Good News for Ex Pat Pensioners!

[Dominic]

Anyway, if you want to continue discussing that topic, do so on the thread in the pit, please.

[Royal]

Anyway, if you want to continue discussing that topic, do so on the thread in the pit, please.

The one you locked?

[Dominic]

Fair comment! It is now unlocked.

[Jim B]

The article (and pages of information) appears to state that the UK Government would have the authority to freeze pensions of Expats who live in EU countries once the UK leaves the EU, it is only being a member and EU legislation prevents them doing so already; whether they would or not is a different argument. I am aware that pension increases prior to joining the EU were given but that does not mean they will continue paying them for perpetuity though under EU law they would have had to.

Jim

[Rita Sherry]

I believe it's the EU membership that guarantees pension rises for British citizens living in other EU countries and not the UK; hence the concern after leaving the UK Government could pull the plug.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pens ... rexit.html

Jim

Actually I don't think that is correct Jim, it is a UK decision on how it pays out its pensions to its citizens....were pensions frozen in Cyprus before they joined the EU? Interestingly if you are in receipt of a UK Public Sector Pension there are only a small number of countries where you can "Export" that pension tax free...Cyprus is one of those countries....if you live in Spain for example you pay tax on your Public Sector pension in the UK.

Jim

The article you have provided a link to is dated August 2016 - over a year old and some matters referred to therein such as pension increases have already been dealt with. For instance there was/is a reciprocal agreement between the UK/Cyprus prior to Cyprus joining the EU which still pertains as do the same agreements the UK has with other countries. The EU does not determine whether the UK pays increases to State pensions any more than any other EU member State each of the 28 member countries determines the levels. The article is full of maybes and possibilities but no-one knew or knows exactly what is/will prevail save to say the issue you are referring to has been determined i.e the increases will continue. That is not to say future Governments cannot determine there will be no increases in any given year because they can.

There is another very glaring and irresponsible (in my view) statement in that article where it speaks of the organisation setting up a campaign regarding the matter and wherein it speaks of the concern of some expats regarding the possibility of losing their British citizenship on the UK leaving the EU. That is complete and utter nonsense . British Citizenship can never be taken away particularly so for those born and bred in the United Kingdom and even those from other countries who are eligible, have applied and been granted such citizenship enjoy that same privilege unless same was obtained fraudently or they themselves change it.

Many years ago I dealt with an immigration case on behalf of the Home Office before Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, on appeal wherein the person who I will name as Mr Smith appealed the HO decision to strip him of his British Citizenship and deport him from the UK. It transpired the person before the Court was not Mr Smith but Mr Brown (Mr Smith was a cousin and long dead) who had assumed the identity of his cousin and indeed had obtained British Citizenship having fulfilled all the other criteria. Lord Denning ruled that BC was a very special privilege and once given could not ever be taken away but in the instance case same had been given to Mr Smith (who had already been dead) and as Mr Brown was not Mr Smith he had never been granted it and was not entitled to it by reason of his deception in impersonating his cousin.

It will be a very very foolish Parliament (not government) that will attempt to make millions of British people stateless.

Rita

[Jim B]

Hello Rita
Below is the the bottom line from your first paragraph; the same position also applies to freezing pensions (by any Government) and many articles from the media both left and right of the political spectrum infer that after leaving the EU there is nothing to prevent the Government of the day from freezing pensions so it appears there is legislation in place preventing this happening while still a member of the EU.

That is not to say future Governments cannot determine there will be no increases in any given year because they can.

As for passports; I have no idea of the legal status though isn't the present government trying to take away citizenship from those who went to fight for I.S.?

Jim

[Rita Sherry]

Hello Rita
Below is the the bottom line from your first paragraph; the same position also applies to freezing pensions (by any Government) and many articles from the media both left and right of the political spectrum infer that after leaving the EU there is nothing to prevent the Government of the day from freezing pensions so it appears there is legislation in place preventing this happening while still a member of the EU.

That is not to say future Governments cannot determine there will be no increases in any given year because they can.

As for passports; I have no idea of the legal status though isn't the present government trying to take away citizenship from those who went to fight for I.S.?

Jim

Jim

Firstly there has been an agreement within the last month between the EU and the UK that UK citizens living in EU countries and vice versa will continue to receive their State pensions likewise any increases in those pensions. UK government agreed the triple lock will remain for all pensioners until at least the end of 2019. UK State Pensions is governed by domestic legislation and has nothing to do with other countries or the EU. Reciprocal agreements are not required to pay or uprate pensions. There is no rule of international law preventing the UK from doing this and it does not take a bilateral agreement to permit it. Source: DSS,Pensions Minister, Freedom of Information Office confirmed

As to the matter of Citizenship the question of a passport is irrelevant because, surprising as it may seem, not everyone has one. Registration of Births etc is the criteria. You are correct that the Government or rather certain members of Parliament have suggested British Citizenship should be taken away from those who left the UK to fight for so called I.S. Under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 people with dual nationality who are British Nationals can be deprived of their B.C if the Secretary of State is satisfied that "deprivation is conducive to the public good" - there is a right of appeal. The Act has been in force since 16th June 2006. Loss of British nationality in this way applies to people born in the UK as a British Citizen and who also hold another nationality. As the provision applies only to dual nationals, its application cannot render a person stateless. (This is where the government of the day can meet a difficulty should the person concerned only have British Status)

The Home Office does not issue information on these cases and is resistant to answering questions. However under Freedom of Information Act 2000 as of 15th July 2013 at least 17 people had been deprived of their British Citizenship, in most cases on the recommendation of the security services. Appeals are heard at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, in camera, where the government can submit evidence that cannot be seen or challenged by the appellant.

Personally I can think of another way which could apply to all such people i.e. "Treason" should cover it. The last person to be tried for treason was William Joyce "Lord Haw Haw" who was tried and found guilty of treason and executed (hanged) in 1946. The Crime & Disorder Act 1998 replaced the death penalty with a maximum term of life imprisonment. Given that these people hate the UK and the rest of the Western world together with its culture, religion and way of life why in God''s name do they wish to remain in any part of Europe. Speaking of the UK I am unaware of any border guards etc keeping people in the country they so despise. I am normally a tolerant person but for these type of people I have none.

I have only just returned from the UK after my sojourn from the heat & humidity but unfortunately my adopted cat (10 years) became ill last week and the Vet has informed me she has cancer. Those who know me from Cyprus Living will also know how I came to adopt Skippy and quite frankly she is receiving all of my attention at this present time but I got this post off whilst she is sleeping.

As a matter of interest there is a case coming up in Australia on 10th October where an elected Senator (2016) is to fac e investigation for not declaring he was a British Citizen by descent when he submitted his nomination form thus rendering his election invalid. Five others also faced the same charge but they withdrew their nomination on discovering they too were British by descent although they were unaware of the fact. This man declares he had asked the UK Home Office to revoke his citizenship but failed to send the appropriate fee so no revocation took place. His name is Malcolm Roberts - makes a good read.

Rita

NB. All pension increases are usually announced in the pre budget statement around November time but such increase is now fixed until after 2019 and ex pats will get it.

[PhotoLady]

Quite frankly, I don't believe a single word that comes out of the mouths of this current government regarding Brexit. I do believe however that once we're out that's when they will really show their hand..... Of course by then, we will all be in that canoe up the shit creek minus any rowing implement.

[cyprusexpat123]

Quite frankly, I don't believe a single word that comes out of the mouths of this current government regarding Brexit. I do believe however that once we're out that's when they will really show their hand..... Of course by then, we will all be in that canoe up the shit creek minus any rowing implement.

No change then, the UK is already in that canoe up the shit creek etc.
So why pay the EU for the privilege?
Tommy.

[Firefly]

Lloyd

We didn't close our bank account in the UK, and we still had debit cards and cheque book, but on our return to the UK found to our dismay that we had no credit rating at all, having been away for five years or more. No-on should assume that just because they have a UK bank account, everything in the garden will be rosy upon their return.

Jackie

[Poppy]

Lloyd again you just quote part of my post. I did go on to say that people who take every opportunity to pick fault with the UK and have no intention of returning - slightly different.
I also agree with Jackie we have no credit rating at all which could have proven difficult when we rented our property but luckily common sense prevailed and our income and savings sufficed.

[Jim B]

Hello Rita
Below is the the bottom line from your first paragraph; the same position also applies to freezing pensions (by any Government) and many articles from the media both left and right of the political spectrum infer that after leaving the EU there is nothing to prevent the Government of the day from freezing pensions so it appears there is legislation in place preventing this happening while still a member of the EU.

That is not to say future Governments cannot determine there will be no increases in any given year because they can.

As for passports; I have no idea of the legal status though isn't the present government trying to take away citizenship from those who went to fight for I.S.?

Jim

Jim

Firstly there has been an agreement within the last month between the EU and the UK that UK citizens living in EU countries and vice versa will continue to receive their State pensions likewise any increases in those pensions. UK government agreed the triple lock will remain for all pensioners until at least the end of 2019. UK State Pensions is governed by domestic legislation and has nothing to do with other countries or the EU. Reciprocal agreements are not required to pay or uprate pensions. There is no rule of international law preventing the UK from doing this and it does not take a bilateral agreement to permit it. Source: DSS,Pensions Minister, Freedom of Information Office confirmed

As to the matter of Citizenship the question of a passport is irrelevant because, surprising as it may seem, not everyone has one. Registration of Births etc is the criteria. You are correct that the Government or rather certain members of Parliament have suggested British Citizenship should be taken away from those who left the UK to fight for so called I.S. Under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 people with dual nationality who are British Nationals can be deprived of their B.C if the Secretary of State is satisfied that "deprivation is conducive to the public good" - there is a right of appeal. The Act has been in force since 16th June 2006. Loss of British nationality in this way applies to people born in the UK as a British Citizen and who also hold another nationality. As the provision applies only to dual nationals, its application cannot render a person stateless. (This is where the government of the day can meet a difficulty should the person concerned only have British Status)

The Home Office does not issue information on these cases and is resistant to answering questions. However under Freedom of Information Act 2000 as of 15th July 2013 at least 17 people had been deprived of their British Citizenship, in most cases on the recommendation of the security services. Appeals are heard at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, in camera, where the government can submit evidence that cannot be seen or challenged by the appellant.

Personally I can think of another way which could apply to all such people i.e. "Treason" should cover it. The last person to be tried for treason was William Joyce "Lord Haw Haw" who was tried and found guilty of treason and executed (hanged) in 1946. The Crime & Disorder Act 1998 replaced the death penalty with a maximum term of life imprisonment. Given that these people hate the UK and the rest of the Western world together with its culture, religion and way of life why in God''s name do they wish to remain in any part of Europe. Speaking of the UK I am unaware of any border guards etc keeping people in the country they so despise. I am normally a tolerant person but for these type of people I have none.

I have only just returned from the UK after my sojourn from the heat & humidity but unfortunately my adopted cat (10 years) became ill last week and the Vet has informed me she has cancer. Those who know me from Cyprus Living will also know how I came to adopt Skippy and quite frankly she is receiving all of my attention at this present time but I got this post off whilst she is sleeping.

As a matter of interest there is a case coming up in Australia on 10th October where an elected Senator (2016) is to fac e investigation for not declaring he was a British Citizen by descent when he submitted his nomination form thus rendering his election invalid. Five others also faced the same charge but they withdrew their nomination on discovering they too were British by descent although they were unaware of the fact. This man declares he had asked the UK Home Office to revoke his citizenship but failed to send the appropriate fee so no revocation took place. His name is Malcolm Roberts - makes a good read.

Rita

NB. All pension increases are usually announced in the pre budget statement around November time but such increase is now fixed until after 2019 and ex pats will get it.

Hello Rita
Firstly, sorry to hear about your cat; I understand how attached people become to their pets, my two sisters being a case in point.

Yes, I'm aware of the Australian Saga as my friend in work is from Brisbane and was telling me the whole sorry story; it's all a bit of a mess.

Thank for the information on passports and citizenship, a very comprehensive explanation as our youngest daughter and two of my granddaughters hold dual nationality.

My final question is: If the freezing of pensions is totally a domestic decision then why is the UK Government stating in has come to a decision in principle with the EU not to freeze pensions post exit or does this only involve pensions earned in other EU countries rather than the persons own country?

Thank you.

Jim

[Poppy]

Rita and Jim I have to admit that I am confused too! In Ritas' first para she writes that in the last month the UK and EU have agreed that UK citizens living in the UK and vice versa will continue to receive their pensions and subsequent increases so surely it cannot just be a domestic issue?
So sorry to hear about your cat Rita,can anything be done?

[Varky]

Rita and Jim I have to admit that I am confused too! In Ritas' first para she writes that in the last month the UK and EU have agreed that UK citizens living in the UK and vice versa will continue to receive their pensions and subsequent increases so surely it cannot just be a domestic issue?
So sorry to hear about your cat Rita,can anything be done?

Please not that the agreement about pension increases appeared to be only up until 2019. That is until Brexit. So no change from the existing situation whilst UK is in the EU. No great revelation there, then.
I think the reference to 'domestic' was that decisions on pension levels is a domestic/UK decision and not reliant on any input from the EU.

[Firefly]

Rita

Brilliant post as usual, I think you have summed up the way a lot of us feel. So sorry to hear about Skippy.

Jackie

[Royal]

If the Euro currency is a reflection of the institutional and trading strength of the EU, I would say that I haven't perceived any cracks.[/colour] Have you?

That's because you are still wearing your EU issued rose tinted spectacles. No cracks indeed! How about a €60Bn to €80Bn per month QE programme?

A total of €2.3 Trillion spent to keep the Euro from collapse. Not so much a 'crack' as a bloody great big chasm.

Even the Germans are taking the QE policy to the ECJ:

Germany’s top judges have put the legality of the European Central Bank’s 2.3-trillion euro ($2.7 trillion) bond-buying program in doubt in a ruling that asks the European Court of Justice for guidance in cases targeting the policy.

The Federal Constitutional Court seeks an interim decision on whether the quantitative-easing policy falls within ECB’s mandate as defined in the treaties of the European Union. The German challenges will be stayed in the meantime, the Karlsruhe-based German top court said Tuesday in an emailed statement disclosing the ruling, dated July 18. The judges asked their EU counterparts to hear the case under a fast-track procedure.

“There are grave reasons to hold that the motions underlying the bond-buying program violate the ban on monetary financing of states and overstep the mandate of the European Central Bank and thus transgress the powers of the member states," the court said.

The ECB defended its program, saying it’s fully within its mandate. The ECJ will now have to assess the program while the asset purchase system remains operational in line with previous Governing Council statements, the ECB said in a statement on the ruling.

The ruling echoes a move three years ago when the judges asked Luxembourg for guidance on a challenge to the ECB’s Outright Monetary Transactions program. The ECJ later cleared the program with minor strings attached and the German tribunal reluctantly followed that direction in its final judgment. Most of the plaintiffs in the QE cases were in the group that sued against the OMT.

In the QE decision, the German court argued the current assets purchases wouldn’t pass the test under the ECJ’s OMT ruling. The ECB announced purchases in a way that suggested to markets that government bonds definitely would be bought, it said.

The judges also listed other elements that indicate a treaty violation, including that there was no way to verify there is a minimum period between the issuance of a bond and its acquisition. Other problems arise because the securities acquired so far have been held until maturity, and the ECB even bought bonds carrying a negative yield from the outset, according to the ruling.

The ECB started quantitative easing in March 2015 and currently intends to buy 60 billion euros a month of public and private debt until at least the end of this year, taking the size of the program to 2.3 trillion euros. Most economists expect purchases to be extended into 2018, though potentially at a slower pace, and eventually wound down.

The central bank has defended the program, alongside negative interest rates and free loans to banks, as a key tool for loosening financial conditions to revive euro-area inflation. But while the economy has now expanded for more than four years, spurring calls for QE to be tapered, consumer-price growth is still short of policy makers’ goal.

Germany’s finance ministry said it remains to be seen how the ECJ will answer the issue raised by the Constitutional tribunal.

The European Commission, EU’s executive arm in Brussels, said it’s convinced the ECB is acting within the limits of the treaties. The commission will intervene in support of the ECB in the proceedings before the Luxembourg-based ECJ, Annika Breidthardt, a spokeswoman for the EU agency, said.

The German judges are arguing that QE overextended the responsibilities of central bankers, who are improperly conducting economic policy instead of simply setting monetary policy. The national judges are also seeking guidance on how the ECB Governing Council can modify rules of risk sharing within the Eurosystem, warning that an unlimited risk distribution between the national central banks for bonds in default couldn’t be reconciled with German constitutional requirements.

The plaintiffs argue because the ECB is overstepping the powers granted to it under EU rules, any German participation violates the national constitution. One plaintiff has asked the court to issue an injunction stopping the Bundesbank from cooperating with the ECB on the program. Germany’s government must also take steps to stop it, including suing in the EU courts, they argue.

After the ECJ will have made its ruling, the cases will return to Germany for a final judgment.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... urt-review