I’ve never heard such a compelling argument to continue membership of the EU
As previously posted we are doing down our young people, yet again.
I think it’s Article SSC.15: 15 = reside, 17 = stay (stay being a ‘trip’)
15 is interesting because it applies to all insured (i.e. UK National Insurance payers?), except pensioners? S1’s for NI payers going forward??? and then Section 2 applies - Special provisions for pensioners.
Section 2 qualifies the S1 provision with 'para (c) not entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of the State of residence - but in France after 3 months everyone is entitled to healthcare under PUMA? Would pensioner S1’s only be for 3 months?
Don’t think it will make any difference because only those with WA protection will be covered by the exemption from social charges / CSG after 1 January - I’m presuming exemption will continue given no howls of anguish from existing (or future WA S1) holders on the forum and not least the fact the EU treaty requirement is in the WA.
Future arrivees will be TP nationals - who have no exemption (ruled on by ECJ).
I’ve pasted the bits of text I’ve considered from the full doc below.
Definition:
“benefits in kind” means: (i) for the purposes of Chapter 1 [Sickness, maternity and equivalent paternity benefits] of Title III, benefits in kind provided for under the legislation of a State which are intended to supply, make available, pay directly or reimburse the cost of medical care and products and services ancillary to that care;
(Note: exclusion 4. This Protocol shall not apply to (b) social and medical assistance)
CHAPTER 1: SICKNESS, MATERNITY AND EQUIVALENT PATERNITY BENEFITS
Section 1: Insured persons and members of their families except pensioners and members of their families
Article SSC.15: Residence in a State other than the competent State.
An insured person or members of their family who reside in a State other than the competent State shall receive in the State of residence benefits in kind provided, on behalf of the competent institution, by the institution of the place of residence, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation it applies, as though that person were insured under the said legislation.
Section 2 pensioners:
Article SSC.22: No right to benefits in kind under the legislation of the State of residence
- A person who: (a) resides in a State; (b) receives a pension or pensions under the legislation of one or more States; and (c) is not entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of the State of residence, shall nevertheless receive such benefits for themselves and the members of their family
Paragraph 2 has the usual divvying up of who pays – for those with only one state pension
In the cases covered by paragraph 1, the cost of the benefits in kind shall be borne by the institution as determined in accordance with the following rules:
(a) where the pensioner is treated as if he or she were entitled to benefits in kind under the legislation of one State, the cost of those benefits shall be borne by the competent institution of that State;
Note also
Ch.SSC.4: Immigration applications The Protocol on Social Security Coordination shall apply without prejudice to the right of a Member State or the United Kingdom to charge a health fee under national legislation in connection with an application for a permit to enter, to stay, to work, or to reside in that State.
Uk will charge a health charge and I think I saw France sejour visa’s also have this.
It was the border with Gibralter that first came to mind when all this Brexshit stuff was first mooted.
Now it seems that the Spanish are playing true to form.
I suspect Gibraltar will be an ongoing thorn in UK-EU relations. It’s ‘British’ status is not really the main problem - which is that like many British Overseas Territories, Gibraltar has developed a cowboy economy to replace its former dependence on the British military.
It’s key economic sectors are on-line gambling, offshore banking (tax haven) and duty-free shopping (and it’s cigarette, drug, etc, smuggling underside). This generates a lot of ‘wealth’ and in the short term it will probably suit the UK and Spain, and the local power-brokers, to preserve something of its current status - but I don’t believe it is sustainable. The relatively unregulated tax, customs and gambling environment it depends on is already controversial both economically and ethically in Andalusia, Madrid and Brussels, and my guess is it will come to be seen as increasingly unacceptable.
1 Like