The Foreign & Commonwealth Office have just issued its third British Behaviour Abroad annual report, covering the period from April 2006 to March 2007. There seems to have been a slight rise in the number of Britons abroad needing serious consular assistance (arrests, hospitalisations, deaths and reported rapes) compared to the previous 12 months.

In Spain, the biggest destination for travelling Brits (17 million of them during the period) and also the country with the second highest number of British residents, the number of arrests was up by one-third, at 2,032. This compares with France, the No.2 destination for travellers, where the number of arrests was just 153 (although the increase was larger, at 42%). Presumably it’s a different kind of traveller heading to France – many of them, perhaps, on day trips across the Channel to stock up on cheap fags and booze.

So what underlies the trouble? In many cases, it seems, it’s alcohol-induced. Certainly it seems to be the “club” destinations that throw up the highest proportion of arrests. Although Spain has the highest number of arrests for the period, Cyprus has the highest proportion of arrests per thousand visits. Compare them with, for instance, Italy – roughly 20% of the number of visits that Spain attracted, but only 1.5% of the arrests!

What many of these party animals may not realise is that if they have an accident while they’re drunk, it could cost them dear. Many travel insurance policies specifically exclude accidents which happen while the policyholder’s drunk. Overdrinking could cost them dear in other ways, too. For all the publicity that Rohypnol gets, the most widely used drug in drug-and-rape cases is still alcohol. And the top three countries for cases of rape of a British citizen abroad are Spain, Greece and Turkey.

The FCO figures don’t distinguish between Britons living overseas and those merely travelling abroad, so it’s hard to tell how many arrests are of expats. But inevitably there are a few among them; not just young people, either. Gary Glitter’s imprisonment in Vietnam, and his release and deportation this week at the end of his sentence, have been headline news, and we’ve covered the issue of child sex tourism in a previous article. But, also within the last week, the UK press has reported two cases where British husbands have been charged with murdering or attempting to murder their wives (also British) on the Spanish Costas. In both cases, the married expat couple were aged around 60.

These were particularly grisly cases. But a more publicised case of Brits behaving badly overseas happened recently in Dubai, where a couple of unmarried British were charged last month with indecency in a public place, consuming alcohol and having an illicit affair. Both face prison sentences. While the British press were all over the case, the local expat community seem to be largely blasé about it. Many of those interviewed by the media took the attitude that the two were stupid to flout the local laws so publicly and should hardly be surprised if they were dealt with severely. (Apparently the couple had been given a discreet warning by police first, but disregarded it.)

Still, it’s not all bad news, despite the inevitable “Britain’s going to the dogs” stories in the press. None of the newspapers seems to have picked up on the surprising, if welcome, fact that the number of arrests in Germany actually went down compared to the previous year – despite the 2006 World Cup being staged in Germany during that period. Evidence, perhaps, that close liaison between British and German police before and during the World Cup helped prevent hooligans wrecking the event and avoided overly heavy-handed policing of the merely high-spirited. Let’s hope so, anyway.

In the three years since the European Union welcomed 10 new members, record numbers have moved from east to west. The scale of migration has cheered those eager to promote mobility within the EU and distressed those who fear the economic and social effects of uncontrolled immigration. Yet both cheerleaders and detractors of Europe’s newfound mobility are getting worked up over a temporary phenomenon.

There is no denying that the scale of movement, especially to the UK and Ireland, has been staggering. More than half a million new member nationals have registered to work in the UK since 2004, not including the self-employed and those who do not need to register. Poles, who account for more than half of this inflow, were the single largest immigrant nationality arriving in the UK in 2005. In Ireland, some 330,000 new member nationals obtained personal public service numbers – required to work or claim benefits – between May 2004 and February 2007. More Poles than Irish applied for these numbers in 2006. New member nationals have also made their presence felt in other parts of the EU – the infamous Polish plumber, for example – as many existing member states start to ease restrictions on movement of workers from new member states.

Yet, it is important not to overstate the scale or impact of these new flows. For a start, central and eastern Europeans have been working in western Europe for decades, most notably the hundreds of thousands of seasonal agricultural workers in Germany. A sizeable proportion of the “new” registrants in the UK said they had been resident in the UK before May 2004.

Many of the post-enlargement flows have also been temporary. More than half of those registering to work in the UK say they intend to stay for less than three months, a proportion that has been climbing since the early days of enlargement. There are signs that the early movers are starting to return home, having saved pounds and euros and learnt new skills and languages.

More striking are the trends on which nationalities are moving. Poland dominates the post-enlargement flows. Between 2005 and 2006, the numbers of Poles arriving rose by 26 per cent in the UK and 45 per cent in Ireland. Polish economic growth and unemployment may be improving but there is a long way to go before young Poles decide not to try their luck overseas.

However, richer accession countries and ones with better economic prospects seem to be sending far fewer emigrants. Between them, the UK and Ireland have received 859 Slovenians since May 2004, a per capita emigration rate 30 times smaller than the Polish equivalent. Arrivals from the three Baltic states, together the second largest group of migrants after Poles, have fallen dramatically as economic conditions improve at home (the slowest Baltic growth rate is nearly 8 per cent and the highest unemployment rate about 7 per cent).

If all new member economies improve in this manner, not only will they send fewer emigrants but they will also need to import workers. Indeed, there is no better example of this transition than Ireland.

That the westward march is not all that new, mostly circular and probably short-lived is rarely acknowledged by those who want to limit mobility within the EU in order to protect wages, conditions and public services. But nor does it seem to be acknowledged by those who want to promote mobility in order to encourage labour market flexibility and competitiveness.

For years, European policymakers have worried about the lack of geographical mobility among workers. Only 1.7 per cent of the EU population lives in another member state, whereas some 3 per cent of Americans move to a different US state every year. So pleased was the European Commission about the arrival of eager workers from the new member states and so keen was it to promote the lifting of mobility restrictions that it declared 2006 the EU Year of Worker Mobility.

As the 2004 EU entrants’ economies grow and populations age (often at a faster rate than western Europe’s), they are unlikely to make a long-term dent in EU mobility. Indeed, unless workers in existing member states show a new propensity to cross borders, only further rounds of enlargement will do the trick. Unfortunately, judging by the public hysteria over the Polish plumber, the Turkish tradesman may be in for a very tough time.

Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah is Director of Research Development at ippr
This article first appeared in the Financial Times, 2 May 2007

More than 198,000 British nationals moved overseas last year, bringing the total number of Brits abroad to more than 5.5 million, according to new research from the Institute for Public Policy Research, published on 11 December 2006. The report says that a strong economy at home has encouraged emigration and that very few Britons leave because they think the country has “gone to the dogs”.

ippr’s report shows that almost one in ten Britons now lives abroad and that a British national emigrates every three minutes. The report predicts that another one million Brits will move abroad over the next five years.

The report shows that Britain has more people living abroad than almost any other country. The top 10 countries where Brits live, together accounting for around 75 per cent of all Brits living abroad, are:

• Australia 1.3 million, equivalent to 2 per cent of UK population
• Spain 760,000
• USA 680,000
• Canada 600,000
• Ireland 290,000
• New Zealand 215,000
• South Africa 212,000
• France 200,000
• Germany 115,000
• Cyprus 59,000

The report says that Brits living abroad are also more spread out than any other nationals, with more than 10,000 Brits living in 41 countries around the world and another 71 countries with more than 1,000 Brits.

The report, which includes results from focus groups with Brits living abroad, identifies the inability to speak the local language as one of the biggest barrier to settling into an overseas community. The report highlights the difference between retired Brits living on the Costa del Sol where fewer than one out of four speak Spanish, compared to retired Brits in Tuscany where almost three out of four speak Italian. Brits in countries like Spain and Saudi Arabia also tend to flock together, in contrast to countries like Australia and the USA where they tend to be more dispersed across the country.

Danny Sriskandarajah, Associate Director of ippr, said:

“When the going is good, Brits get going. A healthy economy at home, especially when house prices are buoyant and the pound is strong, makes it easier to up sticks and move abroad. From Australia to Zambia, Brits are looking for a better job, a better quality of life or a sunny retirement. Very few leave because they think the country has ‘gone to the dogs’.

“Britain does not just have the world’s leading financial centre and the busiest international airport but is truly at the crossroads of the global movement of people. But our research also shows that for some emigrants, being ill-prepared or not knowing the local language can cloud their experience of a place in the sun.”

Lately, I’ve begun to see that we were doing her a great disservice. I’m starting to understand her predicament…. because now it is me who people are looking at in the gym and marvelling at the lack of results. Now, I am that Canadian lady.

Since I returned from Abu Dhabi, only slightly trimmer and more toned, I have managed to put on around six kilos in weight. Not surprising. I eat more in the winter and exercise less than I did in AD. But what I don’t understand, is that despite a campaign of regular exercise combined with sensible eating and drinking for a whole year, there is no difference (except for some barely-perceptible toning). I have not lost even a pound and my waist is as wide as ever.

It really doesn’t seem fair. Every morning I walk for 20 minutes to and from school, at least twice a week I cycle into town through wind and rain, at the weekend we always go for a hearty walk with reluctant children, twice a week I go to the gym, making sure to regularly up my weights etc. and once a week I swim 1500 metres in the snot-ridden pool. I follow dietary advice and have a good breakfast of porridge, I have a healthy salad with no dressing for lunch, and a reasonable dinner at night. I don’t snack or indulge in cakes, chocolates or sweets, I don’t drink loads of sugar-laden drinks. I don’t even have sugar with anything.

And yet I’m surrounded by people who have shed pounds by just cutting out biscuits or adding a few minutes of exercise to their daily routines. Mrs Lard down the road told me this morning that she’s lost seven pounds in the past month, just through swimming 20 lengths once a week. I do over double that!! Honestly. If I’d had them with me, I’d have whacked her with my swimming float and pinged her with my goggles.

To add to the insult, everywhere I look there are “before” and “after” pictures of happy punters advertising the latest diets. Though I’ve never actually followed a diet (I don’t really believe in them but I do try to follow the basic principles of GL), I just know that it won’t work for me. Posters for Weightwatchers and Slimming World abound in our area and now they are being trailed on TV. Good luck! My cynical mind wonders why I should pay money out to lose two pounds and then put it straight back on again. I’d rather be the enigma woman who can’t change her shape.

Most recently there has been a show on TV: I will make you thin! with Paul McKenna. It was a fascinating piece of staged showmanship; he had all of the razzamatazz and passion of an evangelistic preacher (“Praise be! I’m healed!/I’m thin!”). I didn’t watch all of the shows, so I’m not completely informed, but I gather that over the period of a month, McKenna took a large audience of enormous people through various cognitive exercises which were aimed at helping them to recognise when they were hungry, control their snacking, improve their self-image and motivate them to do exercise.

Predictably, members of the audience lost shed-loads of weight. “It’s changed my life!” they exclaimed, eyes dewy with emotion.

Part of me wishes I’d seen all the programmes, but deep down, I know that much of it wouldn’t apply to me. Admittedly, I could improve my self-image (as soon as I lose weight!), but I don’t snack, I am motivated to exercise and I like to think I’m aware of when I am hungry. The one piece of advice I did gain, was from someone else who had watched it: “Chew your food at least 20 times,” she said, “because that gives your stomach time to tell you it’s full.” I do eat quickly, so I’ve taken that on board.

So what next? A book I skimmed through in Sainsbury’s said that you can end up exercising too much and that can have a negative effect on your weight. The friend who told me about the chewing thing also said that if you don’t eat enough to cover the energy you expend through exercise, then your body goes into starvation mode and the metabolism slows down to compensate. Hence, you don’t lose weight.

This sounds plausible, if a little depressing. I could happily cut down the exercise, though I’m anxious this will result in weight gain. Even so, I’m not totally convinced. If I’m hungry I do let myself eat and I tend to try to eat things which are healthy, so I can’t think that is the issue.

Could it be that my metabolism has changed? My friend Barbara is convinced I’m in my peri-menopause (i.e. the decade before menopause) when, apparently, you begin to suffer from the symptoms, which include unexplained weight gain. Oh, it’s fun being female! Barbara gave me a book on it for my birthday. The book suggests going onto the contraceptive pill and taking moderate exercise. I am on the pill already and have been partly holding it responsible for my girth anyway.

Ah well. Bar expert advice from a professional I shall have to continue chewing my food 20 times, eating sensibly, exercising regularly and boring my friends and readers with whinges about my unexplained stasis in weight.

Any original suggestions though, would be welcome.

I knew that our income would be lower, costs higher and the potential for saving reduced. I knew that we would have to tighten our belts, save our pennies, cut down on the luxuries: I was ready to downsize and accept a lower quality of life. No rose-tinted specs; no high expectations for me.

But I still ended up being surprised. I was surprised – not because the cost of living was lower than expected (it was higher), or the wages higher/taxes lower (fat chance). I was surprised because, despite all this, so many people seem to have (or spend) so much in this country – I’m not talking about clothes or everyday basics, but big things, like holidays, houses, cars and home extensions.

The very first thing I noticed when I settled back home was the number of people in my local area with flash cars. I don’t live somewhere like Dulwich, with its grand houses and well-heeled residents. I live in an ordinary, non-bijou town in Hampshire, with its fair share of “deprived” zones. And yet, there are a startling number of recent model BMWs, Mercedes, Porsches and 4×4s around, many of which have personalised number plates (for which there seems to be a bit of a craze) and many of which stand outside exceedingly ordinary houses – you even get them in the “deprived” areas, for heaven’s sake.

The next thing I became aware of was how many of my children’s schoolmates nip off to Florida or Barbados every year (oh yes, my kids were keen to point that one out). I know that you can get cheapish deals sometimes, but nevertheless, those holidays still cost a lot of money.

And as for housing: the prices round here are astronomical. Yet people I know are still managing to upgrade from three-bed to four (about a £100,000 hike); or else they are investing in an extension costing up to £80,000.

I don’t understand. My husband doesn’t get a bad wage, and OK, I’m still not earning yet, but we live in a 2.5-bed house, run an old Citroën diesel estate and go camping in the UK for holidays.

So how does everyone else do it? Do all these people have a larger income than us? Are they just cannier at saving? Do they merely have differing spending priorities? Are their general expenses lower? Or, as I suspect, do some of them manage to get what they have by borrowing on credit?

Getting a loan, credit card or mortgage is pretty easy in this country. And it’s great. It means that people can buy things they might never be able to afford otherwise; who could ever buy a house without borrowing the money (unless you had a larger one to sell of course)? Yes, it’s marvellous – “I want, can get”.

But I’m not convinced everyone understands just how it all works.

I’m sure most of us don’t bother to the read the weeny weeny small print on these credit agreements (it’s too much of a struggle – even with my new reading glasses on). And even if we can read it, not all of us understand what it says. The terminology is so alien (I’m ashamed to say I don’t really know what APR stands for) and the sentences are so oddly phrased in legalese as to require either great effort, or specialist training.

No, I think many of us are blinded by the prospect of getting something without actually having to pay for it up front. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with making the odd large purchase in this way. But the problem comes when people start to rely on credit too much.

It’s well documented that some people in this country have managed to rack-up debts so huge they may never be able to pay them back. On the one hand, I envy their gall – if I had the guts to do the same, we could be living in a larger house with a flash car and fancy overseas holidays every year. On the other, I know that my general aversion to debt/owing money would never allow me to do it.

I partly blame the big credit/loan corporations. The way they phrase their promotions, it’s made to sound as if you can get stuff for free; and I have a feeling that there are some people who actually believe that they can.

A friend of mine recently got a new three-piece suite. I was impressed she could afford this as a single mum, but she explained: “My credit limit went up, so I thought, great, why not? I can spend more.” Er…yes, but you still have to actually pay it back…and with interest.

Don’t get me wrong; my friend is a bright woman, and I’m sure she realises she still has to pay the money back – but what about those people with the massive debts? Do they over-borrow thinking they will eventually pay everything off? Do they genuinely not realise what they are getting into? Or do they think that it will all just go away?

The problem is, we’re never really taught how to deal with our finances. Granted, some people have very savvy parents who manage to pass on their sage financial wisdom. And some choose to study accountancy/business studies or some such and they have the advantage of knowing just how to maximise their income. I, however, managed to enter the world of adulthood being fairly financially ignorant.

I don’t understand financial jargon and, to be frank, I’ve never really tried to. As soon as I come across the terms “fiscal”, “base rate” or “standard variable” my brain takes voluntary leave and decides it’s happier wandering around somewhere else. I just can’t apply myself to it. And I’m sure I’m not alone here.

As I was idly chatting about this topic with a friend, she came up with a brilliant idea: we ought to teach children these things at school.

Kids would be so much better prepared for work and entering the adult world if they knew about savings, tax, pensions, mortgages and what it means to take out a loan/borrow on a credit card. So instead of “general studies” or as part of that new subject PHSE (I’m still not sure what it stands for), they ought to learn about money matters.

While they’re at it, they could teach children about entitlements and benefits, renting/buying a house, choosing the best gas supplier/insurance company and all the other things that nobody taught you about being a grown-up.

One thing’s for sure, if the schools don’t teach them, they’ll end up like me, bumbling through my adult responsibilities, never really maximising what I’ve got, and following advice without really understanding it. Or worse, they could end up with a massive credit card bill.