House of Lords amendments bill

[chessie]

Right - here's a challenge.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of Brexit - let's not go there -

yesterday in the House of Lords our wonderful unelected chamber, each paid £300 per day just to turn up, and regarded as the best adult care centre in the country -

decided that the UK. prior to any negotiations, should declare that any eu citizen living in the UK should have their rights protected.

Fine.

But that has thrown us, the UK ex-pats/immigrants - out on a limb, hasn't it ?

There was absolutely NO MENTION of the way any of us living in any eu country, might be treated, was there ?   It was only focused on the UK granting rights;  rights which Ms May had attempted to clear and confirm with all other 27 countries, and which Merkel refused to agree to.

So eu nationals living in the UK will be guaranteed rights (if amendment agreed) -

but WE will have NO rights.

Now how does that square with all those who, after the Brexit vote, were shouting about the rights for UK citizens in eu countries.

We've been treated like 'bargaining chips' - BECAUSE of the HoL and the eu;  and this is not the fault of the Tory government.

Interesting times......

Chessie

[lindal1000]

Those of us that live in France were campaigning for the UK to act unilaterally..It was the Conservative government who first talked about immigrants being used as bargaining chips.

Maybe some of us feel more confident about the treatment we will get from the EU post brexit than the treatment we will get from the British government. The EU cannot negotiate on anything because the UK hasn't started the process of leaving.

[Pommier]

I've signed various petitions asking that EU citizens be given the right to stay in the UK, because to me that's a separate issue to what happens to me after brexit (if it actually happens). I am NOT a bargaining chip and any decent government would have sorted this issue out soon after the ill-advised referendum.

[NormanH]

Why do you say we  will have NO rights chessie?

I can’t see why

British citizens in Europe after Brexit would be treated differently

from other non-EU nationals (Americans, Commonwealth citizens, North

Africans or Asians for example.)

1) Residence:

At present even a non-EU national can apply for residence and after 5

years legal residence it becomes even easier:

http://accueil-etrangers.gouv.fr/demande-de-titre-de-sejour/vous-etes-ressortissant-e-non-europeen-ne/vous-etes-ressortissant-e-de-pays-tiers-non-algerien-ne/vous-etes-en-france-vous-avez-deja/vous-souhaitez-obtenir-son/pour-l-obtention-d-une-carte-de-resident/article/vous-residez-en-france-depuis-au-moins-5-ans

2) Health care.

Assuming that the S1

system no longer operates that doesn’t mean that a resident has no

health-care cover.

In France the system is called PUMA (La protection

universelle maladie)

http://www.ameli.fr/assures/droits-et-demarches/la-protection-universelle-maladie.php

Elle garantit à toute personne qui travaille ou réside en

France de manière stable et régulière, un droit à la prise

en charge de ses frais de santé à titre personnel et de manière

continue tout au long de la vie.

(This covers the 65% reimbursed by the State. The other 35% can be

covered by a ‘Mutuelle’ (top-up insurance) or you can choose to

pay it yourself.)

What may well change is how the 65%cover is paid for.

At the moment those with an S1 form have the bill picked up by the UK

taxpayer, but French nationals and those with out the form have to

pay ‘côtisations’ either on their salary together with their

employer, , by charges on their business, or by paying a % of income

for those who are neither working nor running a business.

The most likely outcome would be that those who have been paid for

under the S1 system would be expected to fall into line with French

nationals and contribute in one of the ways outlined above.

I see no reason to suppose that they will lose the right to be

in the PUMA scheme,( it is open to all residents) just that in the

same ways as French person in the scheme they have to pay into it.

[Chancer]

I dont see what the UK can do regarding those of us that left of our own free will for another country, nor come to that do I see why they should even be concerned, they have done the right thing regarding EU nationals in the UK and I applaud them for that, its up to the other countries including France to decide what to do about their soon to be non EU immigrants.

 

I never understood people saying that they were used a bargaining chip, a French (or other EU nationality)  person in the UK might say that but UK emigrants to other EU countries?? that reminds me of this:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjPBp6DOwgU

[lindal1000]

Well the UK government haven't yet Chancer. They Lords have said they should but TM is objecting.It is her government that said that we were bargaining capital..and it was that statement that helped me to decide that ultimately I will go for French citizenship if I can. I refuse to be something people can use to bargain with.

[Chancer]

But exactly how are people who have left, who the UK doesnt really care about orhave any responsability for, how are they bargaining capital?

 

What do you fear that the UK government would do with or to you? - Repatriate you if they dont get their own way?

 

That would be something to fear [:D]

 

[NormanH]

Surely this whole question of the 'rights' of British citizens in the EU is yet another example of the way the Tory government place the blame for their own policies on others, helped by a complicit press.

If she wanted to Mrs May could say now that the Government will continue to pay pensions and increases to British pensioners living in Europe. That is totally in her power and nothing to do with any of the other European countries.

Similarly she could state that after Brexit the UK will continue to pay the costs of health care for those who previously were covered by an S1 form.

She doesn't say either of those things (perhaps she wants  to make cuts) and one can debate whether she should promise either of them, but the fact remains that both are in her gift, not Europe's and any threat to those 'rights' comes from this Tory government, not from Europe

[AnOther]

[quote user="chessie"]There was absolutely NO MENTION of the way any of us living in any eu country, might be treated, was there ?   It was only focused on the UK granting rights;  rights which Ms May had attempted to clear and confirm with all other 27 countries, and which Merkel refused to agree to.[/quote]Remembering that until Article 50 is invoked UK remains a full participating member of the EU, and therefore still subject to it's rules, I don't know what there is to actually discuss at this time.

The plain fact is that May has virtually nothing to bargain with and although guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens in UK might appear a pre-emptive show of good faith and an indication of how she would wish for it to pan out for expats post Brexit frankly doing it now would be grossly premature, fatally so even, as once given it cannot subsequently be used during post Article 50 negotiations  to secure reciprocal guarantees with other states.

For that reason I think the HoL vote was wrong and I hope the government finds a way to override it.

What we do need is a vote on the deal AFTER the negotiations when, unlike for the stupid half baked referendum, people will at least know what it is they are voting for or against.

Merkel cannot speak for the other EU members anyway so it's not for her

to agree or disagree with anything other than that which potentially

impacts Germany.

[mint]

[quote user="Chancer"]

But exactly how are people who have left, who the UK doesnt really care about orhave any responsability for, how are they bargaining capital?

 [/quote]

That, frankly is NOT right.  If you are a citizen of a country then that country does have responsibility for you.

If you got locked up in a foreign country, for example, then you own government owes you help and support.  They might be powerless to help but YES they do have an obligation towards you.

[Chancer]

I dont feel that way, the only people that notionally "owe" me anything are those that I have helped or been loyal to in the past, I dont consider it a debt but if they help me or someone else one day then I say thats good, its what makes the world go around.

 

My widowed father  owed me nothing from the day he kicked me out of home, it would have been no different had I left, I however owed him a debt for the rest of his life that I did my best to repay in any way I could.

 

I left the UK voluntarily and have never felt that they owe me anything, I owe a lot to the further education system, the company where I was apprenticed, The Guiness Trust and several mentors along the way, I probably wont be able to do anything for them but if ever they or their heritors reached out to me I would do so willingly.

 

I just dont feel the same about the country as an entity the sub parts of which bear little relation to those for which I feel morally indebted.

[lindal1000]

But there's a difference between whether you feel that you're owed something on an emotional level and whether you are actually 'owed something' legally. I think maybe owed is the wrong word, but as British citizens they are our governing state if you like. If France decided to deport you, then they would have no choice but to take you in, whether you agreed or not. And, like it or not they do have a responsibility for their citizens all over the world. The only time they are devolved of that obligation is if their citizens have dual nationality.

[Chancer]

I understand, owed is too emotive a word.

 

But on an emotional level I do feel strongly that I am never owed nothing by nobody (trying to avoid a double negative [:D])

 

The sense of entitlement of those in the UK that have never ever worked rankles me no less than those who left the UK (décades ago in some cases), have benefitted from healthcare that they have not contributed to (unlike a French national or Norman a nd who now feel that the UK "owes them". The former have more validity in my book.

[lindal1000]

The French government take their commitment to their citizens overseas more seriously than the British one I think. Those who choose to live in the UK have their own MP representing them in the French parliament, and Macron went out of his way to actively campaign for their support. I can't see the British government doing that for us.

Benefits and healthcare are very different. A French person returning to France after a period of years would have to jump through the same hurdles as anything else to get into the system.

[mint]

Of course, what you have with your country is a sort of contract.  Why else do you think people will put their lives at risk in order to become the citizen of one country or another?

Why do you think it's so dreadful to be "stateless"?

Say some big mishap, like a tsunami happened when you are abroad.  What does your government say?  Something along the lines of "we are doing all we can for British citizens and will bring all the victims home" or similar.

It's not to do with whether they "owe" you, they are legally obliged to help you.  Unless of course you are North Korean, in which case I don't expect you get to go abroad in the first place.

[NormanH]

Mrs May has no need to 'bargain' for anything on behalf of British citizens in France.

In the case that we become non-EU  étrangers

1)  Residence rights are already clearly stated for both EU and non-EU citizens ( see my earlier post)

2) Healthcare for those who had S1 forms is her decision not France's

3) Whether or not to pay pensions and pension increases  is also her decision, not France's.

There is nothing to bargain for there.

[mint]

Absolutely right, Norman.  Health care through SI and level of pension increase (or no increase) is to do with your own British government if you are British.

If you must blame somebody, at least blame the right person or persons.

[Chancer]

[quote user="mint"]It's not to do with whether they "owe" you, they are legally obliged to help you.  [/quote]

 

I get that Mint and Lindal explained it well, however it was you that said that they "owed" us which lit my touch paper [:D]

[mint]

[quote user="mint"][quote user="Chancer"]

But exactly how are people who have left, who the UK doesnt really care about orhave any responsability for, how are they bargaining capital?

 [/quote]

That, frankly is NOT right.  If you are a citizen of a country then that country does have responsibility for you.

If you got locked up in a foreign country, for example, then you own government owes you help and support.  They might be powerless to help but YES they do have an obligation towards you.

[/quote]

Well this is what I said...............I mentioned responsibility first.  However, if it's something serious, for example, that you might get a death sentence, then that responsibility becomes more imperative and, in the context of what I said above, I don't think that "owe" is too strong.

Don't we hear about people appealing to the Foreign Office for help when they are banged up in Death Row, say, for a drug-smuggling charge in a country with such sentences still?

It COULD be that they are innocent and that it is a trumped up charge.  In that case, I think they could be forgiven for thinking that their government OWES them some help[:P]

[idun]

The more I read of this thread, seems like I am plutot on the side of there being a limit as to what a country owes anyone.

I have a little expectation of some help in certain circumstances, but not all, and the choice of leaving one's native shore simply to live even holiday somewhere else, reduces what I believe limits to the help provided.

There are quite a lot of British people all over the world accused, rightly or wrongly of what is considered crime in that country, even capital crime. All too often we see cases on TV and OH and I say to one another what on earth were they doing there, or what were they playing at doing that there. And If our taxes were going to help those that made bad choices all the time, I don't think I would like that. I understand all too well that there are enough needy people who remain at home that taxes are going on, but I don't mind that.

[mint]

I agree with you to a point, idun.  OTOH, some people need to be rescued from themselves[:-))]

If people are caught up in some disaster, not of their own making, the now becoming almost common terrorist attack, for example, then it's reasonable to expect the government to provide some aid.

There are occasions when only the government can deal with a foreign administration where you, as a private individual, cannot.  The government has the resources, financial, diplomatic, personnel etc that you do not have.

I consider that, as a UK citizen, you are tremendously privileged but, as always, with privileges come responsibilities and that is the bit that some do not understand.  You have responsibilities towards your state, to obey its laws, pay your taxes, and so on.

That's what I mean in an earlier post when I describe our relationship with our country as a contract.  Is it my imagination or did previous generations have a larger sense of duty and responsibility to their country than we do?  Should there be another WW, I wonder whether people would be queuing up to offer their services in defence of their country?

[EuroTrash]

I'm with the above. When an individual has fallen victim to a government or international organisation - say a hostage situation, or a miscarriage of justice or infringement of human rights kind of thing - they should be able to count on their own country for support. It says in my passport "Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State request and requires etc" so in theory, anybody who treats me badly has Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State to answer to.

Droits et devoirs, rights and responsibilities. I think perhaps France makes this far more explicit and has it more built-in to the system than the UK does. Do UK schools have anything about this in the curriculum? They didn't in my day.

"Is it my imagination or did previous generations have a larger sense of duty and responsibility to their country than we do? " I think you're right and I hate to say it but I guess in a sense this is linked to the whole Brexit thing and us becoming European citizens rather than just British citizens.

[idun]

Hmmmm I see many of these arguments and simply believe that people, all of us, should be careful when travelling/living anywhere else. Each country has it's own laws and ideas on moral conduct....... and being ignorant of of this, is not the fault of HMG. ie: those caught skinny dipping in the Arabaian Peninsular, especially women...........well, what did they expect....... it is illegal there.

And human rights, well, I am no longer sure what they are, as far as I am concerned they currently condone extremism....... but what do I know, I am not even sure what racism is either. NO don't try and tell me, because I see these words being used in situations, when, in my opinion they are not.

Pray tell me, as a person who has no belief, do I need to join some sort of none believers association,  to 'register' in some way that my none belief in divine beings, is my belief, because that is what I firmly believe.

And I believe that my belief, should have as much substance as those who chose to believe in such things and somehow in spite of believers constantly attacking we none believers, the law seems somehow not on my side.

[EuroTrash]

I think you misunderstood me idun. I agree "human rights" is a very abused term these days and used in all kinds of stupid situations and I agree that people who break a country's laws should take responsibility for the consequences. In fact I see the law as a contract - you break it, you accept the penalty; you obey it, you expect it to protect you. I'm afraid that's also how I feel about car thieves and burglars who end up getting injured as a consequence of their car thieving and burgling activities, I have absolutely no sympathy.

Here, I was thinking about serious situations such as don't happen many times in a generation - Terry Waite for instance, you surely don't think that the UK government should have washed its hands of him? Or innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That, to me, is the kind of situation where a British citizen needs their government to step in.

[andyh4]

Idun

I wonder how you respond to the following true situation. A friend in his late fifties and to all intents and purposes seemingly as fit as a butcher's dog, took a holiday abroad. Out cycling one day he had a heart attack and died on the spot.

HMG and the diplomatic department were very helpful to the family to make sure that all necessary steps were taken in the country of his death (and in the language of said country) and to aid them to recover the body back to the UK - again meeting all necessary legal requirements from both countries.

We can argue about who may or may not be owed what, but without that support, I would suggest it would be difficult or impossible for a family to cope - especially at such a time.