Watching the UK media, it seems as though the Brexit campaign is gaining a lot of traction so far.
For those of us who are looking now and wanting to take up residence in France / EU - what do you think our options might be if Brexit goes ahead?
Watching the UK media, it seems as though the Brexit campaign is gaining a lot of traction so far.
How illuminating Robert, and, I have to say, alarming to me. To think that the USA is in fact not United is rather worrying. But as you say, this is not the forum for this particular discussion.
Well Norah, there are a number of good reasons (for Americans at least) why there is interstate extradition in the USA, but the basic summation of it is that contrary to popular belief, by many standards the USA is not actually one country, but is as its name confirms, a union (for certain purposes only) of separate sovereign states. I agree that we often think of the USA as being one country, but in many respects that isn't actually the case, in just the same way that the UK is comprised of 3 countries plus part of a fourth, as is indicated by the full name of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I'll be happy to explain further if you wish, but as it would be rather lengthy, perhaps this discussion forum is not the best place to do it. Please feel free to message me directly if you would like to explore this further.
But why should it be "the norm". It does not make sense to me. I cannot actually think of any country which has extradition laws within itself!! It has nothing whatever to do with size. Canada is larger than the US but does not have extradition laws between, for example, Ontario and British Columbia. Between different countries, yes of course, be they 6 kms or 2 kms apart at the border, it is completely reasonable. But to be quite honest, to hold the USA up as some sort of model does not sit easily with me.
It depends on perspective but it's the same as extraditing someone from Kehl to Strasbourg, about 6km across the Rhine, in different countries
Well, with respect, you have moved the goal posts now. The examples you give are in relation to different areas within the same country or nation state where the same body of law applies. The reason that there is extradition between the different American States is that the laws in those states are different, and so extradition is the norm in much the same way as exists between Scotland and England, where the relevant bodies of law are different.
I agree Bill, and apologise for having been led astray.
I rather think that there will not be too much of a problem with "taking-up-residency-after-brexit" as the various countries of Europe will still wish to attract both skilled workers who add to their economic wealth, and retirees who bring in foreign exchange currency from outside the Eurozone and then stimulate the local economy by spending it. Those of us already here are not going to be thrown out as that would simply be economic madness on the part of the host country.
Here in France the government has in fact recently eased the rules in relation to joining the French state health system by replacing CMU with PUMa (Protection Universel Maladie) as of Jan 1st 2016. The effect of this is to allow anyone (regardless of nationality) who is permanently resident in France to join the state health system, without any need for an S1 or indeed any other document issued by the UK government. Therefore there is no need for anyone to pay for expensive private health insurance.
Post Brexit, there will probably be a need to apply for a Carte de Sejour residence permit. However, this has never really been a problem in the past for anyone of good character who either has employment lined up, or sufficient independent means so as not to be a financial burden on the host state, and I see no reason for it to be a problem in the future. No more than a minor administrative inconvenience, and certainly far less of a hassle, and much cheaper, than obtaining a long stay visa for the USA.
Those retirees who have an occupational pension in addition to their state pension will no doubt continue to be specially welcome in the host countries. They do not take jobs from the locals, but rather create jobs for the locals. Such retirees bring considerable amounts of cash into the host countries, both in the form of property purchase, and then afterwards for ongoing living expenses. Indeed I am told by a Portugese neighbour that Portugal even exempts retired foreigners from the requirement to pay Portugese Income Tax as an incentive for them to come and retire to that country and spend their foreign pension income there.
In totality, I really do not see "taking-up-residency-after-brexit" as being any more problematic than it is now.
EXTRADITION!!!?? Between States. Good Heavens above!! Imagine having to extradite somebody from Devon back to Cornwall. Or Britanny to Pays de la Loire. Its ludicrous.
Actually there is a perfectly good and effective system of interstate extradition in the USA, so crossing a state line does not permit a person to get away with anything. This link will give an overview if you wish to know more. http://extradition.uslegal.com/interstate-extradition/
I forgot to mention (returning to the original theme!) that, whilst true that there is an agreement for expats in the US and a few other places to receive pension increases, there is no agreement with Australia or New Zealand, with whom we have much closer ties. Do you honestly think that, in the midst of the pandemonium of leaving the EU, the worldwide economic crises and the ever present terrorist threat, the UK government are going to stop everything and start drafting a new policy designed at preserving the pensions of a handful of people who have chosen to put themselves first and desert the UK to go and live in another country? If there is the faintest possibility of this being the case, should they not start with Spain first - after all there are a lot more brits living in Spain than in France.
Quite right Steve. The swivel-eyed loons/proud defenders against Big Government (delete as appropriate) of the Tea party and the Trompistes are a lot like the Kippers. What's Big Government ever done for the US? Quite a lot. Just imagine that in 1941 the US had had to rely on the Hawaiian militia instead of a standing Army and Navy because the citizens had decided that paying Federal taxes was counter to State's Rights and anyway it cost the rich too much. Those proud and distinctive Californians would all be speaking Japanese, not such a bad idea at that.
Perhaps Robert might be minded to join the Apostrophe Protection Society on Facebook.
without bothering to look up any figures I would hazard that the central government in the USA (ie "Washington") is way more vilified/unpopular than is Brussels.
PS Please remind yourself about its and it's.
Robert. You seem to be under the impression that "ever closer union " means the creation of a super state. The EU at present and for the foreseeable future will continue to be a collection of states each with their own elected governments and each sending members to the Commission , to the Council of Ministers and by way of election to the Parliament. Your comment on the government of the US state's role/rights etc seems to be largely the sort of kipper introduced by the Brexiteers. Yes US states have their own legislatures, make their own laws, levy their own taxes but US citizens also have to follow Federal law pay Federal taxes etc. and elect their representatives to Senate and Congress. I don't think I have ever seen a proposition of creating a central government. What I have seen is the agreement of common standards between consenting and cooperating national governments.
Thank you for your kind comment Robert. But the USA - oh dear. If ever that was a reason for staying in you have just provided it. Imagine a country where you can hurt or kill someone and provided you can drive fast enough and get into the next state you can get away with it!!!! There lies true folly.
This discussion is meant to be about "taking-up-residency-after-brexit" but seems to have got into a IN /OUT argument
Mr Perry. If you wish to assert that some particular thing that I have said is untrue, then why don't you just come straight out and say so in the interests of clarity. Surely this would be better than simply casting a vague cloud of insinuation about the place.
The Evening Standard article to which you refer is indeed interesting, firstly in that it was written by Nick Clegg (hardly unbiased), secondly that it was written in a 'Comment' section of the publication rather than as a news item, and thirdly in that if one scrolls down on that page to read the comments by others appended thereto, then one finds that there are numerous comments very succinctly taking Mr Clegg to task about some of the 'facts' that he places reliance upon.
Mr O'Sullivan. With respect, I did not say that the EEC was only about promoting free trade. I accept that there were also other aims stated in your previous post.
My point is that whilst your quote does indeed say "The aims of the Common Market are: To bring together the peoples of Europe; To raise living standards and improve working conditions; To promote growth and boost world trade; To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world; To help maintain peace and freedom", it is what that quote does NOT say, but which has now become apparent during the intervening 40 years, that is now the crucial factor in my opinion. Your quote encompasses many admirable aspirations, with which I do not disagree, but I do feel that there is another additional factor which although now apparent, was not being promulgated in the era from which that quote emanates. What is now apparent is that the route to the above aims that has been chosen, is one of moving towards the creation of a single country of Europe. It is that means to the end which is not acceptable to me. I do not believe that the only way in which to achieve these obviously desirable aims is to for the UK to remain in the EU.
Anyway, surely it is not what was said 40 years ago that is relevant today. We are not about to vote on whether to remain in, or leave, the EEC as it was 40 years ago. What we are going to do is to vote about whether we should leave or remain in the EU as it is today, and that, for me at least, is a very different question indeed.
Mark, Mr Hodge is asserting something now called "truthiness", which is that if you don't like the facts, you change them and claim your version as the truth. It's explained here:
Truthiness is the modern PC term. The original version was known as the "big lie", used by the Nazi party in their quest for power and the effect is that if something wrong is claimed often enough, people will accept it as fact.
Mr Hodge, may I remind you of my post above quoting from the leaflet distributed to all households at the time of the last referendum, which made it very clear that the EEC was not simply "about promoting free trade amongst independent countries"? You really should not go on claiming this when there is clear evidence to the contrary!