Re: "Brexit"
 

You said that doesn't anyone else find it ironic and appalling that that's the case. I said not particularly. YMMV.

Re: "Brexit"
 

I'm not a Tory, so it doesn't interest me in the slightest how their leader or prospective prime minister is chosen - I don't want them, whoever their leader may be.

But I certainly objected to the Labour Party leader being chosen by the parliamentary party; why should only the elected members be allowed to vote? What about those candidates who lost because they stood in strong Tory constituencies? Why is their opinion less valid?
But I don't see primaries as a good solution, because you never know who is actually voting. The best way would be in the constituency party organisations and with a show of hands, not a paper ballot. That way only those actually involved in the party will decide who the leader, and then the prime minister, should be. Anyone who doesn't like that can vote for another party.

Re: "Brexit"
 

I'm not a big fan of the Tories either: a right old mess they've made of things. But I care quite a lot who our next Prime Minister is going to be, and it seems to me thoroughly unsatisfactory that that decision is to be made by a very small number of Conservative Party members rather than either the wider electorate or at least their Parliamentary representatives. Take an extreme case, in which on the penultimate round candidate A gets the vote of all Tory MPs except three, with two of those votes going to candidate B and one to candidate C. There would then be a run off between A and B, with the possibility of B winning as a result of being more popular with party members. It's exceedingly unlikely that such an extreme case would come about; but the fact that it's possible shows that something's wrong. I for one have no confidence at all that Conservative Party rank and file members should be trusted to know who is best placed to lead the UK through the turbulent times ahead, bearing in mind that - it appears - most of them voted Leave and were therefore responsible for the mess in the first place

Re: "Brexit"
 

Firstly, yes, I heard that May et al, were also discussing UK citizens right to STAY in the EU, pretty essential I would say if you own a property here!, although many of us have permanent residency anyway.

However, my question was about maintaining the other RIGHTS actually, even if we can "stay", like getting the annual pension increase, driving licence renewal, right to kids' education, all the things that we now take for granted, or will we have to pay privately.

QUOTE: "Because NHS care is residence based not contributions based."

I hear that you can walk into a hospital in the UK and get treatment without proving residency. Last time I had an overnight hospital stay in the UK was in 2009. I didn't have to show proof of residency. Is that still the case?

If only the Tory party members get to chose the next PM to out us out of the EU it's not democratic.

QUOTE: YMMV

Yes, I think I must be way off!

Re: "Brexit"
 

I agree with you. About those last two candidates, I don't know whether you've heard that Arron Banks has said he is going to put his full weight behind (ie bankroll) Leadsom. That is why she was questioned yesterday about her UKIP links and the whole thing went pear shaped. Banks has already said he is going to set a post-UKIP party and I think his is a kind of veilled threat to take the right wingers into his own party if they don't execute Brexit to his liking. Even if Leadsom refuses his money, he will still spend millions on contacting the Tory party voters, producing videos (probably helped by Paul McKenna to "trance" the voters (his words not mine) like he did for the Leave.EU. adverts. Arron Banks believes in the US way of doing politics. You pay, you get. Don't let the facts get in the way type mentality, indeed exactly as we saw with the Leave campaign. Somebody has already been writing to MPs persuading them to vote for Leadsom, and they weren't sent by herself or her team. Or maybe that was the other undesirable, Dominic Cummings? Google Cummings and Banks if you want more about their personalities.

Farage was just a pilot fish, he knows his job is now done. It's time to move over to the big boys now. Funnily enough we counld be looking at a divided tory party and a divided labour party in a few years ... A bit like the Italian system.

Re: "Brexit"
 

Excellent points you make about access to the respective health systems of the uk and italy donna. Sometimes seems to me (anyone feel free to shoot me down) that italy can be rather good at waving its european credentials while protecting its perceived self interest. I have the impression for instance that the uk jobs market is way more open to foreigners than italy's.
Interesting poll i read of today by the way that said that only 46 per cent or so of italians are now in favour of the EU - rest split pretty equally between against and don't know.

Re: "Brexit"
 

Just read this from the Guardian website about Leadsom:

Sebastian Payne at the Financial Times says her election as leader could result in Ukip entryism.
The other danger of a Leadsom leadership is UK Independence party entryism. Arron Banks, the millionaire donor who funded both Ukip and Leave. EU, is backing Ms Leadsom’s campaign. At the hustings, she would not rule out a partnership with Ukip and during a television interview, declined to say she would not give Nigel Farage a job.

Mr Banks has spoken about his desire to create a “rightwing Momentum”, a Brexit pressure group modelled on Mr Corbyn’s grass roots support base. A Tory party led by Ms Leadsom would provide the perfect opportunity for hard-right Brexit supporters to infiltrate the Conservatives (this cannot happen in time for the current leadership contest, however: the rules dictate you have to be a Tory member for three months to be eligible to vote).

Re: "Brexit"
 

With the exception of pensions all those things apply to non-EU residents as well as I can't imagine that is going to change. Given the number of pensioners living in France and Spain I find it highly likely that the UK will see an annual increase in pensions as a top priority when negotiating if we also leave the EEA.

No. Last time I visited hospital as a walk-in I had to fill out a long form with my NI number, passport number, etc.. just to be seen for something very minor.

There'll be an election in 2020 if not sooner if it bothers you that much.

Re: "Brexit"
 

Pension increases to UK citizens overseas is a decision that rests wholy with the UK government. It has nothing to do with the EU.

The government could make reassurances right now regarding this if they wanted. But they don't want to because they don't know if they'll have enough money.

Re: "Brexit"
 

I keep asking this question around, but I don't get a reply (maybe I'm thick!). Anyway, here goes again: why should annual increases in a British pension, paid by the British government on the basis of contributions paid to the British NI, be the subject of an agreement with the host country? Why doesn't the British pension system just pay your pension the same way and the same amount wherever you live? I just don't get the logic!
Maybe there's something very obvious that I've overlooked, but I'm prepared to look silly...:D

Re: "Brexit"
 

See www.gov.uk/state-pension-if- you-live-abroad/rates-of-state-pension

it says you will only get increase if you live in EEA, Switzerland or one of countries with social security agreement with UK.

So if or when we come out of EEA, we will not be entitled to increase. Ps, don't think the UK will make any more agreements with individual countries, cos they haven't done for years.

Re: "Brexit"
 

Here's my quandary of the week. I have x number of years of UK NI contributions and y number of Italian years. At the moment, when i retire, they can all be put in the same pot and I get my requisite number of years and a pension. What is going to happen to that? Will it be that my NI contributions can no longer be imported to Italy when i hit retirement age? Any thoughts anyone?

Re: "Brexit"
 

Me too Modicasa! Except since I work part-time in Italy and was told that my italain contributions would amount to little, so I made the decision a few years back to continue with my UK NI voluntary contributions. I was nearly fully paid up when they extended the time to 35 years from the previous 30.

So what happens now?

I repeat, why is noone helping us? Why don't we have a voice? We are British citizens after all

i think a lot of us are feeling forgotten..

Re: "Brexit"
 

Thanks, Donna, I know that's the rule, but I don't understand the reasoning behind it (except a general will to save money by fair means or foul). If the UK pension system pays me cost-of-living increases, it's not going to cost INPS any more than if I was living in the UK so I don't see why there has to be an agreement about it.

PS Sorry, I didn't see that you had posted just before me (#294) and that you share my reasoning. But how they justify it remains a mystery.

To you and modicasa: as things stand at the moment (Convenzioni nazionali), the two countries' pension organisations look at your contributions together and see if your total number of contributions entitles you to claim a pension. Once they've decided it does, then each pays its part. I also wonder if this is going to collapse with the UK out of the EEA.

By the way, the non-EU EEA countries are small: Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein I believe. It might not be so easy for the UK to remain in the EEA.

Re: "Brexit"
 

Basically because the government legally doesn't have to increase your pension if you're living abroad and they want to save money. The countries where you do get an increase is because there is a reciprocal agreement in place.