rockingrobin

30 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Sorry, but what are you talking about, he is already established in the EU, he is a British citizen and Britain is a member of both the EU and the EEA, leastways until, or if we eventually leave ……. and what treaty rights can he invoke ?? 

The Freedom of Movement, 

I am not going to go through the various EU and Non EU immigration rules.

31 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Any transitional arrangement can only delay the Article 127 issue, not resolve it. This is exactly why the courts put the case on hold.

They cannot keep dodging the issue forever, sooner or later someone must rule on whether leaving the EU automatically means leaving the EEA. Uncertainty will prevail until there is some resolution.

The issue will be complicated by the EU withdrawal bill, and possibly will be resolved at the amendments debate which include Art 127

7 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

So what have we learnt from the "speech".  There was a lot of sucking up to the Europeans and her saying that she wanted a transition period of about two years.  She committed to keep paying into the EU for that time even though we would have no seat at the table and so no voice.  So much for Boris saying they could go and whistle for the money.  She also confirmed that all EU citizens living in the UK could stay and that the European courts would probably still have an input after we leave.

 

Apart from that she said she didn't want a Norwegian or Canadian style deal but instead a bespoke one for the UK.  Of course she can only say what she would like or not like as everything is waiting for the "negotiations" to begin.  

 

So nothing we didn't know already and no actual figures on payments.  A complete let down for the Brexiteers and Remoaners alike.

Considering the hype, you are left wondering who is in actual control and leading the UK government .Taking account that Boris cancelled a talk at the UN regarding Somalia to fly back with May. How much influence did his intervention in the papers have on the final speech

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

I've been keeping a low profile lately in order to see if something positive is going to happen.  I have accepted we must go regardless of what polls now say, and what I see as the general incompetence shown by Brexiteers thus far.  But surely there is a limit.  I ask myself: What is the point of leaving?... when perhaps more than 50% want to remain, and there does not appear, nor has there ever been, a cogent plan that does not threaten the economic security of the nation.  This is a very troubling situation.  I suppose we'll blunder through, as big economies tend to withstrand major blows.  But the life of me I can't see the point based on upholding a very flimsy mandate.  In law of contract, there is a concept of frustration- when something simply can not be reasonably done.  And in politics there is 'heft' which is self explanatory.   I just honestly think this is a no-goer.

 

Nevertheless, having accepted we must leave, I really can't see the point in accepting a compromise position that hampers our attempts to rebuild.  A transition period that prevents us seeking new opportunities is worthless.  It really is a case of in or out.  Ultimately, if we want to uphold democracy, then there is only one path.

The current government cannot agree on a final destination , thus the requirement for a minimum 2yr transition .

They reject a EEA/EFTA or Canada model , but want an imaginative and creative agreement, a statement that says we do not know.

14 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

That's your guess is it, says the man that accuses me of making assumptions; so enlighten me, what is the difference between a guess and an assumption, or is it just a guess when you assume something, and an assumption when someone else does ??  

 

no matter, I understand what you say about celebrities cashing in on their fame, but seriously, what would a pub owner in Benidorm want to pay him for being Mickey Pearce, even if he has still got the Titfer. I mean what can he actually do, apart from talk about a 30 year old TV sitcom in which he had a bit part  ??

 

Even in the unlikely event that he were to be well paid, he can't just say to the immigration authorities "I earned a load of dosh in Spain" as you rightly pointed out in an earlier comment to Kieran  “You have to provide a full set of annual accounts, tax returns and bank statements to show that you have earned the money” ……. which is what he needs to do to provide evidence of meeting the minimum income criteria. 

 

He is certainly not making much effort to do that, he arrived in Benidorm on 21st February 2017 having arrived back in the UK from Thailand in April 2016, so that's not much of an attempt at working a full year in the British tax system I suggest 

If he establishes himself in the EU exercising his treaty rights, then he could bypass the minimum income threshold

34 minutes ago, Mattd said:

To be perfectly honest, then I am not sure how they would verify in this kind of instance, perhaps the old fashioned way of utility bills etc.?

 

My UK license is like yours, the old style one, last issued in 1987 and is at an address that I last lived at in the UK at, a couple of years back I did see if I could use it to rent a car with one of the big rental mobs at Manchester Airport, they would not allow it, as their checks said that xxxx lived at that house and not me, wasn't a problem because I did have my Thai license with me and used that instead, which is probably a better bet if you have one, as they cannot put points on it!!

Exactly what other checks and personal info the rental companies can do and see I do not know.

Another interesting fact for the big rental companies, if the credit card presented is not a chip and pin type, then they will refuse the rental, watched a bloke really argue with them on that one!

 

Everything seems to just be more difficult nowadays in the UK, ID and proof of residency being high on the list of things needed to do almost anything, a mate moved back at the end of July after a long time, says it is a real pain, but he did manage to renew his license and update the address fairly easily (new style to new style)!

 

There will be a number of people who are lawfully resident in the UK and not on the electoral register. As an example persons who have indefinite leave to remain, but are not British Citizens. Last time I rented a vehicle , the rquirements was photo ID, and proof of residency , e.g correspondance within the last 3 months , utility bills, banks , gov.dept. etc

44 minutes ago, Eff1n2ret said:

I think Sumrit's point is that having allowed people who come to the UK for residence to drive for a year and then take a test when they still hold a valid foreign licence is illogical, effectively treating  residents the same as visitors.

But you are correct in saying that certain overseas licences can be converted directly, on the basis of, wait for it, "reciprocal agreements". There is a certain irony that beneficiaries of these agreements include Australians and Canadians ( thus presumably Brits who emigrate to those countries), while the USA is not included - the exact opposite of the agreements regarding the retirement pension.

The following from a FOI request may explain the DVLA rationale

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/driving_licences_for_foreign_spo

If I follow correctly , visitors are governed by treaties, and foreign residents are given a concession

1 hour ago, sumrit said:

I've always felt this is a back to front rule. When somebody enters the UK and drives there using a foreign licence the law accepts that, having a foreign licence, they are competent and safe drivers.

 

Then after driving on UK roads for twelve months and gaining a full years experience into the bargain they are told they are no longer considered competent enough and prevented from driving until they have taken a full UK driving test.

 

Now their original qualification to allow them to drive is still valid, the government rules deemed them safe and competent from day one and the experience gained in driving in the UK is (probably) more than almost every UK learner driver has before taking their test.

 

So what, after a full year, suddenly deems them incompetent to drive on day 366????

There is a distinction between resident and visitor

A visitor is allowed to drive on a foreign licence for 12 months only, they cannot apply or be issued with a UK driving licence

A resident is allowed to drive for up to 12 months , after which they need to apply for a provisional licence and pass the UK test to continue to drive. 

The above is a simplification , depending on where the licence was issued some foreign licence can be directly exchanged

30 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

Two things to remember here.  First is that the EU didn't ask for a specific amount.  They just asked the UK to come up with an offer.  Secondly this will not mean that it will be the last payment by the UK.  Davis has admitted that we will still have to pay into the EU after Brexit.

12 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Have to agree, a few EU 'important people' came up with 100 bn, which was gradually reduced to 60 bn.

 

Not that it matters, its down to the claimant to PROVE their claim - not insist that the entity from which they are claiming 'makes an offer'....

The government has already stated it wishes to remain party to some EU projects post Brexit

13 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Not sure why (in the absence of agreed favourable trading terms) the UK would consider paying more than one year's  net annual payment - bearing in mind the EU's seven year budget ends one year after the UK's leaves in 2019?  Edit - and this isn't taking into consideration the UK's share of EU assets!

 

Even so, its good to see that the amount is gradually reducing from the EU's initial figure of 100 bn....

Its the forerunner to the transitional period. What the UK has now to do is decide where it is transiting to

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

And yet the topic headline and OP is all about 'british expats facing a cliff edge in pensions and insurance after brexit'.

 

Certainly no fear-mongering there.....

Nothing misleading about the headline

' 

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) said insurers and pension firms must be authorised in an EU country to sell a contract to an EU customer, continue to pay claims, and accept premiums on existing contracts.

The industry body said: “If nothing is fixed, insurers will be left in an impossible position and face an unacceptable choice: break their promise to customers or risk breaking the law.”

2 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Scare mongering...

 

If the EU or any EU country were to withhold pensions earned while working in the UK the UK could reciprocate, I am sure it would hurt many EU citizens much harder.

The article is not about a country witholding pension payments. It is about the right for pension providers and insurance companies to continue lawfully the provision of business in the EU

1 hour ago, clifric said:

Although frozen pensions are slightly off-topic as far as this article is concerned - baansgr - reciprocal agreements are NOT necessary and UK Gov has reluctantly agreed that this is the case after years of quoting this excuse.

 

All that is needed is a change of domestic legislation - in this case the abolition of section 20 of the Pensions Act which states the Minister may make regulations to not pay annual up-rating to UK pensioners residing in certain countries. There is no legal obligation on the Minister to make these regulations (as Statutory Instruments raised annually) despite the other UK Gov excuse that it only up-rates pensions where it has a legal obligation to do so.

 

It now remains to be seen if this blatant discrimination continues if EU resident pensioners continue to receive annual up-rating after Brexit

Maybe this should continue in the pensions thread.

The Pensions Act 2014 only applies to persons reaching pensionable age after April 2016

21 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Well the UK people can vote for a party that supports the unfreezing of pensions once we leave the ECHR. We don't get the option when in the EU.

 

The Labour party promised a lot didn't they like supporting brexit. U turned on that so hardly credible.

The ECHR and the EU are 2 independant entities. Leaving the ECHR is not going to change the UK domestic courts judgements, what it will do is leave its citizens nowhere to go to challenge such decisions.

I do not inderstand the comment ' we dont get the option when in the EU ' It is not the EU preventing the uprating of pensions, but the UK government enacting secondary legislation to keep the regulation in place

17 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I understand and have sympathy for you. It is not just Thailand but expats in other countries.

 

The EU court ruled on that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8568970.stm

 

With the amount of expats overseas now it would be a good vote winner for a political party to remove that but I wont hold my breath. A bit like relying on the state pension.

A couple of points

The  ECHR ruling was in line with the three UK courts decision on the same case, therefore I dont understand why you would only highlight ECHR but fail to acknowledge that the UK domesic courts also ruled that the frozen pensions are lawfull

The unfreezing of pensions was part of Labours election manifesto, so you can stop holding your breadth now

22 minutes ago, lust said:

My photo is clear, but all the color is washed out. It's like a black and white photo.

 

Here's an example of the stamps.

if the photo as been altered in any way   the passport will not be recognised as a valid document, due to not matching the sample held on the ICAO database (as per Paris agreement)

21 minutes ago, lust said:

 

Maybe it's how I'm reading this, but these seem like contradicting statements. If a license is expired, it's no longer valid. 

 

I went to my embassy and they said I need a valid photo ID because I don't know 2 Canadians living here who can vouch for me as references. 

The invalid driving licence does  itself prevent the issuing of a new passport , the driving licence cannot be used as ID , thus other forms of ID are required.

It is my understanding that if the passport is regarded as damaged , 2 guarantors are required to sign all documents

1 hour ago, Laughing Gravy said:

I imagine it would be a similar amount that the Spanish would be leaving the UK employment market. Or they could say what we do for your citizens, you do for us.

 

As someone who lives in Thailand I can't have much sympathy for those in Spain as pensioners here from the UK get nothing extra.

 

It seems a week of project fear. Sadly some people buy into it far to easily.

 

 

The article is about personal pensions and insurance, not the state pension

14 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

So if someone gets both their passport and DL lost or stolen at the same time, they can't renew either of them?

 

Pretty sure there's some other criteria available, albeit probably requiring a more extensive paper trail, for one to prove who they are. Admittedly, living overseas for any length of time and possibly forsaking home banking, billing addresses and (possibly) not paying taxes can have a downside when ones passport gets lost or damaged.

 

Back to the OP, is the picture in his passport still recognizable?

Apologies, maybe a bit of misunderstanding

A valid driving licence can be used as a means of ID verification. Other forms of id  are acceptable.

The passport being classed as damaged cannot be used for id purposes. 

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

What country denies a replacement passport if the applicants DL is expired?

1 hour ago, lust said:

Canada. But to add more to that. It's because it's the only photo ID that I have, apart from my passport of course.

To be clear Canada doesnt deny issuing of passport because a driving licence is expired.

A valid driving licence can be used for the ID verification of the passport application

I know of 1 person from the UK who was denied entry to Thailand because a page in his passport had been damaged. He was detained at the detention center untill the next available flight back to the UK

19 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

You need proof of 800k baht in the bank on the date you apply or proof of 65k baht income or a combination of the 2.

They will want proof you are retired along with the money in the bank. Many people have used a income letter showing any amount of income for that proof. If using the income only they will still want to see some money in a bank account (I assume it is to meet the 20k baht requirement for all visas).

You will need a copy of your passport photo page.

Application form for the visa. 57d7849dd469e_Savannakhet2501-01-31.PDF

Lao VOA application form. 57d785562532b_Laovisaonarrivalform (1).pdf

To obtain a Non O based on retirement at Savanakhet , is a certificate of retirement required from embassy

deleted

31 minutes ago, aright said:

 

The original  discussion was as a result of my contention that the EU does not control who we sell arms to now. See above

Pitrevie disagreed and said they do have control over our sales.

 

To answer your question yes you do need a licence to export weapons but it's a British licence not an EU licence so Britain is in control of its arms exports not the EU. I'm sure that either as a courtesy or maybe by law the EU would be informed  about arms movements 

As evidence when you want to export your shooter you need to apply for a UK licence not an EU

From gov.uk

Licences are needed for import and export of military and paramilitary goods, dual-use and technology, artworks, plants and animals, medicines and chemicals - be aware of your responsibilities and who the relevant UK licensing authorities are.

 

we will disagree

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140325/wmstext/140325m0001.htm

18 minutes ago, aright said:

I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

Therefore , I do not need a licence to export any weapons ?, it would be perfectly lawful to do so