makfai

[quote user="woolybanana"]Nonsense. Not contributing would be a better definition. I pay taxes therefore I am and therefore I am entitled. Point à la ligne. Valeurs republicaines.[/quote] I agree with woolyb...if you are paying taxes you are economically active!

[quote user="ams"] I think one should give consideration to other economic factors that are also in play in relation to health. The vast majority of non french Eu citizens that come to france pay into the health system, either through work or via the CMU. In the main those of us that have been deemed to be inactive generally are of an age that is in the late fifties to early sixties. therefore the time spent as a burden to the french state is relatively small. As soon as those people reach official retirement age, they tend to remain in the country and no longer become a financial burden on the state as their country of origin picks up the tap. Not many french people are aware of this fact, actually i have yet to meet on french person that does understand, rather they consider people at retirement as a financial burden. the actual truth is that the french health system is in the fortunate situation of obtaining vast sums of money from other EU states and at the same time creating golden training and employment opportunities for their health professionals at no expense. In addition we bring in vast investment sums into the country.   ams [/quote]   I agree, I think someone needs to review what 'inactive' means in all this. 

[quote user="Sunday Driver"] makfai As Ron says, the 'equal treatment with the nationals of that member state' applies to people who have rights of residency which, according to EU and French law, occurs after five years.  Until then, any inactive EU citizen must comply with the regulations for sufficiency of resources and private health insurance as provided for in 2004/38/EC. The political and economic reality is that if France or any other EU state were to create 'more favourable conditions' by repealing those resource/healthcare requirements, then they open the floodgates to everyone from Belfast to the Black Sea with an income less than 8,000€ to come and receive social security benefits and free healthcare.  And as far as talking about a contributory scheme, if the UK's 3,000€ contribution covers an E106/121 holder's health costs, then an inactive under CMU would need to have resources amounting to around 40,000€ pa to match that contribution.  Not many of those around, I'll bet.... I think you are flogging a dead horse, to be honest.  The currently lobbying activity is rightly focused upon on the retrospective element of the new regulations which unfairly impacts on UK inactives currently resident and settled here. To imagine that you can extend the strategy to include the rights of all future inactive immigrants is naieve in the extreme...   [/quote] I think you present a good argument in support of what the French are doing now.  I don't agree with what they are doing but if the health of existing affiliates of the CMU has caused such problems maybe I should not be opposing it!  Only joking of course!  What I do find rather unusual is this idea is that there is only one strategy to be adopted.  I do not see why arguments about 'retrospective' application should EXCLUDE other arguments.  There seems little point in me arguing the merits of an issue with you when you could clarify it with people better qualified than I. The 'equality argument' being presented is underpinned with legal advice from the EU Signpost Service.  They and ECAS are worth approaching if you would like to clarify the position on this issue and, as you will note, I have hyperlinked their names (above) to their websites.   It is a little lengthy so apologies, but I have for completeness included here the legal advice from the EU Signpost Service.  If you do wish to contact them please feel free to quote the following references 'Enquiry No: 45686 and  Enquiry 45501'. Enquiry No 45501   3. Changes to rules on healthcare in France We understand that the French government has changed the rules on healthcare registration. We understand that from now on, if you are an inactive person, the French authorities will require you to obtain private healthcare. This does not affect workers, students or pensioners. You can find out more about these changes here: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthadvicefortravellers/DH_078670 The specific condition as relates to health insurance in Directive 2008/34 is that you must “have comprehensive sickness insurance cover in the host Member State”. There is no requirement that this needs to be private cover. You should also know that the same Directive gives you a right to equal treatment, which means that you cannot be treated less favourably than French nationals. Article 24 specifically states that “all Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State within the scope of the Treaty.” Whilst the French government is entitled to change rules on healthcare rules for “inactive” persons, this is subject to the condition that the new French rules apply equally and in the same manner to French nationals and EU citizens. In the event that the new French rules apply solely to EU citizens, whilst allowing French nationals to remain covered by CMU or the CPAM, this could be considered unlawful discrimination under EU law. In that event, as a matter of EU law, you must be entitled to continue to affiliate to the CMU or the CPAM under the same conditions as French nationals. Enquiry No: 45686 Article 24 of Directive 2004/38 states that: “Subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law, all Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State within the scope of the Treaty. The benefit of this right shall be extended to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have the right of residence or permanent residence.” This means that any derogation to the principle of equal treatment must be explicitly stated in the Treaty or in secondary law which includes EU legislative measures such as Directives, Regulations and Decisions as interpreted by the case law of the European Court of Justice. An example of such a derogation is contained in Paragraph 2 of Article 24, which limits the right to equal treatment as regards “entitlement to social assistance during the first three months of residence or” and assistance by way of “student grants or student loans”. Article 7 of the Directive lays down a right to residence for periods in excess of 3 months for students, workers and self-sufficient persons. It does not lay down any exceptions other than paragraph 4 of Article 7 in respect of family members who qualify for a right to reside with a student.   As regards the 3000 euros issue, that is the figure you quoted not I.  I have never seen any costing figures for contributions v expenditure based on demographics so I do not know what a realistic projection may be.  BUT for a person with pre-existing conditions then 3000 euros may well be seen as acceptable.  Perhaps, we should offer another alternative...affiliation to the CMU at a flat rate of 3000 euros per year or private health insurance? As regards the potential residents I may be 'naive' but I doubt 'in the extreme'...although it is such a catchy phrase that it is always tempting to drop it in isn't it?  Strangely enough, I don't even think I am naive (except for plugging away for causes which I find unjust in the belief that it is right to do so) but, while clichés are being tossed around I may as well add...'Well I would say that, wouldn't I?' There are very extensive and cogent arguments which relate to the reasonableness/legality of applying this legislation to 'potential'  residents as you will see when they are aired.  So flogging a dead horse or not that horse is going to get a flogging.[B] On a broader note I have just received a letter from a Mr Markos KYPRIANOU of the EU Commission.  He said the following (Apologies again for the length) Thank you for your letter of 6 November 2007 concerning the French Healthcare System, CMU. This subject in fact falls within the portfolio of my colleague Vladimir Spidla, Member of the European Commission responsible for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. I have therefore forwarded your letter to him for the appropriate follow up. More generally on health services, we are finalising legal proposals to put in place a Community framework for safe, high-quality and efficient cross-border healthcare. Our aim is to provide a clear set of rules to that will enable better use of cross-border healthcare, to ensure common principles for EU health systems in which citizens can have confidence wherever healthcare is provided, and to help realise the potential added-value of European cooperation through healthcare cooperation in border regions, centres of reference for specialised treatments, or new health technologies. This framework will complement the existing regulations on coordination of social security schemes. So we will all no doubt be pleased to know that some other arrangements WITH ADDED-VALUE are in the planning stages[:-))]  

[quote user="Ron Avery"] If you are as I undestand it you are challenging the legality of this Directive aren't you challenging a main plank of the criteria by which freedom of movement of EU residents was approved by the EU? [/quote] I am not being intentionally obtuse here but I don't follow your reasoning. Maybe these comments will clarify things. The legality of the French legislation is being challenged because it conflicts with Article 24 (1) of the Directive which says that [my highlights]:   ‘Subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law, all Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State within the scope of the Treaty. The benefit of this right shall be extended to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have the right of residence or permanent residence.’ The rules do not apply to French nationals nor to non-EU nationals.  They are, therefore, not only discriminatory but also contradict this Article. Article 37 of the Directive also says  ‘The provisions of this Directive shall not affect any laws, regulations or administrative provisions laid down by a Member State which would be more favourable to the persons covered by this Directive.’ So each State is free to continue with or introduce provisions even if they are more favourable. In the French case what I am talking about is the exclusion of people from a CONTRIBUTORY health scheme and not a FREE one.  If the French felt that the scheme was underfunded by the amount of contributions they could have addressed that underfunding without using this Directive to exclude people as a means of balancing the books. Does that help clarify anything?

[quote user="Ron Avery"] [quote user="cooperlola"]PERSONALLY I believe that although we have to concentrate on those most in need - for logistical reasons if nothing else - at the moment,   I think the iniquity of using a piece of legislation which states openly that it is to "promote free movement" with the Union, to do the precise opposite, is just plain wrong and I will continue to oppose it in any way I can.[/quote]  There is a key word you are missing out of the legislation being liberally bandied around to justify some sort of claim for continued health care for all and that is workers.  Which is exactly the opposite to what the 37,000 odd people affected by this change are. [/quote] Ron... have a read of the legislation and this official EU guide to it.  It is not about free movement of workers.  It explicitly says the opposite! The Guide will further familiarise Union citizens with the rights and freedoms afforded them by this Directive, whether or not they perform an economic activity in the host Member State. http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/frattini/archive/guide_2004_38_ec_en.pdf

[quote user="Boiling a frog"] I was paraphrasing what the Depute said in the French National assembly. [/quote] I know you were.  I was replying to your paraphrase.

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]  inactives not to be a burden on the state and health cover. [/quote]   Are inactives in France a burden on state and health cover?

[quote user="cooperlola"]PERSONALLY I believe that although we have to concentrate on those most in need - for logistical reasons if nothing else - at the moment,   I think the iniquity of using a piece of legislation which states openly that it is to "promote free movement" with the Union, to do the precise opposite, is just plain wrong and I will continue to oppose it in any way I can.[/quote] I support that stance.  For the French Government to say that the changes are driven by EU Directive 2004/38EC clearly undermines the changes they have introduced.

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]  health tourists having come to France for better treatment under the French health system. But that is of course only my opinion   [/quote]   Health tourists do not normally take up residence.

[quote user="rothrugby"] I know this may seem a bit harsh, but France does have the right to make laws, some good & some not & if we try to push them too hard then we might lose whatever sympathy we have. [/quote] I do not accept that any Government has the right to remain unchallenged if they make some laws which are 'not good'.  I also find it difficult to get to grips with concepts which seem to suggest that 'future' residents living under the same rules as existing residents would create financial problems for France while those existing residents wont.  If those rules are causing problems for France then it may well be that the French Government's changes on healthcare cover are NOT unreasonable.  Personally, I don't accept that current or future 'expat' residents will create a significant burden on the economy. I have found these discussions rather illuminating.  I have always fully supported the case for all existing residents to have access to healthcare on the terms which previously existed.  I equally feel that those terms should continue to apply to new residents.  I am not sure why existing 'expat' residents should feel that it is OK to have more restrictive terms for EU citizens than it does for non-EU Citizens and themselves. The French Government knows what the EU is all about. An essential aspect is that it creates the concept of EU Citizenship.  This aspect has been directly explained by Franco Frattini Vice President of the European Commission in the publication directly related to this EU Directive 'Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the Union.....Guide on how to get the best out of Directive 2004/38/EC' 'Civis europaeus sum' which may be found here Community law, in the form of Directive 2004/38/EC, fulfils one of humanity’s most long-standing aspirations: the possibility of moving without restrictions or hindrances and settling down in the country of one’s choice together with one’s family. This “Guide” is part of our efforts to fully familiarise Union citizens with the rights and advantages they enjoy thanks to EU membership, to enable them to call upon their new legal status and to declare “civis europaeus sum”. So I have never understood why people who are in the EU and aspire to settle down in the country of their choice should be placed at a disadvantage compared with non-EU immigrants and people already resident in that country.  The principle of the EU Directive was intended to 'fulfil one of humanity's most long-standing aspirations: the possibility of moving without restrictions or hindrances'.  Is that what the the French Government has achieved for 'potential residents'?  Certainly not for those who may experience problems in obtaining insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

[quote user="Boiling a frog"] The position at the moment is that there are around 30000 people who have access to CMU [/quote] I think the real hang-up with the proposed new system (which we saw briefly yesterday) is not so much about those already the CMU but the appeals process. So I am hoping that this statistic alone should terrify the CNAM/CPAM people.  If you were in CNAM/CPAM would you want these 30,000 rejected and then have to deal with their appeals?  Add to these the complications of dealing with the E106 appeals (which pose their own special blend of problems!) and you have a real mess as has been raised at page 60 of this topic

[quote user="Russethouse"] The French health provision is in trouble and cannot afford to support people who were never intended to be included in the CMU.  [/quote] I am confused by this statement. If you say that it was never intended that residents from overseas should affiliate to the CMU does this mean that you agree with the policy announced by the French Government in September and people should be removed?  Or is it that only new arrivals should be barred? Personally I have never understood how people can say that the French Government never 'intended' for 'expats' to be affiliated to the CMU.  The French Government knew when they introduced the law that they had residents from other EU States.  They have also known SINCE that law was introduced that they had such persons - they have taken money off them and treated them. They also knew that EU law permitted them to make changes YEARS AGO but they did the opposite - made it compulsory to 'join' the CMU !  Below is an edited extract from the draft paper on the effect on 'potential residents' which touches on this 1.      The requirement for potential residents to be ‘covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State’ has been part of EU law for over a decade.[1]  In that time the French Government has consistently failed to apply that criterion.  In fact, the contrary applies.   2.      As we have seen, the French Government has, for the past seven years, made it compulsory by law for all residents to be part of the state system! [2]  3.      It is, therefore, perfectly ‘legitimate’ for people to expect that the situation which had been in place for years would continue.    4.      In this context it is worthy of note that, in the three years following the publication of the Directive, there had never been any suggestion that the French Government would change existing procedures. This is despite a clear and unambiguous requirement for them to publish details of any changes.[3]  [1] See examples at :Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0364:EN:HTML      Council Directive 90/365/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed       persons who have ceased their occupational activity http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31990L0365:EN:HTML [2] Loi DDOS of 4th February 1995 and Loi 99-641 CMU of 27th July 1999 [3] Article 34 of EU Directive 2004/38EC   So if the French Government HAD made a mistake when the legislation was introduced, and had overlooked the fact that they had residents who were citizens of other EU States, they have had plenty of time to correct that oversight! Another factor to be considered in this context is that residents who are from non-EU States are, despite the new and current legislation, STILL able to affiliate to the CMU. This piece of French legislation refers only to citizens of EU States.  This has been confirmed by Stephanie Gaillard the spokesperson on Social Security matters for the French Government.  So I do not support the argument that the CMU was never 'intended' for overseas residents who came to live in France - it was and STILL is (as long as you are not from the EU).

[quote user="Jazzer"] If this is the system that is adopted would I be right in assuming the following   For someone who has an E106 expiring in January, one party in good health the other with pre-existing condition.Social contribution of 8%, PHI premiums for the healthy person and €7272 for the other plus top up insurance? [/quote] This is a good point. I have already discussed this with someone who is preparing info for FHI and said that the issue for E106 holders could become complicated not least because of the question of whether affiliation to the CMU for one person would extend cover to that person's dependents. I explained that, as I saw it at this time,  There are two major categories: there are those who were in residence before the 'effective date'  (was 1 October 2007 may now be 23 November 2007) there are those who have (or will) become resident after the 'effective date'  (was 1 October 2007 may now be 23 November 2007) but there are also several sub-categories to the two main categories those who  do not have pre-existing conditions and have no dependents  those  who do have pre-existing conditions and have no dependents those who do not have pre-existing conditions and their dependent also does not  those who do have pre-existing conditions but their dependent does not those who do have pre-existing conditions and their dependent ALSO has a  pre-existing condition Whatever the outcome of the French Government's current deliberations I suspect that there will be things to iron out for E106 holders and that is why I was hoping to raise NOW with the French Govt how they might treat E106 holders.  Based on previous performance I do not feel it safe to assume that they have thought this through.  BUT others have argued I should not rock the boat. If I was an E106 holder whose cover expired in a few weeks I would want to be seeking answers now bearing in mind we are entering a holiday period.  In the time that is left and with these holidays approaching, what will happen if these people want to appeal? Has that been given enough thought by the French Government? Will they be given affiliation to the CMU until the appeal is completed?  There is an argument for such treatment under Article 41 of the CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2000/C 364/01) [see below]  but it is going to take time to get THAT argument accepted and time is not on the side of the E106 holders whose entitlement expires next month.  This is one of the reasons why I believed that delaying lobbying for their cause was not an option. Article 41 Right to good administration 1. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies of the Union. 2. This right includes: . the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken; . the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy; . the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.

RON said  I seemed to be 'challenging the legal right of the French to make conditions for entry to France to EU citizens'. This is simply wrong. In my paper available on the FHI website here  I clearly said 18. There is no suggestion that there are any grounds to mount a challenge against the lawful authority of an EU state to make its own rules on healthcare.  That right for all  EU states has been fundamental to the Treaty.  19. Equally, there is no doubt that legislation on other matters within the EU may have an impact on each state’s individual healthcare arrangements.  20. The legislation introduced in EU Directive 2004/38/EC is such a piece of legislation.  It legislates on rights of residence but it contains arrangements that, when implemented, will clearly impact on healthcare. I do not dispute the 'right' of Governments to make laws but the 'right' to make a law does not make that law 'right'!  All EU States are bound by EU law.  As has been emphasised, the legislation which is the subject of this campaign is, and always has been, primarily IMMIGRATION legislation NOT healthcare. EU States do not have the same degree as autonomy in immigration legislation as they do in healthcare legislation.  But even then no one has challenged the right of the French Government to make laws.  What has been challenged is the law which has been made. If you think the French Government legislation is legally invulnerable to challenge just because the Government has made it, then that principle has to apply across the board. This legislation affects existing as well as future residents; if we can't challenge the latter we can't challenge the former.  If that is the case we would have to abandon fighting for anyone in or out of the CMU! So, NO, I do not challenge the right of a Government to make laws but that does not prevent me from challenging the laws which have been made.  If the opposite was true we would still be holding witch trials and other things.  For example, on a lighter note, did you know that the law requiring a London taxi driver to carry a bale of hay on top of his cab to feed the horse was in force until 1976? For some American examples have a look here and there is even a book available on the UK ones.

[quote user="Deimos"]And this months nominee for the "Should have thought it through" award is the French government.  Recent successes in the "Should have known better" awards seem to have helped them move on to better and better.  On an individual basis their leader and recent repeat winner of the "Should have tried harder" award should be feeling very proud of their achievements under his guidance. And who knows, there is still all to fight for in the "Seemed like a good idea at the time" knock-out competition. Ian[/quote] [:D][:D][:D]

[quote user="krusty"][quote user="makfai"]  There will be some, however, who will have been 'mid-deal' so to speak when this all started and will have been trapped by the lack of info.  [/quote] Some very good points makfai (wish I was as good with words as you)  and glad you pointed out the people who are `mid-deal` they seam to have been forgotton. [/quote]   Thank you for the comments. Wish I was better with words, then perhaps I could avoid confrontation while contributing!

[quote user="Russethouse"]  The main reason I think this is not the  time to make challenges on all fronts is that there are real cases of genuine need where people are in a position where they are in danger of losing access to life saving treatment, in three weeks time. If a more wide ranging challenge is made, my great fear is that the French government will not give any ground at all, nor settle anything, until the entire matter is settled - that could take years - and at what cost? [/quote] You may well be right. I, like everyone else on the outside, cannot know what will influence the French Government in this matter.  Their decision making appears to be being done on the 'hoof'  as problems are identified to them (a good argument in my mind for continuing to lobby) . I suppose it is easy to say with hindsight, but the reason the French Government got into this position in the first place is lack of consultation before preparing a policy which we only saw published in September and they have now compounded that by inadequately consulting with their own administrators before formulating an amended policy.  Had they adhered to the EU Directive in the first place and worked on pre-implementation publicity etc we need not be where we are now as they would have had feedback before the implementation date.  So, frankly, if one is dealing with that level of naivety at that level of Government I suppose anything can happen.  But I don't see how the authorities can now retreat from their 'leaked' position in respect of persons already affiliated to the CMU. With the amount of publicity that this aspect has received from French spokespersons and the latest 'leak' from the DoH in UK then they must see that they are in a real corner. Everyone can see that the French Government has acknowledged to the UK Government that there is a case for change so I don't believe that they could see retreat from that as a viable option. So thanks UK Gov for that 'mistake'. As regards those whose E106s expire in three weeks time, you may recall that my previous argument with someone on this site arose because I was encouraging people to keep on lobbying for that category of resident. The counter-argument that was put to me  was similar to that which you are now putting in respect of 'potential' and other residents who are neither E106 holders or affiliated to the CMU - i.e. 'it is not the right time'.  While indicating there may be concessions for persons affiliated to the CMU, sadly for the E106 holders, the French have remained consistent in respect of E106 holders in saying that the status quo will not be maintained.  So I doubt that any lobbying could lead to a deterioration in their position! What I would like to ask you is this.  If the terms of the new arrangement were to be as was disclosed in the UK's DoH statement, would you then say that it was fine to argue for categories other than those who had already affiliated to the CMU or should we wait for something else before doing this?  If you suggest we wait, then what would it need in order to create the 'right time' to pursue these matters? This is not intended as a 'loaded' question - I am genuinely interested in understanding when you think the 'right time' will be.

Never saw it on the Brit Embassy site but did see it as Clair said on the UK's DoH site at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthadvicefortravellers/DH_078670 and that has gone

[quote user="Russethouse"] makfai, I'm sorry but I resent the inference that because a view does not coincide with your own, its valueless or shouldn't be discussed. The perspective I am coming from is that when any individual moves to another country it is up to them to weigh up the pro's and cons and make a decision based on the facts as they see them, taking into account their personal circumstances. Anyone moving to France in the future will know what the score is and be able to make their decision appropriately. Those who have moved in the past 5 years have had the goal posts moved - they made their decision on a set of facts that have been substantially altered, retrospective legislation is unfair. What you seem to be championing is a much bigger change, if you can make an argument for France, are you going to also include Spain.....? [/quote]   If you have a look again at what I said you will perhaps see that the reference to 'valueless' was to the discussions I had on a previous matter. I never suggested your comment was valueless.  I think my track-record on here and elsewhere demonstrates that I am always happy to discuss matters ('at length' as some have said [:)] ) as long as it is the issues and not the author which is discussed.  In fact being an advocate of all having a voice is what brought me into conflict with yourself and others in the first place. If you look back to the post which unwittingly created your resentment you will see that I explained my position on the discussion of issues by saying: 'As I keep saying, all groups have a right to voice their views.  It is not reasonable that one set of views should dominate and/or seek to suppress those of others.'  So I don't think it is I who is attempting to suggest certain matters should not be discussed.  Quite the opposite, I am challenging such suggestions. That stance of curbing discussion has been taken by others including recently in regard to the 'future' residents yourself.  I am arguing for all person to be allowed to have a say.  What I didn't want to get into again was the kind of valueless discussion I was having with another contributor recently.  As was pointed out by others the tenor of such correspondence is not helpful but I, similar to the view you have now expressed, do not like any views to be suppressed. As regards the issues themselves, I quite agree that persons coming from other countries have the chance to weigh things up and in that regard are not disadvantaged.  There will be some, however, who will have been 'mid-deal' so to speak when this all started and will have been trapped by the lack of info.  I also think that the mere fact that these new rules have been put in place should not mean that we automatically accept them as right. If I had taken that view I would have had to adopt it in relation to the application of the rules across the board but I didn't.  I  fully agree that it is despicable that persons who are already residents of France (I include E106 holders in this by the way) should have been subjected to this turmoil.  But I do not see that my support for those persons I have mentioned should preclude me arguing that the rules are wrong for future residents.   I was surprised when you said 'What you seem to be championing is a much bigger change, if you can make an argument for France, are you going to also include Spain.....?'   You said yourself that 'there is an argument to be made about future immigrants and their health care,' So, presumably, you too can make an argument for France.  Perhaps we should compare notes to see if we could share ideas? When you said 'I appreciate there is an argument to be made about future immigrants and their health care, but surely now is not the time to do it ?' I replied simply by saying 'I am not saying you are wrong but when would be the best time? After discussions have concluded and decisions made or when the matter is being discussed?' I still do not know when you think it would be the best time.  Personally, I don't see why it cannot be now. The issues for future residents have already been well researched and (as you may or not be aware) have already been the subject of some 'light' lobbying so this topic is not exactly new.  As far as I am aware FHI and others have had this on their agenda from 'day one'.  However, with limited resources the priority had to be given to those for whom the issue is more time-critical.  I believe that was a wholly correct tactic. However, it is now several months since this issue came into focus and the arguments for the existing residents have been well rehearsed and aired. That is not to say that they should not continue - quite the opposite!...this is the time to keep pressing their cause.  But, as more time and resources become available, I don't see why ALL categories cannot now be fought for.  If the status quo was restored and people could once again affiliate to the CMU would that be a bad thing?  I don't see new residents being any more of a 'burden' (word used by another contributor and not mine!) than existing ones.  Personally, I have never accepted the burden argument. I think overall there is an economic advantage to having UK citizens resident in France. If not an advantage then cost-neutral at worst. As regards your (and others) query on international matters, I have been in contact with the Home Office for some time regarding the situation in the UK.  In brief, I think they find it tricky! As regards Spain they have an active lobby-group of their own and I am not familiar with the Spanish legal structures. I am, for example, aware that some areas of Spain apply the EU Directive while others don't.  As regards other countries I am less well informed about them than I am about Spain!  However, once it is published, the Spanish and anyone else in any country will be welcome to use the (somewhat lengthy I am afraid) position paper which was drafted weeks ago on the subject of the effect on 'potential' residents.  

[quote user="Tony F Dordogne"][quote user="Russethouse"] If people move to France now they should be fully aware of the new legislation and 'mood' of this government and make their decision accordingly. I appreciate there is an argument to be made about future immigrants and their health care, but surely now is not the time to do it ?   [/quote] Russethouse has to be right on this - the argument we're using in this campaign is that people moved to France fully aware of the regulations as they then stood and now the argument is that you can't change them retrospectively as the French government seem to be wanting to do. To bring in a new argument - that covers hypothetical immigrants at some future date - dilutes the campaign.  Surely we're not saying that the French government can't change the rules in advance of new immigrants coming here, if so, governments would never change anything?   [/quote]   I do not accept that Russethouse is right on this.  The position re the rights of existing residents is made clear here It is also incorrect to suggest that this is a new argument.  This has never only been about existing residents it has been about the legality of the legislation and its application as it impacts on ALL those affected. I wont drag this out and get into valueless discussions as I did before but this legislation DOES NOT affect only one group of persons.  As I keep saying, all groups have a right to voice their views.  It is not reasonable that one set of views should dominate and/or seek to suppress those of others.  ANY category affected has the right to challenge the application of this law and each category should be able to expect support from the other. I am hoping that FHI will continue to fight for all persons affected.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Policyandguidance/Healthadvicefortravellers/DH_078670

[quote user="Russethouse"] If people move to France now they should be fully aware of the new legislation and 'mood' of this government and make their decision accordingly. I appreciate there is an argument to be made about future immigrants and their health care, but surely now is not the time to do it ?   [/quote]   I am not saying you are wrong but when would be the best time? After discussions have concluded and decisions made or when the matter is being discussed?

[quote user="Ron Avery"]  Unless I am very much mistaken, its not only France who are enabling this EU legislation to prevent immigrants coming to their country and being a burden on the state, other EU countries including Spain and the UK are doing it as well. [/quote]   So existing immigrants are not a burden but new ones would be?  Does that argument work? The retrospective aspect is only a plank of the arguments in regard to one category i.e. existing residents.  One of the main planks of the whole argument is that the matter is simply illegal because Article 24 (1) of the Directive says that [my emphasis]:    ‘Subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law, all Union citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host Member State shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State within the scope of the Treaty. The benefit of this right shall be extended to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have the right of residence or permanent residence.’  

I am completely happy to leave my discussions over the text I prepared where they are now.  Let each person make his or her mind up as to what course of action they wish to take. I would also make it clear that the FHI has and continues to have my full support in its efforts.  They have a thankless task in what is a crisis situation. Equally, I would encourage everyone not to leave this issue to the efforts of just those who make up the FHI.  Make your suggestions to them and the Forums, the FHI needs practical as well as moral support.

[quote user="Sunday Driver"] The outstanding success of the FHI group has been largely due to having targetted those people who have the most influence and who have been able to make the greatest impact upon our cause - the international political big guns like Mary Honeyball, Jim Murphy, et al. This has been the most effective lobbying strategy, and is evidenced by the results to date. Let's continue to support them and heed cooperlola's advice.   [/quote] I second that (indeed, have actively engaged in that) but do not see that one tactic should exclude another.