When it comes to travelers, maybe (just maybe) this whole thing affect us those who travel around Schengen (Border-less EU countries). But that is not for sure. One argument used by the people who ran against Brexit was that EU meant Schengen territory. That is not entirely truth. Of course the European Union ended up taking care of it, legislating about it and regulating schengen, but that doesnt mean that no EU means no Schengen. It might come as part of a nationalist independence package where people wanna just isolate like most countries in the world and be totally in control of inmigration and policy, but schengen is not something that was part of the brexit package so far.
Anyways, I do see that the people pushing for brexit might be the kind that also want to make strict borders (not like england didn't had a slightly different and definitevely tighter border controls already..) so in a way, later on, you might be right to fear for brexit affecting travelers.
Here are some extracts from wikipedia regarding schengen:
Twenty-two of the twenty-eight
European Union (EU)
member states participate in the Schengen Area. Of the six EU members that do not form part of the Schengen Area, four –
Bulgaria,
Croatia,
Cyprus, and
Romania – are legally obliged and wish to join the area, while the other two – the
Republic of Ireland and the
United Kingdom – maintain
opt-outs. All four
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) member states –
Iceland,
Liechtenstein,
Norway, and
Switzerland – have signed agreements on association with the Schengen Agreement, even though they are outside the EU. In addition, three
European microstates –
Monaco,
San Marino, and
Vatican City – can be considered
de facto participants.
So, as you can see, EU members not necessarily belong to Schengen territory as well as non EU members belonging to it. Some of them fully agree with Schengen rules, some do it so partially.
Here is some more wikipedia magic to rule out the EU's role as the reason for Schengen:
The Schengen Agreement and the Schengen Convention
The Schengen Area originally had its legal basis outside the then European Economic Community, having been established by a sub-set of member states of the Community using two international agreements:
- The 1985 Schengen Agreement – Agreement between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders.
- The 1990 Schengen Convention – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders.
On being incorporated into the main body of
European Union law by the
Amsterdam Treaty, the Schengen Agreement and Convention were published in the
Official Journal of the European Communities by a decision of the Council of Ministers.
[224] As a result, the Agreement and Convention can be amended by
regulations.
Now that all this was said (and not ruling out that maybe, just maybe, schengen will go next on the british list of lets get out of that). I have to say that im not sure that it was such a bad idea to leave the EU. To get it on perspective, lets remember Greece. Quite recently, Greeks elected a radical left wing party that not only promised but seemed to be really on taking down banking power structures over their country as well as political and business corruption. They had a good plan, it was all transparent and people knew which where the steps, as well as the risks involved. Lots of people (in democratic terms: the majority of the population) was very hopeful and there was some kind of magic in the air, the kind of magic that you feel when somehow, some politicians break the standards and behave differently, when you see some revolutionary moves being implemented with steady hand and conviction.
And what happened?
A direct message from Brussels (European Union's capital and where the EU parliament decides for the whole union). It said: "Hey, dont forget you are in the EU, and its not like you can do such things if we dont agree" (of course that was not the language, but was the message, im trying to find the guardian article about it but cant find it right now)
So what does that mean?
It basically means that while belonging to the EU, countries dont have autonomy, their democracy is a joke. being that already around the world, but particularly while belonging to a union that leans towards banks and business and only allows a bit of socialism not to look too much like the US.
Greece was a great example of why countries should leave the EU. It showed that there is no possible change, real change while belonging to the EU. EU has its plans and strategy, and everything seems legit until some member state elects a party that has different plans, and there you realize that joining the EU was nothing but handing out your autonomy as a country to a higher power (namely, Germany)
I know that the UK might not be showing sings of any revolutionary left party so that we can all be happy that they left. Quite the contrary, it seems like UK might be shifting more and more towards a nationalist right wing craze, and that sucks. But on the bright side, that's pretty much the direction the whole EU is pointing towards anyways, with a much stronger capacity of blocking changes in other directions. So while UK and other EUxit countries might be getting scaryly nationalistic, I rather have a bunch of scary countries with a better chance of real positive change, than a huge conglomerate of countries that are heavily supporting banks and capitalism and dont give even the slight hope for positive change.
