90

On 23rd of June, 2016, the UK voted in a referendum to leave the EU. This leads to the following questions:

  • Are UK citizens traveling to the EU affected?
  • Are EU citizens traveling to the UK affected?
  • Are UK/EU family members traveling both way affected?
  • Are Commonwealth citizens traveling to the UK affected?
  • Are other visa-free nationals (such as US/Canada citizens) affected?
  • What other consequences might 'Brexit' have on travelers?

Also, see the related post on Expats.SE.

JonathanReez
  • 83,545
  • 81
  • 372
  • 721
  • 1
    Additionally this question could be asked for countries in the Commonwealth – Quill Jun 24 '16 at 06:34
  • 1
    Related: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/64025/what-would-brexit-mean-for-my-immediate-europe-travel-plans-from-the-uk – JonathanReez Jun 24 '16 at 06:35
  • 61
    Remember, all they did was vote on a referendum. No law change has yet occurred. – Mark Mayo Jun 24 '16 at 07:41
  • 9
    Note that the referendum is not legally binding, so Cameron could still just say "I don't care" and the UK would remain in the EU as if nothing happened. This of course would be extremely anti-democratic and probably wont happen, in any case the point is that now is the Parliament that has to start the procedures to exit the EU. – Bakuriu Jun 24 '16 at 07:50
  • I want to ask about the same thing but for people WORKING in uk (french citizens, but they could be any european citizens) : shall I ask in a new question? is there already one? (I didn't find one yet...) – Olivier Dulac Jun 24 '16 at 12:46
  • 1
    @OlivierDulac ask here: https://expatriates.stackexchange.com/ – JonathanReez Jun 24 '16 at 12:59
  • @JonathanReez thanks a lot, I didn't know that one – Olivier Dulac Jun 24 '16 at 13:07
  • 11
    @Bakuriu - Cameron already resigned. – JohnP Jun 24 '16 at 14:38
  • 10
    @JohnP That's not really relevant. The point is: whoever is or will be in charge has no legal obbligation to request application of article 50 for a removal to the EU, he only has a moral obbligation to do so. – Bakuriu Jun 24 '16 at 16:25
  • 6
    This is going to trigger another Scottish Independence referendum. – PCARR Jun 24 '16 at 16:38
  • 1
    New borders will arise between Ireland and Northern Ireland and between Scotland and the UK after Scotland leaves the UK to stay in the EU. – Count Iblis Jun 24 '16 at 17:04
  • @count iblis -sinn fein is already making noise about a ref to leave. – JohnP Jun 24 '16 at 17:55
  • 1
    @PCARR Is Scotland going to leave the U.K. and then (re)join the EU? –  Jun 25 '16 at 01:04
  • 5
    Haha, "Post is related to a rapidly changing event." Nothing is going to change for quite a while, actually. – fkraiem Jun 25 '16 at 01:07
  • @Michael: some people are predicting that they will, but the legal process for them to do so is long and complicated and not yet started. – Steve Jessop Jun 25 '16 at 01:25
  • I don't know enough of the details to post an answer, but I believe another non-change are those negotiated by Cameron with the EU: they're now gone when AFAIK they were about to be implemented. – Mark Hurd Jun 25 '16 at 17:24
  • @Michael: There has been some speculation (...) that the whole event could be handled as a secession of England and Wales from the UK, from an EU perspective. This leaves Scotland as the successor state and would sidestep the Article 50 procedure. The benefit of leaving Art.50 unused is that it doesn't encourage other EU members to leave, and Spain wouldn't mind the precedent that seceding from an EU member means seceding from the EU as a whole. – MSalters Jun 25 '16 at 23:11
  • The referendum is legally binding, and the EU is taking it seriously. Exit has to happen within 2 years. So, currently there are no changes, but when laws begin to be passed (likely partially or over time), then things like free travel may be impacted. Can't foresee anything until 2017 at the earliest, and likely 2018, but lots of companies will be making changes in anticipation, so the private sector reaction will likely have an impact sooner. – jeffmcneill Jun 27 '16 at 01:56
  • 3
    @jeffmcneill No it isn't. There's nothing in the EU Referendum act - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/contents/enacted - that compels the government to do anything with the result. Equally, there's nothing in any treaties that lets the EU itself kick the UK out on the basis of the referendum. – CMaster Jun 27 '16 at 11:48
  • @CMaster then you don't understand the concept of a UK referendum or a UK democracy. Yes, of course there are other actions to take, such as pass laws, but the British voters have voted and a unless that vote is actually meaningless, and therefore British democracy meaningless, those further actions will be taken. The alternative, to ignore the will of the voters as expressed in the referendum, is much, much worse (British democracy a farce). Resignation of a Prime Minister, a 10% drop in the value of the GBP, and heaps of attention should give some indication of how this is legally binding. – jeffmcneill Jun 29 '16 at 00:22
  • 1
    @jeffmcneil. No, I think you don't understand what legally binding means. Legally binding means that the law compels a person or entity to act a certain way. That is not the case here. you're correct that it is a political reality that the UK will leave the EU - but that isn't the same thing. – CMaster Jun 29 '16 at 07:13
  • 2
    @jeffmcneill that's not what "Legally binding" means. As CMaster said, the political reality is that the result will be respected, but there's absolutely nothing in British Law that says it must be. If an election was called right now and a party won with a "No Brexit" manifesto, they would be perfectly entitled, legally and politically, to cancel the whole thing. No UK Parliament (ie after an election) is bound by the decisions of its predecessor – Jon Story Aug 18 '16 at 13:10

5 Answers5

86

As of today, no. Nothing has currently changed (other than currency prices, which are of interest to international travelers).

There will be a prolonged negotiating period over the next several years (specifically, two years after Article 50 is invoked unless a different agreement is reached), and immigration controls will inevitably be a large part of those discussions. The results of those negotiations, along with potential future events in the UK and EU, may bring any number of future changes for anybody, regardless of citizenship, interested in short or long-term travel to the UK and for UK citizens looking to visit EU countries.

There are also no current plans for immigration changes for Commonwealth or other visa-free nationals (such as US/Canadian citizens).

Until these negotiations are completed and implemented, the UK remains a member of the EU, and all existing laws apply with no changes. As changes are proposed and enacted, travelers will need to remain alert for potential effects.

Zach Lipton
  • 86,274
  • 13
  • 271
  • 325
  • 7
    And the Article 50 is not going to be invoked until October as Cameron just said – Hanky Panky Jun 24 '16 at 07:41
  • 15
    @HankyPanky Indeed. Technically, what Cameron said is that he'll step down by October and leave it to his successor to invoke Article 50, so the timeline is unclear. What does seem clear is that Cameron plans to block the door for the next few months and not begin any changes. – Zach Lipton Jun 24 '16 at 09:11
  • @Harbinger "Once an application has been made, it has to be completed within two years. That period can be extended but only if all 28 EU countries agree." Ref: BBC – User1 Jun 24 '16 at 13:18
  • 2
    @Harbinger what took Switzerland 20 years, exactly? – phoog Jun 24 '16 at 14:07
  • 4
    @harbringer Why do you mention Switzerland. It has never been part of the EU so it isn't a case for comparison. In fact the Article 50 procedure the UK has to go through has never been invoked previously either. There is no precedent whatsoever. The UK is the first. – Tonny Jun 24 '16 at 15:01
  • @Harbinger It literally says 2 years is the max time to negotiate officially once it's been invoked. After that the UK is out, their membership in the EU expires. So if is smart, they'll wait until they're really ready to invoke. – Insane Jun 24 '16 at 17:29
  • 3
    @Insane What it actually says is that they can agree on a withdrawal agreement and EU membership ends as soon as that agreement takes effect (that agreement could do anything though), or it will happen automatically after two years from invocation unless all states unanimously agree to extend the time period. So there are several possible timelines. – Zach Lipton Jun 24 '16 at 17:32
  • @ZachLipton Right which is why I said 2 years 'is the max time', not 'is the exact time'. – Insane Jun 24 '16 at 17:41
  • 1
    Basically, after the article 50 is invoked: if they reach an agreement faster they can be out before the 2 year period; if they have not reached an agreement by that time UK is automatically out of the EU; but when we reach the 2 year period it is also possible to extend it if every other EU country agrees. – kiradotee Jun 27 '16 at 19:29
  • 1
    So it can literally take between one day and infinity. :) – kiradotee Jun 27 '16 at 19:31
  • @Tonny What about Greenland? Did they not use Article 50? – Tim Jul 09 '16 at 12:51
  • 2
    @Tim No. They voted to leave the EEC (pre-cursor to the EU) in 1982 and got out in 1985. That was before Article 50 (that only applies to EU) was applicable. Besides the situation was quite different. Greenland only has about 60.000 inhabitants and their economy is much more tied to the USA and Canada. It never made much sense to have them in the EEC in the first place, but Denmark dragged them into it when they became a member of the EEC... continued.. – Tonny Jul 09 '16 at 14:57
  • 2
    @Tim continued.... Greenland is a separate nation within the Kingdom of Denmark, but after WWII their autonomy was very limited. In the 80's and 90's that autonomy got expanded (it is now similar to Wales and Scotland in the UK) . Leaving EEC was one of the steps on that road. – Tonny Jul 09 '16 at 14:58
30

Bottom line: Tourists, visitors, and transit cases are not affected by the UK's vote to leave the European Union.

The relevant issues are about asylum seekers and some types of EU nationals who seek to gain (or persist) settlement in the UK. If you are an EU national exercising derived rights or exercising treaty rights, please use Expats for your questions/answers.

Update 19 August 2016

The Home Affairs Committee published a report dated 27 July 2016, The work of the Immigration Directorates (Q1 2016), which concludes there is an "absence of certainty" over Brexit. It mainly deals with the status of EU nationals who are now exercising treaty rights in the UK.

Update 2 July 2016

What a lot of people are interested in now has a name: "domestic disentanglement from EU law". The House of Lords has added a briefing to their library...

Repealing and Reviewing Domestic Legislation—As part of the process of leaving the EU, decisions would need to be made about how to deal with existing domestic legislation passed to enable EU law to have effect in the UK, a process which the House of Lords European Union Committee has described as "domestic disentanglement from EU law". Parliament would have an important role to play in reviewing, repealing, amending and replacing legislation, a process which is predicted by many to be complex and time-consuming. Once the UK had formally triggered Article 50, its timescales would apply independently of Parliament approving domestic legislative changes associated with leaving the EU.

The full briefing is here.

Update 28 June 2016

The House of Commons has admitted a research paper to their library: "Leaving the EU: How might people currently exercising free movement rights be affected?"

On the 24th of June this paper was admitted: "Brexit: what happens next?"

Now that the UK has voted to leave the EU, what will happen next? This Commons Library briefing paper looks at the immediate consequences of the vote and some of the longer term implications. This paper considers various questions about UK withdrawal from the EU and what is likely to happen in the coming weeks and months. The issues include the method of leaving the EU, continuing parliamentary scrutiny of EU business and the withdrawal negotiations, and the implications of Brexit for Scotland and Gibraltar.

enter image description here

Original Answer

Changes that will directly affect British nationals...

The British passport has "European Union" on the front cover. It will remain valid during the negotiations and a new design will most likely be phased in as existing passports expire;

The European Health Insurance Card (Ehic) (which enables British nationals to get access to medically necessary, state-provided healthcare during a temporary stay in any of the 28 EU countries, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland, under the same conditions and at the same cost (free in some countries) as people insured in that country), will remain valid during the negotiations and most likely be phased out as the UK negotiates separate treaties like those already in place with Australia and New Zealand;

The British driving permit will remain valid during the negotiations. Because it has an EU symbol on it, a new design will most likely be phased in as existing permits expire;

Spouses and long-term workers will most likely be grandfathered. There are no mass deportations of EU nationals envisioned.

See also: How will Brexit affect your finances?

Changes that will (or might affect) the family formation immigration routes...

A large part of the Brexit debate was focused on immigration. I will add a few things that are in the crosshairs. Indeed some of the rulings that help prompt the Brexit vote...

  • The Surinder Singh route. They never liked this ruling and it has acted as a thorn in the government's side for a long, long time. It's in the crosshairs and I think we can be sure that this immigration route will be closed, perhaps not this year, or even this decade, but it will be high on the list of priorities.
  • The Zambrano case. This is another case that never sat too well with the government. The government (two governments actually) were recalcitrant following the court's decision and it took a long time for them to even publish the guidance.
  • The Metock case. The UK's reaction was heated and recalcitrant but they finally implemented the ruling. Brexit advocates have seen this case as an extension of Singh (above) and hence a humiliating loss of sovereignty.

There are other rulings from the European Court that are similar and the UK has fought against them and opted out where they could.

These things affect boyfriends and girlfriends in long-distance relationships where they need an inward migration route because they cannot meet the rules. And overall these are about family formation and do not affect travellers and holiday makers to the UK.

Changes that affect tourists and visitors...

Remember that part of the mission of UK Visas and Immigration is to get lots of visitors in to the UK because the UK economy relies upon visitors, and this part of their mission will not change. If anything they will expand programmes like they are doing for China and India.

The UK has voted to leave the EU. How does this affect people traveling to the UK and vice-versa?

The outlook for tourists visiting the UK looks great! Sterling is at an all-time low so holidays will be cheaper, and visitors will be especially welcome because it boosts the economy.

Are other visa-free nationals (such as US/Canada citizens) affected?

No change. The UK has always operated at arm's length from the Schengen system. In about 4 or 5 years you will see the "EU Nationals" queue at the airport become rebranded into something that does the same thing but without the EU logo. And the EU rules about what you can carry and the HMRC customs declaration exits will be rebranded. It's reasonable to expect the government to adopt the EU customs rules into UK law. But this will (most likely) be done by statutory instrument so nobody will notice the change.

What other consequences might 'Brexit' have on travelers?

The first change a traveller is likely to see will be in the duty-free shops. Unless renegotiated, customs limits are likely to be introduced and of course any EU branding will be removed.

Update 25 June 2016

Laura Devine (a boutique immigration firm catering to high-net-worth individuals and frequent adviser to Parliament) posted this update yesterday...

enter image description here

Notes and comments...

Note: maybe you like the Singh Route, maybe you don't. Maybe you agree with what the government will do, maybe you don't. The point being that it's in the cross-hairs and there are strong public expectations that something will be done.

Side note: It's also reasonable to expect that EU citizens who have been here for a long time will be grandfathered in one way or another. Removals/deportations of people who are working in the economy is not in scope at all.

Comments: Addressing a comment from Relaxed (to whom thanks) on the feasibility of reversing the Singh ruling...

@JonathanReez I don't think so, and that's actually one of the few things we do know IMO. But that's a discussion we should have on the chat, the point is that assuming this kind of piecemeal adjustments are possible at all is highly speculative at this point. – Relaxed 11 hours ago

The practicalities and mechanics of actually reversing Singh are out-of-scope. The point being that the "immigration debate" surrounding Brexit was not about tourists and visitors.

Community
  • 1
Gayot Fow
  • 85,024
  • 26
  • 229
  • 405
  • "The first change a traveller is likely to see will be in the duty-free shops" - In what way will these shops be affected? – User1 Jun 24 '16 at 10:30
  • 3
    @user1 Quite possibly it would become like travel to Norway or Switzerland is now, with an exit from the customs union you'd get duty free crossing the channel – Gagravarr Jun 24 '16 at 10:33
  • It's difficult to see how the UK could specifically get rid of, say, the Surinder Singh rule without calling into question the freedom of movement and therefore access to the free market. The latter requires keeping rules and practices in sync both with EU secondary law and the EU court of justice interpretation of it, even if you are formally not bound by them (that's basically what Norways does). That's basically the fundamental problem with the idea of renegotiating the UK's relationship with the EU but it's not clear how being out makes it any easier than trying to do it from within. – Relaxed Jun 24 '16 at 10:58
  • So even if the UK is unhappy with these rulings (that's not news and there are some people very high in the EU bureaucracy who think similarly), whether something can be done about them entirely depends on what kind of agreement can be reached between the EU and the UK. In this context, is the UK political leadership prepared to put access to the single market in the balance over such minute details of freedom of movement rights? – Relaxed Jun 24 '16 at 11:05
  • 1
    @Relaxed Getting rid of Surinder Singh (and other aspects the UK doesn't like) could be the basis of a renegotiated membership. Despite all the statements from both the Leave and the Remain campaigns, nobody knows how far EU laws can be stretched. – JonathanReez Jun 24 '16 at 11:06
  • @JonathanReez I don't think so, and that's actually one of the few things we do know IMO. But that's a discussion we should have on the chat, the point is that assuming this kind of piecemal adjustments are possible at all is highly speculative at this point. – Relaxed Jun 24 '16 at 11:18
  • Also note that the Surinder route and similar is mainly required because of the strict requirements to curtail non-EU immigration, so global immigration can be lower. If they'll be able to cut EU-immigration, then there might not be a reason to have the original laws that curtailed the immigration of spouses – SztupY Jun 24 '16 at 12:16
  • 1
    @Relaxed given that immigration was a key issue in the debate, it seems likely that the UK will leave the EEC. Many are saying that a status similar to Norway or Switzerland is off the table. Then freedom of movement will come to an end, not just Singh and related cases. – phoog Jun 24 '16 at 14:12
  • @Relaxed Switzerland has a constitutional amendment coming into effect in January that imposes immigration caps on EU migrants in violation of its treaty arrangements with the EU. We wait to see whether Switzerland will be ejected from the EEA, or whether some flexibility can be found. – Calchas Jun 24 '16 at 15:55
  • @phoog Indeed and that's another reason why I don't see this mattering very much either way. – Relaxed Jun 24 '16 at 16:54
  • @Calchas Technically, Switzerland is not in the EEA but its situation is indeed relevant. The thing is that the three year delay they voted for back in 2014 was precisely supposed to provide a bit of time to renegotiate and see whether some flexibility could be found. And absolutely nothing has happened on that front, at least in part for the reasons I mentioned above. – Relaxed Jun 24 '16 at 17:02
  • I feel like this answer is missing too much important information. What does it mean to be "in the cross-hairs"? How do the rulings affect boyfriend/girlfriend long-distance relationships? What are the changes that I will see in the duty-free shops? – Thunderforge Jun 24 '16 at 19:52
  • 2
    The British passport says "European Union" on the front, but it doesn't have an EU symbol. Also, the Singh route is relevant to tourists who are non-EU family members of British citizens living elsewhere in the EU. They may see a severe curtailment of their ability to travel to Britain with their British family members. – phoog Jun 24 '16 at 23:51
  • The fall of the pound is only a temporary effect due to panicking investors who bet that they would vote to remain. – dan-klasson Jun 25 '16 at 17:33
  • As far as I'm aware, the EHIC is entirely unrelated to the EU. – gsnedders Jun 26 '16 at 18:36
  • @gsnedders, it is. and this would be a great to,learn more about it – Gayot Fow Jun 27 '16 at 01:19
  • @Thunderforge use dictionaries like http://onelook.com/ for help with 'crosshairs' – Gayot Fow Jun 27 '16 at 01:21
  • @Relaxed, you are probably misinformed, the narrative of the referendum was tightly linked to immigration anxieties about those and other rulings. For many, immigration was tantamount to a single-issue politic. I can appreciate that you may be pro-immigration, but it would not change the narrative that took place. – Gayot Fow Jun 27 '16 at 01:26
  • @GayotFow You seemed to have missed my point entirely. The hostility to immigration was obvious and massive, that's even one of the reasons I think the rulings themselves do not matter much. Do you really think the Leave campaign or most voters would be happy to stay in the EU with freedom of movement for EU citizens and almost as much immigration from elsewhere if only a few thousands spouses of British citizens weren't able to use the Surinder Singh route? Or that many people are even aware of them? – Relaxed Jun 27 '16 at 06:08
  • The way you chose to argue is also very unpleasant. Please refrain from misrepresenting my arguments and resorting to ad hominem, my point really has nothing to do with my being for or against immigration. And please remove this silly reference to my comment in your answer, that's not the way this site works (incidentally, I am not the one who started this discussion and I even implied it was out of scope by inviting Jonathan to discuss the issue elsewhere so why present that as an answer to me personally?) – Relaxed Jun 27 '16 at 06:15
  • Entitlement to an EHIC is based on insurability under EU law, so how could it be entirely unrelated to the EU? – Gayot Fow Jun 27 '16 at 06:51
  • @GayotFow It may not be entirely unrelated, but there are non-EU members which are party to it (i.e., the members of EFTA). "entirely" unrelated is obviously overstating it given it's reliant on single market rules, but there are non-EU members. – gsnedders Jul 01 '16 at 14:41
  • @gsnedders noted. It's not clear at all why that comment was made. My own card has an EU logo on it. – Gayot Fow Jul 01 '16 at 16:02
19

Nothing for quite some time. No law has changed. This was merely a non-binding referendum.

Presumably the executive will agree with the people and Article 50 will be triggered by the PM, but even then, this is the first time it's ever happened so 1) it'll take a couple of years to sort out and 2) people aren't exactly sure how it'll happen.

As a result - the UK is still in the EU, no laws have changed yet, so for now the only way it might affect you is the exchange rate - the British pound has plummeted with the news.

MadHatter
  • 9,488
  • 2
  • 40
  • 57
Mark Mayo
  • 159,394
  • 103
  • 679
  • 1,477
9

As far as the EU treaties are concerned, the referendum does not cause a Brexit. To cause a Brexit, the PM has to officially inform the other EU members that the UK is leaving. This notification may be several weeks or months in the future. The two-year period mentioned later starts at that point.

With this notification, the official negotiations on the future relations between the UK and the remaining EU nations begin. They can end in different ways.

  • If there is an agreement between all parties, they can sign it and decide when it will take effect. Presumably this would include new treaties on travel, commerce, etc.
  • If there is no agreement after two years of negotiation and both sides agree to extend the negotiations, they may do so.
  • If there is no agreement after two years and no agreement to continue negotiation, the Brexit will take effect. There would be no new treaties on travel, commerce, etc.

So in theory the Brexit could take effect the day after tomorrow. In practice this is highly unlikely. The brexit could take effect at any time in the future, if talks drag on but do not fail completely.

The Brexit agreement would define the new rules and their starting date. I cannot believe that either side would enact significant changes for tourists on short notice. Also, I consider it probable that there would be reciprocity in the new rules. Since the UK would not want to disrupt the Common Travel Area, visa-free travel would have to remain possible. The right to work would likely change, but that's for Expatriates.SE.

(All this can be found in answers and comments, but I thought I'd bring it together.)

o.m.
  • 37,060
  • 2
  • 63
  • 108
0

TLDR

It is too early to tell if anything at all will be affected; since the referendum is just a notification of the will of the people. It is up to the government to act on it and initiate proceedings.

If the UK does proceed with the legal process of divorcing from the EU, it may be able to negotiate separate agreements that can have an impact on the freedom of movement.

Nothing will happen for at least the next two years; because that's how long it will take for the famous Article 50 to kick into effect.

Even then, individual agreements/concessions may be negotiated by the UK with the EU regarding the freedom of movement.

Now, suppose that UK is ejected from the EU, then I see the following impact:

  1. For people that currently need a UK visa who are non-EU citizens, there will be no change in their situation.

  2. For EU citizens, unless there is reciprocal agreement between UK and that particular EU member state, or UK and the EU in general regarding freedom of movement, you may need a visa to travel to the UK.

  3. Any special concessions or waivers that were in place regarding importing of goods and any import fees - these may be affected if the UK is removed from the EU - as it would not be part of the single market. However, again, the UK may manage to negotiate to keep these agreements with the EU.

Burhan Khalid
  • 39,678
  • 4
  • 82
  • 157
  • 2
    I think you may have slightly misunderstood the time limit on Article 50. The negotiations must be concluded within two years of an Article 50 notification (barring unanimous agreement to an extension) but if arrangements can be concluded more quickly, the exit is effective from the date of entry into force of those agreements (which will be specified therein). – MadHatter Jun 24 '16 at 14:46
  • I know, but when it comes to politics and government - 2 years is nothing and I very much doubt it will be done any faster; at minimum it won't happen till after October when the current PM will resign and his successor will have to start the proceedings. – Burhan Khalid Jun 24 '16 at 15:46
  • 1
    We may all think that, but Martin Schultz (president of the European Parliament) has stated that the EU is trying to work out if they can now proceed with Article 50 themselves. He wants us out as fast as possible, and noted "We have to take note of this unilateral declaration that they want to wait until October, but that must not be the last word.” Can't say I blame him. – MadHatter Jun 24 '16 at 16:31
  • 1
    True, but if I am not mistaken - no country has yet exercised their rights under Article 50 - so its not really sure what/how/who can proceed. – Burhan Khalid Jun 24 '16 at 16:35
  • You're so right! I'm merely pointing out that we can't assume the clock won't start until our next PM gives notice; the EU is definitely trying to hasten things along. – MadHatter Jun 24 '16 at 16:36
  • Its in their best interest to not have the situation in limbo - it affects the markets badly. – Burhan Khalid Jun 24 '16 at 16:39
  • U.K is not signatory to Schengen. So the answer is that there will be no changes to visitors to the U.K. – dan-klasson Jun 25 '16 at 17:36
  • UK (was) a member of the EU, which affects greatly the freedom of movement which is guaranteed under EU law. This means that now EU citizens visiting UK need visas, and UK citizens wanting to live in the EU needs visas. In addition, citizens of EU countries currently living in the UK will also need to adjust their status. So although you are correct that UK is not part of Schengen, leaving the EU has a lot of other effects of the movement of the people. – Burhan Khalid Jun 25 '16 at 18:28
  • @MadHatter: Martin Schultz simply cannot kick out an EU member state. Under international law, governments negotiate treaties. The UK referendum has no legal consequences until the UK government adopts its conclusion. And the famous article 50, second sentence describes how the UK government should do that: by informing the European Council. As of today, Brexit is merely a demand of the voters. – MSalters Jun 25 '16 at 23:37
  • @MSalters I'm not saying he can. I'm saying that he has announced that he has a team of international lawyers looking into how he might. Maybe you're right, and they'll fail; maybe they won't. I don't know, and I don't think you do either. – MadHatter Jun 26 '16 at 01:35