Couldn’t find a suitable thread for this but it is one reason you may not leave a particular geographic area.
?
?
I don’t plan to leave, but I’ve started a “get Irish citizenship” project. It should be relatively easy, as I have a grandmother born in Ireland. I need to get on the Foreign Births Register, which involves getting all the relevant birth, marriage, and death certificates. Once on the register, I have citizenship. If I then get a passport, I would have free access to the EU, of course.
My reasons are, in order, 1) it would be fun 2) I can 3) (distant 3rd) I’ve got some places I could potentially go if things really turn to sh*t.
3 Likes
I am also eligible! I’ll see you there, we’ll have a nice stout at the local pub, then get into a fight. So as to fit in, of course.
I’ll need to look though my parent’s stuff to find proof of GP’s birth in Ireland, though. One died 97 years ago, the other 43 years ago. Yes, there was a somewhat large difference in their ages, and one died relatively young (my current age, I think), while the other lived past 90. Also, nine children (my father being the youngest)!!
Quick look tells me that this is NOT guaranteed. Some Minister has to approve each and every one of these on a case-by-case basis. Takes 30 months. I better start looking for these birth certificates now. I think I have marriage certificates from Ireland. Maybe that would be enough?
Ugh, just read this:
An association going back two generations without any other link to the State is generally considered as not sufficient to warrant consideration or the waiving of the statutory residence conditions.
Um, what kind of “other link” is required? Do I have to find a third cousin that I have to care for, or something?
I’ll give you a #4, not necessarily in order, when traveling via airplane through Europe, the “immigration “ line for EU-passport holders is shorter (in total time spent waiting in line) than it is for USAers. This is especially useful if you have a tight connection to your next flight.
Hope this works out for you. Usually no downside to having a second passport and there are advantages.
I looked into getting a British passport in 1989 but one of my grandmothers being born there was not sufficient. However it did allow me to get a “granny visa” to work there. That was easier and quicker than the standard work visa. All I had to do was to prove she was my grandmother and that she had been born in England.
My London daughter has gotten lukewarm on getting her British citizenship as it no longer entitles you to EU citizenship. Her partner is British though so their daughter has British and Canadian citizenship.
2 Likes
Which is exactly why we need to remove the debt ceiling.
So it seems there wasn’t just one scheme and the other one is also asking for the same consideration.
While true in some areas, in my experience the notion that insurers were non renewing bc of climate change was usually political spin by departments of insurance. For example CA and FL want to put all the blame of insurers leaving on climate change rather than their regulatory failures. If FL’s geography was uninsurable you should see similar outcomes in GA.
1 Like
I have no issue with them having the surplus if they drop the guarantee. But thats not what Labour seems to be doing: they are giving them a windfall and still backing the scheme with a guarantee. Only this time its the taxpayer who picks up the tab if things go wrong investment-wise.
2 Likes
The pension schemes that are most difficult to advise as an actuary are the ones where the employer uses the scheme as a tool for employee/pensioner appeasement.
ETA: These type of schemes which are orphaned from the employer are serious headaches because all the trustees maybe pensioners or people who pensioners recruit.
2 Likes
Nice deceptive edit. You want to include the 2nd half of my comment that voids your question?
I still don’t get your comment. Why mention Labour when the status quo was reached under the Tories? The only thing that was them was the miners one and that isn’t taxpayer money, at least in the first instance.
BBC had done a list of all the looming compensation that the govt may have to.provide.
I don’t think I’m correctly understanding this Waspi woman thing very well. From what I understand, it affects women born between 1950 and 1960 and a change in the age for retirement from 60 to 65 that was made in 1995. If you were a woman born before Apr. 6(?) 1950 you retired at age 60, if you were born after Apr. 5 1955 you retired at age 65, if you were born in between those dates, you retired between age 60 and 65. It looks like the change was supposed to be phased in from 2010 to 2020, so starting when they were 50 to 60. In 2011, the government sped up the process, setting it to age-65 in 2018 and changed the retirement age to 66 in 2020.
This article (Who are the ‘Waspi women’ and why do they feel betrayed over pensions? | State pensions | The Guardian) says that many women were being made to work 4-6 more years than expected and didn’t have time to adjust their retirement plans. Isn’t the adjustment just working longer? My impression is that women born after Apr. 5, 1955 likely shouldn’t be due much, if anything as since 1995 they were always going to retire at age-65 and then it got extended to 66 in 2007 or 2011. I’d also think there’s some personal responsibility for them to look into the rules around retirement. I’m less clear for the women born between 1950 and 1955 where the phased introduction of the change got sped up closer to the date. On the other hand, you’d think they’d look into the rules before retiring…
I really didn’t look into this because I just don’t buy that they didn’t know it. I qualified as a pensions actuary in the mid 90s and that 1995 pensions act was a hot topic for any one in the pensions area. That is the act that stops a lot of pensions malpractice after the Maxwell pension scandal in the late 80s to 90s. The attached regulations are the ones that created the role of a scheme actuary.
If they got any pension scheme benefit statement from anywhere they should have seen something. The article does say more than 90% knew about it established from a survey in 2006.
1 Like
They seem to be claiming they knew that pension agers were changing, but didn’t know that it applied to them. Reading some of their stories, it seems like a lot of gross negligence on their own parts e.g. a woman born in 1956 deciding to take early retirement at age 55 who did a spreadsheet to work out how to make her lump sum last for 5 years, but didn’t bother to look into pension eligibility. Under the 1995 act it was very clear she would have to be at least 65 to get the pension. How did she not look into this before retiring?
Browsing Reddit and seeing a lot of posts from people who have to wait til 68 or 70, I’m not seeing a lot of sympathy.
3 Likes
This was my take on the changes. They were generally well-known so there is an onus on the individual to take some responsibility in her retirement planning.
2 Likes
They took this to high court and lost then took it the political route. That should tell all you need about the merits of this claim.
2 Likes
Nigel Farage offering to help Labour with UK-US trade negotiations with Trump Administration. Warning: Trump will do no favours for the UK.
2 Likes