Lobbying !

[makfai]

Thanks for the praise but I understand that others may have told Sir Robert what they thought having seen his comments!  Certainly Deimos gave him some 'advice'! So thanks to all.

Pity Sir Robert could not see fit to take a stronger stance and write to seome people.

[Benjamin]

I have copied Paul Laffin's reply to all Conservative MEPs so if that doesn't get them signing then nothing will.

I do appreciate that this whole exercise has only been possible with an awful lot of effort from an awful lot of people.

[Joshua]

BBC Newsnight and Radio Five Live are doing a programme regarding Immigration on Thursday Night

They are asking for emails on the subject.

I've made the point about immigration being tempered by emigration.

France, was until now, popular with the Brit's for retirement !

Joshua[:D]

[Glyn]

I have just recieved the following from my Conservative MEP. This is the same one who originally informed me that he was not interested. All I can say is keep plugging away, it can work.

Thank you for your email. I believe the following will set out my position on this issue and my support of the Written Declaration to which you refer.

Healthcare provision for foreign nationals living in other countries is subject to reciprocal agreements drawn up between the individual nation states. Historically the French government has allowed free access to their healthcare system for United Kingdom nationals under such an arrangement drawn up with the British government. However, the Sarkozy administration has now said that, while this arrangement will remain unchanged for all foreign nationals resident in France who are OVER the age of retirement, it shall no longer apply for those foreign nationals living in France who are UNDER the age of retirement.

I appreciate that this will cause considerable difficulties to a great many British nationals resident in France and it has, in my view, been singularly badly handled. However, it is not dissimilar to the rule in the UK, where non-British citizens are expected to pay for treatment they have in this country – or to have insurance that covers this. The problem is that most British hospitals and clinics have often not bothered to claim from such patients.

Healthcare is specifically not a competence of the European Union and, I am advised, the French Government is acting fully within its legal right. There was a move to incorporate healthcare into the Single Market Services Directive in 2007. Unfortunately this was defeated and therefore, since the French government's proposals do not contravene EU law, the best approach will be to persuade the government of the United Kingdom to revise the Anglo-French bilateral agreement.

The old E111, E112 and E121 systems which used to apply have been overtaken by the Judgements of the European Court of Justice and there now needs to be legal certainty and clear guidance on what people’s rights are. The Commission will shortly be coming forward with new and fuller proposals to cover EU citizens who go to another Member State with health needs in future. Right now, however, I and my British colleagues in the European Parliament recognise that this is a contradiction to the principle of freedom of movement and residence throughout the EU and we are keen to do all that we can to help resolve this problem. To that end we are now promoting a motion in the European Parliament which;

• Calls on the European Commission to undertake a review of the manner in which member states are operating the principle of healthcare provisions and to ensure that all member states are acting in compliance with their obligations under the Treaties.

• Calls on the national governments to uphold the principle of reciprocity of healthcare provision across the European Union,

• Expresses concern that, despite having paid their taxes, non residents could be denied state health care provisions and

• Recognises that private provision may well be beyond the means of many citizens, especially those with existing conditions or disabilities.

Yours Sincerely,

Richard Ashworth MEP

[Chassaing]

Some more action:

“Parliamentary Questions Asked by Gary Streeter MP”

http://www.conservativesabroad.org/blog/?p=222

[cooperlola]

duplicate post

[cooperlola]

Jim Murphy has now created a new section on his blog for the Health Issue.

http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/jim_murphy/archive/2007/11/09/14438.aspx

Sadly, now it only has one lone post!  We have a very sad case (there are probably many) of a man whose E106 is about to run out, whose cancer treatment will soon come to an end, if nothing is done.  FHI are taking up the case, but in the meantime, please post again to this blog and make them think again about the real human suffering which will result from this legislation.

January 6th is just round the corner.  Please renew your efforts, write again to all the MEPs who have not given you the courtesy of a reply, and re-inforce your arguments to those who have responded negatively.  If we don't all act together, and soon, it could be too late for some.

[Sunday Driver]

Just posted an entry.  I expect it'll appear under the post from some hairdresser bird called Deborah from Dudley....[;-)]

 

[makfai]

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

Just posted an entry.  I expect it'll appear under the post from some hairdresser bird called Deborah from Dudley....[;-)]

 

[/quote]

 

Sorry to say this but you could find yourself underneath a hairy biker called Frank![+o(]

[cooperlola]

[quote user="makfai"][quote user="Sunday Driver"]

Just posted an entry.  I expect it'll appear under the post from some hairdresser bird called Deborah from Dudley....[;-)]

 

[/quote]

 

Sorry to say this but you could find yourself underneath a hairy biker called Frank![+o(]

[/quote]Could be an interesting evening![:D]

Seriously, thanks for posting guys.[:)]

[Lenht1951]

Just made a post. In cast it gets edited out it was as follows:

Surely the cases quoted by Deborah and the way the whole issue is being treated by both the UK and French Governments is a violation of the European Human Rights Act, in that they are both NOT allowing people THE RIGHT TO LIFE. They are allowing people to die unnecessarily by simply excluding them from the health care in both countries. This sorry state of affairs affects some 7000+ (expiring e106’s) plus many others in varying degrees who after the January will be Stateless as far as health care is concerned. A truly disgusting state of affairs.

 

 

Probably won't do much but made me feel a little better.

 

[Helen]

[quote user="Lenht1951"]

 

Surely the cases quoted by Deborah and the way the whole issue is being treated by both the UK and French Governments is a violation of the European Human Rights Act, in that they are both NOT allowing people THE RIGHT TO LIFE. They are allowing people to die unnecessarily by simply excluding them from the health care in both countries.

 

Probably won't do much but made me feel a little better.

 

[/quote]

It also clearly seems to be a contravention of Article 12 of  THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL
AND CULTURAL RIGHTS of which France is a definite signatory without reservations. (They signed some of the other clauses with reservations)

clauses in this document include

34. In particular, States are under the obligation to respect the right to health by, inter alia, refraining from denying or limiting equal access for all persons, including prisoners or detainees, minorities, asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, to preventive, curative and palliative health services; abstaining from enforcing discriminatory practices as a State policy;

35. Obligations to protect include, inter alia, the duties of States to adopt legislation or to take other measures ensuring equal access to health care and health-related services provided by third parties; to ensure that privatization of the health sector does not constitute a threat to the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of health facilities, goods and services;

43(core obligations include)

a) To ensure the right of access to health facilities, goods and services on a non-discriminatory basis, especially for vulnerable or marginalized groups

d) To provide essential drugs, as from time to time defined under the WHO Action Programme on Essential Drugs;

48. Violations of the right to health can occur through the direct action of States or other entities insufficiently regulated by States. The adoption of any retrogressive measures incompatible with the core obligations under the right to health, outlined in paragraph 43 above, constitutes a violation of the right to health. Violations through acts of commission include the formal repeal or suspension of legislation necessary for the continued enjoyment of the right to health or the adoption of legislation or policies which are manifestly incompatible with pre-existing domestic or international legal obligations in relation to the right to health.

50. Violations of the obligation to respect are those State actions, policies or laws that contravene the standards set out in article 12 of the Covenant and are likely to result in bodily harm, unnecessary morbidity and preventable mortality. Examples include the denial of access to health facilities, goods and services to particular individuals or groups as a result of de jure or de facto discrimination; the deliberate withholding or misrepresentation of information vital to health protection or treatment; the suspension of legislation or the adoption of laws or policies that interfere with the enjoyment of any of the components of the right to health; and the failure of the State to take into account its legal obligations regarding the right to health when entering into bilateral or multilateral agreements with other States, international organizations and other entities, such as multinational corporations

The trouble is it would take a long time to bring cases to the court of human rights and might be a sledgehammer . There is  a special rapporteur to whom you can write but the  cases 'dealt' with  seem to be ones involving 'big issues' such as the treatment in guantanomo bay, torture in various countries or the exclusion of Roma and many times the governments involved don't even bother to reply.

However whilst  looking up about this I've found that there are a large number of campaigning groups fighting for the rights of sans-papiers to health care in France many of whom seem to have specialist lawyers and help centres. One of these is the  Ligue des droits de L'Homme who in their literature (along with lots of other things)  say that they promote the ' le concept de citoyenneté de résidence dans l’Union européenne and  Elle revendique l’égalité des droits entre les étrangers résidant sur le territoire et les Français.' I really don't know if they might be of any help but they do have help centres in several  towns. 

 

 

[cooperlola]

Sounds great, Helen, we'll see if they're interested in joining forces. Thanks for that.[:)]

[Ron Avery]

Yes Helen, but isn't the issue here that the French are not denying healthcare to anybody?  They are merely saying that from now on or from a given date which people are being notified by letter. you have to pay for it fully yourself through an insurance.  IMHO this case only stands up if they are saying that you will be refused access to healthcare without having insurance and I have seen nothing to suggest that.  In fact the whole issue of what happens to enforce E 106 holders to take PHI and what happens if they do not, has not been addressed.  Nowhere in the legislation that you quote does it say that healthcare must be provided without payment.

[cooperlola]

The problem with this case, Ron, is that PHI is not available to this person. What is worse, the condition has only been ongoing due to a messed up operation in the first place - so in fact the health practitioners themselves take some of the blame for this.  They continue to insist to the poor person that they will continue to receive 100% cover for the condition, not understanding that the CMU ejection is happening, and refusing to believe it.  They are convinced that it's the 100% nature of the cover that they are concerned about.

It isn't a question of the fact that they won't try for PHI, simply that all the companies they have asked have refused to give it to them. This is precisely the scenario we have predicted for pre-existing conditions, and it's coming home to roost in the most horrible of ways.

[Ron Avery]

Sorry coops I did not realise that we were talking about one case, but E 106 holders in general.  In the case that you are talking about, an appeal to the EU commission would not be the fastest route for resolution, surely the French Minister of Health would be the first port of call.  Cases of  continuing treatment past the date of expiry of CMU entitlement has not been addressed or is the test case?  Apologies if that has already been explained, but this thread and some of the posts in it are getting very long and complicated now.

[cooperlola]

I get the confusion bit!  We are taking up this case with whomever we can think of, the health ministry here being just one line of attack.  Any other suggestions are very welcome.  Sadly, the DWP has twice refused even to consider an E106 extension.  The worry is of course that others are similarly affected but do not know it.  Clearly hospital staff here are in the dark.  We are very concerned for this particular couple, but by highlighting this case, we hope to get the broader point across in the process and that is that the fight against this legislation is not about the financial cost, it is about the very real possibility that somebody's life could be endangered by it.

[makfai]

[quote user="Helen"]

It also clearly seems to be a contravention of Article 12 of  THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL
AND CULTURAL RIGHTS of which France is a definite signatory without reservations. (They signed some of the other clauses with reservations)

[/quote]

Have sent you an email re the above

[makfai]

[quote user="makfai"][quote user="Helen"]

It also clearly seems to be a contravention of Article 12 of  THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL
AND CULTURAL RIGHTS of which France is a definite signatory without reservations. (They signed some of the other clauses with reservations)

[/quote]

Have sent you an email re the above

[/quote]

 

No need for reply now - traced it to http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(symbol)/E.C.12.2000.4.En

[rothrugby]

Hi

I put this on the breaking news thread as well

I had an email from ECAS asking if I had heard anything from the French Authorities yet & suggesting I make a complaint to the EU to support a formal complaint that they are presenting to the commission.

I have informed them that I have recieved my expulsion letter & also told them about allthe unconfirmed stories we have all heard from various sources.

Following thier advice I have lodged an official complaint with the EU http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/your_rights/your_rights_forms_en.htm

Perhaps it would be a good idea for everybody to do so as well.

[Lenht1951]

Do you have draft letter, or perhaps Fhi can put one on their site for everyone to send.

[cooperlola]

There's probably enough info' on the site for us to do a "standard" for filling in the form, Lenht.  We'll have a look at it.

FHI

[ali-cat]

[quote user="Lenht1951"]Do you have draft letter, or perhaps Fhi can put one on their site for everyone to send.[/quote]

We have some material we are hoping to put on the FHI site as soon as possible with the official complaints form already completed with one of our legal arguments and a standard text to insert into the on-line petition to the European Parliament.

I you would like a copy of this material to send your own complaint please e-mail me (NOT PM as I can't copy and paste into PMs).

Mr Cat

 

[Lenht1951]

Hi Ali-cat - e mail sent

Regards

Len

[cooperlola]

I've just had the Evening Standard on - they saw my post to Jim Murphy's blog.  So lobbying works!  Keep it up guys.