Most of the Leavers have already chucked their cards in the bin in disgust, we are mostly ex-members, a legacy from when the Conservative Party was a centre-right party, not the Liberal Democrats with less sandals.
Cheers for all the kind words and advice, fellas. I'm currently trawling through all the government websites at the minute, got the in laws coming over this afternoon to start the ball rolling, so just boning up on it all.
Condolences.
I agree with Rod that you should be a bit careful here. The government websites are quite good, but don't underestimate the amount of work and the financial commitment you might be taking on. The fact that there is no will, and there's a house to be sold, are both complicating factors.
One option you might consider is getting a solicitor to help with getting the legal side and tax side sorted, but with you (and perhaps other family members) doing the leg-work to keep costs down.
Wildly off topic, but I need a legal mind to pick for information. My brother in law passed away a couple of weeks ago, from cancer, but his passing was actually very unexpected, and he left no will. He has no spouse, but has living parents, and obviously my wife and her sister as living relatives. The thing is, that as there is no will, and as all the family are devastated, the parents want me to act as probate and to sort his affairs out (there is a house to sell, and various cars and motorbikes that he owned, and all the rest of the things that an adventurous life lived to the full collects.
Very sorry to hear about your brother in law
IANAL, but if he was intestate and unmarried then his parents are the sole beneficiaries of the estate. A simple letter from them appointing you to act on their behalf should be sufficient.
Depending on the size of the estate there may be probate hoops to jump through, but for average estates I believe these are relatively simple, although you may want to appoint a solicitor to handle the technicalities.
The gov.uk website looks quite good for this - to do the work yourself you need to apply for a grant of representation
Cheers for all the kind words and advice, fellas. I'm currently trawling through all the government websites at the minute, got the in laws coming over this afternoon to start the ball rolling, so just boning up on it all.
Hope I'm not talking out of turn, but don't be bounced into taking this job. Believe me, your commitment could extend years into the future. There is no pressure to get things started for a while yet, and acting in the immediate aftermath of a unexpected tragedy is probably not wise.
Discuss matters, by all means, but I would give no commitments to anyone without first obtaining, proper, paid-for, legal advice. Are you certain the deceased had no children?
Thanks Rod, that is one of my concerns, getting mired down in it. I'm pretty certain on the lack of children, as far as you reasonably can be. It is a raw time for the family, and my wife sort of volunteered me to step up, as I've done it once in the past for a close relative, and her family are obviously still traumatised by the speed of his passing (given 6 months to live, lasted 4 days, bless him) to get their heads around it. There will definitely be legal advice sought.
For the reasons I have stated previously and probably ad nauseam, I don't think that the deal Cameron has
Remain's case - at leaouts are outweighisadvantages.
In general, trying always to maintaintus quo as dishonest. ative somehow (perhaps consolidating our lead position in the non-eurozone bloc ) , but I will certainly give that some more thought.
I think Remain need to be frank about what Britain's role in a large integrated EU will be. We will not have much influence, if at all; we will be outvoted on most matters; we will not be "reforming" it; and so on. People may think the trade off worth it or not. But let's stop pretending that we will be anything other than a bit player, a wallflower, if you will, within the EU.
Good morning Cyclefree on this fine, sunny day.
So have I got this right? Inside the EU, the UK will be marginalised as all other EU nations move towards ECU and that will disadvantage the UK's vital national interests. Even our seat at the table will yield no material advantage to our position.
Outside, the EU, however, as the EU marches to that very same ECU, and makes all the rules for trading between and within the EU and formulates regulations for services sold into the EU, all without our input, we will be better off because....because....
do tell.
Because we will be free to (a) negotiate our own deals with third parties and (b) innovate around EU regulations to the extent that we want
I get the whole we would still be able to buy BMW thing, but do you think we could negotiate a better deal alone, say, with China, than we could as part of the EU?
The EU kicked the China FTA into the long grass, there is no trade deal, so yes, we probably can do better
And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.
Most of the Leavers have already chucked their cards in the bin in disgust, we are mostly ex-members, a legacy from when the Conservative Party was a centre-right party, not the Liberal Democrats with less sandals.
Also a legacy from when the party was losing?
As for centre right, spending as a proportion of GDP has come down by 5% and counting. Centre right 7nder my definition.
Objective one: protect the single market for Britain and others outside the Eurozone. What I mean by that is a set of binding principles that guarantee fairness between Euro and non-Euro countries.
Objective two: write competitiveness into the DNA of the whole European Union. And this includes cutting the total burden on business.
Objective three: exempt Britain from an “ever closer union” and bolster national parliaments. Not through warm words but through legally binding and irreversible changes.
Objective four: tackle abuses of the right to free movement, and enable us to control migration from the European Union, in line with our manifesto.
is what he said (November 2015).
He failed abjectly on Objective four. Then again I don't know what the manifesto said (can't be ar**d to look it up).
The other objectives he got. Plus he got an opt-out of the single rulebook.
Most of the Leavers have already chucked their cards in the bin in disgust, we are mostly ex-members, a legacy from when the Conservative Party was a centre-right party, not the Liberal Democrats with less sandals.
Fewer sandals, please
Been out the country too long, but events keep conspiring to stop me getting back!
And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.
Most of the Leavers have already chucked their cards in the bin in disgust, we are mostly ex-members, a legacy from when the Conservative Party was a centre-right party, not the Liberal Democrats with less sandals.
Also a legacy from when the party was losing?
As for centre right, spending as a proportion of GDP has come down by 5% and counting. Centre right 7nder my definition.
Quite. A legacy of that anomalous period when the Conservatives became a protest party, the only time in their history, and enabled Labour to win an unprecedented three straight elections.
Cheers for all the kind words and advice, fellas. I'm currently trawling through all the government websites at the minute, got the in laws coming over this afternoon to start the ball rolling, so just boning up on it all.
Condolences.
I agree with Rod that you should be a bit careful here. The government websites are quite good, but don't underestimate the amount of work and the financial commitment you might be taking on. The fact that there is no will, and there's a house to be sold, are both complicating factors.
One option you might consider is getting a solicitor to help with getting the legal side and tax side sorted, but with you (and perhaps other family members) doing the leg-work to keep costs down.
Sorry to hear your news. I would agree about not underestimating the work involved. A friend of mine was made executor of another friend's will. Turned out there were a number of hidden complications, debt issues and other 'friends' who had already started helping themselves to the deceased's property (e.g. a motorbike) (under the false illusion that they had been promised them).
I'm not saying there's much chance of any of this, but you might be wise to involve a solicitor and get the family to agree that they are happy for those costs to come out of the estate, before you agree to take on the task.
And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.
Most of the Leavers have already chucked their cards in the bin in disgust, we are mostly ex-members, a legacy from when the Conservative Party was a centre-right party, not the Liberal Democrats with less sandals.
Also a legacy from when the party was losing?
As for centre right, spending as a proportion of GDP has come down by 5% and counting. Centre right 7nder my definition.
Yes, I remember Mr Thatcher "losing" those 3 elections... maybe you are too young
As to spending, you are basically applauding a 30st man for losing a few pounds, when you are that overweight anyone but a idiot (ie Labour) can lose weight, but Osbrown has cut far too little and spent far too much.
It looks like the next test of Trump's political skills will be whether he can prevent a third candidate from within the GOP.
Long but well written. The possibility of an anti-Trump conservative candidate (Kasich? Cruz?) is worth looking at, even if the answer is no. Basically it would need a lot of fast action and a lot of money: the prospects of either are not great. The reason Bloomberg is possible is that he has lots of money, but he's not very conservative, of course.
The other objectives he got. Plus he got an opt-out of the single rulebook.
Not ideal, but not bad.
That remains to be seen. If it gets binned by the European Parliament a month after the Referendum, or laughed out of court by the ECJ a few months later, it might look a little less good. The odds of the later on the handbrake (migrants) is pretty high.
@SeanT - The Bloomberg speech laid out his vision for the EU. Very fine it was too. Unfortunately it's not in David Cameron's power to decide, for example, where the EU parliament meets.
There is no lie. He thinks he got a good deal. In the circumstances, he did, in my opinion. Others seem to disagree.
It's much like my Sussex Book Club. Most members thought The Ice Twins was rubbish. I thought it was quite good. None of us was lying.
Hah. Would that be the ICE TWINS which sold a million copies, is translated into 24 languages, including Albanian, Estonian and Taiwanese Chinese, and is being made into a movie? That one? How silly of Hollywood not to listen to the members of the "Mayfield book club".
The same goes for Cameron. There comes a time when the weight of opinion is so heavy the differing opinion of a few smelly Sussex geriatrics is irrelevant.
The weight of opinion is that Cameron lied.
The weight of your opinion Sean. Much as I am delighted the scales have fallen from your eyes (more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth etc.), there are many people who saw what a fraud he was yonks ago, and many people who still won't for a good while - potentially long after he has left office, Blair style. You shouldn't confuse your own stage on this timeline with wider public opinion. Much as I would be delighted if there was a discernible movement away from believing Cameron's greasy sales patter.
By the way, you should also just Vote Leave. Go with your instincts. Circumstances on paper don't last. People do. Your property price will thank you in the long run.
re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!
Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.
It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.
I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.
What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?
And the majority of card-carrying Tories on here will be voting Remain by my calculations.
Most of the Leavers have already chucked their cards in the bin in disgust, we are mostly ex-members, a legacy from when the Conservative Party was a centre-right party, not the Liberal Democrats with less sandals.
Also a legacy from when the party was losing?
As for centre right, spending as a proportion of GDP has come down by 5% and counting. Centre right 7nder my definition.
Yes, I remember Mr Thatcher "losing" those 3 elections... maybe you are too young
As to spending, you are basically applauding a 30st man for losing a few pounds, when you are that overweight anyone but a idiot (ie Labour) can lose weight, but Osbrown has cut far too little and spent far too much.
First six years of Thatcher 1979 42.75% 1980 44.54% 1981 45.29% 1982 45.56% 1983 43.20% 1984 42.59%
First six years of Cameron 2010 44.86% 2011 45.31% 2012 43.97% 2013 44.05% 2014 42.40% 2015 41.39%
Cameron and Osborne inherited a worse proportion spend of GDP than Thatcher did and have already got it significantly below what Thatcher did in the same period of time. But don't let facts get in your way.
re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!
Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.
It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.
I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.
What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?
I am perfectly happy with people coming here to work. I think London is one of the world's great cities because it draws the ambitious and the talented and the hungry from across Europe, acting as a magnet as only a few cities can.
But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.
@SeanT - The Bloomberg speech laid out his vision for the EU. Very fine it was too. Unfortunately it's not in David Cameron's power to decide, for example, where the EU parliament meets.
There is no lie. He thinks he got a good deal. In the circumstances, he did, in my opinion. Others seem to disagree.
It's much like my Sussex Book Club. Most members thought The Ice Twins was rubbish. I thought it was quite good. None of us was lying.
They are different things though:
A 'good' deal is an objective statement (although there is scope for different opinions).
'The best deal possible' may not be a good deal.
I am sure that Cameron thinks he got the best deal possible, but I doubt even he believes it's an objectively good deal
But you are fine for said negotiating team to continue to represent us!
The EU is an important but declining market. I'd rather we have the ability to rapidly agree treaties with other international markets.
Well, either we have the EU negotiating trade deals, or we have to negotiate our own (including re-doing all the ones which the EU already has, from scratch) with many dozens of other countries. Neither is simple, and again the Leavers airily dismiss the complexity, saying it will be all right on the night.
Maybe it will, but the fact that they seem completely uninterested in assessing what needs to be done doesn't inspire confidence.
... ''Major blow for Brexit campaign as US rules out UK-only trade deal'' (Telegraph report amongst others) This is such a major blow that Leavers calmly ignore it. ''US Trade Representative says America has no interest in a trade deal with Britain alone, urging it to remain in the EU'' ''The United States has ruled out a separate trade deal with UK if it leaves the European Union, in a major blow to Brexit campaigners. President Obama’s most senior trade official said that America is “not in the market” for a free trade deal with Britain alone, and warned British firms could face crippling Chinese-style tariffs outside the EU.'' ...
Oh yes another threat from Project Fear. Those nasty Americans that we work with in 5 Eyes want to really sever links and stop the vast amount of co-operation that goes on? FFS.
@SeanT - The Bloomberg speech laid out his vision for the EU. Very fine it was too. Unfortunately it's not in David Cameron's power to decide, for example, where the EU parliament meets.
There is no lie. He thinks he got a good deal. In the circumstances, he did, in my opinion. Others seem to disagree.
It's much like my Sussex Book Club. Most members thought The Ice Twins was rubbish. I thought it was quite good. None of us was lying.
They are different things though:
A 'good' deal is an objective statement (although there is scope for different opinions).
'The best deal possible' may not be a good deal.
I am sure that Cameron thinks he got the best deal possible, but I doubt even he believes it's an objectively good deal
Remarkable failure in game playing the negotiations. Now if Cameron had stated "this is unacceptable" and walked away, he could have left the Eu to think about it during 2016, knowing that there was a risk that unless it was improved Cameron would have to recommend LEAVe before the end of 2017.
re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!
Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.
It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.
I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.
What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?
He did not obtain an opt out from the single rule book. I know some of you like Richard N. think this is the case but unfortunately you are wrong.
Everyone on here do far has been quoting the final text from the European Council which is of course what Cameron wants you to do. Unfortunately that final text is only 1 of 7 documents that were agreed at the time of the negotiation and which make up the final deal overall.
The deal itself consists if the 7 documents or annexes and it is Annex 2 which makes clear that the Single Rulebook applies to all EU countries whether inside or outside the Eurozone. Cameron did not obtain an exemption from this.
A thought has occurred to me, the EU is trying to stop people entering from outside, if proponents of Leave suggest we stop people trying to enter the UK they're branded racist by EU supporters.
Can't work that one out.
The EU is trying to stop people illegally entering from outside, exactly like we do. If we weren't there wouldn't be anyone in the jungle as they'd be here. Maybe if the EU was as good as we are then there'd be less of a drama.
Comments
I agree with Rod that you should be a bit careful here. The government websites are quite good, but don't underestimate the amount of work and the financial commitment you might be taking on. The fact that there is no will, and there's a house to be sold, are both complicating factors.
One option you might consider is getting a solicitor to help with getting the legal side and tax side sorted, but with you (and perhaps other family members) doing the leg-work to keep costs down.
As for centre right, spending as a proportion of GDP has come down by 5% and counting. Centre right 7nder my definition.
Objective one: protect the single market for Britain and others outside the Eurozone. What I mean by that is a set of binding principles that guarantee fairness between Euro and non-Euro countries.
Objective two: write competitiveness into the DNA of the whole European Union. And this includes cutting the total burden on business.
Objective three: exempt Britain from an “ever closer union” and bolster national parliaments. Not through warm words but through legally binding and irreversible changes.
Objective four: tackle abuses of the right to free movement, and enable us to control migration from the European Union, in line with our manifesto.
is what he said (November 2015).
He failed abjectly on Objective four. Then again I don't know what the manifesto said (can't be ar**d to look it up).
The other objectives he got. Plus he got an opt-out of the single rulebook.
Not ideal, but not bad.
Been out the country too long, but events keep conspiring to stop me getting back!
I'm not saying there's much chance of any of this, but you might be wise to involve a solicitor and get the family to agree that they are happy for those costs to come out of the estate, before you agree to take on the task.
As to spending, you are basically applauding a 30st man for losing a few pounds, when you are that overweight anyone but a idiot (ie Labour) can lose weight, but Osbrown has cut far too little and spent far too much.
New Thread New Thread
Labour managed something similar from 1975 to 1979.
By the way, you should also just Vote Leave. Go with your instincts. Circumstances on paper don't last. People do. Your property price will thank you in the long run.
re competitiveness - so you're telling me that the "burden reduction implementation mechanism” is not going to make life easier for SMEs??!! Pah!
Look I think it is less than brilliant but upon examination I think it is ok. He got the biggies - the UK's exemption of no ECU codified in EU law; specific opt-outs from eurozone discrimination; and exemption from the single rulebook.
It costs us about £55m to pay for absent childrens' child benefit so I can live with that.
I would be interested in what those with a genuinely open mind wanted. EEA maintains ironically the one objective he failed in - controlling migration.
What do they want and if no renegotiation would have worked, then why worry about its contents or the spin put on it?
1979 42.75%
1980 44.54%
1981 45.29%
1982 45.56%
1983 43.20%
1984 42.59%
First six years of Cameron
2010 44.86%
2011 45.31%
2012 43.97%
2013 44.05%
2014 42.40%
2015 41.39%
Cameron and Osborne inherited a worse proportion spend of GDP than Thatcher did and have already got it significantly below what Thatcher did in the same period of time. But don't let facts get in your way.
But I don't see why the UK taxpayer should give benefits to non-UK citizens. Really, it seems like a no brainer to me. And I believe we can best achieve that goal outside the EU.
A 'good' deal is an objective statement (although there is scope for different opinions).
'The best deal possible' may not be a good deal.
I am sure that Cameron thinks he got the best deal possible, but I doubt even he believes it's an objectively good deal
Everyone on here do far has been quoting the final text from the European Council which is of course what Cameron wants you to do. Unfortunately that final text is only 1 of 7 documents that were agreed at the time of the negotiation and which make up the final deal overall.
The deal itself consists if the 7 documents or annexes and it is Annex 2 which makes clear that the Single Rulebook applies to all EU countries whether inside or outside the Eurozone. Cameron did not obtain an exemption from this.