General Chat

Agree, Rose. We are told we have to do this and that by the EU - but we don't.
The equalisation of retirement age is a case in point.
It was suggested it was equalised - that could have meant men retiring at 60, everyone retiring at 62, but no, in the UK, it was decided to RAISE the retirement age for everyone, with women born in the 1950's being given little notice.
I was 'officially' told in 2012, that I would have to work until I was 66 - 4 years before my 60th birthday!

Germany has lowered their pension age.

The UK has the lowest pension in Europe, and we're now expected to work until we're 66/67 to receive a pittance :-|
The EU made the suggestion, our Government decided on how it would be administered :-| :-| :-|

Most of Europe has funded state pensions, the UK does not. The state pension is paid from current taxation not a fund into which NI subs were made. There is no such fund. As people are living far longer the UK Govt had the obvious options - reduce the pension, raise taxes or increase pension age. It chose the latter. This decision had nothing to do with the EU. Neither does it have anything to do with the USA and UK trading arrangements.

Pensions paid to state employees ( not local govt ) are also paid from current taxation. Local government does have funded pensions. However the funds have been very badly run ( Iceland was a favorite with fund mgrs ) such that a good chunk of local govt cuts is to pay pensions.

Barrack Obama was not making threats. Any American President has to work with Congress. Congress is permanently hostile to trade agreements and they take years and years to get passed with much cajoling from the White House. Deals with large entities such as the EU, China or NAFTA are preferred as they give more bucks in benefit for the large political effort.

fwiw China and India have said much the same.

Obama is pointing out the bleeding obvious - if the UK fell out of bed with the EU a special new trade deal with the UK would not be a high priority in Congress if at all. The deal with Australia was pretty well "take it or leave it" from Washington so the Ozzies closed there eyes, took a deep breath and took it.

Trump is very much protectionist.
Clinton is only a free trader insofar as it benefits Uncle Sam. She would not see much point in expending a lot of time and political capital on a bilateral trade deal with the UK.

From 1700 it was obvious that the world would develop into a few power blocs. The major states of Europe decided they would each have their own hallmarked bloc created by hammering the neighboring states (France, Russia, Germany ) or hammering anywhere the Royal Navy could point cannons at. On balance none of this worked very well. In the end all the "glorious" history and "independence" was swapped in exchange for the creation of the EU bloc. Yes it is and always has been as much a political project as trade. The Brexiters see this as a "very bad thing" and would prefer to get back to arrangements as they stood in the summer of 1914.

Live on hay pie in the sky when we die.

I think that .............

a) Obama has been one of the best Presidents of the United States in many years

b) everything he has wanted to achieve has been hampered by the fact that the majority of Congress and Senate are of the OPPOSITE party, and therefore automatically oppose what the President wants to do. He has used Executive powers to pass some things, but you can bet your bottom dollar that those Orders will be repealed as soon as a Republican gets in to the White House.

That very same thing would happen if the President was Republican and Congress and Senate were mainly Democrats ..................... and that is very likely to be the result, if not in November this year, then in 2 years time when the other half of Senate and Congress seats will be up for re-election.

This is the scenario that would happen if Trump wins in November.

This of course is a situation that would never happen in the UK, as the PM is the Leader of the party that wins the majority in Parliament!


c) He is explaining to you all what the situation would be regarding any Free Trade deal with the UK vs with Europe. You're basically small beans compared with Europe, or the Pacific Alliance that they've just signed.


d) being a Canadian and in a country that has had a Free Trade deal for a number of years with the US, then I am quite well aware of the fact that the US only makes deals that will benefit the US, and damn the other country. If the deal made doesn't actually result in profits for one or other of the US sectors, then they will appeal and appeal to whatever judgement court has been set to up to hear appeals of the signed Free Trade.

You would lose out on most of those deals, just as Canada usually loses out when appeals are made here.


He isn't threatening you ............ he's trying to make you aware of what might happen.

It is a false statement to say that Germany has lowered the retirement age. The normal retirement age is being increased by one month per year until 2023, then two months peer year until 2029..

What has happened is that people who have been working for 45 years and born before 1953, will be allowed to retire at 63.

I stand corrected, Kense - but they've lowered it from their original rise (if that makes sense :-S)
...and a rise of one month per year is a lot better than the 18 months per year for us UK ladies born in the mid to late '50's. :-|
My sister was born in 1952, and received her pension at 61 years 6 months.
I'm 4 years younger, and will receive mine when I'm 66 - that's over 18 months for every year I'm younger than her :-|

Maggie, that's because they accelerated the increase and you're not the only one effected. I get mine a week before my 65th birthday instead of at 63. My friend, same school year but 4 1/2 months younger, has to wait until she is 66 and a bit.
Correction - She'll be 65, 5 months and 2 days. Got the year wrong.

Det, I know they accelerated the increase. As I said, it affects women born in the mid to late '50's the worst :-(
But they also didn't let women know officially until (in my case) 4 years before I was 60, some have never been 'officially' notified.
They may have put adverts in newspapers at an earlier date - but I didn't read them, and if I did, I never read advertisements.
It may have been on TV - but I was busy that day!!

Anyhoo - the Government says it's because of the EU - and this major unfair cock up is all due to our Government, not the EU!!!

I’m more inclined to think that the EU directive was aimed at the ‘basket case’ countries, in particular Greece.

In the UK, a pensionable age of 65 was deemed unsustainable. Yes, I too was cross about having to wait an extra couple of years. There were quite a lot of complaints aired over a period of time in the media. If I remember rightly, originally there was a cut-off dob which meant it wouldn’t have affected me where as someone a few weeks younger would have. Although ‘unfair’ for us, it is now ‘fairer’ on them (and you)

I really don't know how I feel about whether we should leave Europe or not but I am pleased to have yet another perspective, that of President Obama, to consider.

When we originally joined the EU, I was very much against us doing so as we had a strong commonwealth who I considered we had abandoned. They have found their own markets now, Australia, I believe, now trades largely around the Pacific Rim but I am sure I will be corrected on that one if it is wrong.

If we do come out we will only be a little customer in anything and not apart of being the big customer with all the negotiating power.

What I would really please me should we leave Europe would be to return to proper weights and measures.,

Sharron ............

you are quite correct ............... Australia, New Zealand and Canada now all have stronger trade links with countries other than the UK. They all had to find other markets in order to survive after the EU regulations meant that the UK had to trade more within Europe.

The trading ties between OZ, NZ and Canada countries became stronger ................. just as one example, we get Australian and NZ lamb, fresh or frozen, year round but I haven''t seen UK lamb in the butchers' shops for well over 25 years. Even before the EU, UK lamb was much more expensive when it was available here.

The eyes of the Canadian provinces on the west coast of this continent are directed across the Pacific to Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, etc. I think the same also applies to the western US states.

There is also the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement - Affaires ........ ministers from about 12 countries around the Pacific signed this agreement on February 4, 2016, now it has to pass the governments in the countries.

Trade delegations from provincial and federal governments in Canada have for many years gone to Asian countries, not to Europe. Plus, the make-up of our population has changed ............ we are not far off having 50% or more of the population in many areas being of Asian origin, either as immigrants or children of immigrants. Their eyes are directed to Asia when they think of trading with the "home" country, not across the Atlantic.



My opinion as someone of English origin who left the UK in 1967 is that I didn't think the UK made the right decision to join EU at the time, that the UK did not argue sufficiently hard to maintain its identity when that move was made ......... other countries did become members of EU under slightly different rules, and participate but are not ruled by Brussels.

Being a member of EU was great from the point of view of ease of movement into and around Europe, and allowed many Brits to move elsewhere for jobs and better conditions ................. but it also allowed the reverse to happen, so that poor people from other EU rules moved into the UK and took advantage of the better conditions there. But didn't the Brits who moved into other EU conditions "take advantage" of better conditions in those countries .......... ie, cheaper houses, more jobs, etc.

I am far from sure that the UK could not survive without being in the EU, just as I don't think Scotland could survive if it left the UK, or Quebec could survive if it left the Canadian federation. But there is no doubt that you have been overwhelmed and that changes need to be made to much of your Social Services, and the ease with which people can access them.

You may complain about some aspects of SS, but there is also little doubt that the UK Social Services are much "richer" in what people can claim and how easily than almost any other country in the world ........... I'm thinking in terms of the ease with which refugees get payments, how long unemployed people get benefits, etc etc etc

The state pension is paid for by national insurance contributions, which come from the wages of people working today.
Effectively, each working generation pays for the older generation above them. However, NI is also used to pay other benefits, such as to the unemployed


Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2787888/how-state-pension-funded-cash-runs.html#ixzz46gEv3HUA
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook.

As its always been...... state pensions in UK are paid from NI contributons,from here,
National Insurance Fund. :-D :-D.

Agree Kay. If NI contributions count for nothing, why does a person have to have 30, 35 (or however many the Government states it is today) years worth of NI contributions to get a pension?
If the NI contributions count for nothing, then when we're being told to by HMRC pay for 'lost' years of NI contributions, wouldn't this be fraud?

here, our old age pensions (OAS) are paid to retirees from contributions made by the workers of the day into the OAS fund. The worker and the employer each pay part of the contribution. OR the self-employed will have to pay it all ..............

but the current working population is paying for the aged of today, and have to hope that there will be enough workers paying in in the future when they need it. It was set up that way around 1961 or so, and ever will be.

The OAS cannot be drawn until the age of 65, male or female, and it has to be drawn then whether you continue to work or not.

Workers also contribute to the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), often with an equal amount from the employer. The CPP monthly payments are drawn in full at 65, or one can opt to begin to draw as early as age 60, at a reduction of ca 0.6% per each month earlier than the month you reach 65 ...... that means a total of 36% reduction if you take it as early as 60.. Or you can delay taking it until as late as age 70, at an increase of ca 0.7% for each month delayed (= ca 8.4% per year).

Unemployment insurance is paid from Employment Insurance (EI) payments deducted from salary at source. There is a delay after becoming unemployed before you start receiving EI, a limited time for which you can receive them (varying for different industries, with allowances made for seasonal employment), no payments allowed or a longer wait period if you leave a job under certain circumstances (eg, quit of your own accord or dismissal for behaviour), and evidence is required of serious job searching. Women can receive benefits if they are the sole carer of children up until the youngest child reaches the age of 5 (start of kindergarten), but then have to seek employment.


People accepted into Canada as Refugees, or waiting for a decision to be made as to their status as Refugees, are eligible to receive welfare payments at the same rate as Canadian citizens and residents. Ones waiting for the decision to be made cannot officially work at paid employment.

People accepted as refugees are eligible to work from the time of arrival (eg, the Syrians just brought in) or acceptance IF they can find a job ..... and are encouraged to do so. There are not many skyvers among this group ........... they may take a long time to get a job because their language skills are not up to it, but most of them start working as soon as they can, and many repay welfare payments made to them, though they don't have to do that. Refugees do have to repay loans advanced to them to pay their airfares to Canada from the refugee camps.


It's all much more controlled than it seems to be in the UK.