Lobbying !

[cooperlola]

[quote user="lebois"]We are just about 'lobbied out', no where else to write! 

[/quote]I know from previous experience of this sort of thing that there are days when one feels like this.  As frustrating and infuriating as it is, then it's time to go back again (well, after a few days anyway) and prod those who have not bothered to respond. 

The French Entree article I thought was one of the best thus far as it emphasises the real problem here. It's not a matter of a few quid for the wealthy, but one of true hardship for some.  Sadly this audience is already "on side" - this is the kind of thing we need to see on the BBC News, not just on ex-pats sites.

[Poppy]

If you turn up at a UK benefits office and still have your house in France you will get ZERO

[sunshine 2]

Back on 23/9/07 Cooperlola wrote (page 1 of this thread) that she was still trying to find out who attended the crucial meeting between French and UK officials which led to British Embassy putting out the statement on 12/9/07 that the new legislation would not be retrospective.  Coops asked if anyone had any info on this as it appeared that these were the Brits we should be lobbying -ie the people who thought they had represented our interests, and reached an agreement.

I think we should go 'back to basics' and follow this line through.  Someone must have been representing our interests at that meeting, and it should be them that now takes the matter up on our behalf (perhaps they already are, in which case wouldn't it be great if they told us and told us when we might hear further - somehow I feel they are doing absolutely NOTHING).

If one looks at the process of what happened then it seems likely that there was a general agreement and understanding back on 12/9/07 (or the Embassy would not have circulated details), but that this agreement was overturned by some very senior person after that meeting (possibly Sarkozy himself when he learned of the agreement reached??????)

How can we find out who was at those crucial early meetings?  I have written to the Embassy twice - no reply.  Does anyone here perhaps know anyone currently working at the British Embassy who can assist us in at least getting a name?

Apart from Mary Honeyball no-one seems to be actively trying to move our case forward into serious discussion.  No MEP's of the other 9 written to by me  have even replied.  I appreciate that Mary Honeyball has asked a question of the European parliament and that's great - but it will surely take several months to get an investigation and reply........................probably well after March 2008.

I am not really interested in further publicity in newspapers etc - I need to know who is actively discussing our case with the French health officials who matter.  Like Coops, I feel the need to clarify who was at that crucial meeting.  We would all feel better if we knew that some further negotiations were taking place - from the DOH website where it says that 'health service issues are a matter for the French' ,or words to that effect, it feels like there is an acceptance that the French can do what they like unchallenged.  Surely there must be more avenues open for discussion/negotiation than simply waiting for the European Parliament to look into it.

(and yes, I've has another fairly sleepless night worrying about what will happen after March for myself and husband with serious pre-conditions, and of course after Dec for all those on E106's which run out then)

[ali-cat]

I e-mailed Mary Honeyball on the 19th of September including suggestions for further questions to ask the Commission and have not as yet received a reply or acknowledgement. 

Apart from the initial correspondence has anyone else received a response?

Mr Cat

[makfai]

Article on the subject on today's (1 October) Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/01/nexpats101.xml

[makfai]

At the risk of being controversial I have to say that I think the focus on the loss of health care - which, of course, is the point we want to tackle - means that our argument about the 'unlawfulness' of applying these rules to existing residents doesn't get the support it deserves.  The argument becomes obscured by the indifference of people to someone else's healthcare and by the attitude that all those affected are all 'rich Brits' idly sunning themselves having stopped work early.

I believe that to successfully attack the application of this rule to existing residents we have to emphasise that what has happened here is a change in the 'right to residency'.  It comes under Article 7 of the Directive which is entitled 'Right of residency for more than three months'

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_229/l_22920040629en00350048.pdf)

I believe we have to convince people that it is not reasonable (and probably unlawful) to change the residency rules for people who have already been accepted for residency under the previous lawful rules.  I think this argument provokes a less 'emotive' response and is simpler to understand and, more than that, it is the correct one because these are changes to residency qualification.

I am not suggesting that we should ignore the effects on healthcare of the ruling (I have already written to my MEPs in that vein)  but I honestly believe that when we are trying to get the message across we have to make it simple. 

It is clear from responses I have received and what has been written even by Mary Honeyball that the argument has become one over the rights and wrongs of healthcare.  However, there is nothing fundamentally unlawful about a Government changing its rules on how existing residents receive healthcare.

So, if we want to attack the application of the rules to existing residents then I believe that what we should be emphasising that this is a change in residency rules. I would suggest that the point to be made at the top of the letter when we lobby is that 'the French have already tested me for residency under one set of rules and I have passed that test, they now want to impose a different set of rules to test my residency qualifications again and this cannot be a lawful process'.

I don't see how rules which are introduced to impose qualifications on people seeking to become residents of an EU country can be lawfully applied to people who are already residents of that EU country.  These residents are not seeking residency - they have already qualified for residency.  I hope that even an MEP could understand that but just in case draw his/her attention to the Directive and quote the reference

Article 7 'Right of Residency for more than three months'  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2004/l_229/l_22920040629en00350048.pdf

[Chassaing]

Thanks makfai for putting it so clearly.

Yesterday we were 'legal citzens' and today until we get our health insurance later this afternoon we are 'illegal immigrants'.

Could someone prove me wrong?  It would make me happier to be proved wrong on this!

[cooperlola]

I wrote to the Embassy again (twice) to ask them to clarify the reference in their standard letter to the "5 year residency" qualification.  I've just had a reply:

Hello

 

Thank you for contacting the Public Enquiries section of the British Embassy, Paris. For further updated information concerning "French policy" applying to all inactive citizens from all EU countries. Please contact:

 

---

 

CPAM - The French Health Service (English language service):

 Tel:+33 (0)8 20 90 42 12

---

CLEISS - (France's helpdesk for international mobility and social security):

11 rue de la tour des Dames

75436 Paris cedex 09

Tel: +33 1 45 26 33 41  

http://www.cleiss.fr  

 

---

 

Kind regards,

British Embassy
Press and Communications Section

So that was helpful wasn't it?

[Chassaing]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

I wrote to the Embassy again (twice) to ask them to clarify the reference in their standard letter to the "5 year residency" qualification.  I've just had a reply:

Hello

 

Thank you for contacting the Public Enquiries section of the British Embassy, Paris. For further updated information concerning "French policy" applying to all inactive citizens from all EU countries. Please contact:

 

---

 

CPAM - The French Health Service (English language service):

 Tel:+33 (0)8 20 90 42 12

---

CLEISS - (France's helpdesk for international mobility and social security):

11 rue de la tour des Dames

75436 Paris cedex 09

Tel: +33 1 45 26 33 41  

http://www.cleiss.fr  

 

---

 

Kind regards,

British Embassy

Press and Communications Section

So that was helpful wasn't it?

[/quote]

Perhaps we 'ALL' need to pay them a visit!

[mint]

Do our taxes go towards PAYING these guys? 

[makfai]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

I wrote to the Embassy again (twice) to ask them to clarify the reference in their standard letter to the "5 year residency" qualification.  I've just had a reply:

[/quote]

 

I had exactly the same reply this morning to my previous query asking why the French statement only applied to les ressortissants britanniques inactifs

 

Looking at the experience of the British Expats in Spain http://www.ukgovabusesexpats.co.uk/aboutus.htm it would appear that they reached the same level of frustration with Consular 'Care'!

[sunshine 2]

I don't know how to get the quotes up on this - however, re makfai's entry at 9.49 today about the 'right' approach to our lobbying.  I agree with him and he puts it SO well!!.  There is now an entry at 11.12 today from Lebois on the sub forum 'Breaking News.......' quoting Abigail Wood as an assistant to Mary Honeywell and asking for more info and questions etc as Mary Honeywell is meeting with other MEP's to discuss things.  Please could Makfai and others now write to Abigail Wood/Mary Honeywell again emphasising this partic point as I think we will get further with the line of lobbying than any other.

The other main strand that I think is particularly pertinent is that there obviously was agreement around 12/9/07 that the application of the legislation would not be retrospective, but this agreement was clearly overturned by someone higher in th French Health service?govt and so came on 19/9/07 as saying that it would be retrospective. Perhaps Mary is in a better position than we are ourselves to get to understand who took place in the original talks and who is therefore challenging why the position changed so radically within a week (and fighting to get back to the 12/9/07 position).

I will be writing emphasising these 2 themes myself, rather than my earlier communications which were more about our personal situation etc.  I hope others might join me in emphasising these themes?????

[cooperlola]

Sunshine, I should be speaking to MH's office later today.

[cooperlola]

I'm putting together a list of topics and questions to discuss with Mary's political manager this afternoon.  Here is what I've come up with so far.   Please feel free to add anything you'd like me to mention.

1.  Why was the decision to extend CMU cover to existing residents overturned after initially being agreed upon?

2.  How can  those with existing conditions and illnesses possibly comply with the condition of "full private healthcare" when no insurance companies will provide this, except at massive cost?

3. Is the "5 year residency" rule enforceable (in so far as it may entitle those qualifying, to return to the CMU) under EU law?

    If not, why is the British Embassy quoting this?  When questioned, why does the Embassy persist in referring those who may benefit from this rule, to French "helplines" who have no information on this subject?

4. Why does the French social security website, which lays out the new conditions, refer specifically to Britanniques?  Are we being singled out in this matter because of the nature of the way in which NHS care is available to all residents, 100% free of charge, regardless of nationality? 

5.  How are other European and those from outside Europe  treated by the French system?  If differently, why? 

6.  Are other non-French EU nationals, covered by their own countries' health schemes whilst domiciled in France?  If so, why are not UK nationals similarly covered?  If they are not, would our own government be prepared to provide cover for those affected, if individuals were to contribute on a means-tested, or other basis in return for E106 extension?

7.  As the UK DWP is aware of the number, names and addresses of current E106s, what steps are being taken to inform them of the (possibly imminent) withdrawal of their healthcare?

8.  How will the UK treat those who are forced to relocate to Britain because they cannot meet the costs of private healthcare?  These are likely to be those who are in the worst position to cope financially, and will therefore be a greater burden on the UK exchequer.

9.  Have not all EU member states got a duty of care to protect the long-term sick?

10.  What can we do to get our message over?  How can we project our image better, and encourage the media to look beyond the "retired diplomat, sitting in the sun in an earthly paradise sipping wine"?  How can we convey that those on high incomes are hardly affected,  unless they too are long-term sick?  They contribute 8% of their worldwide income to the French CMU at present; for those on high incomes, private healthcare will be cheaper, as its cost is not based on ability to pay.

11.  How is the new legislation justified in so far as it damages those least able to cope, and barely affects those who are?

12.  Although an extension to the CMU cover has been given to those already in it, what will happen to them if they develop a serious condition in the meantime?  Will they put off possible diagnostic treatments (eg mamograms etc), to avoid having any possible ailments excluded from private policies, possibly at the risk of their lives?

[ebaynut]

Last week I sent emails to all seven of the MEP's that cover my area. I explained that in my opinion, to apply the new healthcare rules retrospectively was unjust, and also to explain my own circumstances. My wife and I wish to move to France, but she has life long health problems, so we will not be able to get private cover for her.

First thing the following morning (well 10.00 am) I received a phone call from my UKIP MEP from his office in Strasburg. We discussed this issue, and many others, putting right between us, all that was wrong with the world, the weather etc, with which we pretty much saw eye to eye with each other on. However, when it came down to being able to help, he told me that MEP's had no 'real' power in the EU parliament, they could only advise and prepare reports, which if those higher up did not want, or like, would be just cast aside.

He also explained that being a UKIP MEP, was a bit like being a turkey voting to keep Christmas, as it was ultimately his and his party's aim to get the UK out of the EU, and thereby he would lose his well paid job, and the nice lifestyle he enjoyed.

He did however say that my best move would be to contact my MP, as he would be able to help far more.

This I have done, but still waiting for a reply.

Good start though, I thought, bet I will get some more calls, but no, no other replies or even acknowledgements! 

Guess they are all busy, but will we ever know?

Also, may I just point out, "Rich Brits" do not move to France to retire, they buy 'holiday' homes, the French tax system would not be to their liking. I hear Monaco is pretty popular with them however.

 

 

[ali-cat]

CooperLola

Just one, possibly two additions to your excellent list :

Article 34 (Publicity) of the Directive requires that "Member States shall disseminate information concerning the rights and obligations of Union Citizens and their family members on the subjects covered by this Directive, particularly by means of awareness campaigns" ... etc.  Why was no such campaign conducted by the French authorities, or if it was,  why was it not undertaken at an early stage or in such as manner to inform those likely to be affected by the Directive.  For example the British Consulate estimate that over 6,000 E106s were issued last year to Britons moving to France.  The most current information on the French social security website relevent to les Britanniques is entirely written in French.

Apologies -I couldn't check the E106 details without exiting this thread.

Also

Why are those who have been forced into medical retirement considered to be 'inactif' and are they disadvantaged compared for example to those French nationals who are 'forced' to retire before state retirement age due to their occupations? 

Not sure if this is a runner or not - just another one of those issues that struck me as unfair.

 

Mr Cat

 

[ali-cat]

 

Looks like the Spanish expats have already done a lot of the 'heavy lifting' on this :

http://www.ukgovabusesexpats.co.uk/Letters/Reply-to-complaint-040606.htm

Mr Cat

[cooperlola]

I have just come off the phone after an hour chatting to Mark in Mary Honeyball's office.

What she is doing at the moment is gathering a group of MEPs to formulate a draft motion on "Healtcare provision for European Citizens residing in member states."  The main objective being a proper reciprocal agreement as regards healthcare, whereby every EU citizens healthcare rights follow them, regardless of where they live, or what their circumstances are.  Obviously, this is her own best approach to our problems, given the nature of her position.

Mark will post on here further once there is something  to report.

Additionally they will continue to work on our behalf but the main thrust of what needs to happen, is for us to keep pushing our cause and not to give up.  The suggestion is that we form a proper lobby group, which some have suggested already on here.  Mr Cat's example of the Spanish group is a good one.  Eventually, thanks to their work, the UK now pays the affected health authorities in Spain, a sum towards their costs in certain parts of Spain where there are large numbers of elderly residents and visitors from the UK each year.

Is anybody up for this?

As much as we may despise the press at times, they are read by the politicians who matter, and their opinions are noted.  Politicians care what the press says about them.  So step one is to write to the papers who have thus far shown an interest in our story (Sunday Times and Telegraph having been the most recent) and to respond in "letters to the editor" to the articles which have appeared.

Once Mary and her team have their policy formulated, the next step will be to get as many MEPs on board with any proposed legislation as we can, so that it gets passed into EU law.   Once Mark has the full details we need to write to all our MEPs (including the French ones) to encourage them to vote for any legislation of this sort.  Mary has cross-party support thus far so it need not be a party-political issue.  We can work on a suitable letter once we know more.

Meanwhile, anybody who has not done so, should write to their MPs in the UK.  I've asked Mark to follow up on the issue of information dissemination, and have talked to him about the question of informing E106 holders of the forthcoming changes.

Our own MPs in the UK need to be encouraged to push for better treatment for we ex-pats, because after all, we vote for them.  He also suggests that we can get friends and relatives in the UK to write to MPs too, to put forward our case.  One or two letters they can ignore; hundreds, they cannot.

As regards the very specific questions re our position vis a vis EU law, there is room for individuals and groups to lodge appeals, but the process is long-winded and needs very specific questions to be asked.  That is where a properly-formed lobby group could help, but it will all take time and a lot of work.  Depends if you're all up for a fight or not really.....[Www]

[makfai]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

is anybody up for this?

[/quote]

 

Go on then count me in[:D]

[Chassaing]

Put us on the list of doers!

[cooperlola]

We would need to be pretty sure what we were trying to do!  It's all very well (and I'm happy to do anything I can too) but we would need a pretty clear focus and, more importantly, resources, which are the thing which most are going to be seriously short of at present.  My own instinct is to approach the Spanish lot

http://www.ukgovabusesexpats.co.uk/index-viejo.htm

and see if we can't join forces, at least in a practical way.  What does everybody think?

[Chassaing]

[quote user="cooperlola"]

We would need to be pretty sure what we were trying to do!  It's all very well (and I'm happy to do anything I can too) but we would need a pretty clear focus and, more importantly, resources, which are the thing which most are going to be seriously short of at present.  My own instinct is to approach the Spanish lot

http://www.ukgovabusesexpats.co.uk/index-viejo.htm

and see if we can't join forces, at least in a practical way.  What does everybody think?

[/quote]How about we work out what we need to do and apply the personal resources where we need and collect the financial resourses somewhere some how when we have to?  I already work hard for my local community for free but I'll be happy to go for a better Europe, this is my home now.  What is the way forward?

[cooperlola]

From Rothrugby, today (copied from another thread)

"Hi,

Just thought I'd let people know that as a result of our members lobbying MEP's , we've received a reply confirming that they have contacted the Minister for Europe;

Jim Murphy MP

 Foreign & Commonwealth Office King Charles Street Whitehall London SW1A 2AH

To seek a clarification statement on the retrospective element and if this is true, to press the French Govt to reconsider. It shows that lobbying does help so keep it up"

See? It works.

 

[cooperlola]

[quote user="lebois"][quote user="cooperlola"]

We would need to be pretty sure what we were trying to do!  It's all very well (and I'm happy to do anything I can too) but we would need a pretty clear focus and, more importantly, resources, which are the thing which most are going to be seriously short of at present.  My own instinct is to approach the Spanish lot

http://www.ukgovabusesexpats.co.uk/index-viejo.htm

and see if we can't join forces, at least in a practical way.  What does everybody think?

[/quote]How about we work out what we need to do and apply the personal resources where we need and collect the financial resourses somewhere some how when we have to?  I already work hard for my local community for free but I'll be happy to go for a better Europe, this is my home now.  What is the way forward?
[/quote]In amongst doing other things, I'm putting together a paper as a starting point, which I'll circulate to those who are prepared to help kick this off.  Meantime, maybe you'd all like to put your thoughts together too?  Please use the e-mail button below so I can attach a Word document when I write to you.

I think maybe Archant might think we're pushing the boundaries a bit if we use the forum to set this up so please register your interest with me personally, initially, so we can kick things off without treading on our hosts' toes too much!

[ali-cat]

You may be right makfai - but I have my concerns.  Without doubt the Directive under discussion is intended to ease the movement of EU citizens within the EU and to confirm the conditions under which citizens attain permanent citizenship. The requirement for inactives to be self sufficient and be covered by private health insurance was no doubt a side issue to protect member states from an unresonable burden on their healthcare systems. Hence we could lobby on the right to permanent citizenship for those who have already been here for 5 years and for confirmation of the 5 year rule - giving us all hope of future salvation.  However this assumes that permanent citizenship automatically brings with it entitlement to state healthcare.  The healthcare issue is the primary threat to our wellbeing.  Before this all started I doubt that many of us seriously worried about when we would attain full citizenship.  As I understand it the issue of citizenship under this directive falls under EU law which overrides any national law.  However I also understand that healthcare is an issue over which member states retain full policy and legislative control under the subsidiarity principle.  I appreciate that the '5 year rule' states that after having been continuously resident for 5 years certain conditions (including the need for private health insurance) are waived however I'm not convinced that it then also follows that we have the right to benefit from the state healthcare system.  It could be argued that the clause in the Directive dealing with this is intended to ensure that state healthcare is not overburdened (therefore private health insurance required) and once this requirement is dropped (after attaining full citizenship after 5 years) it might be inferred that the state is then liable to pick up the health costs of any citizens who don't have private insurance.  This could be argued but it doesn't necessarily follow and I'm no expert on European law.  Perhaps all this means is that after 5 years you can decide not to cover yourself by private health insurance at your own risk but can't be deported if this is what you decide.

My fear is that it would be relatively easy for the authorities to concede full citizenship for those already here for 5 years and to confirm the 5 year rule.  It wouldn't cost then anything that I'm aware of and not to do so would probably be in breach of European law.  However they may be able to do this without any reconsideration of the healthcare issue.  Furthermore having lobbied on the citizenship issue and won - what further basis would we have to lobby on the healthcare issues.

Apologies for the length of post.  Just my tuppence.  Perhaps we do need to draft in some legal expertise?

Mr Cat

Apologies for not attaching makfai's original post.