Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

[altus 534]

23 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

I'll be amazed if that happens, and even more amazed if it includes pensioners.

It's worth pointing out that the The National Party aren't in power in NZ. Looking to them to see what sort of trade deal we'll get is like asking Keir Starmer what sort of Brexit he'd like.

[altus 534]

6 minutes ago, West 77 said:

The National Party have the most seats in the New Zealand Parliament at the moment. There will be a General Election this September.

Not really a good comparison with Keir  Starmer and the UK Labour Party at the moment.

Opinion polling for the 2020 New Zealand general election.

[L00b 441]

23 hours ago, West 77 said:

Let's hope a deal can be reached that prevents pensions being frozen for any British citizen wishing to retire to New Zealand.

"Let's hope" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, when one considers current immigration thresholds for retiring in NZ.

 

NZ is not the UK, Gib or the EEA, so currently you're looking at a 25% tax (in the UK) for transferring your UK pension to NZ. So you'll want to factor that drawdown to the Exchequer, before looking at the NZ threshold.

 

(until and unless the UK government feels generous when (if) they strike that FoM deal with NZ...but considering the current state of UK plc's public finances and the ever-more-insistent looks Sunak is giving the triple lock, don't go counting your chickens just yet).

 

By the way, when the transition period ends, that 25% tax will apply just the same, for transferring your UK pension to anywhere in the EU27. Plainly-predictable and long-announced consequence of  Brexit (hence why I QROPS'd ours out post-haste in 2018).

 

 

Edited June 22, 2020 by L00b

[L00b 441]

22 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

(...)

 

Also, before that you'd need some mechanism for British citizens to be able to retire to New Zealand.  Under neoliberal globalisation, "freedom of movement" doesn't mean free movement of people.  It means free movement of human capital, and unfortunately pensioners are (in that ideology) not seen as having any human capital.

Resourced pensioners represent plenty of human capital indeed, which is why residency visas for retirees typically have large investment figures by way of strings attached.

 

Plenty of EU27 countries, including e.g. Spain & Portugal, have similar provisions and half-million (or more) K/investment thresholds to the NZ ones which I linked, applicable to non-EU retirees (and which, in case of no deal, will therefore apply to new British retirees from 1st Jan '21).

 

EU retirees get in 'free', so long as they meet the local minimas and are not a burden on the host EU27 country they moved to.

 

In that context, "freedom of movement" still means "freedom of establishment" (ie moving somewhere else and making a life), the same as it always did. It's just that, within the EU, the barriers (thresholds) to doing that are significantly lower, than outside of it.

Edited June 22, 2020 by L00b

[Longcol 594]

6 hours ago, L00b said:

"Let's hope" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, when one considers current immigration thresholds for retiring in NZ.

 

NZ is not the UK, Gib or the EEA, so currently you're looking at a 25% tax (in the UK) for transferring your UK pension to NZ. So you'll want to factor that drawdown to the Exchequer, before looking at the NZ threshold.

 

(until and unless the UK government feels generous when (if) they strike that FoM deal with NZ...but considering the current state of UK plc's public finances and the ever-more-insistent looks Sunak is giving the triple lock, don't go counting your chickens just yet).

 

By the way, when the transition period ends, that 25% tax will apply just the same, for transferring your UK pension to anywhere in the EU27. Plainly-predictable and long-announced consequence of  Brexit (hence why I QROPS'd ours out post-haste in 2018).

 

 

And thank you for your advice on that a year or so ago after we'd moved to France.  QROPS sorted early this year 👍

[altus 534]

17 hours ago, West 77 said:

New Zealand have a very low population meaning a FOM deal wouldn't be bad for the UK. 

It's not just about whether a FOM deal would be good or bad for us - NZ gets a choice too. The UK has a very high population compared to NZ, why would a FOM deal be good for NZ?

[altus 534]

4 minutes ago, West 77 said:

The New Zealand National Party who are the largest party in the New Zealand parliament clearly don't think a FOM trade deal with the UK will be bad for New Zealand.  Are you better informed on what is best for New Zealand than the New Zealand National party?

As I pointed out, their support has plummeted since the last election. NZ have an election coming up this September and it looks like The National Party is going to make Corbyn's Labour Party 2020 election results look good. What makes you think the NZ National Party want something that is good for NZ rather than something ideologically driven? (c.f. Senior people in our Conservative Party wanting to unilaterally remove import tariffs despite the fact it would ruin our ability to negotiate good trade deals and guy who came up with the idea predicting it will result in the elimination of manufacturing and farming in the UK.)

 

So, to repeat my earlier question. The UK has a very high population compared to NZ, why would a FOM deal be good for NZ?

[altus 534]

32 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Sounds like you are arguing just for argument's sake.  Do you know whether the New Zealand Labour Party are against a FOM Trade deal with the UK?  I don't need to explain why a FOM Trade Deal is good for New Zealand because the New Zealand National Party are supporting a FOM Trade agreement with the UK.  I can't see any good reasons why a FOM Trade Deal between the UK and New Zealand will bad for the UK.  Can you think of any  good reasons why a FOM Trade Deal between the UK and New Zealand will be bad for the UK?

I'm trying to point out to you that your comment in post #445 that "New Zealand have a very low population meaning a FOM deal wouldn't be bad for the UK." doesn't mean that such a deal would be also be good for NZ.

 

Let's put it another way. The UK has a very low population compared to India so a FOM deal wouldn't be bad for India. Do you think it would be a good idea for us to have a FOM deal with India?

[altus 534]

6 minutes ago, West 77 said:

And I've pointed out to you that the New Zealand National Party are in favour of such an agreement. You continue to argue for argument's sake while not answering questions put to you. 

 

A consequence of the UK leaving the EU on 31st January is that the UK can now negotiate its own trade deals with other countries such as New Zealand and India. Every trade deal agreed will not be and shouldn't be exactly the same as other trade deals agreed upon. I'm not suggesting the UK  agree on trade deals that involve FOM with every country that have lower populations than the UK because other factors obviously have to be taken into consideration. Every trade deal has to be mutually acceptable to the countries involved which is why FOM for a trade deal between the UK and New Zealand shouldn't be a deal-breaker for the UK which I hope it would be regarding trade negotiations between the UK and India. Why are you bothered if the UK agree on a trade deal with a country that you think will benefit the UK more than the other country involved in the agreement?

And as I've pointed out NZ's National Party is not going to be doing any negotiations for the forseable future.

 

Others have pointed out reasons why your enthusiasm for a FOM deal with NZ is likely overly optimistic. The reason why I'm bothered about the UK aiming for one sided trade deals is because it will harden the attitude of other parties and make good deals less likely.

 

Look at the reaction to the proposals for trade with Commonwealth countries dubbed Empire 2.0. We can't just go wading in as if we are still the colonial power and expect to get our own way all the time. The current government seems to be full of people who think we can.

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, altus said:

The reason why I'm bothered about the UK aiming for one sided trade deals is because it will harden the attitude of other parties and make good deals less likely.

Japan turning the screws on the U.K. today, is as brilliant a case in point, as could possibly exist.

 

I’m long out of “told you so”s to chuck at Leavers.

Edited June 23, 2020 by L00b

[El Cid 212]

4 hours ago, altus said:

So, to repeat my earlier question. The UK has a very high population compared to NZ, why would a FOM deal be good for NZ?

Millions thought and still do, that the principles of the EU are positive, taken against a Government which is out for itself.

The principles are fairness and equality. You obviously do not believe in FOM but millions of people fly every day, holidays and work. If a population is increasing, it usually means the GDP increases, which means more money for the exchequer and that will look good come the next election.

The downside to stopping free movement is its costly to holiday makers who may require a visa and the divisive nature of stopping immigration is detrimental on everyone.

More people voted for pro-EU partys in the 2019 general election, but our electoral system means that Boris got a stonking majority.

Edited June 23, 2020 by El Cid

[altus 534]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

Millions thought and still do, that the principles of the EU are positive, taken against a Government which is out for itself.

The principles are fairness and equality. You obviously do not believe in FOM but millions of people fly every day, holidays and work. If a population is increasing, it usually means the GDP increases, which means more money for the exchequer and that will look good come the next election.

The downside to stopping free movement is its costly to holiday makers who may require a visa and the divisive nature of stopping immigration is detrimental on everyone.

More people voted for pro-EU partys in the 2019 general election, but our electoral system means that Boris got a stonking majority.

You've obviously forgotten my previous posts on the subject.

 

I've been trying to highlight the odd position of people who don't like FOM when it's with the EU suddenly being in favour of FOM when it's with someone else. The arguments for/against FOM with NZ are the same as those for/against FOM with the EU.

 

Whilst we could absorb unrestricted FOM from NZ, NZ, because of it's size, would need some way of limiting numbers - similar to the don't have a job, go home rules that all the EU countries implemented apart from the UK.