UK expats for EU exit

[DUS]

That´s an interesting article in The Guardian. Thanks for posting the link!

Well, IF such a deal were to be agreed upon, I only wonder if the majority of the Brexiteers who shouted "We want our country back", "We want to have full control over our borders again", "We want to be free at last" and "Stop paying money to the dictators in Brussels" would actually be happy with such a deal. I very much doubt it.

Well, seems I was right with that assumption. As The Telegraph writes today:

Tory MPs react with fury as EU leaders consider UK 'emergency brake' on free movement

Tory MPs have reacted with fury after it was reported that EU leaders are considering allowing Britain curbs on freedom of movement whilst retaining access to the single market. MPs have accused leaders across the continent of "missing the point" and failing to accept the public's decision to sever ties with the 28-member bloc last month. European diplomats are understood to be looking at granting the "emergency brake" on EU migration for up to seven years.

If an agreement was reached, it would require Britain to pay a sizable contribution to the EU budget.

John Redwood, the former Cabinet minister, said the UK did not vote for a "slightly beefed-up version" of David Cameron’s attempted renegotiation with the EU.

Steve Baker, the MP for Wycombe, said: “If we end up with the Government doing things that don’t end the supremacy of EU law, don’t leave us able to control our own migration policy and leave us in the EEA, then there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction.”

He added: “British migration policy needs to be operated on the basis of British citizenship, not EU citizenship. We want to have taken back control and be seen to have taken back control.”

Mr. Redwood: "We voted to leave, to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders. Those phrases were repeated throughout the Leave campaign, heard and understood by many, and approved by the majority of voters.

"The rest of the EU is missing the point. There should be no negotiation over taking back control of these important matters.

Bill Cash, the Conservative MP for Stone, said that Britain cannot remain inside the market, stating: “If you’re out, you’re out."

[nong38]

Lets just assess where we are right now and where we might be going.

23rd June the UK electorate voted by 52% to 48% to leave the EU, the PM resigns and new administration takes which says they will honour the previous admins to linvoke article 50 and leave the EU, when they decide that the UK is in a position to to start those negotiations, then a group of "business people" engaged a firm of lawyers to look into the legacy of the referendum. The HMG had no plans to bring it to a vote in the commons, it was deemed not to be required, however, the case will be brought to the courts in October, so what is likely to happen then?

Let suppose that the court throws it out, then it could be appealed ( even more money for the lawyers). The October case is likely to go into November, if there is an appeal, when? Article 50 could well have been invoked by then. What would that mean?

Lets now suppose that the "business peoples" lawyers are successful in the case and the court rules that the result has to be debated and voted on in the Commons.

Before the referendum the HMG was for remain and would have had a majority in any vote in the House and it would likely have been voted down, but, things have changed since then, the HMG position is now to take the UK out of the EU so the majority would likely see the HMG win the vote. You can imagine that the SNP would vote against leaving along with the Welsh nationals and some of the NI Mps, remembering that Sein Fein dont tend to turn up, so it throws up some interesting possibilities.

The autumn looks like an interesting time.

Edited July 24, 2016 by nong38

[GuestHouse]

Lets just assess where we are right now and where we might be going.

23rd June the UK electorate voted by 52% to 48% to leave the EU, the PM resigns and new administration takes which says they will honour the previous admins to linvoke article 50 and leave the EU, when they decide that the UK is in a position to to start those negotiations, then a group of "business people" engaged a firm of lawyers to look into the legacy of the referendum. The HMG had no plans to bring it to a vote in the commons, it was deemed not to be required, however, the case will be brought to the courts in October, so what is likely to happen then?

Let suppose that the court throws it out, then it could be appealed ( even more money for the lawyers). The October case is likely to go into November, if there is an appeal, when? Article 50 could well have been invoked by then. What would that mean?

Lets now suppose that the "business peoples" lawyers are successful in the case and the court rules that the result has to be debated and voted on in the Commons.

Before the referendum the HMG was for remain and would have had a majority in any vote in the House and it would likely have been voted down, but, things have changed since then, the HMG position is now to take the UK out of the EU so the majority would likely see the HMG win the vote. You can imagine that the SNP would vote against leaving along with the Welsh nationals and some of the NI Mps, remembering that Sein Fein dont tend to turn up, so it throws up some interesting possibilities.

The autumn looks like an interesting time.

While getting the courts to examine the legality of the Governments actions in response to a non legally binding referendum can hardly be described as 'money wasted on lawyers', especially so given the magnitude of the decision being made, and putting aside the PM has said the UK shall not enact Article 50 before 2017, I would agree we can look forward to some interesting developments in the coming months.

[nong38]

The money wasted on lawyers quote I should perhaps give you more of my thoughts.

The "business people" ( I have no idea who they are ) seem to have committed lot money to this project which they see in their interests, interests which are probably based in the EU where their interests take place, they will as is usually the case there want to lobby their own corner for rules and regs to be more ammicable to their business than to other others, usually smaller competitors, cant blame them from playing by the EU rules, I just dont happen to think that that is the way fair competition should work. They dont want the status quo to change and are wuilling to put the power of thedir money and the law to try and keep it. Lawyers dont come cheap, win or lose, but hey who is paying for it, shareholders most probably. If this case is lost by the complainants then I would see an appeal, which would cost money from the same sources which will go into the lawyers pockets. It will cost the taxpayer as well to defend the case as well, you and me, good job they made a saving from the frozen expat pensions eh?

Some people will just never accept what the result is will they, what makes the world go round along with money.

[GuestHouse]

The money wasted on lawyers quote I should perhaps give you more of my thoughts.

The "business people" ( I have no idea who they are ) seem to have committed lot money to this project which they see in their interests, interests which are probably based in the EU where their interests take place, they will as is usually the case there want to lobby their own corner for rules and regs to be more ammicable to their business than to other others, usually smaller competitors, cant blame them from playing by the EU rules, I just dont happen to think that that is the way fair competition should work. They dont want the status quo to change and are wuilling to put the power of thedir money and the law to try and keep it. Lawyers dont come cheap, win or lose, but hey who is paying for it, shareholders most probably. If this case is lost by the complainants then I would see an appeal, which would cost money from the same sources which will go into the lawyers pockets. It will cost the taxpayer as well to defend the case as well, you and me, good job they made a saving from the frozen expat pensions eh?

Some people will just never accept what the result is will they, what makes the world go round along with money.

The right of any individual, or collection of individuals, to challenge the legality of government actions in a court of law has nothing to do with the EU, it is s founding principal of our democracy.

Running our legal system naturally costs money, and yes that comes from the taxes we all pay (including taxes paid by business). To blame business for 'wasting' this money because they make a legal challenge to government action in the light of a non legally binding referendum dismisses the point that the government choose to act when the right to do so under the law is not clear.

Testing government actions are within the law costs money, but what is the alternative, accept all government action regardless of its legality?

Your point about savings on pension increases for expats fails to take note that that 'saving' is actually avoidance of an increasing expenditure on pensions over current obligations within the existing (and long standing) pension regulations.

The legality of which you may recall has been tested in UK and European courts.

Had the decision of the courts come down in favour of pensioners and the government action found to be illegal, I'm sure you and many others would have been pleased with the result and supported challenging the legality of government action.

[rockingrobin]

Although the EU referendum result is not legally enforceable, Mr McLoughlin said: “I’m quite clear that the referendum result is binding on Parliament. Technically it isn’t, but I’m clear that it is binding on Parliament.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-general-election-eu-referendum-leave-tory-chairman-patrick-mcloughlin-a7153141.html

[GuestHouse]

Although the EU referendum result is not legally enforceable, Mr McLoughlin said: Im quite clear that the referendum result is binding on Parliament. Technically it isnt, but Im clear that it is binding on Parliament.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-general-election-eu-referendum-leave-tory-chairman-patrick-mcloughlin-a7153141.html

Confirmation bias?!

Edited July 25, 2016 by GuestHouse

[rockingrobin]

Although the EU referendum result is not legally enforceable, Mr McLoughlin said: Im quite clear that the referendum result is binding on Parliament. Technically it isnt, but Im clear that it is binding on Parliament.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-general-election-eu-referendum-leave-tory-chairman-patrick-mcloughlin-a7153141.html

Confirmation bias?!

Mr McLoughlin is the tory party chairman

Edited July 25, 2016 by rockingrobin

[GuestHouse]

Although the EU referendum result is not legally enforceable, Mr McLoughlin said: Im quite clear that the referendum result is binding on Parliament. Technically it isnt, but Im clear that it is binding on Parliament.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-general-election-eu-referendum-leave-tory-chairman-patrick-mcloughlin-a7153141.html

Confirmation bias?!

Mr McLoughlin is the tory party chairman

And how does that precludes confirmation bias?

[rockingrobin]

Although the EU referendum result is not legally enforceable, Mr McLoughlin said: Im quite clear that the referendum result is binding on Parliament. Technically it isnt, but Im clear that it is binding on Parliament.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-general-election-eu-referendum-leave-tory-chairman-patrick-mcloughlin-a7153141.html

Confirmation bias?!

Mr McLoughlin is the tory party chairman

And how does that precludes confirmation bias?

I have not expressed an opinion , but merely pointed to an article where the tory chairman says the referendam result is binding , but not really , but it is.

I feel confident that if the referendum was debated in parliament then it would pass.

The legal challenge to the referendum is not about the result , but the right of the PM to invoke article 50 without Parliamentary debate and vote.

[nong38]

The money wasted on lawyers quote I should perhaps give you more of my thoughts.

The "business people" ( I have no idea who they are ) seem to have committed lot money to this project which they see in their interests, interests which are probably based in the EU where their interests take place, they will as is usually the case there want to lobby their own corner for rules and regs to be more ammicable to their business than to other others, usually smaller competitors, cant blame them from playing by the EU rules, I just dont happen to think that that is the way fair competition should work. They dont want the status quo to change and are wuilling to put the power of thedir money and the law to try and keep it. Lawyers dont come cheap, win or lose, but hey who is paying for it, shareholders most probably. If this case is lost by the complainants then I would see an appeal, which would cost money from the same sources which will go into the lawyers pockets. It will cost the taxpayer as well to defend the case as well, you and me, good job they made a saving from the frozen expat pensions eh?

Some people will just never accept what the result is will they, what makes the world go round along with money.

The right of any individual, or collection of individuals, to challenge the legality of government actions in a court of law has nothing to do with the EU, it is s founding principal of our democracy.

Running our legal system naturally costs money, and yes that comes from the taxes we all pay (including taxes paid by business). To blame business for 'wasting' this money because they make a legal challenge to government action in the light of a non legally binding referendum dismisses the point that the government choose to act when the right to do so under the law is not clear.

Testing government actions are within the law costs money, but what is the alternative, accept all government action regardless of its legality?

Your point about savings on pension increases for expats fails to take note that that 'saving' is actually avoidance of an increasing expenditure on pensions over current obligations within the existing (and long standing) pension regulations.

The legality of which you may recall has been tested in UK and European courts.

Had the decision of the courts come down in favour of pensioners and the government action found to be illegal, I'm sure you and many others would have been pleased with the result and supported challenging the legality of government action.

Thank you for stating the obvious, the only reason these business people are bringing this case to court is because its in their financial interests to do so, they must stand to lose a lot of business from Brexit or they would not be bothering, they of course, will not be bothering about the cost, the company will pay and in our case the tax payer will pay, money that can be found amazingly but not fund to ex pat pensioners of which you are apparently have not yet joined. From your comment about the current frozen pension position you think its very fair to treat people who have paid the same contributions differently, I know what the legal position is and I also know what happened in the ECOJ, that does not make it right. How they ever came to that conclusion is beyond me in the name of fairness, but then when has the EU been fair. No one ever told me or anybody else I know that if they left the UK that there pension would be frozen, they still took the contributions though and never said "dont forget to read the small print" why would anyone?

The next big question for you though is once this has taken its course and we are still on course to leave the EU, what will your point be then? You see I see this as a bit like Maggie Thatcher, people are still carrying the baggage around with them after all these years and I think the same will be true of Brexit, it will for some become a lifetime burden that they just cannot shift, dont let it happen to you.

Edited July 25, 2016 by nong38

[stander]

Canada seeks 'strong trade agreement' with UK - finance minister

Canada seeks a "strong trade agreement" with a Britain that has voted to leave the European Union, the country's Finance Minister Bill Morneau said on Saturday on the sidelines of a G20 meeting in Chengdu, China.

Speaking to reporters on the phone, Morneau also said Canada's economy, "impacted" by a wildfire in its energy heartland, is expected to rebound "over the course of the year."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-g20-china-canada-idUKKCN1030O9

[rockingrobin]

The money wasted on lawyers quote I should perhaps give you more of my thoughts.

The "business people" ( I have no idea who they are ) seem to have committed lot money to this project which they see in their interests, interests which are probably based in the EU where their interests take place, they will as is usually the case there want to lobby their own corner for rules and regs to be more ammicable to their business than to other others, usually smaller competitors, cant blame them from playing by the EU rules, I just dont happen to think that that is the way fair competition should work. They dont want the status quo to change and are wuilling to put the power of thedir money and the law to try and keep it. Lawyers dont come cheap, win or lose, but hey who is paying for it, shareholders most probably. If this case is lost by the complainants then I would see an appeal, which would cost money from the same sources which will go into the lawyers pockets. It will cost the taxpayer as well to defend the case as well, you and me, good job they made a saving from the frozen expat pensions eh?

Some people will just never accept what the result is will they, what makes the world go round along with money.

The right of any individual, or collection of individuals, to challenge the legality of government actions in a court of law has nothing to do with the EU, it is s founding principal of our democracy.

Running our legal system naturally costs money, and yes that comes from the taxes we all pay (including taxes paid by business). To blame business for 'wasting' this money because they make a legal challenge to government action in the light of a non legally binding referendum dismisses the point that the government choose to act when the right to do so under the law is not clear.

Testing government actions are within the law costs money, but what is the alternative, accept all government action regardless of its legality?

Your point about savings on pension increases for expats fails to take note that that 'saving' is actually avoidance of an increasing expenditure on pensions over current obligations within the existing (and long standing) pension regulations.

The legality of which you may recall has been tested in UK and European courts.

Had the decision of the courts come down in favour of pensioners and the government action found to be illegal, I'm sure you and many others would have been pleased with the result and supported challenging the legality of government action.

Thank you for stating the obvious, the only reason these business people are bringing this case to court is because its in their financial interests to do so, they must stand to lose a lot of business from Brexit or they would not be bothering, they of course, will not be bothering about the cost, the company will pay and in our case the tax payer will pay, money that can be found amazingly but not fund to ex pat pensioners of which you are apparently have not yet joined. From your comment about the current frozen pension position you think its very fair to treat people who have paid the same contributions differently, I know what the legal position is and I also know what happened in the ECOJ, that does not make it right. How they ever came to that conclusion is beyond me in the name of fairness, but then when has the EU been fair. No one ever told me or anybody else I know that if they left the UK that there pension would be frozen, they still took the contributions though and never said "dont forget to read the small print" why would anyone?

The next big question for you though is once this has taken its course and we are still on course to leave the EU, what will your point be then? You see I see this as a bit like Maggie Thatcher, people are still carrying the baggage around with them after all these years and I think the same will be true of Brexit, it will for some become a lifetime burden that they just cannot shift, dont let it happen to you.

Nong38 , the legal challenge is not being brought to sabotage the result of the referendum ,

It is being sought to ensure correct application of the law.

' It said it has been in correspondence with U.K. Government lawyers since 27 June on behalf of its clients “to seek assurances that the Government will uphold the U.K. constitution and protect the sovereignty of Parliament in invoking Article 50.” It also noted that “the Government however, has suggested that it has sufficient legal authority” to go ahead.

“We must ensure that the Government follows the correct process to have legal certainty and protect the U.K. Constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament in these unprecedented circumstances. The result of the Referendum is not in doubt, but we need a process that follows U.K. law to enact it. The outcome of the Referendum itself is not legally binding and for the current or future Prime Minister to invoke Article 50 without the approval of Parliament is unlawful” said Kasra Nouroozi, Partner, Mishcon de Reya.'

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dinamedland/2016/07/04/u-k-faces-legal-challenge-on-article-50-process-for-brexit/#3d6492101eaf

[GuestHouse]

The money wasted on lawyers quote I should perhaps give you more of my thoughts.

The "business people" ( I have no idea who they are ) seem to have committed lot money to this project which they see in their interests, interests which are probably based in the EU where their interests take place, they will as is usually the case there want to lobby their own corner for rules and regs to be more ammicable to their business than to other others, usually smaller competitors, cant blame them from playing by the EU rules, I just dont happen to think that that is the way fair competition should work. They dont want the status quo to change and are wuilling to put the power of thedir money and the law to try and keep it. Lawyers dont come cheap, win or lose, but hey who is paying for it, shareholders most probably. If this case is lost by the complainants then I would see an appeal, which would cost money from the same sources which will go into the lawyers pockets. It will cost the taxpayer as well to defend the case as well, you and me, good job they made a saving from the frozen expat pensions eh?

Some people will just never accept what the result is will they, what makes the world go round along with money.

The right of any individual, or collection of individuals, to challenge the legality of government actions in a court of law has nothing to do with the EU, it is s founding principal of our democracy.

Running our legal system naturally costs money, and yes that comes from the taxes we all pay (including taxes paid by business). To blame business for 'wasting' this money because they make a legal challenge to government action in the light of a non legally binding referendum dismisses the point that the government choose to act when the right to do so under the law is not clear.

Testing government actions are within the law costs money, but what is the alternative, accept all government action regardless of its legality?

Your point about savings on pension increases for expats fails to take note that that 'saving' is actually avoidance of an increasing expenditure on pensions over current obligations within the existing (and long standing) pension regulations.

The legality of which you may recall has been tested in UK and European courts.

Had the decision of the courts come down in favour of pensioners and the government action found to be illegal, I'm sure you and many others would have been pleased with the result and supported challenging the legality of government action.

Thank you for stating the obvious, the only reason these business people are bringing this case to court is because its in their financial interests to do so, they must stand to lose a lot of business from Brexit or they would not be bothering, they of course, will not be bothering about the cost, the company will pay and in our case the tax payer will pay, money that can be found amazingly but not fund to ex pat pensioners of which you are apparently have not yet joined. From your comment about the current frozen pension position you think its very fair to treat people who have paid the same contributions differently, I know what the legal position is and I also know what happened in the ECOJ, that does not make it right. How they ever came to that conclusion is beyond me in the name of fairness, but then when has the EU been fair. No one ever told me or anybody else I know that if they left the UK that there pension would be frozen, they still took the contributions though and never said "dont forget to read the small print" why would anyone?

The next big question for you though is once this has taken its course and we are still on course to leave the EU, what will your point be then? You see I see this as a bit like Maggie Thatcher, people are still carrying the baggage around with them after all these years and I think the same will be true of Brexit, it will for some become a lifetime burden that they just cannot shift, dont let it happen to you.

What are you ranting at me about your pension problems for?

It doesn't matter if I think it fair or not (though I have written to my MP on the matter - I'll let you guess the contentents of my letter).

What is clear is, you never read the small print, you moved to Thailand without first checking the impact on your pension, and of course its all someone else's fault.

This does not surprise me, it mirrors the Brexit campaign - jump first, look where you've jumped later.

[nong38]

WE will never know how many people never read the small print on the pensions, everyone pays in and everyone expected to get the state pension when they retired only to find that important information had been witheld from them and they only found out when after leaving the UK and telling the DWP they no longer got their increases annually, I happen to think that is sharp practice, but, it is the world we live in. I actually found out about it at Heathrow just before I came here, it was a surprise, but just have to adapt to situations , just like Brexit in fact, where there is now a move reported in todays media that John Redwood is suggesting that 1972 European Communities act should be repealed which then trigger article 50, there is more but its time for coffee for the wife.

Edited July 26, 2016 by nong38

[GuestHouse]

WE will never know how many people never read the small print on the pensions, everyone pays in and everyone expected to get the state pension when they retired only to find that important information had been witheld from them and they only found out when after leaving the UK and telling the DWP they no longer got their increases annually, I happen to think that is sharp practice, but, it is the world we live in. I actually found out about it at Heathrow just before I came here, it was a surprise, but just have to adapt to situations , just like Brexit in fact, where there is now a move reported in todays media that John Redwood is suggesting that 1972 European Communities act should be repealed which then trigger article 50, there is more but its time for coffee for the wife.

Repealing the 1972 EU Act would require a full parliamentary debate, a vote in the Commons and a vote in the Lords, the kind of full parliamentary debate and consideration that many in the Remain camp say is essential but that many Brexit supporters are keen to avoid.

My view is, by all means put the matter of Brexit before parliament.

[alanrchase]

WE will never know how many people never read the small print on the pensions, everyone pays in and everyone expected to get the state pension when they retired only to find that important information had been witheld from them and they only found out when after leaving the UK and telling the DWP they no longer got their increases annually, I happen to think that is sharp practice, but, it is the world we live in. I actually found out about it at Heathrow just before I came here, it was a surprise, but just have to adapt to situations , just like Brexit in fact, where there is now a move reported in todays media that John Redwood is suggesting that 1972 European Communities act should be repealed which then trigger article 50, there is more but its time for coffee for the wife.

Personally won't get one, believe I have opted out? Did read up on it a bit, retire in Samoa and your pension will not be frozen. The worst example was an old lady that moved to Australia to be with her only surviving relatives, frozen pension, she was on £5 a week.

[stander]

Veolia gives UK £750m vote of confidence

Post-Brexit boost as French services group plans 600 jobs and investment drive

https://next.ft.com/content/523e3050-4f5d-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

[nong38]

Well the £ is hovering just above the 45 level at the moment, not the best time to import money, but on the other hand the UK has not been sunk, the moon did not destroy the Kingdom and business seems to be doing well, depending on what you see/read and who you believe, some of course will never see or want to see the opportunities and the optimism that is begining to grow, happy days are here again yet but they are not far over the horizon.

For me personally I have seen my investments grow by more than 12% since the 23rd of June ( as of last weekend ) so looks like a good call for me at this moment in time, so I am very happy and very optimistic, this may grate with some posters, maybe they were not so lucky, they would not tell us anyway would they?

[alanrchase]

Well the £ is hovering just above the 45 level at the moment, not the best time to import money, but on the other hand the UK has not been sunk, the moon did not destroy the Kingdom and business seems to be doing well, depending on what you see/read and who you believe, some of course will never see or want to see the opportunities and the optimism that is begining to grow, happy days are here again yet but they are not far over the horizon.

For me personally I have seen my investments grow by more than 12% since the 23rd of June ( as of last weekend ) so looks like a good call for me at this moment in time, so I am very happy and very optimistic, this may grate with some posters, maybe they were not so lucky, they would not tell us anyway would they?

I am happy to tell you. Gained 15% on some lost 30% on others. Hope you are right on the rosy future.

[chiang mai]

Sure you made money in Pounds, on paper, I made £28K.

But if you spend Baht in Thailand that's a pointless gain.

[nong38]

Sure you made money in Pounds, on paper, I made £28K.

But if you spend Baht in Thailand that's a pointless gain.

Well you would not bring it to Thailand at this point in time would you, you are a shrewd man and you would know that. We wait for the right opportunity and like Brexit it will come.

[alanrchase]

Sure you made money in Pounds, on paper, I made £28K.

But if you spend Baht in Thailand that's a pointless gain.

Well you would not bring it to Thailand at this point in time would you, you are a shrewd man and you would know that. We wait for the right opportunity and like Brexit it will come.

I do suppose people don't have a choice of when they bring their money to Thailand. Living expenses etc. Hopefully I can weather the storm. Love the optimism.

[kingalfred]

What was the slogan from the "Remainiacs". "Safer and Stronger In". ? As France and Germany descends in to terror