I don't think it's as simple as that. The problem I think is aspects of leaving were not known or sorted out untill the vote was done. It wasn't clear that rules such as the current 6 month rule would be applied pre vote. Same applied to those resident and retaining a UK bank account often much needed for pension payments or fact they retained a property in UK . It wasn't known pre vote that their UK bank account would be closed. Some may have voted out and then once facts were known regretted it had they known voted differently. I know holiday home owners who voted out and now complain about the 6 month rule. Personally apart from slightly having to adjust our plans bringing move forward to ensure we were resident in time to gain protection under WA and having to change my UK bank, we don't find our life very different to prw Brexit. I would also add that it is what it is we voted and as a result we are now out so just get on with it. The result affects people differently if you voted for that then you have to accept that if you didn't vote for it and are adversely affected it's not your fault and shouldn't feel you are to blame. As for remainers not accepting outcome I do but on the other hand let's look at the out voters that won't accept the negative factors that has resulted from the vote.

Surely the consequences are simply that these things aren't automatic any more, as part of multilateral agreements, and therefore can't be taken for granted?

However, if any country wants to unilaterally increase provisions for one thing or another, or if the UK strikes allowable agreements with individual members, that's a plus, no? And if it's driven, in any case, by self-interest on the part of the EU state, it's hardly anything to beef about, is it?

Sometimes with the best will in the world, things don't work out and very clearly Brexit hasn't worked out. Absolutely no country looks at the state of Brexit Britain now and thinks "I want some of that".

The UK is still in the denial phase but if a vote was held tomorrow, most people would vote Remain which is no surprise of course. A good compromise now would be for the UK to mitigate the damage thus far and rejoin the single market before supply chains become contaminated with dubious products.

People were warned during the referendum campaign, leaving the EU has consequences many of which involve a loss of important rights which we are witnessing on here. There is no point in burying your head in the sand and pretending nothing has changed post Brexit and nothing has consequences because it has. To not point those changes out is simply lying.

It's a pity people were so badly lied to during the referendum campaign and the "winning" side didn't actually win anything worthwhile but there is no point in running away from it.

Re this topic of this thread, a better and easier idea would be for the UK to change its rules to 90/180 days and that levels the playing field.

Thanks for that tip works great on Android you have to go to Brave symbol then advanced and block scripts

Why???
I dont actually agree with most of this post. I am still in regular contact with quite a few, ordinary and even some well educated people in the Uk, none who ever had any plans to resettle in a any EU country.
For them Brexit has done what it said it would.
It stopped tens of thousands of poor eastern europeans flocking to the Uk and working dead end jobs, which even with low wages, out performed those they could have had at home, also they got free healthcare.
AND around 40% of the people in the sandwich factory I worked in from 2006 to 2013 were being paid child allowance for kids that were not even in the UK.....

Pre Brexit how many British nationals actually up sticks and trundled off abroad?
It was less than 100,000 thats a tiny percentage from a population of nearly 70million...
Between 2019 and the end of 2022 the average yearly loss to the UK of British nationals was around 94,000... so no real difference since Brexit...
So loosing freedom of movement hasn't actually effected the Uk at all if the figures from the national office of statistics is to be believed.

Dont believe me? go visit the office of national statistics like wot I did.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...021/2023-11-23

Oh and there is actually NO rule about the 180 days. Its a myth.
Again Ive done the work
https://freemovement.org.uk/there-is...ors-to-the-uk/

If France, Spain, Greece, Poland etc want to bring in a longer stay visa, then why not..If it benefits them as a country I cant see whats wrong with that..
Supposedly all EU countries are still able to make laws as Sovereign nations (something that the remain lot kept mentioning during Brexit as the Uk were able to pass its own laws)..

If it goes against the FOM then the act itself may be wrong and should be looked at...
No law should just be made without the ability to modify and change it to reflect future issues... I would never join a club like that..

France already has a one year visa anyway and so does Spain.
All they have to do is alter some of the conditions and requirements to qualify for that visa and bob's your uncle..
Here I will even do it for them and Im just an uneducated bloke.

Spain NLV. Ok change it to a single year renewable visa. You must either own a property here or have a rental contract, private healthcare (no S1 as that indicates permanency).
The proof of income to 1.5x national amount per person (instead of 4x) .
A return ticket... That then gives you the freedom to spend 180 days if you want or multiple trips not exceeding 180 days.
This gives no ability to become resident..

And its not the visitors fault if there are no internal borders in the EU so they could pop to Portugal, Germany etc. Thats the EU's problem...

Simple aint it?..

Your second para is fair enough but remember that we were told that we, all of us, had to accept the result and suck up the consequences. Yes, if an EU State chooses to change their rules that's one thing, but a tiny minority, of all those who were told to accept the consequences of Brexit, now gaining advantage, smells a bit. Now if we were talking about reversing Brexit, in it's entirety, that would be quite different!

To be fair I doubt either France or Spain are considering this simply because it will benefit the individuals themselves. They are trying to ensure they continue to get the tourism in particular out of main season that second home owners often provide

90/180 doesn't necessarily preclude that. By definition second home owners are only part time occupiers anyway. However if France & Spain perceive a benefit - fair enough.

We know a few people who have second homes and even plots on the camp sites, they used to visit for at least four months over winter.
Our neighbour round the corner used to come here in late September and stay until the beginning of February, obviously thats no longer allowed...
He and many others used to come to avoid the winter in the UK, just like many of the Scandinavians still do...

Some will say that the loss of income to Spain by having fewer "snowbirds" is high, but they do not spènd anything like the millions of "normal" tourists spend that come to Spain. Spain would be better to encourage more high spending tourists than worry about a relatively small number of British second home owners.

That's true Fred but they do help areas tick over in quieter times of the year as Barry describes. Point I was making is this is not simply a plan to help out British owners of second homes out of sympathy for there loss of rights over Brexit.

Very good point Fred.

Define a ‘high spending’ tourist ?

The average daily spend is about €180/day. It totals around €70 billion a year.