Lobbying !

[Ron Avery]

One of the main planks of the protest against the current plan to exclude inactifs is the unfairness of the retrospective legislation and the lack of effective notice being given of the proposed changes. This wil have a considerable effect on the lives of people who have already moved to France and are in the CMU or covered by an E 106.

The request to the French Government is that all those in France as of now who meet the residency requirements be allowed to continue in or be allowed join the CMU.

Those arguements do not hold water for people who have not yet moved to France, they will know what the rules are and can take the requirements for healthcare insurance into account when making that decision.  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.

[makfai]

[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.’

 

[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 ?

 

[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 ?

 

[makfai]

[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?

[makfai]

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

[cooperlola]

[quote user="makfai"][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]Sadly, if one visits CPAMs own website, one still gets the same advice as before - anybody who is planning a move may well take this as gospel still :

http://www.cpam87.fr/SiteWeb/anglais/inscription/sansdroit.htm

If the newest statement is confirmed, one could still make a case on that basis alone, for everybody, until it's updated.  Nobody should give up the struggle, imo.

[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?

 

[makfai]

[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.

[Ron Avery]

Edited:

 ‘Subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law, all Union citizens residing ....

 

and the accepted definition of right of residing and residency under French law is now ??

[Glyn]

Ron,

I am not sure what your point is. The 'and who have the right of residence or permanent residence' bit refers to family members who are not EU nationals.

[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.....?

[Tony F Dordogne]

.... and Greece and the new legislation in Holland and the blatently discriminatory regulations in the UK against European citizens?

[makfai]

[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.

 

[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?

 

 

 

[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.

[makfai]

[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.

[makfai]

[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!

[Boiling a frog]

I have set out my position before and I repeat it for clarification.

Until we know exactly what the provisions are going to be I feel that there is a always a danger of the French Govt reverting back to their September announcement.

The position at the moment is that there are around 30000 people who have access to CMU

There are a further 7000 people who are on an E106 at the moment.

Perhaps around 3500 of these will have an E106 which expires in January.

A proportion of them will no doubt be moving on to an E121 as they will then become eligible.

Of the remaining how many will not be able to afford private medical assurance,bearing in mind that CMU contibutions are 8%  plus top up assurance,

 or

Who have a pre existing medical condition and unable to obtain private medical assurance.

Of course there is no way of knowing this figure but a guestimate would suggest a figure in the hundreds if not in the tens.

So being pragmatic do we continue AT THE MOMENT to press for returning to the pre September position and possibly denying the 30000 CMU cover for the sake of the few affected or

Do we wait for the announcement ,hopefully set in stone, and then lobby for the remainer.

Is it not preferable to know today what the position is going to be for all of us who are affected to whatever degree,bearing in mind that some of the E106 holders only have a  few weeks and the CMU people have only slightly over 3 months, rather than continue to press for a total about face which could take months if not years to achieve,and in the meantime be left in the position of no health care except via private medical assurance for some 37000 people.  

[Glyn]

I think that the problem with the 'wait and see' argument is that on past experience, even if the French authorities 'officially' announced that all existing CMU members are able to remain affiliated they could go back on this at some time in the future.

So perhaps those E106 holders should now give up their fight forever and sacrifice themselves for the better good just in case it might perhaps upset the French authorities[;-)]

As makfai asked, when would it be deemed to be the right time?

Do not forget that at the moment the French authorities have offered NOTHING.

[Boiling a frog]

I am aware that at the moment the French have offered nothing however I am also aware that the French have presumably changed their position to some extent or other otherwise we would not have the continueing statements from our own Govt that an announcement is expected shortly.

My own impression and I accept that it is only my impression, is that FHI is continueing to press for a return to pre September position and that they do not wish an announcement  to be made which does not satisfy this demand.

I on the other hand want an announcement

When that is made I can then assess my position and so can everyone else.

We will know exactly where we stand at this moment in time.

It will be more difficult for the French to withdraw any concessions made if  they are in the public domain.

At the moment prior to any announcement it is easier for the French just to stand by their statement of September and leave some 37000 people having to find assurance.

Once the announcement is made and we know where everyone stands then we can press for any further concessions felt neccessary,go down the legal route etc etc.

 

 

[Glyn]

Baf,

Being in the public domain did not stop the French from changing their original announcement at the beginning of September (which stated the changes would not effect existing residents) to the one they made in the middle of September (the one we have been fighting against for the last few months).

I do not think we should back off or change our campaign on the basis of what may/may not be in an announcement that may/may not be made in the next few hours/days/weeks/months. (Delete where applicable)[:)]

[Deimos]

I think the "we should stop lobbying as looks like I've got my cover back and don't want to risk losing that" (whilst ignoring others, maybe with chronic illnesses, etc.) is maybe what makes the world the place it is today.

Ian

[Ron Avery]

"Do not forget that at the moment the French authorities have offered NOTHING."

Not officially Glyn, but that position may well continue if the arguement moves from making a case for those already covered by the French Healthcare system to stay in and those that are "thinking about coming" as mafkai seems to be suggesting by challenging the legal right of the French to make conditions for entry to France to EU citizens.

If and I know it is big IF, the French do announce what was published for a short time yesterday,  would that be acceptable to FHI and others considering that it did appear to offer health care cover to those in the greatest need  ie E 106 holders undergoing treatment that would not be covered by PHI?

[Russethouse]

 You can forget that argument Deimos, the likelihood is that I will  not be affected by any of these proposals (and even less likely now !)and I still think that it is better to wait and see what is on offer, make sure the weakest and most vulnerable are protected and then lobby for other changes.

If Europe was some sort of health utopia there is an idealistic argument to be made for accessible health care for all, the fact is it isn't. The French health provision is in trouble and cannot afford to support people who were never intended to be included in the CMU. My feeling is that they are attempting to rectify something which I believe they see as an error.

Perhaps the French made a political decision to make the announcement retrospective and sort out the nuts and bolts afterward. Perhaps they thought that making a cut off date in advance would have an unwelcome affect, heating up the housing market for example......who knows?

Lets face it, without an announcement from the French government we simply do not know what there is need, or not, to lobby for.

What is not desirable, in my opinion, is to give the French the chance to go back to their first announcement or delay implementing the 'new' regulations, such as they are.