Referendum (European Union) Bill

To go to the INDEX and start cllick here

What if?           [This article can be freely copied or quoted with reference:- Brian Cave]

It is not too early to plan and think

In Parliament a private member’s Bill to empower a Referendum could soon be entering  “The Committee Stage” of debate.  This may be before August or in the Autumn. MPs will consider the bill paragraph by paragraph.

*************************

Will the interests of the 1.4 million Britons  in mainland Europe be considered? Not unless a fuss is generated! … It is quite unacceptable and undemocratic that a decision to pull out of the EU could be even envisaged without listening to those most intimately affected [See at the end what you can do!.]

IF BRITAIN WITHDRAWS from the EU  the lives of many of the 1.4 million Britons residing in Europe beyond the shores of Britain, could become uncomfortable -unless some sort of bargaining occurs.
Do you feel safe?

• You will no longer be a European Citizen.  Does that matter?
• You will no longer have an automatic right to reside anywhere in the EU/EEA.
• The principal of four freedoms of movement within the EU would not apply -- of people, goods, financial services and capital

·        You would not necessarily be able to buy goods from Britain without some form of import tax or other control being imposed.

·        You might not be able to transmit money easily. Exchange controls could be re- introduced.

·        Restrictions on your own residence might arise – see below.

·        You would not be protected by EU law.

HISTORY!  This writer is over eighty. Memory extends to before 1973, before the UK joined the EU.  THEN  one could not take more than a very small quantity of  sterling abroad to Continental and other countries.  The sum had to be entered in the back of one’s passport by the bank issuing the foreign currency.  It was Margaret Thatcher who did away with this requirement (1979). 

The Treasury UK and the expatriate pensioner.

Understand that the Euro and the Pound are separate economic communities.  That means the movement of £s to €s is a transference of financial blood from one to the other. Payment of pensions (or Winter Fuel payments!) is a ‘letting of blood’ from the economy of Britain. One can see why The Treasury does not like it.    Note:- They freeze British Pensions in many parts of the world. 

UNCOMFORTABLE THOUGHT!

·        If Britain left the EU.  Would pensions be frozen? The WFP would certainly cease. Other benefits would stop.
Back in 1973, there were very few British pensioners in the EU.  Now there are over 450,000.  [see Reference 2 at end]
The expenditure on their pensions is considerable!  About £3 thousand million pounds - i.e £3 billion per year

ANOTHER UNEASY THOUGHT OR TWO!

·   [to clarify - in view of a comment received - this section on residence is updated 17tyh July 2013]

RESIDENCE --Before the EU, you could not reside in France nor perhaps in any continental country unless you could demonstrate that you had enough funds to not be a burden on the State. 
Most often  you would have to demonstrate that you had health insurance. NEW would-be residents coming from the UK could find the difficulties too great.

·        EXISTING British Residents would have the status of full foreigners.  They would need Residence cards, and possibly or probably other financial/tax restrictions, getting jobs, social support, training ?…..

 

·        If Britain left the EU, pensioners would lose State health cover.

·        Young entrepreneurs would probably not get support/guidance from the State of Residence, to set up a business.

AND REMEMBER
All those hundreds of thousands of French, Italians, German (and the rest of EU citizens)  enhancing the economy of Britain will be worried about their future if Britain pulls out of the EU,  They also will have no voice in this matter.

WHAT YOU – WE – THEY? – can do.

DEMAND A VOICE - The Britons Abroad must be heard - listened to!  The decision affects us more than anyone else. And are Britons far away from Europe not affected? 
They may desire to return to Britain one day!
This matter is wider than the VOTE.  Many of course will not have a vote in any Referendum.  Many have not registered to vote – many can’t (including the author). 
But the politicians must listen – so tell them!

The bill was introduced by Mr. James Wharton, the Conservative MP for Stockton South, as a private members Bill.james.wharton.mp@parliament.uk

In the debate (5^th July) [Reference 1 at end]  only one MP, Martin Horwood,  MP for  Cheltenham drew attention to this enormous issue of the Britons Abroad in the EU. martin.horwood.mp@parliament.uk

 Be prepared to lobby your MP – Here is the list  http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

Find the MP for the place where you last lived in the UK – claim your right to contact that MP on that basis. 

Contact any peer through the following address – Indicate to whom your message should go.   contactholmember@parliament.uk

Baroness Shirley Williams said something on  this matter on the BBC radio (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b036kxth) – unfortunately unavailable via a non-UK server, but interesting if you can hear it. 

Baroness Williams is a politician of great influence.  Her opinion is, if Britain leaves the EU, Britain will decline into a country of little significance.  Its future lies in being an important State within Europe.

Britain should be among the leaders of Europe. 

If Britain pulls out of the EU many Britons abroad in the EU may be so discomforted that they may be forced to return to Britain. What would happen if say 500,000 Brits of the 1.4 million now residing in the EU beyond the UK, decided to return to the UK at the same time; e.g to the Housing Market?; Social Care for the elderly?

REFERENCES

1.   The Hansard reference to the Referendum Bill debate is below – Mr. Horwood’s words are 7 paragraphs beyond the entry ‘column 1227’, just after Mr. Redwood asks Mr. Horwood to give way.

Hansard.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm130705/debtext/130705-0002.htm

2. A graphical representation of the Emigration of British Pensioners to most countries of Europe, and comments on such emigration to the rest of the world – all with numbers can be read here.

http://pensionersdebout.blogspot.com/2013/04/british-old-age-pensioners-and-their.html

Remember:- It is unacceptable and undemocratic that a decision to pull out of the EU could be envisaged without listening to those most intimately affected.

Distribute this to your friends and ask them to demand that their MPs also listen.

view campaign  www.votes-for-expat-brits.com

Winter Fuel Payment - part two

To go to the Index click here

I and my colleagues involved in the campaign to achieve representation  of the British Expatriates in parliament have been heavily occupied answering emails, telephone calls, and interviews with the press on the matter of the Winter Fuel Payment.

Fine! O.K!  But does George Osborne know how mad, angry, people are?  No – I guess he doesn’'t. And I do not suppose he cares that much.  You, the expatriate Briton, either do not have a vote or perhaps like the majority of those who could vote, you do not bother to exercise it.

At the end of this piece I give you two contact addresses.  But let me highlight two  aspects of what has been said or reported.

1.  Above all is the interaction between British Governmental/Ministerial intentions and EU law.  Where relevant, the EU law is superior and must be observed. The WFP is only paid within the EU/EEA, by the British Government. Not further afield.

The winter fuel payment is defined within EU Law as an old-age benefit.  Such benefits have to be administered without discrimination across the European Union/EEA.

Mr. Osborne says ' ‘EU law now says’'.  Not true.  EU law has said it all along!  It is just that that the situation has been brought to the Government’s attention through a judgement in the European Court of Justice.

2. To avoid paying the WFP to every State pensioner, the Government is trying to impose a temperature gauge.  They are attempting to show that pensioners who are resident in countries (please note!) which are claimed to be warmer in the winter months than the region of the SW of England in the same months shall not receive it.

There is an error of logic here -  The statistics are (apparently) averaging a full country and comparing this with a English district.  So though a pensioner may live in the Auvergne or the Rhône-Alps, or the Alsace districts of France, or the Sierra Nevada in Spain, all places that in winter are certainly less mild – and even severe compared to–  the Scilly Isles or Cornwall, they will be discriminated against.

So, surely it should follow that if you live in a region comparable in administrative size with the SW of England, then if this temperature threshold is adopted, then that threshold should apply to that of  the administrative region where you reside?  So using France (with which I am more familiar), the comparison should be with administrative regions like Alsace (to the east of France which includes Strasbourg!).  But more than that, if a threshold is so defined, then if you, in your location can demonstrate that your temperatures do not reach that threshold, and are refused the WFP then you would rightfully have a case against the UK Government.  The benefit cannot depend on just where you live. That is discrimination!  We are inquiring as to the Statutory legal background to the possible introduction of this regulation, through our MPs.

I doubt if this temperature threshold concept would pass the scrutiny of EU law.

3. Many have noted the anomaly of Italy - No comment.

-------------------

I have had correspondence from pensioners surviving harsh conditions in France.   My article of March 2012 details a few!

http://pensionersdebout.blogspot.fr/2012/03/how-do-british-pensioners-live-in.html
The answer (as I have said before) to my mind, is to incorporate the WFP in some manner into the State Pension and thus make it taxable.  In that way the better-–off whether they live in the Scilly Isles or Scarborough will lose some in tax. 

You can make your feelings known by telling the truth as you see it by writing to George Osborne at the following address

For the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

Mr. George Osborne,

robertsonbj@parliament.uk

****

The PEN (the WORD) is MIGHTIER than the SWORD  - Wield it!

The VOTE is the most valuable weapon of all. It sharpens the force of your words.   Democracy depends on it.

Demand the VOTE and for heaven’s sake USE it – but of course most of us have no vote and far too many others lamely say ‘why should I vote?’  Here then, most clearly is a reason why.  Without Democracy you will be trodden on. Without the Vote in the background, your sword has no edge, and is but a toy.

If Britain pulls from the EU you will undoubtedly lose the WFP anyway!  And other benefits of belonging to this great enterprise.

Politicians fear the weapon of the vote.  It is more like a cupid’s arrow. It gives power to those whom you respect.

You need the Vote.  You can give your opinion on that subject by contacting the parliamentary committee on overseas representation, which has its  next meeting on July 3^rd, at jonathan.r.blades@gmail.com

 [Author Brian Cave)***************

To receive updates on all related matters – mail to

lefourquet@orange.fr  or graham.richards@orange.fr

The Winter Fuel Payment and YOU - June 2013

To go to the index click here

Here is a piece from the BBC web site:       

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23065510
---- This is a report of George Osborne’s Financial statement of Wednesday 26^th June.

“Expats who live in seven warm European countries will lose their winter fuel payments under a "temperature test" announced by the chancellor.

George Osborne said that the payment would be withdrawn from people living in warmer countries from autumn 2015.  This will affect those living in a European country with an average winter temperature higher than the UK.

The move would save the Treasury about £30m, the Spending Review documents revealed.

Expats in seven countries will lose the payment. They are: Cyprus, France, Gibraltar, Greece, Malta, Portugal and Spain.”   [Odd- Where is Italy?]

George Osborne actual spoken words were.

“EU law now says that people living in the European Economic Area can claim Winter Fuel Payments from us even if they didn’t get it before they left the UK. Paying out even more money to people from all nationalities who may have worked in this country years ago but no longer live here is not a fair use of the nation’s cash. So from the autumn of 2015, we will link the Winter Fuel Payment to a temperature test. People in hot countries will no longer get it.“

The misinformed, misleading, nature of Osborne’s phrases are disgraceful.  He has chosen loaded words which are meant to colour the thoughts of the listener so that the listener is made to understand something other than the truth. The most famous propagandist of the last century said “The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think is right.”  This is not truth, the whole truth, but it is ‘propaganda’.

Read and note…..

‘people from all nationalities’.  The overwhelming majority of recipients of the Winter Fuel Payment in Europe, are like myself, British people descended from generations of British, indeed in my case, English people. This phrase is used to suggest that the money is not going to British people. Would he have dared say ‘British Citizens’

‘who may have worked in this country’  They receive a State pension, thus they most certainly worked in Britain.  The word ‘may’ is used to imply a sense of idleness. Would he have dared  omit the word ‘may’?

‘Is not a fair use of the nation’s cash’  Why is it not? 

‘In hot countries’.  The word ‘hot’ suggests what? Searing temperatures all the year round?   It is an exaggeration and suggests to the listener exceedingly warm all the year round. Which of course is George Osborne’s intention. Would he have dared say ‘the southern countries of the EU?’

He desires the resident population of Britain, especially those who are readers of The Mail and The Sun to believe that what he says is the truth.

The BBC web site says that the Climatological Unit at Norwich compiled figures to show that the 7 countries are warmer in winter than SW England.  Tell that to the expatriates in  Brittany, or in The Auvergne, and the towns of the Spanish hinterland or of Italy. OK! The Azores, and Majorca are warmer.  But there is not a scrap of difference between Lille (France) and Tournai (Belgium), just 20 km to the east.

The continental climate is characterised by hot summers and cold winters.

True - the Winter Fuel payment is a stupid payment - but it should be administered equably everywhere. My opinion is that it should be incorporated into the State Pension but paid as an increase to the regular monthly payments in December (incorporating the equally bizarre £10 Christmas bonus!) and also making the whole taxable.  In that manner the better-off would lose some of it.

You may find an item written one year ago stimulating! It concerns the neglect of the citizens in France in the 19^th century, but it still resonates today.

http://pensionersdebout.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-accuse.html

FINALLY – Is it not apparent that a certain dictatorial element lies in the thoughts of the party-body-politic in Britain.  The expatriate has no vote. Antipathy is raised against the expatriate  in Parliament, and in the press. 

We have no effective vote. Is it not time that we had a political voice?

If you have not already done so, send a Statement of Evidence to the Parliamentary Committee which one sincerely hopes is seriously considering the Representation of  Overseas electorate………….

Send to Jonathan Blades at the Palace of Westminster

 jonathan.r.blades@gmail.com

Jon Danzig's World: Can’t vote or don’t vote?

Jon Danzig's World: Can’t vote or don’t vote?

Health Payments in Europe

To go to the INDEX and start click here.

French & European Health payments by the UK for British Pensioners

A/. It is appropriate that the retired citizens who live in France know exactly what expenses are paid  by the British Government for their health care in France.

I am eighty years old, retired, and have never earned any money in France and therefore have never subscribed to the French social security system. The UK is by EU law the ‘competent State’ for the support of our Social Security.  

Like so many others I find the costs of our health care ever rising. Some elderly couples are needing to find beyond 2,000 euros a year  for a top-up health insurance.

Under EU law France is required to ask the UK for the actual costs of our health treatment.  What is meant by ‘actual costs’?

I decided to find out the position.  This is possible via a Freedom of Information request to the Department of Health, London.   I have received very courteous mails from that department and was able to obtain details of all payments to France concerning my health payments since August 1998.  These are confidential and were sent to me by recorded delivery.

I have selected one item here which I have cross checked with details I received from the CPAM (French social security department).

Item  24^th January 2012

CPAM detail

Acte Biologie      

montant dépense (actual cost)      82.08€      taux 60% (amount paid by the French State)

montant payé  (amount paid to the  institution of treatment)          49.25€

participation forfaitaire à retenir   (‘tax’ retained for future collection from patient)   -4.00€

Soins infirmiers  

montant dépense (actual cost)       4.73€      taux  60% (amount paid by the French State)

montant payé  (amount paid to the  institution of treatment)             2.84

Reglé au Laboratoire   (Amount for final settlement to the Laboratory – A sum of  34.72€ was paid by my health  insurance  making up the total of  86.81€ =82.08+4.73€)      

 52.09€.  This is equal to the above 49.25€+2.84€

-------------------------

Breakdown on Claim from France sent to me from the Department of Health, London on items between 15/12/2011 to 22/06/2012.

Soins paramedicaux                           2.84€

Analyses biologiques                        49.25€   i.e = 52.09€

It is clear that the French State seeks repayment of the costs which the French State would find for a French Citizen.  .

B/.The added burden of French taxation on the cost of health.

The above  CPAM detail indicates a ‘participation forfaiture’ of 4€ .   This is a tax which the French Government levies on most health transactions.  It is 1€ for each visit to a G.P. and 0.5€ for collection of a drug at a pharmacy. 

The cost out of one’s pocket for the ‘Acte Biologie’ was therefore increased by 4€. 

The cost to me of this ‘Acte +soins’  was therefore 34.72€+4€= 38.72€. The 4€ was not paid by my insurance.

Over a year, the taxes on health costs accumulate. Together with the above taxes on each medical act as indicated above one must add the taxes on health insurance. During 2012 these taxes amounted in my case to towards 200€.  The more one requires drugs and medical care the higher the taxes. Some pensioners are paying out a great deal more than this in taxes on their health. The more ill you are the more tax you pay!  The French should be ashamed of this taxation on sick people.

C/. Insurance costs

During 2012 the cost of health insurance per month was for me 128.78€ (for a couple – being 64.39€ for one person).  It has since risen in 2013 to 135.78€/month -1629.36€/year).  198.15€/year of this latter sum is a tax paid to the French Government – i.e about 12%.

D/. The EU Laws on the position of health costs.

Regulations 883/2004 and its ‘implementing regulation 987/2009 are those that concern Social Security matters. My interpretations are indicated in orange.

Basic EU Regulation No 883/2004 defines ‘institution’ as ---

"institution" means, in respect of each Member State, the body or authority responsible for applying all or part of the legislation."

The EU laws below are interpreted as referring to the ‘actual costs’ to the institution of the State not the actual costs of the institution that provided the treatment.

EU Regs 883/2004 Article 24 covers the situation relating to Pensioners who have retired to live in another State…I quote verbatim.

“No right to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence

1. A person who receives a pension or pensions under the legislation of one or more Member States and who is not entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of the Member State of residence shall nevertheless receive such benefits for himself and the members of his family, insofar as he would be entitled thereto under the legislation of the Member State or of at least one of the Member States competent in respect of his pensions, if he resided in that Member State. The benefits in kind shall be provided at the expense of the institution referred to in paragraph 2 by the institution of the place of residence, as though the person concerned were entitled to a pension and benefits in kind under the legislation of that Member State.”

[Observations/Interpretation :- It states that one should receive medical treatment in the same manner as one would expect under the legislation of the UK as if the patient resided in the UK.

                                    The costs are to be borne by the UK – the ‘competent State’ for your social security.

                                    The medical care is supplied as to a French person under French legislation as though he/she were a state pensioner of France.]

Continue....

“2. In the cases covered by paragraph 1, the cost of benefits in kind shall be borne by the institution as determined in accordance with the following rules:

(a) where the pensioner is entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of a single Member State, the cost shall be borne by the competent institution of that Member State;”

[Interpretation – The UK is bound to pay the medical costs]

“Article 35

Reimbursements between institutions

1. The benefits in kind provided by the institution of a Member State on behalf of the institution of another Member State under this Chapter shall give rise to full reimbursement.”

-----------------------

From the Complementary ‘Implementing’  EU Regulation 987-2009 we read..

“Article 62

Principles

1.  For the purposes of applying Article 35 and Article 41 of the basic Regulation, the actual amount of the expenses for benefits in kind, as shown in the accounts of the institution that provided them, shall be reimbursed to that institution by the competent institution, ………….”

***************************

Commentary.

The difficulty lies in the interpretation of the clause: copied in above--

“The benefits in kind shall be provided at the expense of the institution referred to in paragraph 2 by the institution of the place of residence, as though the person concerned were entitled to a pension and benefits in kind under the legislation of that Member State.”

I observe that this clause has no mention of costs.  It relates to the provision of the medical treatment.  This has to be provided as though one is a French citizen.

One notes the contradiction with  the previous clause which states that

‘the pensioner’  shall nevertheless receive such benefits for himself …., insofar as he would be entitled thereto under the legislation of the (United Kingdom) [Member State] competent in respect of his pensions, (as) if he resided in (the United Kingdom) [that Member State].

And…

the cost shall be borne by the competent institution (DoH) of that Member State (the United Kingdom).

So we should get treatment as though we lived in the UK and the UK should cover the cost.

The law appears to me contradictory – It is written that one should receive the medical treatment as though one lived under the legislation of the UK and ALSO as a French citizen pensioner would receive it under the legislation in France.

Many French Citizens – those on 100% CMU cover – pay nothing for their health care.  In short –  the cost to the patient is variable according to the circumstances of the patient! Since the British pensioner has costs covered (in theory!) by the Department of Health, London, it would be reasonable to suppose that these patients should also fall into the 100% cover category. I explore that thought ina European context……

E/. Other European National Citizens in France.

EU laws must be applied equally to all nationals across Europe.  The provision of health care for a state pensioner varies widely from  Estonia to Portugal.   It would seem almost impossible to provide health care for every ‘mobile’ pensioner under two systems of legislation at the same time.  The current interpretation seems inadequate.

It is also a restriction and distortion on free movement of pensioners.   The pensioner nationals who move from most other European countries to the UK obtain free health care.  Clearly with the UK pensioners moving to other countries in Europe, it is very often and usually not so. 

F/. Reform? And a solution?

Would it not be sensible to transfer 100% of the costs from the State of Residence  to the administration of the  ‘competent States’ for the support of Social Security and then that administration should seek appropriate repayments according to the legislation of that State from the  pensioner patient ‘as though they lived in their home country’?  Is this indeed that which the EU regulations are seeking? i.e the costs should be  borne by the 'competent State?

The pensioner should then settle their bills (if appropriate so to do) in a manner according to the legislation of the ‘home’ State.

G/. The need for Representation on these matters at a political level.

There is no-one in the British Government or Administration with any responsibility to look after the interests of British Pensioners in mainland Europe.  

There should be someone who has the responsibility to negotiate with the EU or other national governments concerning the condition of British Pensioners abroad in Europe.