Lobbying !

[Joshua]

We don't need to get personel.

Mafkai is only putting forward ideas and his thoughts

If it only generates debate it does no harm and could help formulate the winning strategy.

He could tell you that he lives in Creuse and have four weeks to go till he start packing his bags to go back to the UK ( That's me btw )

The truth could be completely different

To be honest I don't care, as long as he wants to help

Joshua[:D]

[Sunday Driver]

I hope I speak for everyone here when I say that makfai's energetic contributions toward the lobbying campaign have been fully appreciated.

 

[poleta]

[quote user="cooperlola"][quote user="poleta"]

Maybe a rocket applied to a certain part of Jim Murphy's anatomy would prompt him to clarify the situation!

[/quote]Mr Murphy has remained typically dumb on this subject since I pointed this out to him yesterday!

http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/blogs/jim_murphy/archive/2007/12/03/15249.aspx

[/quote]

Since Mr Murphy doesn't seem to read his own blog too often, it might be more fruitful sending an email to him at; 

[email protected]

[cooperlola]

We are currently working on a multiple rocket launch![:D]  Certainly one will be firmly aimed at him, direct.

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

I hope I speak for everyone here when I say that makfai's energetic contributions toward the lobbying campaign have been fully appreciated.

[/quote]

I second that, and I'm desperately trying not to personalise this, I just wondered what Mafkai's status was if this all goes tits up.

This is because I believe that his intended plan to try and lever E 106 holders into the CMU by claiming inequality of treatment based on the premise that if they did not have E106s they would now be in the CMU, and on the grounds of residence are not being treated the same as those in the CMU base is risky to us all. 

This is at the time when we don't even know that they have been excluded yet,  Coops says the situation is finely balanced and it is a possibility that rocking the boat at the moment  could lead to those not on E 121s who are OK whatever happens, losing their healthcare rights  too. A risk that the FHI people fully appreciate. IMHO opinion a far better arquement and one I know has been put forward by the UK government's representaives, is the unfairness of retrospective legislation.

[makfai]

[quote user="Ron Avery"].

This is because I believe that his intended plan to try and lever E 106 holders into the CMU by claiming inequality of treatment based on the premise that if they did not have E106s they would now be in the CMU, and on the grounds of residence are not being treated the same as those in the CMU base is risky to us all. 

[/quote]

First of all I would say that I believe the arguments repeated in the text I produced for people to draw on do have merit for E106 holders. They are not being treated equitably.  They have a right to challenge that.

Secondly, as I have said before, it is pointless to argue over whether the question of inequality should be raised - it already has been raised.  I do not, therefore, accept that I am raising anything new in that regard. It is inaccurate, therefore, to claim that the latest initiative I suggested would be responsible for providing any excuse on the grounds of 'inequality' which the authorities do not already have in their possession.

You are suggesting that the  E106 holders hold back I am suggesting that they don't. Forums provide the opportunity for both views to be aired and that is what we are both doing.  I fully accept that you may not be alone in your view but neither am I. 

Many people's positions on this are, understandably, underpinned by self-interest and one cannot condemn that in regard to such an important issue. It is for each person to make his/her own decision as to what action to take (if any).  BUT I don't feel that any E106 holder should feel guilty about continuing to press his/her case now;  nor should they nor I be made a scapegoat for any decisions which the French Government may take.

As regards the 'staff at CPAM' issue, I tried to explain that I was using the word 'staff' in its broadest sense to include staff and management i.e. throughout the CPAM/CNAM structure.  As regards effectiveness of any initiative at local levels (e.g. mayor/CPAM), I do believe that they can have an impact as local levels feedback to more senior ministerial levels. Frankly, I would rather have a go and fail rather than miss a chance based on an assumption that nothing will be achieved.  When all this started there were people saying we had no chance to influence any decisions. Thank goodness there were many prepared to push ahead.

As regards this issue I am happy - as I was from the start - to leave it up to the judgement of others as to how they 'draw on' the text I presented.  Those who wish to use it need not feel guilty.

[rothrugby]

Could this latest delay have anything to do with the French Civil Servants being awkward due to Sarkozy's proposed changes to thier employment contracts. ??

[Will]

Are you saying that because Makfai says he has a different personal agenda from E106 (or former E106) holders then his contribution to the campaign is invalid? I had better withdraw my signature to the petition then.

[quote user="rothrugby"]Could this latest delay have anything to do with the French Civil Servants being awkward due to Sarkozy's proposed changes to thier employment contracts. ??[/quote]

French civil servants (and today's French students) don't have a monopoly in getting awkward about political issues. This angry looking young chap was photographed in the 1970s, during a previous period of unrest in Paris. I wonder who he might be? (clue, his name begins with S and his father was Hungarian).

[IMG]http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j205/vienormande/sarko.jpg[/IMG]

It was in yesterday's Telegraph - yes, I know.

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="Will"]

Are you saying that because Makfai says he has other forms apart from E106 then his contribution to the campaign is invalid? [/quote]

 

No I am not, as I have stated,  In my opinion to which I am entitled by virtue of having been excluded from the CMU but may be allowed to stay in.  I (and people in the FHI) think he needs to think through carefully the possible consequence of his proposed action to other people's lives, this is not a game. He thinks otherwise.

I just want to know if as a result of what he is proposing the French Government decides to make us all equal and withdraw any concessions and we all lose our health cover, where he stands after that.

[cooperlola]

As you all know, we have been considering all our options, and Makfai is certainly right - we have a golden opportunity during this most recent lull in the proceedings, to make our case.  The first step will be to try to influence the decision at the highest level. Therefore, as per my post elsewhere:

French Health Issues appreciates that – given the recent further delays to any new announcement regarding residency and consequent healthcare changes – that there has been no better time to put our case to the authorities.  We need to take advantage of the situation by persuading those who are able to make the decisions, that to allow all those who were resident in France when the changes were introduced (30.9.07) to continue to contribute to, and benefit from, the state healthcare system – would be the best outcome for all in economic, logistical and humanitarian terms.

 

To this end, we are issuing an open letter to the French Health minister – which we will copy to all those who are in a position to influence her decision.

 

We believe that this will carry more weight, and be more likely to succeed, if it is signed by as many people as possible.  We therefore urge you to visit the site, and to add your name to this letter.

 

PLEASE VISIT THE SITE NOW – AS TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE - AND SIGN UP TODAY.  We have never had a better chance to get our way so please act NOW.

THERE IS A TEMPORARY LINK TO THE LETTER HERE

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="Ron Avery"][quote user="Will"]

Are you saying that because Makfai says he has other forms apart from E106 then his contribution to the campaign is invalid? [/quote]

 

No I am not, as I have stated,  In my opinion to which I am entitled by virtue of having been excluded from the CMU but may be allowed to stay in.  I (and people in the FHI) think he needs to think through carefully the possible consequence of his proposed action to other people's lives, this is not a game. He thinks otherwise.

I just want to know if as a result of what he is proposing the French Government decides to make us all equal and withdraw any concessions and we all lose our health cover, where he stands after that.

[/quote]

 

I have to agree with you on this one.

There is a grave danger that the French  Health Minister could turn round and say ok we will revert back to the original announcement,everyone is excluded.

I presume that legal advice would have been given in the first place before that announcement was made, and that the French Govt believe that they have a strong case for exclusion...

No one ,except perhaps the British Government representative,knows on which legal basis this decision was taken and why the French are so sure of it's legality.

No one on this forum or other forums are experts on French or European law. .

Now we could face the prospect of everyone being thrown out  and even if a legal challenge was mounted it would take years to resolve,if other disputes between the EU and member states are anything to go by.

Why not wait and see what the announcement is going to be and then individuals can judge whether  to challenge the decision or not..

 

Perhaps this is also the reason that the British Embassy and Jim Murphy feel unable to expand on their statements, because as professional diplomats they understand that through lack of discretion and patience we could loose everything that we and they have fought to achieve and until this statement is issued the French Govt have nothing to lose.  

I urge caution

 

[makfai]

[quote user="Ron Avery"][quote user="Will"]

Are you saying that because Makfai says he has other forms apart from E106 then his contribution to the campaign is invalid? [/quote]

 

No I am not, as I have stated,  In my opinion to which I am entitled by virtue of having been excluded from the CMU but may be allowed to stay in.  I (and people in the FHI) think he needs to think through carefully the possible consequence of his proposed action to other people's lives, this is not a game. He thinks otherwise.

I just want to know if as a result of what he is proposing the French Government decides to make us all equal and withdraw any concessions and we all lose our health cover, where he stands after that.

[/quote]

 

Ron I don't mind alternative views but let's have some accuracy. 

• You keep saying that it is incorrect of me to suggest that the E106 holders have been left out of future arrangements as no announcement has been made, yet in the same breath you argue that you know that you will receive concessions.  This is not logical.  We are using the same source. 
• You also object to the text I prepared because it raises the question of 'inequality' BUT this has ALREADY been raised by many.  It is NOT new and failing to acknowledge that is disingenuous.
• You quote 'people in the FHI'  as being in support of you.  Are you suggesting that the FHI has adopted your position as policy?  Are you saying that only some members of the FHI support your position?  If the latter, does this mean that some members DO NOT support your position?  Your post gives the impression that you speak with the endorsement of the FHI, is that correct....are you speaking with their endorsement? Perhaps you would clarify your claim of having support from people in the FHI so that we all may know whether you are speaking with authority from them.

As regards your last para, I can tell you where I will stand after any decision is announced...where I do now and where I have stood from the beginning.    I will blame the decision makers. I will not blame people for lobbying too much, or not enough, or incorrectly.  People have to do what they think is correct.  I will certainly not allow you to make me a scapegoat for anything!  Equally, I will take no credit for any positive decisions which may have already been made or which may be made in the future. It is ludicrous to suggest that I will be single handedly responsible for any decisions (good or bad) the French Government has taken or may take in the future.

I do not think an attempt to try to make me or anyone else feel guilty over our actions is a decent or reasonable position to adopt.  By all means take a different view and try to convince people of the merits of your position but don't attempt to bully or blackmail me or others into inaction. None of us will know what weight was given to any factor under consideration but one thing is absolutely clear, it is undeniable that the issue of 'inequality' which concerns you HAS ALREADY been raised!  No one, therefore, should be made fearful of  lobbying for their own right to residence and healthcare.

The French Government will do what it sees best for itself.  It will certainly be loving the fact that self-interest is possibly creating divisions between categories and that the united front approach is currently under strain.  Divide an conquer is not a new thought.  So, in the 'spirit of speculation' which you have created let us speculate that the French Government may well interpret such divisions as meaning that they can afford to continue to ignore the E106 holders as people are only being driven by self-interest in their own cause.  Thus, once the others have been reinstated, the volume of interest in the topic of rights of residence and healthcare matter will subside leaving only those actually adversely affected to fight for themselves.

From my point of view I believe that ALL current residents (E106 holders; current affiliates of the CMU; those who fall into neither category) and future residents should remain united in challenging the French Government's application of this EU Directive. So that the French Government does not read this situation incorrectly, I would like to see residents who are (plus those who are not) affiliated to the CMU  publicly saying now that they do not support unequal treatment of any persons, including the E106 holders, and that no matter what the outcome is they will continue to lobby for all categories as strongly as they have lobbied for their own case. So when you ask where I stand, that is where I stand now and where I will stand after the announcement.

 

[poleta]

Again, well put makfai. As yet there is no real evidence that any concessions have been made. As far as "rocking the boat" goes - usually there has to be a boat to rock! I also would like to know if FHI support Ron Avery's stance (there is no indication of this on their web site).

[Russethouse]

Could we establish just what FHI's view actually is? IMHO they are the people probably most likely to be in touch with the true situation.

[walsden]

[quote user="poleta"]Again, well put makfai. As yet there is no real evidence that any concessions have been made. As far as "rocking the boat" goes - usually there has to be a boat to rock! I also would like to know if FHI support Ron Avery's stance (there is no indication of this on their web site).[/quote]

From looking at the FHI website, it would seem that they are actively urging everyone to lobby. I don't see anywhere that they are encouraging anyone to wait and see.

As far as I know, no concessions have been made to anyone currently in the CMU, and if we're still in this situation in March, I wonder how many people will be advocating not rocking the boat then?

Aren't we all supposed to be on the same side?

[cooperlola]

FHI makes group decisions, according to a majority view.  It should be  evident from the letter which we are sending to the French Health  Minister, that we do believe that intervention is important at this  stage - and we have spent many hours deliberating about the best approach  for ALL who are affected. We will continue to fight, as a group, to get  justice for everybody - and will do our best to ensure that the  legislation is changed so that everybody gets the best outcome, regardless of E form status.  The way in which individuals approach the matter is entirely up to them.

What WE want is justice for ALL.

pp French Health Issues

[krusty]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]Why not wait and see what the announcement is going to be and then individuals can judge whether  to challenge the decision or not..

[/quote]

because time is running out , I and the others with e106 running out on jan 6th have only 4 weeks to go and my CPAM is not offering any extention.

[cooperlola]

[quote user="krusty"][quote user="Boiling a frog"]Why not wait and see what the announcement is going to be and then individuals can judge whether  to challenge the decision or not..

[/quote]

because time is running out , I and the others with e106 running out on jan 6th have only 4 weeks to go and my CPAM is not offering any extention.

[/quote]I (and for the sake of clarity, I mean I not FHI!) think that Krusty is right.  Anybody who is facing the prospect of either having medical treatment withdrawn from them and/or becoming an illegal alien in less than four weeks, will not think that "wait and see" is an option.  But they certainly need to think how best to spend the four weeks to get what they need - it's not exactly long enough to sell up and go back to Britain now is it?

[Russethouse]

On the other hand surely when/if the authorities come up with the 'solution' we all think/hope they are going to - if you were in the CMU you stay in the CMU, surely there is a firmer argument for equality. There would be definite items in French regulations to sight........just my two penneth - I well understand the other view.

[walsden]

[quote user="Russethouse"]On the other hand surely when/if the authorities come up with the 'solution' we all think/hope they are going to - if you were in the CMU you stay in the CMU, surely there is a firmer argument for equality. There would be definite items in French regulations to sight........just my two penneth - I well understand the other view.[/quote]

The keyword here being "when/if"....

Yes indeed, there would be a firmer argument for equality - however that would be ANOTHER argument, and wouldn't invalidate any existing arguments.

[cooperlola]

PERSONALLY (my FHI hat is off now) I think one of 3 things could happen :  1.The minister could issue the statement that she was apparently going to and grant concessions to those in the CMU and install an appeals procedure for E106 holders with chronic and existing illnesses; 2. The bureaucrats could pursuade her to leave the statement as it is - excluding everybody, with the possible exception of legal and legitimate 5 year residents; or 3. The minister could simplify everything and just let everybody here legitimately at 30.9.07 benefit from the state system.  The first is not great but better than the second; the second is unthinkable, especially for those who are ill; the third is the outcome which would be best for all - with the exception of course of those who move here in the future, but at least they have not made a life-changing decision quite yet.

We should all be trying to achieve the third option, whilst taking great care that we do not tip the balance in favour of the second - which is a risk we should not ignore.

[Suninfrance]

Yes - the third option is the one we should ALL be looking at.

With four weeks to go to find out whether some will be deported, illegal aliens, unable to find appropriate/any cover, personally I think "wait and see" is NOT an option.  We must keep campaigning and lobbying for everyone affected by the Directive.

[Ron Avery]

I have got an attestation from CPAM valid from the 28/11/07 on the grounds of residency although I have not been here for 5 years.

Mafkai.  You have said what you think, I have said what I think  There is no division of aim and purpose only the way to get there. Like in all things there are differences of opinion in how things are to be done.  As far as I know its not the policy of FHI to follow either of us.  FHI have their own views individually and collectively and they have not endorsed your proposed course of action,  opting to issue a letter to the French Health Minister which many have already signed although in my opinion it contains an inaccurate passage about people being already refused treatment which I do not believe to be the case.

Rest assured even though I now have continued CMU membersdhip I am firmly behind the aims of FHI in getting CMU membership for all those who qualify by residency of 6 months or more.

[Suninfrance]

........ although in my opinion it

contains an inaccurate passage about people being already refused

treatment which I do not believe to be the case.

It is the case Ron.  I know of two people in other regions who have had their treatment refused.

[ams]

It would appear to me that if you have been granted continued CMU membership even though you have not been resident for 5 years or more, then we are being discriminated against since we have been resident since june 2004, and have received our expulsion order at the 31.03.08. Therefore it would be logical for us and all others to use your continued membership as a legal challenge basis, I am sure that you will be most supportive in this matter.

 

ams