Authors George Peretz QC
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
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
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.
Disgraceful and shabby if true: not only ideologically blinkered, but ashamed to admit its ideological blinkers and their consequences. https://t.co/7PgOEogTlA
— George Peretz QC (@GeorgePeretzQC) January 9, 2021
The position that we now have now (no relevant provisions under the TCA) is complicated. For EU musicians visiting the UK see
See here a summary of what is permitted from U.K. POV. https://t.co/HkdRlubySr
— Luke Piper (@Pipermigration) January 10, 2021
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.
This article by Jim Spellar for @LabourList misses the point about why Labour needs to think seriously about constitutional reform - and have a programme for it ready for government.
The state of our constitution is a bit like the state of the neglected electric wiring in an old house. If you are moving into the house, sorting it out is a bit tedious. Couldn’t you spend the time and money on a new sound system?
But if you ignore the wiring, you’ll find that you can’t safely install the new sound system. And your house may well catch fire.
Any programme for social democratic government requires a state with capacity, and a state that has clear mechanisms of accountability, for all the big and all the small decisions that in takes, in which people have confidence.
That is not a description of the modern UK state.
"Voters don\u2019t care about how the D\u2019Hondt system works or about how you\u2019d geographically carve up a regional assembly... They want results.\u2070"@spellar on why Labour should stop obsessing over constitutional issues: https://t.co/W0zsire5xI
— LabourList (@LabourList) February 11, 2021
The state of our constitution is a bit like the state of the neglected electric wiring in an old house. If you are moving into the house, sorting it out is a bit tedious. Couldn’t you spend the time and money on a new sound system?
But if you ignore the wiring, you’ll find that you can’t safely install the new sound system. And your house may well catch fire.
Any programme for social democratic government requires a state with capacity, and a state that has clear mechanisms of accountability, for all the big and all the small decisions that in takes, in which people have confidence.
That is not a description of the modern UK state.
I’m afraid I think this definition of sovereignty (“freedom to make your own law”) is either useless or incoherent.
Very large numbers of international treaties require the UK to make, or not make, law. The UN Treaty requires us to impose sanctions. The Antarctic Treaty requires us to prohibit unlicensed operators organising tours to Antarctica. GATT restricts our ability to set tariffs.
appears to think that such provisions do not infringe his definition of “sovereignty”, but he fails to explain why not.
He asserts, without explaining why, that a level playing field term would infringe “sovereignty”. But the LPF terms being discussed simply set out actions that the EU is able to take if the UK legislates (or does not legislate) in certain ways.
Why is that different in legal principle from WTO rules that (for example) allow other states to impose high tariffs on our widget industry if we exercise our sovereign freedom to pass laws that exempt widget-making from UK tax?
My latest (as ever, I don't write headlines).
— Steven Barrett (@SBarrettBar) December 10, 2020
It's important people try to explain what sovereignty is and why we are where we are. If you like elephants, read my explanation.https://t.co/mhh7Sjk6Er
Very large numbers of international treaties require the UK to make, or not make, law. The UN Treaty requires us to impose sanctions. The Antarctic Treaty requires us to prohibit unlicensed operators organising tours to Antarctica. GATT restricts our ability to set tariffs.
appears to think that such provisions do not infringe his definition of “sovereignty”, but he fails to explain why not.
He asserts, without explaining why, that a level playing field term would infringe “sovereignty”. But the LPF terms being discussed simply set out actions that the EU is able to take if the UK legislates (or does not legislate) in certain ways.
Why is that different in legal principle from WTO rules that (for example) allow other states to impose high tariffs on our widget industry if we exercise our sovereign freedom to pass laws that exempt widget-making from UK tax?