Some time ago some friends of ours had to leave France and return to their home country of New Zealand because that country refused to pay their state pensions if they lived abroad. Just recently, some Canadian friends of ours had to do the same. Clearly a breach of contract ( but of course governments are not averse to that!) has been committed by their home states, and I wonder if the UK could someday take the same action and if there is any action one can take in advance to avoid it.
Thereâs no contractual obligation to pay a state pension, like all benefits itâs a matter of law and government policy.
There are some issues with UK state pensions in some countries where once theyâre being paid then they donât get increased. However, France isnât one of those and there is nothing to suggest that UK policy on state pensions paid to French residents is being changed.
1 Like
It was a mess with previoid commonwealth countries I recall that froze state pensions for UK nationals who moved there. But as john says, a matter of policy mainly.
However ùòw there is a law that allows UK non-residents to vote that gives a opportunity for some push back.
2 Likes
One small glimmer of hope on that score is the fact that I believe one UK government agreed it was unfair though not illegal, but said they simply couldnât afford to put things right. That was speaking of those countries where there are no increases paid. Strangely the USA is not one of those.
Short answer; no. Apart from stacking up so much money in a private pension that you donât need the state contribution. 
I doubt the UK Government would take such a draconian step in the case of UK pensioners in the EU as the political fallout would be enormous, but they could do it if they decided to.
Then weâll all be down to Decathlon to buy some rubber dingys!
6 Likes
Yes weirdly Canada gets pensions frozen but not the U.S.
Wasnât committing to honour pension increases (which implies committing to pensions) for people who moved to Europe one of the last things the government agreed to do just before Brexit?
Why do uk state pensiones living in some countries miss out on annual increases and others (incl France) benefit from increases?
There was certainly strong talk of UK Pensioners Resident in France "losing increases/losing entirely our Pensions.
so much so that some of our French pals offered to help support us financially and even our Doc offered to continue being our Doc âfree of chargeâ.
The UK Govt makes decisions based on what it can afford and what it can get-away-with⌠
2 Likes
Iâd be very interested to know the so-called âofficialâ UK Govt answer to your question @strudball .
I donât think thereâs an acceptable one. Particularly as so many of the countries where the UK does this to people who have earned their pension, have strong Commonwealth or other links to the UK. Such as having sent their sons to die in Britainâs wars.
1 Like
I believe itâs a question of whether there is a reciprocal social secruity agreement between the UK and the countries concerned.
It makes no sense to me, but that seems to be the reason.
A variety of reasons (for not uprating state pensions for non UK residents) have been put forward by governments of all political complexions for the last 70 odd years.
The main driver is cost - itâs estimated at ÂŁ0.5bn a year to update pensions, particularly to the 85% of those in receipt of frozen pensions, who live in Canada, Australia & New Zealand.
Governments have preferred to focus resources on UK pensioners, arguing that to go abroad is primarily a voluntary personal decision, and that decision is/should presumably be arrived at after factoring in the pros and cons - including lack of pensions uprating.
The cost driver is only mitigated if there is a legal obligation on the UK government to update pensions, which only exists in the EU social security/Brexit agreements, and most, but not all countries where the UK has a reciprocal agreement (the exceptions once again being Aus/Canada/NZ).
Here is a typical Parliamentary Question and Answer:-
Although arguably by retiring abroad, UK pensioners are saving the UK Government a good chunk of money by not using all kinds of services that they would do if they stayed in the UK - social services, care homes, bus and rail passes, meals on wheels, libraries, to mention just a few that occur to me.
So to say itâs all about the cost is slightly disingenuous.
Fortunately retiring in the EU you get the annual uprating, at least for now, though see what happens if (heaven forbid) Farage gets in.
1 Like
These are both extremely disingenuous excuses. Actually theyâre fatuous and insulting.
Using the fact that costs, say living costs, may be different in the UK to other countries as an excuse for doing nothing, is just fatuous. Costs both in the UK and any other named country can move in either direction, independently of each other, Or often they are linked strongly or weakly, by common factors across countries like global inflation and other macroeconomic factors.
The government is right that those macroeconomic factors such as costs of living, may not be the same in another country. But the pensioner already takes his own risks positive or negative. It is true that factors in other countries are not the UK governmentâs responsibility.
But that doesnât mean the pensioner should only get the bad news. If thereâs good news for the UK pension then those that already earned it should not be excluded. As for sure they already get all the bad news. Such as the suppression of the Winter Fuel Allowance for pensioners.
As a sub-point that is also offensive in the above statement, for many years there was no link between earnings increases and pensions increases. Which was why the UK pension became impossible to live on and so far, far behind other countries. Sneaking the implication in that increases have always taken account of increases in earnings, in the UK in that statement, is pure deception.
And you canât afford it? With the sums pi$$ed up the wall by MPsâ corrupt connections during covid, for example? Au fur et Ă mesure of taking workersâ NI (incl pension) contributions, the people that run the UK had plenty of time to measure and provide for their future pension liabilities. Now a whining slithering excuse to say we cant afford it :
You had enough time while people contributed (and they contributed at higher NI rates and at higher tax rates, at lower levels of salary in their working lives, than in the very recent decades) : 30 or 40 years say, to make arrangements to provide. Slithering out of your responsibilities by weaselling lies and just plain refusal to meet obligations paid for is just not acceptable.
2 Likes
the question I originally posed was more aimed at possible ways of mitigating any potential loss should, what currently passes as a government (bunch of lying thieving fatherless beings) decide to end pension payments to those of us living abroad. With regard to the bad âpolitical falloutâ Chris mentioned, acting as a restraining factor should they contemplate taking such a step, do you really think they give a damn? Both so called political parties take instruction from higher up and mark my words, if the dark state controlling them decide to take even more money from us to pay for unnecessary, unwinnable wars, they will do so.
In the EU it seems they canât weasel on that particular aspect due to the Brexit agreement⌠but only. Agree with you about those incompetent lying thieving dishonest fatherless entities. But in this case it serms they are restrained.
1 Like
I know the answer to this. *I heard the relevant minister explain on R4 âMoneyboxâ some years ago.
âWe make the rules. Those are the rules. Tough!â
There may be underlying conditions which result in this dictat but those were not explained.
Now youâre just being silly.
5 Likes
