A further thread on the EU/UK musicians/visa for paid work issue (the issue is paid work: travelling to sing or play at eg a charity event for free can be done without a visa).

The position that we now have now (no relevant provisions under the TCA) is complicated. For EU musicians visiting the UK see https://t.co/Z6gRtynDNH
In essence the UK permits foreign (including EU) nationals to stay up to 30 days to carry out paid engagements, but they must (a) prove they are a professional musician and (b) be invited by an established UK business.
Either condition could be tricky for a young musician starting out and wanting to play gigs. And 30 days isn’t long enough for a part in a show with a run.
Longer stays require a T5 visa - which generally requires you to be in a shortage occupation (play an instrument not played in the UK?) or to have an established international reputation.
For UK musicians visiting the EU, the answer is: it all depends where you are going. 26 different rules (Ireland is no problem because of the common travel area).
The current government tells us that the EU rejected its offer of visa-free travel for musicians under 30 days as part of the list of “Mode 4” permitted services.
Put shortly and simplifying, you find in Annex SERVIN-4 to the TCA a list of things independent professionals from the EU and UK can do in each other’s territory - with qualifications.
The list of independent professionals is here - but note the final sentence, which directs you to a long list of reservations.
Music is not there.
As I understand the current government’s case, the EU refused to add it.
But we do know what the EU did offer because it is in their draft agreement published in March.
What that would have done is set out a baseline position where EU and UK citizens could have done any paid work in each other’s territories for up to 90 days in any 180 days. Music covered along with everything else.
NB though that any EU State could have imposed a visa requirement on UK citizens doing paid work (music, for example) in which case the UK could have reciprocated for that state’s nationals.
One can see that that was lopsided: the UK could only impose visas on citizens of eg 🇧🇪 for work of a certain type if 🇧🇪 went first.
But the UK could have worked on it and obtained a wide ability to go and do temporary work in each other’s territories - including musicians.
But no: that whole section has gone. And the current government doesn’t, I think, deny that it killed it for ideological reasons: an end to freedom of movement must be seen to have been achieved. Despite this, from Johnson in 2016. https://t.co/0p35v5CKw1
Another bit of the killed section. Youth exchanges. And wider reciprocal residence and entry provisions.
All to maintain the dogma that the EU must be treated as “foreign” for immigration purposes in the same way as any other foreign state, despite its proximity and the closeness of our links.
That dogma is not, I believe, sustainable. In the medium term, we will need and want better mobility arrangements with our closest neighbours. For musicians, young people wanting short term bar jobs, for retired people wanting to spend the whole winter in Spain and so on.
To return to music: it may well be that the failure to add music to the Annex lists is down to the EU.
But, more profoundly, the UK music sector is here a casualty (among many) of the UK’s refusal to engage with the EU’s offer of a broader mobility framework.
An important task for the next government will be to reopen that discussion and negotiate the broader mobility framework that is in the interests of so many UK citizens, including musicians.

More from Brexit

Two excellent questions at the end of a very sensible thread summarising the post-Brexit UK FP debate. My own take at attempting to offer an answer - ahead of the IR is as follow:


1. The two versions have a converging point: a tilt to the Indo-pacific doesn’t preclude a role as a convening power on global issues;
2. On the contrary, it underwrites the credibility for leadership on global issues, by seeking to strike two points:

A. Engaging with a part of the world in which world order and global issues are central to security, prosperity, and - not least - values;
B. Propelling the UK towards a more diversified set of economic, political, and security ties;

3. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific whilst structurally based on a realist perception of the world, it is also deeply multilateral. Central to it is the notion of a Britain that is a convening power.
4. It is as a result a notion that stands on the ability to renew diplomacy;

5. It puts in relation to this a premium on under-utilised formats such as FPDA, 5Eyes, and indeed the Commonwealth - especially South Pacific islands;
6. It equally puts a premium on exploring new bilateral and multilateral formats. On former, Japan, Australia. On latter, Quad;
So many stories of new barriers to trade between UK and EU, but you might be thinking at some point these will run out. The government is certainly hoping so. Well they may slow down, but trade relations and regulations are not static, and changes will lead to further problems.

The likelihood of continued trade problems for a £650 bn trade relationship is why there should be a huge cross-government effort led by the Foreign Office and Department for International Trade to put in place the necessary resources to seek best results.

There isn't.

So the UK's relationship with the EU currently consists of two not particularly good deals and no consistent effort to manage current problems or prevent future ones. Joint committees are a second order problem to putting in place the right internal structures.

But that's been the consistent UK problem in relations with the EU since 2016. Lack of focus on getting the right internal structures, people, asks, strategy, too much attention on being tough and a single leader.

News just in. This doesn't necessarily mean the right structure being put into UK-EU relations. I suspect Frost's main role is to ensure no renegotiations with the EU.

Also, wonder what this says about the PM's trust in Michael Gove?

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party