.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
rockingrobin
-
Posts
1,689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rockingrobin
-
-
43 minutes ago, sandyf said:
-
12 minutes ago, citybiker said:
Baroness Altman: It would be immoral to ignore the current EU citizens. (UK citizens already requested EU clarification and denied).
The only people using the EU citizens as bargaining chips are the Lords, absolutely no mention or priority for all this British currently residing in the EU.
Lord Howard gave a reminder to those pleading the moral high ground to get a grip..
Good job the the final decision is with the 'elected' part of the Palace of Westminster and not the dullards of the Lords..
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkAll the British expat groups support the amendment
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Khun Han said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here Robin. Is it that British expats' rights in the EU won't change when we brexit?
Some rights will change, the ability to reside say from one member state to another (eg moving from france to spain), other rights will remain but may impact the expat differently. British pensioners health costs are paid for by the UK, now if this commitment was not to be honored after brexit then the expat would be required to buy health insurance.
As for acquired rights , should law be prospective thus providing legal certainty or retrospective thus a person suffers for an act which was lawful at the time
-
18 minutes ago, Khun Han said:
Didn't Malta state that they wouldn't protect the rights of British expats?
But it is UK law that is changing not Malta or any other EU member, for them only the facts change.
Consider a Brit expat in Spain, lawfully resident in Spain under Spanish law (similiar to the UKs 1972 ECA) , The expat as already exercised his right and thus acquired the right
After Brexit the expats FOM may cease as the fact of UK not being a member but his right to reside will remain
-
18 minutes ago, Flustered said:
I was a little shocked and embarrassed to find out that a certain "game bird" is from Yorkshire. from the way he posts, I could have sworn he was Scotch.
6 posts in a row. If you push the + button, you cam do multiple quotes on a single post. Sometimes when not responding to another FM a few consecutive posts look OK but 6 is excessive. I realise that not all old people are computer savvy so FYI you just push the + button on the post.
You have failed to give any reasonable answers as to why the UK citizens in the EU are being ignored. Oh wait a minute, you have never answered that question. It is pivotal to the whole issue of granting EU citizens UK status.
Why do you want to leave the UK citizens in the EU high and dry? What has happened to you that you would turn your back on fellow countrymen? Why do the EU citizens come before your own countrymen?
It is a charade being played out for domestic consumption
The principle of respect of acquired rights , will mean most rights will be protected
-
1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:
The HoL is only following the will of the people
“There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK,” the campaign says. “These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present,”
9 minutes ago, Srikcir said:Curious.
If this is not a provision in the Brexit plans will it give grounds for another complaint to the Supreme Court?
The real issue is can either the UK or EU make citizens who are lawfully resident today unlawful tomorrow.
-
3 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
No I don't want the House of Lords who are privileged, dimwits out of touch with the people.
As for not getting out of bed for 300 pound you are lucky, many people don't get that a week and it is that rich ideology that goes someway, why the UK is in a mess. The lords don't deserve that much for what they do.
141 pages on this thread and all the discussion, complaining and at times name calling from some posters and people still don't get it. The UK is leaving the EU and all the complaining and moaning will not stop it. The House of Lords included.
The HoL amendment is in accordance with the Leave campaign.
-
The HoL is only following the will of the people
“There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK,” the campaign says. “These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present,”
-
47 minutes ago, Mobi said:
Thank you for the information, and no thanks to those offering opinions on whether or not he should be returning after 50 years away.
I was only asking for factual information - not opinions or advice on whether or not he should be burdening himself on the Uk State.
But since you have raised these issues, my friend was born and bred in the UK, paid tax and NHI contributions for 10 years before emigrating. So for the past 50 years has not made a single claim on the Uk welfare system or used the free health system. And yes, he still has family in the UK.
IMHO he is more entitled to get what he is legally due from the Uk government than many thousands who have never paid a penny to the state in tax and are living at the state's expense.
But there again... that's just my opinion....
Not knowing what will happen or the level of his Australian pension,assuming qualifying for UK state benefits he may qualify for pension credit.
The thought that immediately came to me was the UK did have an agreement with Australia which came to an end in the 1980s and wasnt renewed. Is it possible the 10 years of UK contributions were credited in Australia
From this site
http://www.britishpensions.org.au/pension-guidelines.htm
' You must arrange to draw any British Pension to which you (and/or your spouse) are entitled from the UK before you will be able to gain any Australian Pension. '
-
10 hours ago, Flustered said:
Just been watching Parliament live from the House of Lords. I have a question for all those who are so concerned about the EU people working in the UK.
What about the UK citizens in the EU, why do they not matter?
The Labour, Lib Dem and Luvvie Lords do not care one fig about the UK citizens. Michael Howard has put forward a very articulate speech asking the bill to go through quickly so that both EU citizens and UK citizens can rest easy. The other side to a person has stated that the EU citizens must come first.
What a slap in the face to the UK populace in general. You do not matter, you can sit and fret while EU citizens are safe and secure.
I ask again, what about the UK citizens in the EU, why do they not matter?
The plight of UK citizens in the EU as a UK dimension in play , is the government going to continue paying for UK pensioners healthcare via the S1 form post brexit.
-
1 hour ago, lungbing said:
Tax would only be due if your wife's pension is over 11,000. (2016-2017). Less than that and it's covered by the tax-free allowance. But I suspect she (and my wife eventually) will have an emergency tax coding used by your pension provider until she obtains an NI number and a then a tax code.
Not everybody is entitled to a personal allowance
https://www.gov.uk/tax-uk-income-live-abroad/personal-allowance
-
12 hours ago, emilymat said:
All I know, and it ain't much, is that the UK Parliament would have to sanction a second referendum. It seems unlikely that would be the decision.
I suppose, the Scottish government would have the power to authorise an 'advisory' referendum - but that would be an awful risk, given they could lose it.
It's jus tlike the papers speculating on Teresa May calling a snap election, after the Labour debacle in Cumbria. She simply cannot do that under the fixed term parliament legislation. The press ought to know better. Mind you, we are now being steered towards who knows where, by an un-elected remainer prime minister who yearns to out ThatcherThatcher, in the minds of the electorate.
I have some sympathy with the Scots, given I am an avid 'remoaner' and regarded, by many, as some sort of traitor regading the 'will of the people' (That's what my daughter says anyway) . If I were in favour of an independent Scotland I might well be eager to test the will of the Scots people, in the light of the cataclysmic changes to the situation since the last referendum in Scotland. Constitutionally, I have no idea whether Scotland could remain in the EC were a succesful referendum held before the UK left, or would they have to re-apply, which I think they would, and then be vetoed by Spain, among others.
The reality is that it's all a bl**dy mess now. Its a tough call if you are a Scot in favour of independence.
Act of UK Parliament not required, Scotland Act section 30 request would be a possibility
-
1 hour ago, jpinx said:
The Supreme Court appear to have assumed that Art50 is irrevocable once triggered,
which the author had said was not the case. Art50 is merely a "Notice
to Quit" and, of itself, does not actually *do* anything except sound
the starting horn. Whether any changes come about as a result of
using Art50 is not a foregone conclusion, because parliament will have
to enact any changes after debate and votes in both houses - thus
serving the democratic principles of the UK. Aside from the political
promises for a "full debate and vote" before the deal is finally
signed, one has to be mindful of just how the UK managed to join the
EU with so little legal fluster. There was basically one act of
parliament which said something along the lines of "Any law passed in
Brussels would automatically become UK law". This actually makes
getting out very easy, since repealing that single "membership law"
cuts out the background of all EU law, to be replaced after
as much debate as Westminster wants with appropriate UK legislation.
I seem to remember some one, possibly TM herself, outlining a
mechanism to take the complete EU "Book of Laws" at a certain fixed
date, and incorporating it in UK legislation when we leave. This to
provide the continuity everyone craves. Then then parliament can roll
their collective sleeves up and extract the best of EU law, suitably
written for an independent UK. The result of this chain of events is
that every action that flows from Art50 must be debated and voted,
thereby upholding the democratic principles the Supreme Court is
charged with protecting.
Art50 is clearly part of a "Foreign Treaty" and falls inside the
available actions for the Royal Prerogative.No-one is going to challenge the Supreme Court by appealing to the ECJ
-- which would be a laughable waste of time and money, but, as it turns out - it's not going to make any difference really - some
procedural change, but the result is still Brexit, and that fact is
not sitting well with many people.It was common ground that some EU law could not be replicated into UK domestic and thus would be lost irrespective of the negotiations outcome.
Apologies a bit off topic, but I am finding the constant ad block notification exasperating and will refrain from using TVF
-
Deleted
-
57 minutes ago, pitrevie said:
During the Supreme Court hearing, campaigners argued that denying the UK Parliament a vote was undemocratic and a breach of long-standing constitutional principles. However feel free to refer me to any document that you consider the constitution of the UK.
Bill of Rights 1689
-
Authority from Parliament required, 8-3
-
Some may find this of interest
-
1 hour ago, BaiLao said:
rockingrobin:
Thanks for the reply.
"...the attachment as showing the gaps in NI contributions... ".
No contributions were paid during that 9-10 years on the attachment. Had paid contributions - and have six years on record - but they were paid decades ago.
So...some confusion between the 'old' system and the new...I suppose.
Thanks for clarification
If to assume you will proceed on the new system £155 for 35 years, then for every full year is equal to £155/35 , aprox £4.40 a week .
A minimum of 10years contributions required , 6 already thus a further 4 required, obviously you will choose the 4 years with the lowest amounts 2006,2007,2009,2010, (a total payment of approx £550) for a pension of aprox £44 p/w.
However if you paid for the additional full 10 years at a cost of approx £1800 , will give you 16 years and a pension of £70 p/w (155/35x 16), which appear to be good value , the initial outlay being recovered during the first year.
I would try to establish that you will receive the new pension and not the old
-
14 hours ago, steve187 said:
you can claim your pension anytime after your 65th birthday, the 2019 date is the date by which any catch up payments have to be made, without penalties
it would seem you have paid class 2 contributions, it looks to me that in that 10 year period shown you would have 9 years of contributions'
Which years are paid
Are you registered on the government gateway, you can get a NIC contributions print out from there, and you can pay from there
Are you using this number - + 44 191 203 7010
I take the attachment as showing the gaps in NI contributions and the amount required to top up.If there are 9 complete years then the payment without penalty / final payment dates make no sense as you cannot top up a full year.
Maybe the OP can clarify if any NI paid during the period in the attachment
-
29 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:
Actually to be correct one was a Polytechnic first. The other two universities for post graduate level. No I won't be drawn into this either for your humour or for the rudeness of another poster. Regardless, if the polls what you are suggesting, then if I did the same poll amongst my circle of friends, then the opposite would be true. The majority who voted to leave had a university degree.
Also it has been certain media outlets suggesting that those who voted leave didn't have a university degree, so therefor they are less smarter and less worldly aware of the EU, which I believe it to be complete nonsense.
The evidence was presented by Yougov
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, jpinx said:
Based on that commentary Art50 is a "foreign treaty", needing acts of Parliament to give it effect in due course, but not - of itself - anything that has any legal imprint on UK domestic law. Art 50 is not self-executing, it is merely a "notice to quit" and will require the appropriate acts of Parliament. The facts stated bear this out, but the conclusion is blurred - probably deliberately.
"...........The EU legal order, we say, is not an exception to that dualist system; it is a clear example of it....."
The duality of the system is not in doubt, it's a question of on which side of the table Art50 resides.
It's seriously technical, based on the way EU laws are transposed but not trans-scribed into UK law by that single act of parliament.
It's all going to be very interesting - to see how the court presents its decision either way.
TBH it's a speed-bump because everyone knows that a vote in the house now will pass, even though there might well be some fun at the debate stage.
The question is the nature of the prerogative. Does it exist unlimited or is constrained by foreign affairs not having force in domestic laws and rights.
-
1 hour ago, jpinx said:
A diverse group of individuals, EU citizens and even pro-Brexit lawyers are driving the legal challenge.....
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/05/who-are-the-claimants-in-article-50-court-case
The Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, told the Supreme Court that the triggering of Article 50 by the Government, using the power of royal prerogative, would not happen “on a whim, or out of a clear blue sky”, because Parliament knew the referendum result was intended to be final.
He said: “The referendum was conducted, we say, in the universal expectation, including in Parliament, that the Government would implement its result.
“The triggering of Article 50...is the logical conclusion of a process in which Parliament has been fully and consciously involved...and in which Parliament expected the Government to act on the answer [the British people] gave.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/05/brexit-judgment-supreme-court-hearing-article-50-live/
One of the Justices hearing the Supreme Court appeal, Lord Carnwath, asked chief government lawyer James Eadie QC why more information about the Great Repeal Bill hasn’t been forthcoming. He asked: “Do we have any evidence about that [the bill]? About what it is, what it’s going to do?
“It seems to be of some relevance to ask ourselves, what is Parliament’s role going to be between now and the end of the two years? I think there’s been a statement at the Conservative Party conference. Has there been anything else?“
Not the most up-to-date links, but as valid today as when they were new. The judges cannot be impervious to the political heat and fury surrounding their ruling. Which begs the question: who is responsible for generating most of “the political heat and fury”? ...and will the judges remain impervious to that? They already known for their political views -- let's see how they justify their decision -- whichever way it goes. Certainly for one of them to make some remarks about "what will Parliaments role be during the negotiations" sounds like a miffed schoolboy who's been sent out of the room,,,,,,
From court transcript
AG
' It is common ground that treaties are not
self-executing. Prerogative actions of the Government
on the international law plane on the one hand, and on
the other, Parliament giving effect as necessary to
rights and obligations on the domestic plane are legally
and constitutionally separate. The EU legal order, we
say, is not an exception to that dualist system; it is
a clear example of it. '
The argument is EU laws are not UK domestic laws, but are merely transposed into UK domestic sphere, and parliament has not limited Prerogative powers expressly
-
29 minutes ago, jpinx said:
The invocation of Art50 is a foreign treaty matter, and given that the RP is allowed in such cases, it is appropriate here also.
Art 50 is a "notice to quit" that UK can take back at any time during negotiations, so it might be the start of a process that goes nowhere.
This is not a statement favouring any course of action over any other, but merely a statement of facts which the courts are now being asked to rule on for the benefit of those who don't like the result of the referendum. Can anyone point out a supporter of the court actions who is also a supported of Brexit?
A leave voter was one of the original claimants, Art 50 being a foreign affairs matter in this case is insufficient to use RP, even the gov acknowledge this and it is not their submission.
-
9 hours ago, chiang mai said:
That seems very strange indeed. Since the UK itself doesn't tax the State Pension onshore UK I can't understand why they think it might be taxable in another country.
Doesnt Article 19 sub para 2 cover this
(a) Any pension paid by the Contracting State or a political subdivision or a local authority thereof to any individual in respect of services of a governmental nature rendered to that State or subdivision or local authority thereof shall be taxable only in that State. (b) However, such pension shall be taxable only in the other contracting State if the recipient is a national of and a resident of that State
UK pensions
in Home Country Forum
Posted
NIC buy an entitlement to a pension but not a guaranteed amount.
Taking the Single Tier pension, it is possible to have 10yrs NIC credits and receive nothing