Case studies needed ?

[Doodle]

There is a lot of information here about Tax, Investments, Health etc - I have found it very useful in the past and you can sign up for the monthly News letter to keep yourself up to date with changes.

Mrs KG - sorry don't know how to make the link live but someone on here will be able to I'm sure.

https://www.french-property.com/guides/france/

[cajal]

[quote user="Mrs KG"]

Mrs KG - sorry don't know how to make the link live but someone on here will be able to I'm sure.[/quote]

Here

[Doodle]

Thanks cajal. Mrs KG

[Cathar Tours]

Read an interesting bit in German newspaper on the plane yesterday flying home. The Germans have come up with how they will deal with the S1 form for retired Brits.

Those that already have them will continue as normal, nothing will change. Those that present them before end of business on Friday 29th March 2019 will be accept but after than none will from the UK. This they say is because the UK will no longer be a member of the EU and therefore in Germanies eyes the UK S1 will cease to be valid. So clearly when Germany said nothing will change when the UK leaves it refers to those already there.

As I said in a previous post both France and Spain (who have the largest number of UK Expats) have yet to officially say where they stand so it might be worth the OP at least renting before this date and if his wife can get her S1 (and his on the back of hers) and present it to the French authorities before that date they could be OK. That assumes France decides to go down the German route.

[EuroTrash]

I thought the scenario Germany has said it will go for, is the bottom line as agreed by the EU. That's what it says in the negotiation documents and that's presumably what will be adopted if there is a deal. One of the EU's priorities in the negotiation was, minimum disruption to Brits already established in the EU and vice versa. I thought only the question was, whether individual states will decide to go above and beyond that bottom line by extending privileges to later arrivals from the UK that they are only obliged to offer to EU citizens. Some say they are waiting to see what the UK does and they will consider mirroring that. But, I can't see the UK making any concessions beyond what it's obliged to do, so likely everybody will do a Germany.

[Cathar Tours]

Thing is the UK was supposed to have everything done and dusted by March so it can be endorsed in June (28th I think) but there is nothing. Its then supposed to be taken away by the various heads of state and discussed/voted on in their own country then back in October to issue a "political declaration" which I believe is then the end of all negotiations. January it gets voted on by the MEP's leaving a couple of months just in case there is a problem.

So in short the UK still hasn't made it's mind up and the two prime areas of concern are obviously NI and also EU citizen rights in the UK.

You may well be right and everyone does a Germany but if the UK does not get its mess sorted out quickly the EU is not going to wait for ever and the UK may well leave without any deal for anything whatsoever.

[YCCMB]

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldeucom/107/107.pdf

If you can be bothered to wade through this, it's somewhat helpful.

As with a number of issues where reciprocal agreement is required (access to private pensions paid into UK banks is another one that's been discussed here), the report indicates clearly that the UK government has already conceded in principle to maintaining much of the status quo: at least, as far as it affects EU nationals living in the UK. Whilst this has not been passed into law as yet, I suppose my question would be "and why would it be". The U.K. has outlined its intention to concede to the provision of healthcare without changing the terms currently in force governing the treatment of EU/EEA nationals in the UK. What they're waiting for, and what everyone should focus on, is the rest of the EU member states agreeing to make that concession reciprocal.

I can't see how or why the Government would (or should) say that they'll let EU nationals enjoy the benefits of UK healthcare without penalty AND shoulder the financial burden of paying for UK nationals living abroad, whilst the rest of the EU sit on their hands and do nothing.

It's something that has struck me often throughout this "negotiation" period, despite my fervent disagreement with Brexit. The U.K. has to keep spelling out what it will concede to, and what it will agree to provide, but nobody on the other side seems to have stepped up and said "OK, if you'll do that, we will happily agree to do the same". And why not? because they have to go into their 27-country huddle first, and fight out whether they are ALL prepared to agree.

It's not always the UK holding things up. Probably not a popular observation to make, and certainly one which gives me no pleasure either.

[EuroTrash]

"I can't see how or why the Government would (or should) say that they'll let EU nationals enjoy the benefits of UK healthcare without penalty AND shoulder the financial burden of paying for UK nationals living abroad, whilst the rest of the EU sit on their hands and do nothing."

I'm struggling to get my head round what you're saying here. It is reciprocal. It's all set out in the agreement thus far and it is exactly the same wording in both colums

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/citizens_rights_-_comparison_table.pdf

So in theory, basically status quo for those already established in another EU state, as per the EU Directive. Workers contribute towards their healthcare in whichever country they live in so they're not a burden. Pensioners get S1s from their competent state so they're not a burden. Inactifs/early retired, well the EU Directive makes provision for each country to take steps to ensure that they are not a burden. France does this by checking their financial resources before accepting them into PUMA. If the UK doesn't have a similar system, then that's not the EU's fault, the directive allows them to do it

Sorry to be dim, but I don't understand what you are saying isn't reciprocal and who you are saying is a burden.

[YCCMB]

I'm not saying anyone is a burden. I'm saying that as things stand, there's essentially no change to the status quo envisaged post-Brexit, BUT no legislation has been passed by the UK to enshrine that promise in law. As I understand it (and I'm quite willing to be corrected), the EU has not either passed any legislation to ensure the continued access by UK nationals to future reciprocal healthcare access in member states.

Thus, my observation was simply that we are in a bit of a "who blinks first" situation. As the EU and UK keep saying, "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" . The U.K. is unlikely (and unwilling) to commit to funding healthcare for EU nationals living in the UK by passing legislation until the EU does the same for UK nationals resident elsewhere. If (IF) the UK were to go ahead and agree to foot the bills for both EU nationals accessing healthcare here and UK nationals accessing healthcare in the EU without the EU passing reciprocal legislation, then the cost (not any group of people) would be a financial burden on the UK and a potentially significant saving for the EU. I can see why nothing has yet been passed into more concrete law by the UK in this instance. I know there's agreement to all this in principle, but until it becomes law that's all it is.

[EuroTrash]

Oh right I see what you're driving at now.

However I don't see it so much as a "who blinks first" situation, as a game of patience, everybody has to wait to see whether or not there is a deal and neither side can start legislating until that is known. If there is a deal, the provisional agreement should be immediately transposed into legislation by both sides because it has already been agreed and no further discussion is needed. If there isn't a deal then presumably this provisional agreement will go out of the window. So at this stage surely it would be premature to pass legislation that might then have to be repealed before it comes into effect.

.

Although, "If (IF) the UK were to go ahead and agree to foot the bills for both EU nationals accessing healthcare here" (I presume "here" means the UK) - I still don't really see what bills are to be footed, because if those EU nationals are working then they are paying contributions just the same as British workers, and if they're pensioners then as long as there is a deal their healthcare bills should continue to be covered by their own countries.

[YCCMB]

The report highlights the fact that some EU nationals living (and, yes, presumably working) in the UK have encountered hurdles when trying to access healthcare. It doesn't give details, but I'm aware that healthcare authorities are increasingly being pressured to verify that people turning up at hospitals and GP surgeries are entitled to free NHS treatment. Let's not overlook that reciprocal arrangements currently extend to visitors under the EHIC scheme, so it's not just about the effect on residents. There's still a bit of healthcare tourism going on, though I've never been sure where these tourists come from: firstly, because to hear many people talk, the NHS is so impossibly backward and failing that I can't see why people would want to come here and use it (except that it's free, perhaps?) and secondly, because a majority of the EU and third country nationals (working) that I've encountered through my work have seemed to make a point of flying home for medical treatment. Possibly because unlike Brits in France, they don't necessarily see an "English-speaking doctor" as a plus??

[Cathar Tours]

I think you are clouding the waters a little having read the report.

Firstly it is a report from the House of Lords on what it's own EU committee has discovered as part of their enquiry. Most of the report is only of interest to those who don't understand how the system currently works so that might be interesting for the OP.

Secondly the most important part for those currently holding an S1 or looking to get an S1 in the future is in Chapter 1 paragraph 3.

"The Government has repeatedly emphasised that one of the fundamental objectives of Brexit is to bring an end to free movement of persons: this is, indeed, a ‘red line’ in negotiations between the UK and EU. If this red line

is adhered to in full, it follows that one of the fundamental rationales for reciprocal healthcare arrangements, as they have evolved during the UK’s EU membership, will disappear upon Brexit."

That is fact as it stands unless there is a deal. The rest of it is more along the lines of what the Expats would like, what they currently get and what the government would like as the committee understands it but it does not say if it will happen, that is down to the UK government. As the report says it is the governments "intent" but then it was the governments "intent" not to pay the EU any money so that comment is meaningless.

PS. I believe I am right in saying Healthcare is free at the point of use in Spain (there are many countries that have this system round the world) so why don't people go there? Perhaps it is because like in many other EU countries you have to prove your entitlement to use it?

[YCCMB]

I'm not sure how I'm "clouding the waters" as I'm fully aware what the report is and is not. If people take the time to read it (as you have done) then it will, as you rightly point out, give a complete summary of the situation as at March 28, 2018.

I'm not sure, however, how you can read a 50- odd page report and conclude that the "most important" part is one paragraph which itself is speculation by the Lords'committee. Note the use of the conditional "If........it follows that".

P.S. Spanish healthcare is a bit more complex than you've been led to believe.

PPS. Of greater concern, I would have thought, to many on here who have said they'd perhaps want to move on in future to another E U country rather than return to the UK, is the lack of any proposal by either the EU or the UK about how to manage that scenario. Could be that those living in one EU country now may lose healthcare cover if they try to move to another, regardless of how long they've been "away".....

[Cathar Tours]

What I meant it is a long report covering many things that Expats living in EU countries already know. I got the impression, sorry if I am wrong, that although tiresome you should read the whole thing were in fact the most important part for them was the bit I quoted. Nobody in this forum I would think would be interested in an S2 for instance yet you need to read the pages to understand it is of no interest to you. Likewise the bit about the republic or Ireland and NI would be of no interest hence "muddying the waters".

I guess it might be of interest to know they believe there are 1.2M Expats living in the EU and that only 190,000 use an S1 whilst there are only 5,800 EU nationals using S1's in the UK but then that is not of any real interest to people on this forum (except possibly for a well know (male) anti EU forum member).

As I see it and I am prepared to be corrected is that actually putting the word "intent" aside the UK is not coming up with the goods with regards to EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens within the EU with regards to reciprocal healthcare which for many will be, as the report mentions, a major worry for them.

From a financial point of view because of the money the BMA says is saved (difference between treatment cost in the UK and lower cost in many other EU countries and the numbers involved getting medical treatment) it would be in the UK's interest to get this dealt with properly and as quickly as possible. I really don't see what the problem is holding this up unless it is political and they want to use it as a form of blackmail against the EU but then that might well backfire and the innocents will be the fodder.

[EuroTrash]

To me the main thing to be borne in mind about this report is that it is a unilateral document. The EU also has "red lines" and they include ensuring that EU citizens currently exercising freedom of movement do not have their lives disrupted by Brexit. If there is no agreement then I guess the UK can do whatever it wants and there might well be a U-turn all the high profile announcements TM has made about how EU citizens in the UK have nothing to worry about because she values them and will look after them come what may. Didn't she even send them all a personal love-letter earlier this year? although I suspect they all know how much her words are worth.

[Cathar Tours]

Exactly, your last sentence says it all really and many EU member states and the people within them think the same particularly in Germany.

She seems to think the UK is a world power compared to the EU and she can tell them, she is in for BIG surprise come the next meeting unless she agrees to the EU terms which are not up for negotiation. Four core principles and all that.

[YCCMB]

I think my point overall, which both of you have just illustrated, is that it's generally accepted that the UK is the villain of the piece and is somehow not playing fair. I can totally understand your stance, given the direct effect that this might have on yourselves and your families.

In this and other Brexit issues, seeing this from a standpoint of not having a vested interest (in healthcare, I hasten to add, not Brexit) what I see is the UK making tentative offers which (call me naive) I believe will be honoured if the EU reciprocates. What I'm not so clear about is whether, in principle, the EU has agreed to reciprocate. Saying "The UK is not coming up with the goods" when the EU isn't either, is a case in point.

I don't like Brexit, I don't want it. But I am consistently a bit puzzled as to how a "negotiation" is apparently expected to involve the UK saying exactly what it will do whilst the EU waits on, committing to very little on its side.

For those directly involved/affected by healthcare issues, I understand that this is a very unsettling time. Like anyone with a vested interest in the outcome, you'd hope and want it to be top of the agenda. Regrettably, I don't suppose it is.

Your exchange about "doing a Germany" and "the UK hasn't made its mind up" seem to me to be muddying the waters as much as a detailed House of Lords report which, to me, seems to cover the UK's proposed position fairly comprehensively. Although Cathar Tours says "the UK hasn't made its mind up" and then suggests that the report gives too much detail......

In your shoes, I'd be a lot more concerned about whether the EU agrees to allow British migrants access to healthcare than whether the UK agrees to allow that facility to EU nationals. Hence my earlier comment about "who blinks first". Because your earlier discussion seems to suggest that you believe different EU countries have suggested they'll apply different policies. God knows if/how that might work!

[EuroTrash]

You have assumed wrongly I'm afraid, in that I don't have any concerns about effects it might have on me personally. I've been working and contributing in France for over 10 years and I'm 99.9% confident nothing will change. As regard the other 0.1%, if I had to go back to the UK it wouldn't devastate me, I have a place to live there if I want. Either way I'll carry on working as I do now.

I guess I see the other side because I mainly get my info from French media sources. But the way it's presented, which makes perfect sense to me, is that on the one side the EU has a comprehensive set of rules and directives built up and refined over many years and designed to give all the member states and their citizens as fair a deal as possible. On the other side, the UK started off with a blank sheet of paper - but for some reason people seem to imagine that the EU is going to throw all of its existing rules and directives out of the window and both sides can start from a blank page. No, they won't.

The UK knew (in theory, though in practice apparently not since it needed to clarify things) how the EU operates. The UK decided to leave, but the EU will continue operating as usual, and its rules and directives and commitments have to stay in place so that its own members can carry on exactly as before, apart from being one fewer. The only negotiating the EU needs to do, is to find out what the UK wants and then work out how to integrate that into its existing structure. The EU's red lines and commitments to its own members are already clear, they've been written down in black and white for many years and they haven't changed because of Brexit. So for the UK to now suggest approaches that are incompatible with the EU's established commitments is a waste of time.

Yes the EU is inflexible, but that is inevitable, its modus operandi involves so many diverse economies and cultures and has taken so long to refine to the point where it is now, that changing this or that element to suit the UK risks upsetting the whole applecart, and the negotiators' duty is to ensure that the applecart isn't upset. This is what the UK has to contend with.

Negotiators need to be sensitive to the other side's position and the UK either doesn't understand or has decided to ignore the position the EU negotiators are in. Blue sky thinking and its own imaginative rewriting of EU rules might be more fun, but it's not appropriate when the other side doesn't have a lot of room for manoeuvre, and it just makes the UK look infantile.

[EuroTrash]

"Because your earlier discussion seems to suggest that you believe different EU countries have suggested they'll apply different policies. God knows if/how that might work!"

In the same way that different countries have different policies at the moment I guess. All the states will agree a baseline and that baseline will be issued as an EU directive, but how countries then transpose that into their own law is up to them and if they want to offer Brits a better deal, they can.

A bit like, there is an EU directive about S1s, but up to about 10 years ago the UK had a different policy in that was the only EU state that issued limited-validity "residual" S1s to early retirees. The directive doesn't obiige countries to do this but they can if they want. The UK then decided to knock this on the head, which again was its own decision, nothing to do with the EU. What it can't do, as an EU member, is decide to stop issuing them to pensioners and cross border and posted workers, because that would be contrary to EU rules.

[YCCMB]

I take your point, totally...however, if as you suggest the EU is inflexible by its very nature, it calls into question this idea that individual EU countries (as CT seems to have implied) are putting forward their own individual approaches as to how they'll deal with healthcare for British nationals. Maybe such flexibility does, and can already exist within the EU framework?

For example, the U.K. as a current EU member has reciprocal healthcare arrangements (to varying degrees) with 29 non-EU countries.....if so, nothing precludes the EU from being flexible in this regard, as precedent exists.

ETA: I posted as you were posting so apologies if this (answering your penultimate post) seems redundant.

[EuroTrash]

see previous post ;-) The EU as an institution is inflexible, but individual states don't have to be like peas in a pod.

[Cathar Tours]

Well Betty it is the four core principles of the EU and under no circumstances are they up for negotiation or as some others would say cherry picking.

One of those principles is free movement, which as the report points out includes under EU legislation the "transportation" of healthcare rights (I don't have time to go back and find it in the report but it is there). Again as it points out if you don't accept free movement then the "transportation" of your healthcare cannot happen as it currently stands. However if you can negotiate a separate reciprocal deal on healthcare all the better, a bit of cherry picking if you like.

The H of L report is its own report on its own committee and not a H of C report. That I would suspect played a part in the H of L rejection by vote of some of the legislation placed before it by the H of C. However the H of C can simply ignore the H of L if it wants. In other words as a "legal" document it isn't worth the paper it's written on although one would hope the H of C, or at least some of its members read it and suggested that some of what it says is accepted by the government.

As to the EU "not commenting" well it has many times, indeed some extreme Brexiteers would seem accuse the EU of interfering with what they see as "unhelpful comments" too much. The EU negotiators just keep pointing back to the same thing, the core principles and reiterating they are not for negotiation.

What is really behind all this is the EU really saying if you want all these benefits then you stay part of the customs union and the UK currently saying it won't. In the EU's mind it is the CU or nothing because that is the heart of the four core principles.

For me the most logical thing is for the UK to leave with nothing except a pledge to immediately start trade talks taking a format not to different from say Canada.

At the end of the day nobody really knows what will happen till it is all done and dusted. My primary interest if my dad keeping his healthcare and he, like many others, feels he is not being taken seriously and basically ignored. How can you make plans when you don't know what is going to happen. It just shows how totally uncaring the UK government is.

[EuroTrash]

"My primary interest if my dad keeping his healthcare and he, like many others, feels he is not being taken seriously and basically ignored. How can you make plans when you don't know what is going to happen. It just shows how totally uncaring the UK government is."

How long has he lived here CT?

[richard51]

This all seems to be getting all "ifs and buts".

Before the referendum (which was advisory and not an overwhelming result btw) the UK was following all the rules of the EU.

Following the advice from the referendum the UK government decided to leave the EU and its rules.

Surely in this scenario it is reasonable for the EU to ask what the UK government actually now wants. It then either accepts or rejects what the UK is proposing. Nothing to do with blinking anything else.

I am finding this whole Brexit saga truly frightening being driven by tory fanatics and a relatively small group of DUP people (my other adjectives convey my thoughts too explicitly).

Following on from the current situation does anybody really expect a "good" outcome from trade negotiations with the EU.

The US trade negotiations will be pretty quick though. Trump demands and Maggie May jumps straight into the frying pan. Yet another US state - no morals but will lie and the rich will be protected at all cost.

To the opening poster - you may well be damned if you do and damned if you don't.

[Cathar Tours]

"How long has he lived here CT? "

Around 15 years of which about 10 years (I think) he paid into the French system. The last five years he was in under my mum's S1 and when she died he had just got his own S1. He still works a little, about 4 or 5 months a year and then only half capacity. I assume because he has the S1 he does not contribute as much as he did before into the French system.