Bridiots

So the voters of the United Kingdom have chosen to leave the European Union.

Well, that's not entirely true.

The results of the referendum are not legally binding. The decision for the UK to leave the EU can only be made in the UK parliament. The majority of MPs are in favour of staying with the EU, but whether they will have the guts to stand up and vote so in the eventual debate is, of course, a different matter.

As for the referendum itself, it demonstrates just how divided the UK itself is.

The UK is an old union of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

The English voted 53.4% to 46.6% to leave the EU. Hardly overwhelming.

Northern Ireland voted 55.8% against 44.2% to remain in the EU.

Scotland voted 62% to 38% to remain, a huge win.

Wales voted 52.5% to 47.5% to leave (an even smaller win than in England).

So two countries voted to leave and two countries voted to remain. The countries that voted to remain did so in a far more convincing manner than those that voted to leave.

Hardly a United Kingdom!

(Incidentally, I am of Welsh origin and am deeply ashamed that Wales voted to leave the EU.)

Assuming that the UK parliament ratifies the decision to leave, what might the consequences be?

Well, the break-up of the UK seems highly likely, with Scotland the first to go. If Northern Ireland has any sense, it will also leave the UK and allow Ireland once again to become a single island nation.

Wales, of course, followed England. Hardly surprising, given the high level of unemployment there (and the high number of English who live in Wales): the No campaigners put the blame for high unemployment on the EU and particularly its immigration policy. People like to believe easy solutions and look no further to find the real truth. I wonder how the people of Wales and the rest of the UK will feel when unemployment increases as a result of less sales to the EU and less investment from the EU.

The people cast their No votes based on a lack of information and misinformation. The result is a demonstration of why one should not allow ordinary people to decide such vital issues : they simply do not have the knowledge to make a decision based on facts, so instead they make an emotional decision based on fiction. They look at short-term issues that seem important, such as immigration, and ignore the long-term, truly important issues, such as investment, development, long-term employment… These are the things that will play huge roles in the lives of the now young people of the UK as they grow older. Basically, their future has been destroyed.

More worrying than the self-inflicted problems of the UK, however, are the possible knock-on effects in the rest of Europe. Extremist right-wing factions will be spurred on by the unfortunate result to further their own causes, perhaps to demand referenda in their own countries, with the possible break-up of the EU.

As nationalistic tendencies grow in these countries, so, too, will grow the likelihood of conflict. The EU (and its predecessors) have kept Europe at peace for seventy years; prior to that achievement, Europe suffered almost constant conflict in some part of its boundaries. In the first half of the previous century alone, two World Wars were ignited in Europe, during which millions of people were killed and otherwise suffered. Nationalism of the type displayed in the UK and in other countries of the EU is likely to lead to similar conflicts should the EU break up. Furthermore, Russia will feel less reticent to atttempt to take back its former territories and will therefore likely set its sights on the Baltic states, the Ukraine, and elsewhere, in the face of a weak and divided Europe. Clearly a recipe for a Third World War.

The EU has made mistakes, of course. Any organisation attempting to achieve what the EU has achieved is bound to make mistakes. But this does not mean that its members must bleat and moan: they must learn to work better together, to learn from what is wrong in order to create a better right. The achievements of the EU should be applauded: peace, a single currency, freedom of movement of people and goods, the world's largest trading bloc…

What do you know about the EU?

Soon the UK will hold a referendum to allow its voters to decide whether to stay in the EU.

Bonkers. The average bod has no idea what the EU does, what it has achieved, what its powers are, what its powers most certainly are not, and so on. Most people are swayed only by what they are told by ignorant spouters of nonsense on the television, or by what they read in the gutter press that is so prevalent in the UK, where such intelligent publications as the Sun tell half-truths at best and downright lies at worst.

The Establishment of the UK of course wants the voters to choose to leave the EU: this will provide them with the continued power they seek. What it will not do, is help the ordinary people of the country. But what does the Establishment care for them?

How much do you, dear UK voter, actually know about the EU and how it functions? Very little, I bet.

Well, here's a chance for you to find out a bit more before you go to vote.

The EU has just published a report on its activities in 2015. Do you want to know what the EU achieved in 2015? What progress it made in delivering on its priorities? The measures it took to boost jobs, growth and investment? The part it played in the climate deal achieved in Paris? How it handled the refugee crisis? And how EU citizens benefited from the Union? You can find the answers to all these questions and more in The EU in 2015.

The publication is available in various formats (HTML, PDF, EPUB) for free (a printed version can be purchased) at http://publications.europa.eu/en/web/general-report (It can also be obtained in numerous other languages through the dropdown menu at the top right-hand corner of the page.)

And if you'd like to learn more about the EU, or to find resources for use in presentations, a good place to start is http://europa.eu/publications/index_en.htm (again, information is available in other languages through the dropdoan menu at the top right-hand corner of the page).

Problems with Pensions

The European Union has some great ideals. One of them is free movement of its citizens between the member states. This, of course, necessitates the implementation of systems to cover health care (already a touchy subject, if one takes as an example the situation of the state health care in Spain when applied to non-Spanish residents) and, of course, pensions.

The time has come to apply for Elise's pension. I therefore checked the website of the European Union to find out what a European citizen from one member state now residing in another had to do in order to claim their pension.

The site contains all sorts of apparently useful information and should form a reliable source for European citizens wishing to check on their rights on various issues. The information is available in many of the languages used in the EU (sadly, Welsh is not represented).

The page that deals with retiring abroad (here in English and here in Dutch) states,

When the time comes for you to claim your pension, you'll have to apply in the country where you're living - unless you have never worked there. In this case, you should apply where you last worked.

 Als voor u de tijd is gekomen om op pensioen te gaan, moet u dat aanvragen in het land waar u woont, tenzij u daar nooit hebt gewerkt. In dat geval moet u de aanvraag indienen in het land waar u het laatst hebt gewerkt.

Note, "…unless you have never worked there. In this case, you should apply where you last worked."

That seems clear enough and, given that Elise last worked in Belgium (she stopped working in 1982), we took it to mean that she should apply for her pension to the Belgian pension authorities, the Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen, in the Zuidertoren in Brussels.

The necessary information was sent together with a request for payment of pension, but soon the request was returnd with a covering letter in which was stated,

U moet in principe uw aanvraag indienen bij de bevoegde pensioeninstelling van uw land, omdat u in een land woont van de Europese Economische Ruimte (EER)…

U gaat met dit bericht en de bijgevoegde aanvraag als bijlage naar de bevoegde pensioeninstelling met het verzoek ons de gebruikelijke verbindingsformulieren en een kopie van uw originele aanvraag naar mijn diensten toe te sturen

In principle, as you live in a country of the European Economic Area (EEA), you have to make your request to the authorised pensions service of your country…

Take this notice together with the enclosed request to the authorised pensions service and aske that they send the usual forms and a copy of your original request to my services…

This appears to be different to what the EU had to say on the matter in their own website, so Elise phoned the Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen in Brussels and pointed out the discrepancies, noting that she had never worked in Spain and that her last employment was in Belgium in 1982.

Her explanation was simply brushed aside. Nope, that's the way things have to be done and the EU website must refer to functionaries (civil servants).

Well, no, the website does not refer to functionaries: it refers to State Pensions for Citizens.

I suspect that the wording of the EU's website is unclear and that the pension authorities in the various countries really are acting correctly. Whatever the reason, the result is confusion for the EU citizen. This might result in mistrust and suspicion of any other information that can be found on the EU site regarding the rights and obligations of such sitizens and that is simply not a desirable situation.

Somebody from the Plain English Campaign (and the Plain Dutch Campaign, too, if there is one) needs to tidy up the information provided by the EU.