past.

Mind you, I never saw the point of shipping some criminals off to Australia, when we have a perfectly good Parliament to house them in?

That seems more like a turf war.

Why should "visa free mobility" be improved? What's purpose of that? For most (>99%) visitors, the system in place is more than adequate

If you're not just a visitor, e.g., going somewhere to work or live, the visa waiver is not intended for you. You need a visa, and possibly permits, too.

Why on God's Green Earth does he believe anyone working for the EU would ever be tasked with running a campaign to encourage the UK to return?

Why would the EU even consider doing so? What other nations does he think the EU has run such campaigns for?

The EU isn't trying to "catch them all", FFS!

Sneaky, I like it! 😎

It's a bloody nuisance to be in a country where everyone speaks English well.

I'm trying to (contractually obligated, even) learn the local lingo, but as soon as the locals hear my heavily accented attempt to speak it, they immediately switch to English, and it takes me begging, for them to revert.