The Government is pleased to announce that it has won its oh-so-important-case in the European Court.
Carson v the United Kingdom has been decided in favour of the United Kingdom, and the Government cannot wait to implement the bidding of its European Masters.
– Unlike Hirst v the United Kingdom which was decided against the United Kingdom and on which it is digging its heels in and whinging and wailing about how unfair it all is.
The difference between the two cases is not a matter of cost, but of votes.
Hirst v the United Kingdom would have given an estimated 84,000 prisoners, who may not be well intentioned towards the government which is keeping them incarcerated in less than ideal conditions, the vote.
Carson v the United Kingdom involves no votes. There is no benefit to the government in appealing against this decision.
Carson v the United Kingdom involves harmless old age pensioners. The people who throughout their working life had paid into the national Ponzi scheme known as the state pension.
Some years ago, the government decided that anyone who left the United Kingdom should have their pension frozen at the rate it was when they left. Not for them the cold weather payments, the much vaunted ‘Christmas bonuses’, the derisory annual increase.
These people had paid into the pension scheme exactly, precisely, the same amount as the pensioners who remained in the UK, consuming resources in the form of free medial care, free dental care, free glasses, bus passes, and all the other benefits that old age pensioners begrudgingly receive in the UK.
Unable to bring themselves to actually shoot them as they went over the wall to sunnier climes, the government took their revenge in other ways.
They froze their pension.
Thus a man who went to live with his children in Canada, who left when his pension was £6 a week, is still receiving £6 a week, not a penny more.
Had he remained in the UK, the estimated cost of maintaining him in reasonable health would be some £7,000 a year, but he costs the government nothing, because he pays for his own health care in Canada.
This is approximately seven times the cost of raising his pension in line with other pensions.
The Government’s justification for not raising his pension is that of cost. They estimate it would cost £540 million a year, or one per cent of the pension budget, to honour his full Basic Pension rights.
They can find £200 million a year to fund abortions for Polish citizens.
They can find £78 million a year to fund their bath plugs and porn movie expenses scams.
Lo! We can even pay child benefit to Euorpean citizens working in the UK in resepct of the army of kids they left back home.
But we can’t afford £580 million to honour our obligations to the very people who paid into the scheme since its inception?
Naturally, the European court ruled some time ago that they couldn’t treat European citizens like this – so those who only escaped the Hell of Britain as far as a European country do get some of the increases.
Which still left half a million people who had gone further afield.
One of them, Annette Carson, now stranded in South Africa on a paltry pension, took the UK to the court at Strasbourg complaining that this was discriminatory.
The UK argued that it wasn’t discriminatory; they only paid pension increases to people living in countries with whom they had a reciprocal agreement.
That is a doubly interesting argument.
If the UK have a reciprocal agreement, then they are obliged to fork out approx £2,400 a year in health care to the government of a ‘reciprocal agreement’ pensioner. So it costs them considerably more, not less, where they have a reciprocal agreement.
Secondly, how many Australian pensioners who have earned their pension rights in Australia, do you imagine have moved to the UK to live out their remaining years in fear and loathing of our feral youth.? Not many, I suspect.
The final argument accepted by the court was the most specious of all.
“As non-residents, the applicants did not contribute to the UK economy, in particular, they paid no UK tax to offset the cost of any increase in the pension,” a statement from the court said.
On £6 a week they would have paid no tax whatsoever, they would have been the recipient of tax credits, and free glasses, and free everything else, but for the crime of ‘going over the wall’ and not spending their money in the UK, they are to be punished – legally.
Remember that anyone in receipt of a £6 a week state pension will be old enough to have paid into the scheme from the very beginning. They will be living in a country which does not have reciprocal arrangements with the UK.
What does the government imagine will happen to these people when they finally reach the end of their life with no money to pay for health care?
There is a popular image of wealthy ex-pats living the life of riley in the sun, which may be true for some of us, but truly, many have a very grim existence.
I am well aware of ex-pats, now in their 70s and 80s, who struggle to find the money for even basic heating; where partners have died and they are alone, they struggle with the most rudimentary repair – and that is in a country where they do receive an increase.
There are 1,100,000 pensioners affected worldwide, it would serve the government right if they all returned home at the same time –and reclaimed their votes, as well as their entitlements.
Sadly few of them can afford to do so, and the rest are too frightened of the Liverpool pathway ending their life to even think about it.