# Potential Impact of Brixet from EU



## Rema (Aug 12, 2012)

Apparently this has been posted on another forum, see below. If true, it should be of interest to readers on this forum as well.

"The widely read expat forum (snip)warns that a Brexit could mean expats lose the right to freedom of movement within the EU and may need to apply for visas. The European health insurance card would also probably no longer be valid and British state pensions could be frozen."

It came from a report by Bejay Brown in the online version of Cyprus Post yesterday.
Expats in Cyprus*could lose out if UK exits EU - Cyprus Mail Cyprus Mail[/url


Sorry about spelling error, Thread should be 'Brexit' not 'Brixet'


----------



## zach21uk (Jun 26, 2014)

There were plenty of expats living here before Cyprus joined the EU I am guessing, as I know folks who have been here 10+ or 20+ years, so I cannot imagine the situation would end up much different if Britain were to exit the EU, compared to how it was prior to Cyprus joining.


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

Britain will never leave the EU completely.
Cameron is playing it crafty trying toget some concessions but we will never leave the EU. We can't afford to.
Brits living in Cyprus got their pensions here long before Cyprus was in the EU and that will not change no matter what happens. Talking about British state pensions being frozen is nonsense.
Its just another case of newspapers sensationalising things.


----------



## Baywatch (Mar 30, 2014)

Veronica said:


> Britain will never leave the EU completely.
> Cameron is playing it crafty trying to get some concessions but we will never leave the EU. We can't afford to.
> Brits living in Cyprus got their pensions here long before Cyprus was in the EU and that will not change no matter what happens. Talking about British state pensions being frozen is nonsense.
> Its just another case of newspapers sensationalizing things.


The only thing that I can think is a danger is that the financial industry leave UK. Some banks has already stated that they will leave. And I really dont think that it is good if they do


----------



## David_&_Letitia (Jul 8, 2012)

Baywatch said:


> The only thing that I can think is a danger is that the financial industry leave UK. Some banks has already stated that they will leave. And I really dont think that it is good if they do


Maybe Barclays would move their operation to Cyprus?


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

David_&_Letitia said:


> Maybe Barclays would move their operation to Cyprus?


very funny


----------



## Veronica (Apr 5, 2008)

Actually it looks as though What Barclays has done may be classed as discrimination and they could be in trouble.

I found this on another forum.


Barclays may be be guilty of a discriminatory act

BARCLAYS Discriminatory Treatment of Ex-Pat Customers
Thousands of ex-pats in Cyprus (and Malta and shortly Greece) have just received letters from Barclays (Personal Banking) informing them that unless they keep a balance of £100,000 in their Barclays current account, that account will be closed solely because they do not reside in the UK, even though they are British (or at least EU) citizens residing in an EU country (Cyprus).

The letter says:
As part of a global review of our business Barclays has taken the strategic decision to focus on a core set of 70 markets globally. We have therefore taken the difficult decision to, over time, close accounts for those clients who fall outside our new market strategy.
As a result of this decision, we are introducing a new minimum threshold for clients resident in Cyprus. With effect from 11 September 2015 you will be required to maintain £100,000 in your Barclays accounts.
If you do not take any action, we will close your account on or shortly after 11 September 2015. We understand that you may be disappointed by this and we will aim to offer you as much assistance as possible during this transition period.


Barclays know that the regulations that the UK Government intends to enact in order to fulfil the EU Payments Account Directive (2014/92/EU) state in section 18:
Non-discrimination in the provision of payment accounts
A credit institution must not discriminate against consumers legally resident in the EU by reason of their nationality or place of residence or by reason of any other ground referred to in Article 21 of the Charter when those consumers apply for or access a payment account.
The conditions applicable to holding a payment account with basic features within the meaning of regulation 19 must not be discriminatory.

See:
https://www.gov.uk/…/implementation-of-the-eu-payment-accou…
and
https://www.gov.uk/…/20150618_Payment_Accounts_Regulations_…

The UK government regards a “current account” as being a “payment account with basic features” for the purpose of this legislation. These regulations will come into force on 18th September 2016 and the UK government has already stated:
The government set the threshold for participation in the 2014 agreement on the basis of firms’ personal current account market share at the start of negotiations. Firms with a market share greater than 1 per cent of the market were invited to participate. The nine banks who have agreed to offer basic bank accounts at present, in line with the 2014 agreement, are: Barclays, the Co-operative Bank, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group (including Halifax and Bank of Scotland brands), National Australia Group (including Clydesdale and Yorkshire brands), Nationwide, RBS Group (including NatWest and Ulster Bank brands), Santander and TSB.

It is incredible therefore that the terms stated in Barclays letter contravene both of the anti-discrimination clauses of section 18 of the proposed banking regulations that Barclays has already agreed to implement.
Many of the recipients of the letter have held a current account with Barclays for decades, so there is no question of the “Due Diligence - Know Your Customer” banking regulations having a bearing on their decision.
Most deposits into most of these current account originate from within the UK. Almost all withdrawals from these current accounts originate from direct debits or standing orders that transfer money into accounts that are within the UK. Country of residence therefore has no bearing on the way this account is accessed and managed. Using the fact that the holders are non-UK resident as a reason to close the accounts is therefore discriminatory!
Most other transactions (i.e. ones that are not standing orders and direct debits) are done by internet banking, which has no dependence whatsoever on where in the world such transactions originate, so again this has no bearing on Barclays decision.

To put a condition of a minimum balance of £100,000 on keeping the current account open, which is not a condition for the majority of current accounts held with Barclays, is discriminatory (and could even be construed as blackmail for non-residents with individual accounts since this amount is £25,000 greater that the maximum covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme from 2016 onwards).

Is Barclays seriously telling these customers that they have to close their current accounts, then wait for a year to open a new one that Barclays is bound by law to accede to? This beggars belief! How does this fit with Barclays' new “financial strategy”? How in the meantime are people supposed to pay the direct debits and standing orders that they are committed to honouring? There are some Barclays customers who are non-UK-residents and whose pensions/salaries can only be paid into a UK bank account. How are they supposed to cope over the 1-year period?

Barclays' letter states that this closure of current accounts is part of a strategic decision by Barclays. Most people would find anyone making such strategy who did not take into consideration upcoming legislation against discrimination such as is evident in this decision and the fact that Barclays will start offering current accounts to non-residents a year later, incompetent at the very least, if not negligent in the utmost, especially as Barclays has signed up to accepting the proposed new legislation.

The letter says that Barclays understands that the customer may be disappointed by this. Most will categorically state that they are not disappointed, they are furious and astounded that Barclays is resorting to practices that are discriminatory and will shortly be (and probably already are) such as to lead to legal proceedings for discrimination!
The majority of the tens of thousands of previously loyal customers Barclays is trying to discard (for no valid reason, business or otherwise, that I can fathom) are probably retirees who have relatives, children and grandchildren back in the UK, most, if not all all of whom are almost certainly also loyal Barclays customers. Did the idiot who made the “strategic decision” take into account the loss of business that is likely to arise when they are advised to switch accounts to other banks in protest at Barclays' underhanded treatment of their relatives? What about those customers at the low end of Barclays' core markets, will they not too be worried by these developments?

What sort of idiotic strategy is so ill-conceived that it has discrimination as its cornerstone? What sort of idiotic strategy says “We, Barclays have supported current accounts for non-UK-residents for years. We will now cease support for one year, forcing all these accounts to close and earn us nothing but ill-will, charges of discrimination and bad publicity. After a year we will then support current accounts for non-UK-residents again.”?

I'd have thought the last thing that Barclays would want is a highly publicised discrimination scandal involving many thousands of customers coming so quickly on the heels of the Libor and PPI scandals! Does Barclays have a death wish? If I had shares in the company I'd be scrabbling to offload them. No wonder their share price is way down over 5 years compared to the FTSE 100.

I hope that before the deadline Barclays will come to their senses and realise the stupidity of this “strategic decision”. But I won't be holding my breath. As with the Libor scandal, Barclays has no idea of ethical treatment of its customers and believes itself to be above the law - but in the past it has always come back to haunt them.
The source document contains links to Microsoft WORD and PDF files of specimen letters for you to send to Barclays if you have been targetted by them in this underhand way.


source - BARCLAYS - Discrimination against ex-pats


----------



## PeteandSylv (Sep 24, 2008)

The issue of whether ex-pats will be affected by GB leaving the EU is not worth wasting time thinking about. In the unlikely event that GB was to leave it would not happen overnight but I do believe that there would be immediate efforts to put into place trade agreements, citizen's rights and benefits, reciprocal arrangements and lots of other legally defined issues. In other words I would anticipate that it would become "business as usual" based on negotiated agreements rather than EU dictates.

But in truth I nor you have any idea of exactly what would happen and all the conjecture in the world won't change that.

As far as Barclays is concerned I have no love for that organisation which has probably behaved worst of all the UK banks and I closed my account with them long ago. However I would be dismayed if there exists legislation that dictates that any company or business was unable to choose who they wished to do business with on flimsy grounds like discrimination or human rights.

Unless there is a breach of contract with the customer an organisation should be free to terminate their relationship just as the customer is entitled to do.

All the aggrieved Barclays customers will probably find themselves better off with alternative organisations so the only motivation for continuing looking for cause to deem the separation illegal is to support the compensation culture that has grown in the UK.

Pete


----------

