Lobbying !

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="makfai"][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]

Yes you are right.  But the original legislation free movement directive was about workers and had few if any restrictions or pre-conditions.

However, the right to free movement for all, extended by the 2004 Directive, much it would seem to the annoyance of the UK political parties, is subject to restrictions and conditions, particularly the bit that says:

"Right of residence for more than six months

The right of residence for more than six months remains subject to certain conditions. Applicants must:

• either be engaged in economic activity (on an employed or self-employed basis);

• or have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances;

• or be following vocational training as a student and have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay;

• or be a family member of a Union citizen who falls into one of the above categories".

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?

[makfai]

[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?

[Ron Avery]

Yes it does, thank you, but doesn't the question of what constitutes residing and residency come into it? As I read it and it would seem the French too, the rules about having equality with nationals applies to people who are residents and you don't gain that status for five years.

[woolybanana]

Ron, surely there is a difference between residing in and residence. It seems that this distinction is deliberately made.

[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...

 

[Joshua]

DWP Definition of worker

1. a person who has moved from one Member State to seek work in another

is not a “worker” for the purposes of Reg. 1612/68;

2. a person who ceases to be employed does not necessarily lose his

“worker” status but, in deciding who is a worker for the purpose of the Reg., no

account can be taken of work in another Member State;

3. the right to reside in another Member State in order to look for work does

not arise from Council Directive 68/360/EEC but from Art. 48 of the Treaty of

Rome and Council Reg. 1612/68;

Joshua[:)]

[cooperlola]

Here's another one.  What is "economically inactive?"  I know there is a proper definition somewhere.  However, as a person with an occupational pension, although I'm happy to be defined as physically inactive (although I'd contest that on occasions) - am I truly economically inactive?  My pension is being spent because I exist, regardless of what I do with my time, so it is contributing to the economy, isn't it? I agree I'm not a worker (well, not a paid one) but I do play an active part in the economy of the country in which I live, don't I?

Discuss.

[Sunday Driver]

Mrs Sunday plays a very active part in the economy of the country in which she lives.  Her credit card statement has just arrived.....[:-))]

 

[ali-cat]

I'm impressed Ron. You are obviously a staunch supporter of flawed legislation[;-)].

Mr Cat

 

[Rupert]

[quote user="makfai"][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]

Just stepping in to be Devils Advocate here, but up until a few weeks ago, how many Brits in France would give the 'excellent health service' as one of the reasons for being here, I know I did!

[ali-cat]

[quote user="Sunday Driver"]

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. 

[/quote]

And exactly what category are you placing those of us from Belfast in SD?  I assume you were aiming at an illustration of the most western part of the EU and your geography failed you?

Mr Cat 

[Boiling a frog]

I think that Ron and I are realists

No matter if we think that the current rules are unfair or flawed it would take many years if ever for the legislation to be changed in our favour.

It is all very well spouting EU directives,the moral arguement,the retrospective arguement but at the end of the day the French Govt can tell us all to stuff it, take us to the european court,we have the money to employ the lawyers.

If you look at some of the European court cases they have taken years to resolve .

Sorry but I just wonder if  some of the people advocating all sorts of protests ,legal arguements,moral arguements know how Governments and the European Union  work .

What I want is a statement from the French Government  regarding the situation.Until then all the E106's who expire in January are kicked out and all the CMU are kicked out on 31st March.That is the reality .  

[Ron Avery]

Mark

I haven't said anywhere say that I supported it and its your opinion that it is flawed, perhaps the Frenchman on the Versailles Omnibus and the Tories and UKIP in the UK would not agree with you.

I just want certain people to get into perspective that the healthcare provisions of  37,000 immigrants in France from the UK, the vast majority of whom would be able to get private healthcare insurance, pales into significance against the interests of 500 million people in 25 other countries who are covered by this "flawed" legislation.

The fact that we don't like it does not make it flawed.  IMHO SD and B a F are absolutely right, the injustice is retrospective application and not that the French and all the other EU countries that have enacted this directive into their laws want to prevent people coming to their countries and scrounging off the state,  and before anybody starts howling,  I do not mean those who are paying into the CMU, because as we all know or should have realised by now,  this law is not aimed at us, we are just in the "we cannot be seen to discriminate" firing line.

[Bugsy]

[quote user="Rupert"]

Just stepping in to be Devils Advocate here, but up until a few weeks ago, how many Brits in France would give the 'excellent health service' as one of the reasons for being here, I know I did!

[/quote]

The health service hasn't changed Rupert, in many areas of treatment (not all, of course) it is still streets ahead of the UK.

 

[ams]

Here is another one, we are considered as economically inactive, however every day we work on maintaining properties that we own, during the construction phase, spending 18 months locating suitable land to purchase, selecting builders, getting estimates, negotiating prices, getting artisans in respect of many services. dealing with faulty workmanship, for example with one house having to get all of the walls demolished and rebuilt, tiling, painting, insulating, creating gardens, building walls, driveways, installing letterboxes, landscaping. on top of that dealing with repairs, agencies, tax inspectors, preparing accounts, dealing with financial institutions. Now we provide maintenance and gardening services to the tenants etc and contine to search for other property related opportunities. For example tomorrow we have two meetings with estate agents and a meeting with a company in respect of energy diagnostic's, apparently Sarko's new rules require new houses when creating a new lease to spend money on this foolish rule and the same for a lead certificate, apparently his minions think that new houses have a need for these documents in respect of leases.

 

On the above we have paid huge amounts of VAT, sustantial taxes in respect of tax de equipment, and now as inactive eu citizens we are dealing with one sided rental legislation that give tennants all the rights and the owners none, still we are keeping rental agencies in funds, and they in turn through their negligence get us to transfer more funds to solicitors and bailiff's.

 

We pay income tax, and then on top another 11% for  social tax, 8% for the CMU and then need a top up assurance contract.

After all of the above, we are considered as the living dead and have been told you will leave at the end of march do not pass go just deposit 6 months payments to the cMU and get yourself private assurance which will not cover pre existing conditions. it is just our hard luck that the french authorities forced us into paying into the CMU and as a result the private assurance policy that we came with and paid for the following two years having now been cancelled will not cover pre existing condition for 5 and 7 years.

 

sorry for the rant,

 

time to look for a new home, perhaps Iraq may be more hospitable.

 

ams

[Rupert]

[quote user="Bugbear"][quote user="Rupert"]

Just stepping in to be Devils Advocate here, but up until a few weeks ago, how many Brits in France would give the 'excellent health service' as one of the reasons for being here, I know I did!

[/quote]

The health service hasn't changed Rupert, in many areas of treatment (not all, of course) it is still streets ahead of the UK.

 

[/quote]

Exactly, so how many already ill or suspect they may soon be ill people have moved to France on the basis that they will get better health care?  The fact is that prior to this new legislation there was no legal reason why somebody could not do this, in future they will be unable to do so. Is this a good or bad thing? I know what most French people would say!

[makfai]

[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[:-))]

 

[Bugsy]

[quote user="Rupert"]

Exactly, so how many already ill or suspect they may soon be ill people have moved to France on the basis that they will get better health care?  The fact is that prior to this new legislation there was no legal reason why somebody could not do this, in future they will be unable to do so. Is this a good or bad thing? I know what most French people would say!

[/quote]

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say but I doubt many have left the UK to move to france primarily because they could get better health care. A consideration yes, but main reason, I don't think so.

The legislation is pure supposition at the moment, until the announcements are made no-one knows actually knows what the outcome will be. On that factual basis, you simply cannot say, at this time, whether or not the proposed changes will make any difference at all.

Everyone affected by this is waiting for the final official government statement.

[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

[woolybanana]

Not as much as one Nuclear Power Station to Libya, nor do ;you bring four and twenty virgins trained to kill

[makfai]

[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. 

[Boiling a frog]

Seems pretty simple to me.

 Not working and not seeking work

[Rupert]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

Seems pretty simple to me.

 Not working and not seeking work

[/quote]

 

'Not working' doesn't do it. 'Not in paid employment' perhaps.

[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.

[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!