Forum home› Road cycling forum› The cake stop

BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1172717281730173217331940

Posts

  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 61,001 Lives Here
    edited May 2021

    Maybe I am confused here but with this australia trade deal are the remain and leave sides swapping arguments?

    I think there has been a paradigm shift leading to a crumbling of old allegiances that have been replaced by a split by age.
    I am glad you liked that
    So what at the oldies arguing vs the young?
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 16,177
    Jezyboy said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

    What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

    I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.
    I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.
    Not sure that disagrees with what I wrote.
    I wasn't sure a one year or less cycle of grass growth was a good enough reason to not farm animals. I was hoping for a better reason. So, I'm not disagreeing.
    Grass takes Co2 out of the atmosphere and sheep convert it into protein for humans and methane. (OK that's a very rough way of putting it)

    Methane much more potent a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, between 72 times more potent across 20 years to 34 times across 100 years.

    I'm assuming the variability of its potency accounts for the methane cycle bit.

    That's a more satisfactory explanation, but I read in a number of places that methane breaks down within 20 years. The other factor that needs to be considered is the amount of carbon dioxide the grass has removed versus the methane created. If grass takes in 72 times the amount of carbon dioxide than a cow emits in methane, it is largely neutral.

    Essentially, I'm struggling with the idea that animals create more than they consume.

  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 15,852

    Maybe I am confused here but with this australia trade deal are the remain and leave sides swapping arguments?

    I think there has been a paradigm shift leading to a crumbling of old allegiances that have been replaced by a split by age.
    I am glad you liked that
    So what at the oldies arguing vs the young?
    The Brexit church was very broad. Some wanted to take back control ad lock down our borders whilst others saw it as a chance to pursue free trade policies.

    The only surprise is that it is the total opposite of all of Boris's other policies.

    I can only think it is seen a step on the path to the ultimate holy grail of an FTA with the USA.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 61,001 Lives Here

    Jezyboy said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

    What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

    I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.
    I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.
    Not sure that disagrees with what I wrote.
    I wasn't sure a one year or less cycle of grass growth was a good enough reason to not farm animals. I was hoping for a better reason. So, I'm not disagreeing.
    Grass takes Co2 out of the atmosphere and sheep convert it into protein for humans and methane. (OK that's a very rough way of putting it)

    Methane much more potent a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, between 72 times more potent across 20 years to 34 times across 100 years.

    I'm assuming the variability of its potency accounts for the methane cycle bit.

    That's a more satisfactory explanation, but I read in a number of places that methane breaks down within 20 years. The other factor that needs to be considered is the amount of carbon dioxide the grass has removed versus the methane created. If grass takes in 72 times the amount of carbon dioxide than a cow emits in methane, it is largely neutral.

    Essentially, I'm struggling with the idea that animals create more than they consume.

    Most meat isn't grass fed.
  • morstarmorstar Posts: 5,060

    Jezyboy said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

    What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

    I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.
    I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.
    Not sure that disagrees with what I wrote.
    I wasn't sure a one year or less cycle of grass growth was a good enough reason to not farm animals. I was hoping for a better reason. So, I'm not disagreeing.
    Grass takes Co2 out of the atmosphere and sheep convert it into protein for humans and methane. (OK that's a very rough way of putting it)

    Methane much more potent a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, between 72 times more potent across 20 years to 34 times across 100 years.

    I'm assuming the variability of its potency accounts for the methane cycle bit.

    That's a more satisfactory explanation, but I read in a number of places that methane breaks down within 20 years. The other factor that needs to be considered is the amount of carbon dioxide the grass has removed versus the methane created. If grass takes in 72 times the amount of carbon dioxide than a cow emits in methane, it is largely neutral.

    Essentially, I'm struggling with the idea that animals create more than they consume.

    If the land isn’t grazed, the carbon is absorbed into the earth and doesn’t get released into the atmosphere.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 16,177

    Jezyboy said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

    What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

    I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.
    I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.
    Not sure that disagrees with what I wrote.
    I wasn't sure a one year or less cycle of grass growth was a good enough reason to not farm animals. I was hoping for a better reason. So, I'm not disagreeing.
    Grass takes Co2 out of the atmosphere and sheep convert it into protein for humans and methane. (OK that's a very rough way of putting it)

    Methane much more potent a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, between 72 times more potent across 20 years to 34 times across 100 years.

    I'm assuming the variability of its potency accounts for the methane cycle bit.

    That's a more satisfactory explanation, but I read in a number of places that methane breaks down within 20 years. The other factor that needs to be considered is the amount of carbon dioxide the grass has removed versus the methane created. If grass takes in 72 times the amount of carbon dioxide than a cow emits in methane, it is largely neutral.

    Essentially, I'm struggling with the idea that animals create more than they consume.

    Most meat isn't grass fed.
    Sheep in this country are which was the start of the discussion.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 16,177
    morstar said:

    Jezyboy said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

    What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

    I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.
    I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.
    Not sure that disagrees with what I wrote.
    I wasn't sure a one year or less cycle of grass growth was a good enough reason to not farm animals. I was hoping for a better reason. So, I'm not disagreeing.
    Grass takes Co2 out of the atmosphere and sheep convert it into protein for humans and methane. (OK that's a very rough way of putting it)

    Methane much more potent a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, between 72 times more potent across 20 years to 34 times across 100 years.

    I'm assuming the variability of its potency accounts for the methane cycle bit.

    That's a more satisfactory explanation, but I read in a number of places that methane breaks down within 20 years. The other factor that needs to be considered is the amount of carbon dioxide the grass has removed versus the methane created. If grass takes in 72 times the amount of carbon dioxide than a cow emits in methane, it is largely neutral.

    Essentially, I'm struggling with the idea that animals create more than they consume.

    If the land isn’t grazed, the carbon is absorbed into the earth and doesn’t get released into the atmosphere.
    Yes, so it is a sink. More trees needed etc, but if biomass power is accepted as carbon neutral then sheep should be too (depending on their net position).
  • elbowlohelbowloh Posts: 7,078
    Also, animals aren't 100% efficient.
    Felt F1 2014
    Felt Z6 2012
    Red Arthur Caygill steel frame
    Tall....
    www.seewildlife.co.uk
  • morstarmorstar Posts: 5,060
    edited May 2021

    morstar said:

    Jezyboy said:

    rjsterry said:

    rjsterry said:

    I get the arguments around chopping down tress (same as the one for soy beans) and not plating new trees. I also get the argument that they are invasive and destory habits. Much like goats.

    What I don't understand is the arguments around methane. The grass grows taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the sheep eat the grass and convert some of it to methane, the methane is released into the atmosphere and then breaks down to carbon dioxide which plants then use as they grow. How do sheep add to this cycle? It can't be the same as removing a load of carbon dioxide from the ground and burning it which is add it the atmosphere.

    I think we are at the point where any reduction we can make (by having fewer ruminants) will help offset the stuff we are re-releasing from millions of years ago. In other words we should leave it as grass.
    I don't find this a satisfactory answer. Grass grows quickly. Much quicker than wood for biomass.
    Not sure that disagrees with what I wrote.
    I wasn't sure a one year or less cycle of grass growth was a good enough reason to not farm animals. I was hoping for a better reason. So, I'm not disagreeing.
    Grass takes Co2 out of the atmosphere and sheep convert it into protein for humans and methane. (OK that's a very rough way of putting it)

    Methane much more potent a greenhouse gas compared to CO2, between 72 times more potent across 20 years to 34 times across 100 years.

    I'm assuming the variability of its potency accounts for the methane cycle bit.

    That's a more satisfactory explanation, but I read in a number of places that methane breaks down within 20 years. The other factor that needs to be considered is the amount of carbon dioxide the grass has removed versus the methane created. If grass takes in 72 times the amount of carbon dioxide than a cow emits in methane, it is largely neutral.

    Essentially, I'm struggling with the idea that animals create more than they consume.

    If the land isn’t grazed, the carbon is absorbed into the earth and doesn’t get released into the atmosphere.
    Yes, so it is a sink. More trees needed etc, but if biomass power is accepted as carbon neutral then sheep should be too (depending on their net position).
    Agreed mathematically so it becomes a relative question.

    Biomass can theoretically* be carbon neutral in a practically achievable period in a way fossil fuels aren’t. Key point being it is better than the alternative.

    The sheep is also carbon neutral given your interpretation but that is less carbon efficient than other foods.

    So both can be neutral whilst only one is seen as detrimental.

    *Theoretically as I highly doubt that enough trees can be turned quickly enough if we all adopt biomass as a heating fuel source. I’d guess a tree needs to be about 20-30 years minimum and each household in the UK probably needs to go through about 10-20 trees a year.

  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 16,177
    I found this lengthy article to provide quite an interesting and informed take on the merits of livestock farming. I've been nerd sniped.

    https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/grazed-and-confused-an-initial-response-from-the-sustainable-food-trust/

    One of the points it mentions a lot is that if land is used for crop, the nutrients in the soil are destoyed and so is its ability to hold as much carbon. The best way to prevent this is rotation with grass, and the only way to provide food from grass is through livestock.

    The other key message is that analysis should look at different approaches to farming rather than lump them together. So in the UK where trees are being planted it is not reasonable to say that livestock is bad because the rain forest is being destroyed. Similarly when looking at farming that uses masses of fertilisers, it shouldn't be lumped together with farming that doesn't.

    Finally, it is certainly not advocating we continue with many of the current approaches.
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 17,376



    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • rjsterryrjsterry Posts: 22,320
    edited May 2021




    Difficult to disagree with any of that.

    It's the same pattern as Brexit: the symbolic signing of the deal takes complete precedence over the purpose or content of the deal. Someone should just hand him a copy of the previous meeting's minutes on top of a ream of printer paper for all the difference it would make.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Liberal metropolitan, remoaner, traitor, "sympathiser", etc.
  • tailwindhometailwindhome Posts: 17,376



    The next assembly elections are scheduled (IIRC) for May '22

    If this is the result there'll be a Sinn Fein First Minister


    Believe that a farther shore
    Is reachable from here.
    Believe in miracles
    And cures and healing wells
  • john80john80 Posts: 2,963

    Can someone explain the logic of this to me in simple to understand words?

    https://www.ft.com/content/4d4bbf25-97c4-498d-9772-80c0b165f52e?segmentID=635a35f9-12b4-dbf5-9fe6-6b8e6ffb143e&twclid=11395687741900341252

    "English farmers to be paid up to £100,000 to retire - Scheme aims to free up land for new entrants as part of a post-Brexit shift in subsidy system"

    I think there is an element of hoping that we will increase farm size with this approach. A lot of UK farms are not big enough to do economies of scale and are more of a subsidy burden than they need to be.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 61,001 Lives Here




    The next assembly elections are scheduled (IIRC) for May '22

    If this is the result there'll be a Sinn Fein First Minister


    I mean what are the respective Dublin and Westminster plans for this?
  • surrey_commutersurrey_commuter Posts: 15,852
    john80 said:

    Can someone explain the logic of this to me in simple to understand words?

    https://www.ft.com/content/4d4bbf25-97c4-498d-9772-80c0b165f52e?segmentID=635a35f9-12b4-dbf5-9fe6-6b8e6ffb143e&twclid=11395687741900341252

    "English farmers to be paid up to £100,000 to retire - Scheme aims to free up land for new entrants as part of a post-Brexit shift in subsidy system"

    I think there is an element of hoping that we will increase farm size with this approach. A lot of UK farms are not big enough to do economies of scale and are more of a subsidy burden than they need to be.
    the subsidy is based upon size rather than output or productivity.

    Potentially I could approve of Boris deciding when people should leave the workforce and give them £100k to do so.
  • jimmyjamsjimmyjams Posts: 514
    john80 said:

    Can someone explain the logic of this to me in simple to understand words?

    https://www.ft.com/content/4d4bbf25-97c4-498d-9772-80c0b165f52e?segmentID=635a35f9-12b4-dbf5-9fe6-6b8e6ffb143e&twclid=11395687741900341252

    "English farmers to be paid up to £100,000 to retire - Scheme aims to free up land for new entrants as part of a post-Brexit shift in subsidy system"

    I think there is an element of hoping that we will increase farm size with this approach. A lot of UK farms are not big enough to do economies of scale and are more of a subsidy burden than they need to be.
    I would guess that the idea mentioned in the ft article (which I haven't read because of the paywall) might be an attempt to get younger farm managers and fresh ideas into farming. Farm management in the UK is mostly in the hands of a relatively older age group, probably with fixed ideas and less interest in diversity.

    I don't see it as an attempt to increase farm sizes for economic reasons. Bigger doesn't always mean better.
    In Europe on average the largest farms are found in Czechia, Slovakia, and in the UK. In the UK, one in five farms is larger than 100 hectares and three-quarters of all farming land is occupied by these 100+ hectare farms.
    However, on average the most economically-successful farms are found in the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium, and of those countries, only Denmark comes remotely close to resembling the UK in terms of farm sizes and agricultural land occupancy by larger farms.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 16,177

    john80 said:

    Can someone explain the logic of this to me in simple to understand words?

    https://www.ft.com/content/4d4bbf25-97c4-498d-9772-80c0b165f52e?segmentID=635a35f9-12b4-dbf5-9fe6-6b8e6ffb143e&twclid=11395687741900341252

    "English farmers to be paid up to £100,000 to retire - Scheme aims to free up land for new entrants as part of a post-Brexit shift in subsidy system"

    I think there is an element of hoping that we will increase farm size with this approach. A lot of UK farms are not big enough to do economies of scale and are more of a subsidy burden than they need to be.
    the subsidy is based upon size rather than output or productivity.

    Potentially I could approve of Boris deciding when people should leave the workforce and give them £100k to do so.
    The subsidy mostly just pays the rent.
  • john80john80 Posts: 2,963
    The point I am more making is that if you look at my neighbours one recently sold up the farm. He had three tractors, multiple trailers and other equipment and infrastructure. He also had to work other jobs to earn a living. That land, stock and buildings has been bought by another farmer who has done this again recently to a second local farm. All that infrastructure and equipment is down to one set of equipment and that single farmer can make a living and the single farm payment is being more targeted at a suitable sized business. The effects of mechanisation are still being felt as the industry really is that slow to change.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 61,001 Lives Here
    edited May 2021
    Eugh Brexit is really making my searches more difficult.

    Seems some North American firms are taking a very conservative view on compliance and having people covering EU based clients from London (i.e. they don't want to do it).

    The main pool of candidates therefore for a lot of these are taking people out of London and moving them to the continent.

    Some less conservative firms are picking up the talent in London where more conservative firms insist on relocating out of London to the continent - it's quite curious how differently firms have interpreted it all.

    It's mainly around the risk of the rules changing and blowing up the model - if you have boots on the ground in the EU that risk is reduced.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 24,082
    A Cummings Select Committee on Brexit would be rather fun...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 10,120
    From the British Embassy in Paris

    INFORMATION ABOUT PROVIDING PROOF OF ACCOMODATION AT THE FRENCH BORDER

    "We have updated our travel advice concerning which types of documents visitors to France may be asked to provide at the French border as confirmation of accommodation.
    France categorises possible accommodation arrangements for visitors as follows:
    1. Staying with family, friends or third party
    You may be asked to provide an ’attestation d’accueil’ (welcome invitation) from your host if you are staying with friends or family. The French resident hosting you will need to obtain this ‘attestation d’accueil’ from their local Mayor’s office, and send you the original attestation before you enter France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €32.50 per day, for the duration of your stay. If you do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ you should be ready to fulfil the requirements of option 4 below. More information is available here: https://www.demarches.interieur.gouv.fr/.../attestation...
    2. You have a second home in France
    You will need to be able to prove ownership or tenancy of your property e.g. a tax or utility bill.
    3. You are staying in a hotel or other commercially provided accommodation
    You may be asked for confirmation of your reservation when entering France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €65 per day for the duration of your stay.
    4. You do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ or any pre-booked accommodation
    In this instance, you may be asked to prove you have sufficient funds to pay for your accommodation. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €120 per day for the duration of your stay.
    There are separate requirements for those who are resident in France. If you are resident in France, you should carry proof of residence as well as your valid passport when you travel. For further information for residents, see and our Living in France guide: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/living-in-france...
    For further information on these requirements, visit the French government’s website on travel conditions for British citizens: https://brexit.gouv.fr/.../modalites-de-voyage-en.html


    Is this a Brexit bonus?

    Oh, someone ought to tell the Embassy that 'accommodation' still has two M's.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 16,177

    From the British Embassy in Paris

    INFORMATION ABOUT PROVIDING PROOF OF ACCOMODATION AT THE FRENCH BORDER

    "We have updated our travel advice concerning which types of documents visitors to France may be asked to provide at the French border as confirmation of accommodation.
    France categorises possible accommodation arrangements for visitors as follows:
    1. Staying with family, friends or third party
    You may be asked to provide an ’attestation d’accueil’ (welcome invitation) from your host if you are staying with friends or family. The French resident hosting you will need to obtain this ‘attestation d’accueil’ from their local Mayor’s office, and send you the original attestation before you enter France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €32.50 per day, for the duration of your stay. If you do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ you should be ready to fulfil the requirements of option 4 below. More information is available here: https://www.demarches.interieur.gouv.fr/.../attestation...
    2. You have a second home in France
    You will need to be able to prove ownership or tenancy of your property e.g. a tax or utility bill.
    3. You are staying in a hotel or other commercially provided accommodation
    You may be asked for confirmation of your reservation when entering France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €65 per day for the duration of your stay.
    4. You do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ or any pre-booked accommodation
    In this instance, you may be asked to prove you have sufficient funds to pay for your accommodation. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €120 per day for the duration of your stay.
    There are separate requirements for those who are resident in France. If you are resident in France, you should carry proof of residence as well as your valid passport when you travel. For further information for residents, see and our Living in France guide: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/living-in-france...
    For further information on these requirements, visit the French government’s website on travel conditions for British citizens: https://brexit.gouv.fr/.../modalites-de-voyage-en.html


    Is this a Brexit bonus?

    Oh, someone ought to tell the Embassy that 'accommodation' still has two M's.
    It's clearly a pain, but defining exactly how much you need should be helpful. No so good for the average backpacker though.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 61,001 Lives Here
    edited May 2021
    Ffs. Brexit is just the sh!t that keeps on sh!tting
  • darkhairedlorddarkhairedlord Posts: 7,168

    From the British Embassy in Paris

    INFORMATION ABOUT PROVIDING PROOF OF ACCOMODATION AT THE FRENCH BORDER

    "We have updated our travel advice concerning which types of documents visitors to France may be asked to provide at the French border as confirmation of accommodation.
    France categorises possible accommodation arrangements for visitors as follows:
    1. Staying with family, friends or third party
    You may be asked to provide an ’attestation d’accueil’ (welcome invitation) from your host if you are staying with friends or family. The French resident hosting you will need to obtain this ‘attestation d’accueil’ from their local Mayor’s office, and send you the original attestation before you enter France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €32.50 per day, for the duration of your stay. If you do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ you should be ready to fulfil the requirements of option 4 below. More information is available here: https://www.demarches.interieur.gouv.fr/.../attestation...
    2. You have a second home in France
    You will need to be able to prove ownership or tenancy of your property e.g. a tax or utility bill.
    3. You are staying in a hotel or other commercially provided accommodation
    You may be asked for confirmation of your reservation when entering France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €65 per day for the duration of your stay.
    4. You do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ or any pre-booked accommodation
    In this instance, you may be asked to prove you have sufficient funds to pay for your accommodation. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €120 per day for the duration of your stay.
    There are separate requirements for those who are resident in France. If you are resident in France, you should carry proof of residence as well as your valid passport when you travel. For further information for residents, see and our Living in France guide: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/living-in-france...
    For further information on these requirements, visit the French government’s website on travel conditions for British citizens: https://brexit.gouv.fr/.../modalites-de-voyage-en.html


    Is this a Brexit bonus?

    Oh, someone ought to tell the Embassy that 'accommodation' still has two M's.
    It's clearly a pain, but defining exactly how much you need should be helpful. No so good for the average backpacker though.
    Backpackers don't contribute to the economy, so why would they want them cluttering the place up?
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 10,120

    From the British Embassy in Paris

    INFORMATION ABOUT PROVIDING PROOF OF ACCOMODATION AT THE FRENCH BORDER

    "We have updated our travel advice concerning which types of documents visitors to France may be asked to provide at the French border as confirmation of accommodation.
    France categorises possible accommodation arrangements for visitors as follows:
    1. Staying with family, friends or third party
    You may be asked to provide an ’attestation d’accueil’ (welcome invitation) from your host if you are staying with friends or family. The French resident hosting you will need to obtain this ‘attestation d’accueil’ from their local Mayor’s office, and send you the original attestation before you enter France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €32.50 per day, for the duration of your stay. If you do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ you should be ready to fulfil the requirements of option 4 below. More information is available here: https://www.demarches.interieur.gouv.fr/.../attestation...
    2. You have a second home in France
    You will need to be able to prove ownership or tenancy of your property e.g. a tax or utility bill.
    3. You are staying in a hotel or other commercially provided accommodation
    You may be asked for confirmation of your reservation when entering France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €65 per day for the duration of your stay.
    4. You do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ or any pre-booked accommodation
    In this instance, you may be asked to prove you have sufficient funds to pay for your accommodation. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €120 per day for the duration of your stay.
    There are separate requirements for those who are resident in France. If you are resident in France, you should carry proof of residence as well as your valid passport when you travel. For further information for residents, see and our Living in France guide: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/living-in-france...
    For further information on these requirements, visit the French government’s website on travel conditions for British citizens: https://brexit.gouv.fr/.../modalites-de-voyage-en.html


    Is this a Brexit bonus?

    Oh, someone ought to tell the Embassy that 'accommodation' still has two M's.
    It's clearly a pain, but defining exactly how much you need should be helpful. No so good for the average backpacker though.

    TBH, I think it's unlikely that French border police will be closely inspecting every single UK traveller's documentation, given there's no 'standard format' to inspect, and it would make loading a ferry full of cars a practical impossibility... but such is the toxicity of relations now (some EU nationals being put through the mill by UK border police), I'd take nothing for granted, especially given the Kafkaesque tendency of French bureaucracy.
  • JezyboyJezyboy Posts: 1,478

    From the British Embassy in Paris

    INFORMATION ABOUT PROVIDING PROOF OF ACCOMODATION AT THE FRENCH BORDER

    "We have updated our travel advice concerning which types of documents visitors to France may be asked to provide at the French border as confirmation of accommodation.
    France categorises possible accommodation arrangements for visitors as follows:
    1. Staying with family, friends or third party
    You may be asked to provide an ’attestation d’accueil’ (welcome invitation) from your host if you are staying with friends or family. The French resident hosting you will need to obtain this ‘attestation d’accueil’ from their local Mayor’s office, and send you the original attestation before you enter France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €32.50 per day, for the duration of your stay. If you do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ you should be ready to fulfil the requirements of option 4 below. More information is available here: https://www.demarches.interieur.gouv.fr/.../attestation...
    2. You have a second home in France
    You will need to be able to prove ownership or tenancy of your property e.g. a tax or utility bill.
    3. You are staying in a hotel or other commercially provided accommodation
    You may be asked for confirmation of your reservation when entering France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €65 per day for the duration of your stay.
    4. You do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ or any pre-booked accommodation
    In this instance, you may be asked to prove you have sufficient funds to pay for your accommodation. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €120 per day for the duration of your stay.
    There are separate requirements for those who are resident in France. If you are resident in France, you should carry proof of residence as well as your valid passport when you travel. For further information for residents, see and our Living in France guide: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/living-in-france...
    For further information on these requirements, visit the French government’s website on travel conditions for British citizens: https://brexit.gouv.fr/.../modalites-de-voyage-en.html


    Is this a Brexit bonus?

    Oh, someone ought to tell the Embassy that 'accommodation' still has two M's.
    It's clearly a pain, but defining exactly how much you need should be helpful. No so good for the average backpacker though.

    TBH, I think it's unlikely that French border police will be closely inspecting every single UK traveller's documentation, given there's no 'standard format' to inspect, and it would make loading a ferry full of cars a practical impossibility... but such is the toxicity of relations now (some EU nationals being put through the mill by UK border police), I'd take nothing for granted, especially given the Kafkaesque tendency of French bureaucracy.
    Impossible for every ferry. They could try doing a random sampling though.

    I'd say its a small price to pay for vaccine success (!) but an ex colleague who is younger than me and in France had his vaccine earlier than me...price of being too young for the Conservatives to have any interest in you I guess.

  • Dorset_BoyDorset_Boy Posts: 5,002
    Jezyboy said:

    From the British Embassy in Paris

    INFORMATION ABOUT PROVIDING PROOF OF ACCOMODATION AT THE FRENCH BORDER

    "We have updated our travel advice concerning which types of documents visitors to France may be asked to provide at the French border as confirmation of accommodation.
    France categorises possible accommodation arrangements for visitors as follows:
    1. Staying with family, friends or third party
    You may be asked to provide an ’attestation d’accueil’ (welcome invitation) from your host if you are staying with friends or family. The French resident hosting you will need to obtain this ‘attestation d’accueil’ from their local Mayor’s office, and send you the original attestation before you enter France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €32.50 per day, for the duration of your stay. If you do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ you should be ready to fulfil the requirements of option 4 below. More information is available here: https://www.demarches.interieur.gouv.fr/.../attestation...
    2. You have a second home in France
    You will need to be able to prove ownership or tenancy of your property e.g. a tax or utility bill.
    3. You are staying in a hotel or other commercially provided accommodation
    You may be asked for confirmation of your reservation when entering France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €65 per day for the duration of your stay.
    4. You do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ or any pre-booked accommodation
    In this instance, you may be asked to prove you have sufficient funds to pay for your accommodation. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €120 per day for the duration of your stay.
    There are separate requirements for those who are resident in France. If you are resident in France, you should carry proof of residence as well as your valid passport when you travel. For further information for residents, see and our Living in France guide: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/living-in-france...
    For further information on these requirements, visit the French government’s website on travel conditions for British citizens: https://brexit.gouv.fr/.../modalites-de-voyage-en.html


    Is this a Brexit bonus?

    Oh, someone ought to tell the Embassy that 'accommodation' still has two M's.
    It's clearly a pain, but defining exactly how much you need should be helpful. No so good for the average backpacker though.

    TBH, I think it's unlikely that French border police will be closely inspecting every single UK traveller's documentation, given there's no 'standard format' to inspect, and it would make loading a ferry full of cars a practical impossibility... but such is the toxicity of relations now (some EU nationals being put through the mill by UK border police), I'd take nothing for granted, especially given the Kafkaesque tendency of French bureaucracy.
    Impossible for every ferry. They could try doing a random sampling though.

    I'd say its a small price to pay for vaccine success (!) but an ex colleague who is younger than me and in France had his vaccine earlier than me...price of being too young for the Conservatives to have any interest in you I guess.

    The truth being that French ambivalence to vaccines means it is more open to all ages, not the false assumption you suggest.
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 10,120

    Jezyboy said:

    From the British Embassy in Paris

    INFORMATION ABOUT PROVIDING PROOF OF ACCOMODATION AT THE FRENCH BORDER

    "We have updated our travel advice concerning which types of documents visitors to France may be asked to provide at the French border as confirmation of accommodation.
    France categorises possible accommodation arrangements for visitors as follows:
    1. Staying with family, friends or third party
    You may be asked to provide an ’attestation d’accueil’ (welcome invitation) from your host if you are staying with friends or family. The French resident hosting you will need to obtain this ‘attestation d’accueil’ from their local Mayor’s office, and send you the original attestation before you enter France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €32.50 per day, for the duration of your stay. If you do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ you should be ready to fulfil the requirements of option 4 below. More information is available here: https://www.demarches.interieur.gouv.fr/.../attestation...
    2. You have a second home in France
    You will need to be able to prove ownership or tenancy of your property e.g. a tax or utility bill.
    3. You are staying in a hotel or other commercially provided accommodation
    You may be asked for confirmation of your reservation when entering France. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €65 per day for the duration of your stay.
    4. You do not have an ‘attestation d’accueil’ or any pre-booked accommodation
    In this instance, you may be asked to prove you have sufficient funds to pay for your accommodation. You should also be prepared to show proof of funds of at least €120 per day for the duration of your stay.
    There are separate requirements for those who are resident in France. If you are resident in France, you should carry proof of residence as well as your valid passport when you travel. For further information for residents, see and our Living in France guide: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/living-in-france...
    For further information on these requirements, visit the French government’s website on travel conditions for British citizens: https://brexit.gouv.fr/.../modalites-de-voyage-en.html


    Is this a Brexit bonus?

    Oh, someone ought to tell the Embassy that 'accommodation' still has two M's.
    It's clearly a pain, but defining exactly how much you need should be helpful. No so good for the average backpacker though.

    TBH, I think it's unlikely that French border police will be closely inspecting every single UK traveller's documentation, given there's no 'standard format' to inspect, and it would make loading a ferry full of cars a practical impossibility... but such is the toxicity of relations now (some EU nationals being put through the mill by UK border police), I'd take nothing for granted, especially given the Kafkaesque tendency of French bureaucracy.
    Impossible for every ferry. They could try doing a random sampling though.

    I'd say its a small price to pay for vaccine success (!) but an ex colleague who is younger than me and in France had his vaccine earlier than me...price of being too young for the Conservatives to have any interest in you I guess.

    The truth being that French ambivalence to vaccines means it is more open to all ages, not the false assumption you suggest.

    This is correct. The UK has done a fantastic job of getting doses out, and the UK population has taken full advantage of it.




Sign In or Register to comment.