2017-07-15

Using Car2Move at Catania Airport Sicily

Some (I hope constructive) criticisms and helpful information for others who may follow in our footsteps.

We booked Car2Move through AutoEurope - providing estimated times and our flight details.

Our flight was delayed, our bag was the last on the carousel, and we then had to find the Car2Move Office.

Our voucher said Car2Move was in the terminal. It isn't. There are  a number of car rental offices in the terminal but many others (including Car2Move) are in another building a 10 minute walk away. There are no signs in the terminal  pointing to this other building and the staff on the information desk in the CTA terminal are rude and unhelpful. We finally found out where to go from a kind and helpful man in the "Tourist Information Office".

So we arrived at the Car2Move desk about an hour late. There was nobody there. We waited for about 45 minutes. Nobody came. Nobody answered the phone. We rang AutoEurope in the end - who did answer and who offered to inquire and ring back - which they did. Whether because of this or just because he had decided to come back anyway in case somebody showed up wanting to hire a car, the man at the Car2Move desk finally reappeared.  He was unapologetic – blaming our lateness for the situation (as I’ve pointed out, our lateness was not our fault and could have been reasonably anticipated by a car rental firm operating from an airport).

Anyway, he was still able to find us a car – which I think was a slightly better category than what we had ordered (though I’m not a car person :-). It was covered in scuffs and scratches, but these were all properly recorded.

He explained how to get out of the airport and stressed that we would have to return it on time. Since I would be driving myself (rather than at the mercy of an airline) I indicated that this would not be  a problem. He did not explain how to return the car. I suppose we should have asked.

All went well with the rental and the day before our departure I looked online and amongst the various bits of paper we had been given for return instructions.  There were none. So we just drove to the airport and hoped for the best.

As you drive in, there are mysterious signs for “R1” and “R2” but no indication of whether Car2Move is R1 or R2.  In any case. These signs soon stop and you have to choose between “Arrivals” or “Departures”. We chose Departures – we were, after all, departing from CTA.

I then just followed my nose – trying to avoid any signs for car parks and follow any signs for car rental (which were all other firms) - and suddenly saw a turn off to the Car2Move office, which I took.

The same chap was there and he was behind the counter this time. His demeanour was again one of politeness and friendliness - mixed with insouciance and slight arrogance. He took me outside and showed me a several-meter-square sign for “car rental return” which did have the Car2Move logo on it and which indicated the turn off just before the one we had taken.

Later I stood in the position our car would have been as it came off the roundabout just before this sign and realized that the sign was almost completely occluded by a portakabin. The huge sign you can see from the roundabout exit position points to “VIP Parking”. We were clearly not the first to make this mistake and will not be the last.

I was able (by ignoring the “one-way” signs) to extricate myself from the carpark in front of the Car2Move office and drive to the correct drop off area.

The chap met us there and dealt with us perfectly professionally.

Armed with the knowledge I now have, I suppose I would use Car2Move at CTA again (just). They were good value, supplied us with a working car, and didn’t try to fleece us in any way – something I’ve sometimes had with other firms. But there is scope for improvements to their operations at Catania Airport.

2017-06-26

You May Ask Yourself: How did we get here? (Today's announcement on EU citizens in the UK)

On 2017 May 29, the EU Commission published detailed proposals concerning the continuing rights of UK citizens currently living in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK.

Today (2017-06-26) the UK will finally publish its response.

Almost everything else you may have read concerning the positions and moves of the two sides was misreported hand-waving or, in some cases, outright lies.

Exhibit A:

Even the anti-Brexit newspapers have tended to report this issue badly. It is all rather more complicated than many realized and the lacuna in understanding has often allowed politicians to get statements published that really should have been subjected to a bit more scrutiny.

So how did we get here?

It has been reported (and not actually denied by May if you listen to her "rebuttal") that in summer 2016 Theresa May "single-handedly blocked a plan to immediately guarantee the future rights of the 3m EU citizens". Every other member of the cabinet seemingly opposed this move.

So why did she do this?

As Peter Grant, an official in the free movement policy team of the immigration and border policy directorate of the Home Office, put it: “Agreeing a unilateral position in advance of these negotiations would lose negotiating capital with respect to British citizens in EU member states and place the UK at an immediate disadvantage”. Whether EU citizens were to be negotiating capital against what the EU might do to UK citizens living in the EU or negotiating capital in our discussions over our future trading arrangements was never made clear. But neither interpretation makes any sense in the light of subsequent developments.

The problem with the first interpretation is that the EU has consistently said that it wanted full continuing rights. The Vote Leave campaign said they wanted this too and On 2016 June 1, they issued the following statement signed by Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Gisela Stuart and Priti Patel:

There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present.[ref]

But Theresa May and the current cabinet never accepted this line and when the EU Commission published its call for EU and UK citizens to be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK or EU and for them to be treated no less favourably than they are at present, David Davis described these demands as "ridiculously high".

In other words, the UK was (on this interpretation) using EU citizens as bargaining chips in a dispute where the other side wanted to give more rights to UK citizens in the EU than we are prepared to allow them to have (assuming symmetry with EU citizens here). It was a kind of looking-glass version of going to buy a second hand car and threatening to offer more than the asking price.

So what about the second interpretation: EU citizens were to be negotiating capital in our discussions over our future trading arrangements?

This makes no sense either. May has at least consistently said that she wanted to discuss citizens rights at the earliest opportunity. Agreement on new trading arrangements with the EU is probably years away. Moreover May, having first insisted that citizens rights had to be part of the overall negotiations, then tried to separate this issue out from the other issues and have "pre-negotiations" (before submitting Article 50) with Angela Merkel. (Nearly all the reports of this event were misleading; this is probably one of the slightly less misleading reports by the Independent.) But this was always going to be a non-starter:

  1. The remaining 27 countries in the EU were anxious - given the referendum result - for Article 50 to be submitted as soon as possible and refused to take Brexit seriously or start preparing for it until Article 50 was submitted. Any "pre-negotiations" might have been a waste of time and might have delayed the start of real negotiations still further.
  2. How individual EU countries deal with non-EU citizens (as UK citizens will become) has largely been a matter for each individual EU country - think of how we deal with (say) Australians. So any kind of sensible post-Brexit outcome required that the EU27 reach a new agreement among themselves about what they were all going to do before they could even begin to talk to the UK. The idea that Angela Merkel could somehow negotiate on behalf of the EU27 prior to Article 50 was simply fanciful.

In the event, the entire EU27 (not Angela Merkel somehow acting alone) stood firm and refused to discuss anything until the UK legally committed itself to Brexit.

Then on 2017-06-22, the pro-Brexit press (and even some of the anti-Brexit press) announced that "No EU national currently living lawfully in the UK will be made to leave on the day of Brexit under proposals outlined by Theresa May".

Of course May had announced no such thing.

First of all, May was simply describing the UK's negotiating stance. If negotiations fail, EU citizens in the UK will still have no guarantees at all.

Secondly, May was not saying she would grant residency to EU citizens, she was merely saying they would be able to apply for residency. EU citizens can apply for permanent residency now, but about one third are being refused by the Home Office.

Thirdly, we should note that May said that citizens here "lawfully" will be able to apply. The UK Home Office has its own (let us be polite and call it "eccentric") interpretation of "lawful" in this context. I explain this issue (and others) here.

And fourthly, this is just an announcement. We should only take it seriously when the White Paper is published and provided to the EU.

So EU citizens are still a long way from knowing what their fate will be. The Government have made some suggestions - relevant to people who have been living here for less than five years - which are broadly reassuring but has so far said little about how it will define "living here". The government keep hopelessly inadequate records of when people enter and leave the country; people living here have often thrown away their own records - there was no requirement to keep them until now; and because the UK has no official system of registering people at their addresses there is no single criterion of residency that the Home Office can use. The current system is simply unfit for purpose and it would be quite impossible for the Home Office to process 3.2 million people in time for Brexit using this system; even if there were good will on the part of the Home Office - which there isn't.

It will be interesting to see whether (and how) the UK Government addresses these issues in the White Paper to be published this afternoon.

Watch this space!

Breaking

May has announced the the "requirement" for EU many citizens to have Comprehensive Sickness Insurance has been axed - though see "point 22" below.

May repeated the nonsense that her offer is somehow contingent on the EU "reciprocating" even though she knows full well that the EU have already offered more generous terms.

White Paper published.

from point 6)

Furthermore, we are also ready to make commitments in the Withdrawal Agreement which will have the status of international law. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will not have jurisdiction in the UK;
[the battle lines are drawn, but I think the UK will have to accept some kind of supranational arbitration "court" - and seems to acknowledge this.]
qualifying EU citizens will have to apply for their residence status. The administrative procedures which they will need to comply with in order to obtain these new rights will be modernised and kept as smooth and simple as possible;
[promising but vague]
the application process will be a separate legal scheme, in UK law, rather than the current one for certifying the exercise of rights under EU law. Accordingly we will tailor the eligibility criteria so that, for example, we will no longer require evidence that economically inactive EU citizens have previously held ‘comprehensive sickness insurance’ in order to be considered continuously resident;
[This is the most welcome proposal in the entire White Paper presented within the most mendacious paragraph in the entire White Paper - possibly the most mendacious paragraph in any paper ever. To clarify, not only is ‘comprehensive sickness insurance’ not required by EU law, the UK is in breach of EU law in insisting on ‘comprehensive sickness insurance’ for some categories of EU citizen who apply for residency - people who perfectly legally use the NHS]
family dependants who join a qualifying EU citizen in the UK [...] after our exit will be subject to the same rules as those joining British citizens or alternatively to the post-exit immigration arrangements for EU citizens who arrive after the specified date;
[this represents a clear loss of rights and will be opposed by the EU]
EU citizens with settled status will continue to have access to UK benefits on the same basis as a comparable UK national under domestic law;
[some good news]
the UK will continue to export and uprate the UK State Pension within the EU;
[more good news]
the UK will continue to aggregate periods of relevant insurance, work or residence within the EU accrued before exit to help meet the entitlement conditions for UK contributory benefits and State Pension, even where entitlement to these rights may be exercised after exit;
[I assume this means people (UK or EU) who leave (or who have already left) won't have to abandon their accrued pension contributions in the UK.]
The UK will seek an ongoing arrangement akin to the EHIC scheme as part of negotiations on our future arrangements with the EU;
[I suppose this is good news but it sounds as though we may lose the EHIC system for a few years before a new one is in place]
we are planning to set up an application process before we leave the EU to enable those who wish to do so to get their new status at their earliest convenience. For those who have already obtained a certificate of their permanent residence, we will seek to make sure that the application process for settled status is as streamlined as possible.
[In other words, people who have already obtained permanent residence will have to start doing battle with the Home Office all over again]

from point 12)

After the UK leaves the EU, free movement will end but migration between the UK and the EU will continue. We will continue to welcome the contribution EU citizens bring to our economy and society; the UK will remain a hub for international talent. The Government is carefully considering a range of options as to how EU migration will work for new arrivals post-exit and will publish proposals as soon as possible, allowing businesses and individuals enough time to plan and prepare.
[I think this means they haven't got a clue yet what they are going to do to "control" EU citizens, but I'm sure highly skilled people will want to come here in droves to take up our offer of being deprived of the right to a family life]

from point 15)

The Government will not discriminate between citizens from different EU member states in providing continuity for the rights and entitlements of existing EU residents and their families in the UK.
[I think this means: we all know nobody really minds French and German people and are really only bothered about getting rid of all those dreadful Eastern Europeans but if we did that it would seem a bit racist so I'm afraid we'll have to treat them all the same for now.]

from point 16)

The UK fully expects that the EU and its member states will ensure, in a reciprocal way*, that the rights set out above are similarly protected for UK nationals living across the EU before the specified date. Firstly, UK nationals in the EU must be able to attain a right equivalent to settled status in the country in which they reside. Secondly, they must be able to continue to access benefits and services across the member states akin to the way in which they do now.
[*Gosh. If they expect that, maybe they've finally read the document the EU published on May 29? Though to be truly "reciprocal" the EU would have to reduce the scope of the rights it is suggesting for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU.]

from point 17)

All EU citizens (and their families) in the UK, regardless of when they arrived, will, on the UK’s exit, need to obtain an immigration status in UK law. They will need to apply to the Home Office for permission to stay, which will be evidenced through a residence document. This will be a legal requirement but there is also an important practical reason for this. The residence document will enable EU citizens (and their families) living in the UK to demonstrate to third parties (such as employers or providers of public services) that they have permission to continue to live and work legally in the UK. Following the UK’s exit from the EU, the Government may wish to introduce controls which limit the ability of EU citizens (and their families) who arrive in the UK after exit to live and work here. As such, without a residence document, current residents may find it difficult to access the labour market and services.
[This means: if you have a foreign accent you'll have to carry an id card in the UK from now on just in case.]

from point 22)

The scheme we establish for applications from EU residents (and their families) for permission to stay will not be legally the same as the one which is currently available for those wishing to obtain confirmation of their residence status under the Free Movement Directive. The UK will no longer be bound by this Directive and will tailor the eligibility criteria, subject to any provisions contained in the agreement with the EU, to suit the demands of this unique situation. For example, we will no longer require evidence that economically inactive EU citizens have previously held ‘comprehensive sickness insurance’ in order to be considered continuously resident. This will apply only for the purpose of determining their residence status: we will seek to protect the current healthcare arrangements for EU citizens, for example, to allow a tourist or student who presents a valid European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) to be able to get treatment on the NHS.
[I have no idea what this means but it sounds very ominous. Perhaps they've not done away with the "comprehensive sickness insurance requirement" after all?]

from point 23)

it will be impractical to issue a very high volume of residence documents immediately when the UK leaves. We need to avoid a legal gap between the end of free movement rights and the point at which individuals apply for and obtain UK immigration status. The Government will bridge this gap so that EU citizens (and their families) already living in the UK will be able to continue their residence despite not yet having obtained their longer-term permission to stay, and accompanying residence documents, from the Home Office.
[= yeah we're finally beginning to realize that this Brexit malarkey is quite difficult and we won't be able to do it all in time so well give everyone a couple of years to do battle with our Home Office to get all the bits of paper before we actually start throwing people out.]

from point 37)

There is no need for EU citizens to seek residence documentation now under the current free movement rules. These documents confirm that EU citizens are exercising their free movement rights in another member state. As free movement rights will end on the UK’s exit, we intend to introduce a replacement scheme under UK law. EU documents certifying permanent residence will not be automatically replaced with a grant of settled status, but we will seek to make the application process for settled status as streamlined as possible for those who already hold such documents.
[= Those of you who spent 100s of hours applying for permanent residency under our current system will have to start all over again and pay us even more fees. It's your fault for being foreign and believing the assurances we gave you :-P]

Conclusion

I give them 6/10 for this. On the one hand there is some kind of recognition of the complexities of the situation and some recognition that foreigners - even foreigners from the dreadful EU - are people too. The procedures for all these people to obtain the required bits of paper will be simplified and not made prohibitively expensive and most EU citizens will - if their applications to the Home Office are successful - keep most of their existing rights.

On the other hand (contrary to what Vote Leave promised) there will be huge changes for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK; those citizens will not be granted anything automatically; and they will be treated far less favourably than they are at present. Let us take a specific example:

My parents are both dead. My mother in law, in Germany, is however fit and well - though not getting any younger. She may eventually need her family to look after her. Who knows what the future may bring? Suppose the task of taking care of my mother in law falls to my wife and I. My government is about to strip me of my EU citizenship and thus of my right to go and live in Germany whenever I please. At the same time, our government will strip my wife of her right to bring her mother to live out her remaining years here in the UK. Of course we could apply for my mother in law to come here or we could apply for the right for me to go there; but there is no guarantee our applications would be successful and this is not the same of being able to choose to go there tomorrow.

May has kindly said that she is not intending to split up families; so what does she suggest someone in the situation I describe should do?

However, May's indifference to the plight of people in the situation described is not matched by the EU. I hope and expect they will tell May to implement exactly what was promised by the Vote Leave campaign and give resident EU citizens rights equivalent to what they had before the Brexit vote. It will be interesting to see how she reacts.

2017-06-06

Good Times, Bad Times, Brexit Times

We may, we are told, get a good deal or a bad deal with the EU or may walk away with no deal at all. Walking away with no deal, many claim, may be better than a bad deal.

And it is not just staunch Brexiters who make such claims. Even sober remainers like John Rentoul bandy them about:


But before we can even begin to discuss such claims we require some kind of shared understanding of what is we are going to “deal” about and what might constitute a “good” or “bad” outcome. I see little evidence that any such shared understanding exists.

Our opening gambit

Theresa May (who I presume will win the election) has already announced that we wish to leave the Single Market (SM), the Customs Union (CU) and end Freedom of Movement (FoM). We shall presumably get everything May wants here since the EU sees these as the main advantages of the EU rather than as penalties for being in the EU.

Will this be good or bad?
  • Leaving the CU will result in more red-tape, delays, and expense for exporters and importers thereby making trade more difficult and, in some areas, infeasible. It will result in less trade with the EU which will, all other things being equal, make us poorer.
  • Leaving the SM will prevent us trading in some goods and, especially, services altogether and will result in more red-tape. This too will result in less trade with the EU and will, all other things being equal, make us poorer. Probably a lot poorer.
  • EU students contribute massively to our economy and EU workers are, on average, more likely to be working and less likely to be old, sick, disabled, or claiming benefits. EU migrants are a net benefit to our economy. Stopping them coming will, all other things being equal, make us poorer. We are also abolishing our own rights to work, study, and retire in 27 other countries.
I assume we all agree that poorer and fewer rights are bad? So are there any good things here?
  • Leaving the CU will allow us to make new trade agreements with other non EU countries. Many Brexiters think that the UK, though much smaller than the EU, will eventually be able to forge new trade deals that are better than the EU has ever been able to negotiate. Such new deals might eventually, they argue, compensate for some of our loss of trade with the EU. More trade (whoever it is with) will, all other things being equal, make us a bit richer. I assume we all agree that richer is good.
  • Leaving the SM will allow us to reduce the number of EU migrants coming here. To find that good, your dislike of EU citizens has to be sufficiently strong that you are happy to significantly lower your living standards in order to stop them coming here.
  • Ending freedom of movement will reduce the number of EU migrants coming here. See above.
As has been noted, we shall get everything “we” want on these issues and how good or bad you find this depends on your optimism about our ability to forge trade deals and how strongly you dislike foreigners.

There is, then, no difference thus far between a good deal, a bad deal, or no deal.

So what will we actually be arguing about when we do start to deal with the EU?

Item one: The rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. 

The EU has said:
Safeguarding the status and rights of the EU27 citizens and their families in the United Kingdom and of the citizens of the United Kingdom and their families in the EU27 Member States is the first priority for the negotiations because of the number of people directly affected and of the seriousness of the consequences of the withdrawal for them. The Agreement should provide the necessary effective, enforceable, non-discriminatory and comprehensive guarantees for those citizens' rights, including the right to acquire permanent residence after a continuous period of five years of legal residence.
David Davis has described these “demands” (detailed here) as 'ridiculously high' . “Ridiculously high” means, I suppose, “bad” but Davis has not really said what would be good. Perhaps, the ultimate good deal here would be zero rights for EU citizens and 100% rights for UK citizens and Davis hopes for a compromise somewhere between these extremes? Except that millions of EU citizens here have families and children and spouses who are UK citizens and whose rights will also be hit by any diminution of the rights of those citizens. And I am not even sure that there is a majority in the UK (even in its current mood) who would find it good to expel any EU citizens currently here legally or (more likely) make it practically impossible for them to continue living here. There is also little sign of the EU giving any ground at all on continuing rights for existing citizens in the “wrong” countries.

No deal would be disastrously bad for the three million EU citizens living here (and their families). They would, by default, instantly lose their legal rights to continue living here. On the other hand, I suppose the more xenophobic elements of UK society would be overjoyed - ie think this to be good. But I have little idea how good and bad deals on this issue would differ in the minds of the UK government or the majority of UK voters.


Item two: Our balance of assets and obligations – the “divorce settlement”

As the EU puts it, rather blandly:
An orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the Union requires settling the financial obligations resulting from the whole period of the UK membership in the Union. Hence, the methodology for the financial settlement based on the principles laid down in section III.2 has to be established in the first phase of the negotiations.
This is an easy one. It really is a “zero sum game” ...... well unless, I suppose, you are a retired British EU civil servant whose pension comes from the EU or a scientist who has just secured several years’ research funding from the EU ……

But all that aside, a good deal would have us pay very little, a bad deal would have us pay lots, and no deal would have us pay nothing.

The problem is: what would happen then? After all, the sums involved pale into insignificance beside the sums we make from trading with the EU.

Item three: Goods placed on the market before the withdrawal date 

I have no idea. Have you? Has our Government?

Item four: Ireland

In line with the European Council guidelines, the Union is committed to continuing to support peace, stability and reconciliation on the island of Ireland. Nothing in the Agreement should undermine the objectives and commitments set out in the Good Friday Agreement and its related implementing agreements; the unique circumstances and challenges on the island of Ireland will require flexible and imaginative solutions. 
Basically the UK Government wishes to close our border to the free movement of people, goods, and services at Dover but keep our border open to the free movement of people, goods, and services in Ireland.

I suppose a good deal would be any solution that worked. I am buggered if I can think of one. Every deal I can imagine – even using the full flexibility of my imagination - will be bad. Walking out of the negotiations would inevitably result in border controls – which would be really really bad – and enforcing those controls would be the responsibility of the UK under WTO rules and of Ireland under EU and WTO rules.


Item five: Cyprus 

Again I have no idea.


Item six: Union's interests in the United Kingdom 

No idea

Item seven: Overall governance of the Agreement 

Tricky. Any deals we make will have to have some kind of enforcement mechanisms. Even the WTO has dispute resolution “courts” to settle disputes between nations. Bad (for us it seems) = European Court of Justice arbitrates disputes. Good = ? – we have not said. No deal avoids this problem I suppose, but again, what then?

Item eight: A common approach towards third country partners, international organisations and conventions in relation to the international commitments contracted before the withdrawal date, by which the United Kingdom remains bound. 

It gives me a headache even thinking about this so I am not going to.

Item nine: Our future relationship with the EU

I assume this is the item most people have in mind when they talk of good or bad “deals” with the EU.

The EU puts it thus:
As soon as the European Council decides that sufficient progress has been achieved to allow negotiations to proceed to the next phase, there will be new sets of negotiating directives. In this context, matters that could be subject to transitional arrangements (i.e. bridges towards the foreseeable framework for the future relationship) will be included in future sets of negotiating directives in the light of the progress made. This approach will allow an efficient allocation of the limited time that Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union imposes for the conclusion of the Agreement by avoiding the need to address the same matter several times at different phases of the negotiations.
In other words, once we have sorted out all the other stuff, we can start discussing a new Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU – something along the lines that Canada has just negotiated (after many fraught years). Such an FTA would allow us lower or abolish tariffs on both sides (without contravening WTO rules) and to agree a new regulatory regime.

Many people seem to fondly imagine that the EU will, at this stage, offer all sorts of special favours to us that will allow us to carry on as though we were still part of the CU and SM for certain purposes. I may be proved wrong, but this seems vanishingly unlikely. They have repeatedly said "no cherry-picking" and May accepted this in her Article 50 submission.

Since it will be impossible to conclude an FTA in the months left before we Brexit, it would seem to be prudent that we agree transitional arrangements that continue the status quo until the new trade agreement is in place. But is anyone being prudent?

Any deal on mutually reducing tariffs would be better for us (and the EU) than no deal. But no possible deal will be anything like as good (for trade) as what we have now.

Even if we storm out of the talks in a fit of pique, I expect we should eventually come back to the table and forge a deal on tariffs with the EU. Any such deal will help to mitigate our exit from the CU and the SM. But since tariffs are among the very least of our worries, the mitigation will be rather slight.

#######

So given the UK’s stance, walking away or staying in the negotiations will (details aside) yield almost exactly the same eventual outcome: loss of the advantages of Free Movement, the Single Market, and the Customs Union and perhaps, in their place, some kind of free trade deal for some goods and services. The best possible free trade deal will allow far less trade with the EU than we enjoy now and provide scant compensation for what we are losing.

Whether you regard this a as good or a bad arrangement would seem to depend entirely on how much you value your prosperity versus how much you value not having as many European foreigners as neighbours; and the notion that Theresa May can make a significant difference to this longer-term outcome by getting a good or bad FTA deal in the coming negotiations is fanciful.

In the meantime, and returning to the details, we do, however, have the opportunity to seriously fuck up the lives of millions of people, UK agriculture, the supply of perishable goods, our international standing, the situation in Ireland, and our short-to-medium term economic prospects if we simply walk out of the talks.

It is simply not within the EU’s power to punish us any harder than we are punishing ourselves by leaving the CU and SM and ending FoM so we have nothing to lose by pursuing an FTA with them. Our overall new deal with the EU will inevitably be a bad deal but no matter how bad any new FTA deal is, it will be slightly better than no deal at all.

2017-05-10

A true patriot's response to Tim Stanley

"It's time that Remainers put the national interest first and rally behind Brexit" 




"It’s decision time: do you stand with Britain or the EU?"


Do you support Lilliput or Blefuscu in their egg wars?

When are you going to stop beating your wife?

############

I work in international IT standards for a German, French, Finnish, UK firm headquartered in Sweden. I am currently working on a pan-European defence data harmonization project. My wife is an EU citizen (German). I travel quite often and most of income from the UK’s branch of the company I work for comes from abroad – especially, but not exclusively, from other EU countries.

Post Brexit my working and personal life will become more complicated (I’ve already spent 100s of man-hours battling with the Home Office just to get a residency permit for my wife) and less lucrative. My firm, its employees, and I will probably make less money and pay less tax and we’ll spend more time on red tape. But we’ll survive, or move abroad. The people who are really going to be hit badly are less well paid and unskilled in places like Sunderland – ie the people who voted for Brexit.

I’ve yet to hear of a single concrete advantage that Brexit will bring.

So what are Tim Stanley’s arguments?

Exhibit A: those who say Britain has a big bill coming


This is a total non-issue. When in the EU we made various financial commitments – like Nigel Farage’s pension and the European Medicines Agency’s rent for the next 20 years (this in London but they’re now moving to Paris to pay rent there cos we’re leaving that too). We and the 27 will obviously argue about the amounts and presumably reach a compromise which a majority of the 27 will have to agree to. We’ll have to do this before we can start talking about trade. The amounts are significant but small beer in terms of our long term trading activities.

Exhibit B: those who believe everything the EU says


Tim writes:
"We are threatening to walk away with no deal in the hope that, in order to persuade us otherwise, the other side will offer us the best deal. This position is framed to serve the national interest. More journalists should honestly explain it."
This is just nonsense.

We can’t get a good deal. This is nothing to do with Juncker. May has ruled out a good deal. She has said she wants to end free-movement and leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. These three decisions will hurt the UK badly. The only thing left to deal over is therefore a Canada-style Free (ie low or no tariff) Trade Agreement. Both the UK and the EU will benefit (a bit) from this so it will probably happen – though it will take several years and require the unanimous agreement of the 27, so it won’t be easy. If we walk away, it is simply the FTA we shall be walking away from. We’ve already walked away from the really good stuff. In short the conversation between May and the EU has been a bit like this so far:
May:      “Give me what I want or I’ll shoot myself!”
EU:         “What do you want?”
May:      “I want to shoot myself.”
EU:         “If you do that, at best, it will hurt a lot and, at worst, it will be fatal.”
May:      “The EU are threatening to kill me!”
Given May's stance, walking away or staying in the negotiations will yield almost exactly the same outcome: loss of the advantages of Free Movement, the Single Market, and the Customs Union and, in their place, some kind of free trade agreement. (We’ll come back eventually and make an FTA even if we initially walk off in a huff cos it would be bonkers all-round not to. But an FTA will be small recompense for the trade we shall lose through our other decisions.)

Exhibit C: those who yearn for failure


We don’t yearn for failure we simply point out that failure is almost inevitable.

We shall (one day) get an FTA with the EU and (possibly) with some other countries. These new FTAs may be better than what the EU has managed to negotiate with those third countries (though this seems hard to imagine given the much bigger clout of the EU). But even if all this goes swimmingly, the resulting increases in trade are vanishing unlikely to compensate for the losses of our existing trade with the EU.

International cooperation, product standardization, regulatory harmonization, travel, migration, and trade all benefit the world in general and the UK in particular. The efforts of people like Tim Stanley and 52% of the British public (in their current mood) will put a brake on all these activities for a while – to the detriment of the UK, its international standing, and its economy. In the long run, however, the UK will come to its senses and stop trying to think it can have capitalism in one country.

So I stand with Britain and the EU.

Britain is much better off as part of the Single Market and Custom Union and will suffer when it leaves and takes away our freedom to live and work across 28 countries. I am afraid I am going to carry on saying this and fighting against isolationism and xenophobia as long as I draw breath; and if Tim Stanley thinks this unpatriotic, tough!

The real traitors are the politicians who told bare-face lies in order to get the vote they wanted. It is they who are irreparably damaging our country not people like me.

2017-05-08

Record of correspondence with the Home Office

Background to the correspondence:

EU citizens (such as my German wife - who has lived and worked here for 31 years) who wish to apply for UK citizenship or try ensure that they won't be expelled from the UK post-Brexit have to obtain a "Permanent Residency Permit" from the Home Office.

Meanwhile, the Home Office have announced that "Permanent residence status ... will no longer be valid after we leave [the EU]" so our (considerable) efforts and expense thus far has been entirely wasted unless my wife continues with an application for UK citizenship over the next 18 months or so.

The relevant 85 page form is still online and still asks (inter alia) for a list of every date of departure and date of return for every trip away the UK since the applicant entered the UK.
5.3 Have you (or has your sponsor, if applicable) had any absences from the UK since you/they entered?

Yes/No

If yes, please give details in the tables below. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary and enclose with your application.
The Home Office eventually conceded that only five years of entry and exit dates were required but I did not know this originally (they refuse to change the instructions on the form) and I wrote to ask about this:
To: nationalityenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-06

Dear Sir/Madam

My wife of 31 years is a German citizen and has lived with me (and worked) in the UK since 1985.

Our understanding is that, in order to apply for UK citizenship, my wife will first need to apply for a residency card.

The form for applying to UK citizenship asks her to list all trips away from the UK for the past 3 years (again as we understand the form) but the application from for a residency permit seems to require us to list all trips for the past 31 years.

Please could you confirm whether this is really the case. Does my wife really have to try and remember every single trip she has made since she came to live in the UK or will her trips over the qualifying period (3 or 5 years) suffice?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael A Ward
I received an automated reply:
From: NationalityEnquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-06

IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ THIS MESSAGE AS THE INFORMATION YOU REQUIRE MAY BE GIVEN BELOW. YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANOTHER RESPONSE

[A long list of instructions about applying for residency - none of which applied to my question.]

What should I do if I have a different nationality related enquiry that has not been covered by this message or by the website links provided? You should call our Contact Centre on 0300 123 2253 or email us at: FurtherNationalityEnquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk (you should provide your name, date of birth, place of birth, current nationality, immigration status and Home Office Reference number where known. A telephone number should also be provided so that we may contact you. We aim to respond to your enquiry within 20 working days.
Since I had already read all the instructions I wrote again:
To: FurtherNationalityEnquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-06

My wife of 31 years is a German citizen and has lived with me (and worked) in the UK since 1985.

Our understanding is that, in order to apply for UK citizenship, my wife will first need to apply for a residency card.

The form for applying to UK citizenship asks her to list all trips away from the UK for the past 3 years (again as we understand the form) but the application from for a residency permit seems to require us to list all trips for the past 31 years.

Please could you confirm whether this is really the case. Does my wife really have to try and remember every single trip she has made since she came to live in the UK or will her trips over the qualifying period (3 or 5 years) suffice?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael A Ward
And received the following reply:
From: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-12

Dear Dr Ward

Thank you for your email correspondence of 6 January.

Please note, the onus is upon the individual customers to ensure that they satisfy the requirements set out in the guidance material that accompanies each and every application form. Therefore, you are advised to read through the guidance prior to submitting a future application.

If after reading the application guidance you are still unsure as to the requirements for the application you wish to submit you should seek independent immigration advice.

Immigration advisers can help you with immigration matters, including completion of forms and representing you at a tribunal. The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) regulates immigration advisers, which means they must meet certain standards.

Please see the link below to find an immigration advisor:

https://www.gov.uk/find-an-immigration-adviser

We are unable to advise you any further on your enquiry.

Yours sincerely

Name#1
Customer Service Operations
UK Visas and Immigration
I was disinclined to let this pass:
To: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-12

Dear Ms Name#1

Thank you for your email.

I have read the guidance material in depth. It is labyrinthine, ambiguous, and often downright contradictory.

I asked a simple specific question. A simple answer to this question and a clarification on your website would make life much easier for three million EU citizens living in the UK and for your own officials who have to deal with applications from EU citizens.

I find your email discourteous and insulting.

Please could you advise me as to your complaints procedure.

Yours sincerely

Dr Michael A Ward
And received another reply:
From: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-13

Dear Dr Ward

Thank you for your email correspondence of 12 January.

Please refer to the link below for information on how to make a complaint:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-immigration/about/complaints-procedure

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely

Name#2
Customer Service Operations
UK Visas and Immigration
So I thought I'd submit a complaint:
To: complaints@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-13

Dear Sir/Madam

[I reproduced the correspondence above and then said:]

This experience has prompted me to write to you. I have a number of concerns:

  1. The information on your website for people in our situation is labyrinthine, ambiguous, and often downright contradictory. It should be improved.
  2. When people write to you pointing out problems with the information on your website, this should be welcomed by the Home Office as useful feedback rather than treated with contempt.
  3. I see no justification for your refusal to answer the simple question I raised. A simple answer would help me, millions of others in the same boat (at least if you clarified your website), and your own staff.
  4. Even if, for some reason, it is not possible for you to answer a question from a member of the public, I do not understand why you cannot respond using an apologetic tone rather than using a rude, hostile, and condescending tone.
I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael A Ward
And duly received a response to my complaint ... which didn't address anything in my complaint but which provided an answer the the question I'd asked in the first place:
From: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk [sic] 2017-01-18

Dear Sir [sic]

Thank you for your reply of 13 January.

If your wife is required to apply for permanent residency before applying for British citizenship, the qualifying period for a permanent residence card is 5 years under the EEA regulations. Therefore information regarding absences is only required for the qualifying period.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/apply-for-a-document-certifying-permanent-residence-or-permanent-residence-card-form-eea-pr

Please note that as the onus is upon the individual customers to ensure that they satisfy the requirements set out in the guidance material that accompanies each and every application form, the UK Visas and Immigration is not able to give, indicate or advise upon the outcome of any such application prior to it being given full and careful consideration. Therefore, you are advised to read through the guidance prior to submitting a future application.

We are unable to advise you any further on your enquiry and you should seek immigration advice if you need help with permission to stay in the UK. Immigration advisers can help you with immigration matters, including completion of forms and representing you at a tribunal. The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) regulates immigration advisers, which means they must meet certain standards.

Please see the link below to find an immigration advisor:

https://www.gov.uk/find-an-immigration-adviser

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Yours faithfully

Name#3
Customer Service Operations
UK Visas and Immigration
I tried again:
To: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk CC: complaints@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-18

Dear Name#3

While this is a response, of sorts, to my original question – a response which you initially refused to provide - it is not a response to my *complaint* (please see points 1-4) below. Since I have received an unsatisfactory response to my complaint, I should now like to escalate my complaint. I note that https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/553890/Complaints_Management_Guidance_September_2016.pdf Section 7.1 states:

“When any verbal or written response to the complaint is provided, the complainant must be informed about how they can take forward their complaint if they are not satisfied with the reply. SOPs include templates and standard paragraphs containing the prescribed wording.”

So you are in breach of your own rules here. I now look forward to a review of my original complaint by someone at Grade 6 or above.

Yours sincerely

Dr Michael A Ward
For once they got straight back to me (though apparently without reading anything I'd written to them first):
From: generalimmigrationenquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk [sic - not, I note, from complaints] 2017-01-18

Dear Sir [sic]

Thank you for your further reply of 18 January.

Please refer to the following link regarding the complaints procedure. [We seemed to be going round in circles at this point.]

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/uk-visas-and-immigration/about/complaints-procedure

I am sorry I am unable to assist further.

Yours faithfully

Name#3
Customer Service Operations
UK Visas and Immigration
So I tried to escalate matters:
To: complaints@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-18

Dear Sir/Madam

I should like to add the behaviour of Ms Name#3 (please see below) to my escalated complaint.

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael A Ward

[record of correspondence so far]
My complaint was not upheld.
From: lsecsu@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-01-27

Thank you for your email correspondence of 18 January, where you have raised a complaint about the handling of your enquiry of 13 January.

I have assessed the circumstances relating to the matter you have complained about. With this work now complete, I have based my response on my findings. I am not upholding your complaint and I hope my reply helps you to understand the reasons why.

You have expressed your dissatisfaction at the misleading information on our website and have asked for it to be improved. You also say that you have received an unsatisfactory response to your complaint asking if your wife needed to apply for permanent residency before she could apply for British citizenship. You have requested that we escalate your complaint as you feel we are in breach of our own rules.
I am sorry to hear of your experience in using the website, we find customer feedback valuable in order to improve the services provided and your comments have been forwarded on. Further feedback can be provided via the following website address: www.gov.uk/contact/govuk

Our records shows your email dated 13 January about the advice you received from the Nationality Enquiries Team was forwarded to General Immigration Enquiries who are not part of the Complaints Team. They replied to your email on 18 January. I am sorry if you were dissatisfied with the information provided.

[more information about recruiting an immigration adviser]
I escalated my complaint (again) to complaintsreview@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Sir/Madam

I write to request a review of my complaint CMS Reference: 131-137272.

I should like a review because you have not addressed any of the complaints I made.

NB I did not escalate my complaint because I felt you were in breach of your own rules. I escalated my complaint because the original response I received was unsatisfactory. Your response was also in breach of your own rules, but that was not the reason I found it unsatisfactory. I found it unsatisfactory because it did not address my complaint.

My original complaints were that:

  1. The information on your website for people in our situation is labyrinthine, ambiguous, and often downright contradictory. It should be improved.
  2. When people write to you pointing out problems with the information on your website, this should be welcomed by the Home Office as useful feedback rather than treated with contempt.
  3. I see no justification for your refusal to answer the simple question I raised. A simple answer would help me, millions of others in the same boat (at least if you clarified your website), and your own staff.
  4. Even if, for some reason, it is not possible for you to answer a question from a member of the public, I do not understand why you cannot respond using an apologetic tone rather than using a rude, hostile, and condescending tone.
To which I added a specific complaint about Name#3’s rudeness towards me in her responses to my original complaint.

My reasons for asking for a review are as follows:

  • You still have not corrected your form which still asks “Have you (or has your sponsor, if applicable) had any absences from the UK since you/they entered?” [5.3];
  • you have not apologized for the behaviour of your staff (in initially refusing to answer a simple question);
  • you have not apologized for the rude and hostile tone of you staff in all their correspondence with me; and
  • you have not given any indication that you would expect your staff to behave in a different fashion in future.
I look forward to your response

Yours faithfully

Dr Michael A Ward
And since the Home Office had now confirmed to me twice in writing that the wording of the form was incorrect, I thought I should take up the suggestion that I provide feedback "via the following website address: www.gov.uk/contact/govuk":
I submitted the following message on 2017-01-27

At 5.3 the form states:

5.3 Have you (or has your sponsor, if applicable) had any absences from the UK since you/they entered?

Yes No

If yes, please give details in the tables below. Continue on a separate sheet if necessary and enclose with your application.

It should say

5.3 Have you (or has your sponsor, if applicable) had any absences from the UK during the five-year qualifying period?

(at least according to the letter I received from Robert Goodwill MP - the Immigration Minister)

The online version of this form has the same error. [NB This requirement has, meanwhile, been dropped from the online form but not from the pdf form.] Please could you correct it ASAP as this is causing a lot of confusion and distress for EU citizens applying for proof of residency.

I received a reply:
From: support@govuk.zendesk.com 2017-01-31

Dear Dr Michael A Ward

Thank you for your message. Unfortunately the GOV.UK support team can not provide direct advice on visas, application process/timeframes, immigration or general guidance.

You must contact the UK Visas and Immigration team (UKVI) directly for advice:

- https://www.gov.uk/contact-ukvi/visas-and-settlement

[lots of other URLS]

Kind regards

Name#4

GOV.UK

Government Digital Service

I responded and tried again to explain:
2017-01-31

Dear Ms Name#4

Thank you for your email, but you seem to have misunderstood my message to you.

I do not require any advice on visas, application process/timeframes, immigration or general guidance.

I simply wanted to draw you attention to an error on your website.

When I drew this error to the attention of UK Visas and Immigration team, they suggested I got in touch with you. I understood them to be saying that correcting the website is your responsibility not theirs.

Please could you correct the forms on your website. You can confirm that this is an error by speaking to UKVI or to Robert Goodwill MP.

Yours sincerely

Dr Michael A Ward

Another reply
From: support@govuk.zendesk.com 2017-02-03

Dear Dr Michael A Ward

Your feedback has been passed on to the team at the UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) who manage this material. They will review your comments, but will only be able to deal with your query if it relates to an error with the website or its content.

In the meantime your original query with GOV.UK will now be closed.

Best wishes

I got straight back:
2017-02-03

Dear Ms Name#4

My query does relate to an error with the website and its contents.

I have already been in touch with UKVI. They put me in touch with you.

I do not understand why you are being so difficult about this. Why not simply correct the error?

Yours sincerely

Dr Michael A Ward

And, to Name#4's credit she got straight back to me:
From: support@govuk.zendesk.com 2017-02-03

Dear Dr Michael A Ward

You were previously told incorrect information. GOV.UK cannot advise.

The content you are querying in the PDF guidance is managed and owned by the UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI). I have to pass over to them for them to reply to you directly.

Best wishes

I never heard from UKVI regarding the incorrect form but I did receive a response to my complaint review.
From: LSECSU@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk 2017-02-20
Dear Dr Ward
Thank you for your further email correspondence of 27 January about the handling of your previous correspondence. I am conducting a review of your complaint following your further submissions.
Your complaint
You remain dissatisfied with the handling of your complaint. You say that our previous reply of 27 January did not fully address your concerns. You maintain that the response you received from Ms Name#3 on 18 January was rude. You reiterate that we initially refused to answer a simple question about the requirements for your wife to qualify for permanent residency. You also say that your comments about the section relating to absences on the EEA (PR) application form have been ignored. You would like an apology for the reply received by Ms Name#3 and an indication of expected staff behaviour in the future.
My decision
I should clarify that your email of 13 January, which you routed through our complaints email address, was not considered to meet with our definition of a complaint. It was therefore sent to our Public Enquiries team for reply. For this reason, Ms Name#3’s reply did not provide you with information on how you can escalate your enquiry should you remain dissatisfied.
Unfortunately, from looking at your email again, it is clear that this was a mistake on our part. Your correspondence was in relation to dissatisfaction with a previous reply you received from our Public Enquiries Team and it should have been handled through our internal complaints process. I am very sorry for this oversight.
However, Ms Name#3’s reply did provide you with the answer to your query. While I am sorry if you felt the rest of her reply was rude, we are not always able to provide specific answers in relation to an enquiry. Ms Name#3’s reply was explaining when we are unable to provide information. I am satisfied that her reply was not intentionally rude, however I have asked that the way this information is conveyed to the customer is looked at again.
I would like to thank you for highlighting that the information on the EEA (PR) application form is contradictory to what is contained on our website. Officials are already looking into this, and are also working to make the form more user-friendly and accessible to applicants. Feedback such as this does help us to improve our services.
In view of the above information, I am satisfied that your complaint on this matter is partially upheld. A reply to your enquiry was provided, although not through our complaints channel, and I am satisfied that Ms Name#3’s reply was not intentionally rude.
My response now concludes our internal complaint procedure but should you remain dissatisfied with this reply, you may raise the matter with Dame Julie Mellor, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (see her website: www.ombudsman.org.uk).
Yours sincerely
Name#5
Head of Performance and Customer Service
This was more conciliatory in tone but they still have not corrected their form and I expect they are still going to carry on being rude and dismissive to anyone who tries to question the instructions on their website. So I thought I should take this one step further:
To: Ombudsmand via Naz Shah MP by postal service 2017-03-09


The details of your complaint

I complained that the information on the Home Office website for people in our situation was labyrinthine, ambiguous, and often downright contradictory and suggested it should be improved. (The final response from the Home Office does at least say that its officials are "looking into this".)

I also said that when people write to the Home Office pointing out problems with the information on its website such submissions should be welcomed by the Home Office as useful feedback rather than treated with contempt. (The final reponse from the Home Office partially concedes this point but offers no apology for the original response.)

I complained that there was no justification for the Home Office's initial refusal to answer the simple question I raised and pointed out that a simple answer would have helped me, millions of others in the same boat (at least if they clarified their website), and the Home Office's own staff. (The final response from the Home Office alludes to this point but does not address it.)

I concluded by suggesting that even if, for some reason, it is not possible for the Home Office to answer a question from a member of the public, I did not understand why they cannot respond using an apologetic tone rather than using a rude, hostile, and condescending tone. (Again, the final reponse from the Home Office alludes to this point but does not address it.)

I then added a specific complaint about Name#3’s rudeness towards me in her responses to my original complaint. (The final reponse from the Home Office devotes a lot of attention to this aspect of my complaint and acknowledges that the Home Office made a mistake but does not address the general problem - of which Ms Name#3's behaviour was merely a symptom.)


Did the organisation miss any of the issues you raised in your complaint?

The Home Office have still not corrected their form https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/505032/EEA_PR__03-16.pdf which asks “Have you (or has your sponsor, if applicable) had *any* absences from the UK since you/they entered?” [5.3] and asks applicants to list them all.

The Home Office have still not apologized for the behaviour of their staff (in initially refusing to answer a simple question);

The Home Office have still not apologized for the generally hostile and antagonisitc tone of their staff in all their correspondence with me; and

The Home Office have still not given any firm indication that they would expect their staff to behave in a different fashion in future.

How have you, or the person you represent, been affected by what has happened?

My wife and I, already very upset by the uncertainly over our future which Brexit has caused were extremely distressed by the hostile and antagonisitic attitude of the Home Office and their refusal/failure to correct incorrect and misleading information on their web site.


If we are able to take on your complaint, what are you hoping we can achieve?

A correction to the instructions on form https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/505032/EEA_PR__03-16.pdf which states that only five years of entry and exit dates are required.

A genuine apology for the hostile and antagonistic tone of Home Office immigration and visa staff and assurances that the Home Office will adopt a less hostile and antaognistic stance in future.

The Ombudsman kindly agreed to take my complaint forward. I have just received this update on the (lack of) progress of their attempts to get a response from the Home Office:

Dear Dr Ward,

Your complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman

I hope you are well.

When we last spoke, I said I was waiting to receive some information from UKVI regarding your case before agreeing a way forward.

I have yet to hear from UKVI since then. I have therefore written to UKVI to ask if it would be willing to write to you and explain any changes it has made in relation to the EEA (PR) form and guidance. I am currently awaiting a response and have chased this today.

I will next be in touch when I hear back from UKVI. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch on the below details.

Kind Regards 
Name#6
Project Officer
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
The 85 page form on the Home Office website has still not been corrected (see section 5.3).

Reading the Home Office's Complaints guidance for UK Visas and Immigration, Immigration Enforcement and Border Force I note that
  • Incivility.
  • Brusqueness.
  • Isolated instances of bad language.
  • An officer’s refusal to identify themselves when asked. [and]
  • Poor attitude, for example, being unhelpful, inattentive or obstructive.
are all considered "minor misconduct complaints" and are "complaints about the professional conduct of IBD staff [...] which are not serious enough to warrant a formal investigation". If such complaints are substantiated "they would not normally lead to discipline (misconduct) proceedings".

2017-03-07

More Evidence-free Hyperventilation on the Home Office and the Three-Million EU Citizens Living Here

(A response to Wolfgang Münchau @EuroBriefing’s A primer for Europeans in post-Brexit Britain and to Rob Ford, @robfordmancs, Professor of Political Science at Manchester)




So let’s examine the issue in a bit more depth.....

Wolfgang begins by noting that “The main issue for EU nationals in the UK is not, in fact, whether the UK reaches a deal on the status of EU residents”. He is right. Despite Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s insistence that the plight of EU citizens here is the fault of “a few EU countries insisting there can be no negotiation before notification” the real source of the three-million’s problems are closer to home. As the UK Home Office puts it: “EU nationals who have lived continuously and lawfully in the UK for at least 5 years automatically have a permanent right to reside” and it has been estimated that about 84% of EU citizens currently living in the UK already meet this criterion or will have met it by the time we leave. 

The continued residency[i] of the 84% rests not on our negotiations with the EU, but on the behaviour of the UK Home Office.

Wolfgang Münchau complains that his “most dreaded chore this year will be to fill out an 85-page UK government application form” that he hopes will give him “permanent residence in the UK after Brexit”. The good news for Wolfgang is that a simplified online version of the form was made available - several months ago in fact. The even better news for Wolfgang is that, for people using the online form (but not for people using the 85 page paper form) the requirement to list all trips abroad since originally entering the UK – including entry and exit dates – has been quietly dropped.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of bad news, and some really bad news…..

First of all it should be pointed out, pace Wolfgang’s complaints about the length of the form, it is the need to provide reams of information that most people simply won’t have kept, rather than the 85 pages that is the real issue here. Another problem is that the form, both in its long and short versions, is riddled with ambiguities and contradictions and other than being advised to hire expensive lawyers, you will get little help with the form from the Home Office. And yet another problem is that significant numbers of EU citizens are disbarred from using the online form and from using the local(ish) passport checking service. They have to surrender their passports for months on end.

Wolfgang continues:

The UK grants permanent residency to [employed and the self-employed] who [have] been resident for five years or more. They have the right to apply for formal permanent residency status, for which they need to fill out that 85-page form. They do not have to do this and are still deemed to be permanently resident if they do not fill in the form. There are, however, two reasons why they might choose to do so. The first is insurance against a retroactive change in rules. It has happened before. The second would be to become a UK citizen, for which formal permanent residency is a prerequisite.

This is all true (sort of) but ignores a crucial consideration. Post Brexit, there are going to be two categories of EU citizens in the UK: those who are allowed to continue living and working here and those who are only allowed to visit for short periods as tourists. There is going to have to be some way of distinguishing between these two groups so everyone in the first category is going to have to be issued with Permanent Residency Documents. In other words, three million people are, sooner or later, going to have to fill in the form; or at least a form. There are few signs that the Home Office is geared up to process applications on this scale; and they only have two years.

Among those who are currently applying to the UK Home Office to try and beat the rush and get their situation in the UK regularized prior to Brexit, about 34% are being turned down – some then being ordered, for good measure, to pack up and leave the UK. It should be noted here that this is 34% of people who think they have a good case and who have sufficient initiative to fill in all the forms and assemble the reams of required evidence. I think we can assume that, given current procedures, there will be a far higher rate of failed applications once everyone has to apply.

And now we come to a really crucial issue: the reason for most of the failed applications.

It seems that about 12% of applications are rejected because applicants have failed to fill in the forms correctly or failed to provide all the bits of paper the Home Office insists on. The other 22% of applications are refused. There are no statistics on why these applications are refused, but the main reason seems to be failure to provide proof of “Comprehensive Medical Insurance”. People cannot provide proof of this because they didn’t, and don’t, have it or need it. They use the NHS.

This all gets very complicated but, as Wolfgang notes, correctly but misleadingly, “this is EU law”. In fact, according to the EU, the Home Office is in breach of this EU law when it insists, retrospectively, that some categories of UK residents who have been legally using NHS services all their lives require evidence of health insurance before they can apply for residency. This is, however, exactly what the Home Office is insisting. The Home Office will not even provide a definition of what constitutes Comprehensive Medical Insurance and EU citizens who ask insurance companies for such a thing report bafflement and/or ridiculous quotes for coverage.

But it gets even worse….

The latest change the Home Office has made in the accompanying guidance for filling in the forms contains a chilling new entry:

“Scenario 3: Colette, a Belgian citizen, came to the UK for a holiday in August 2003 but then remained without permission or entitlement under community law. Any residence in the UK after her entitlement under community law came to an end was residence in breach of the immigration laws.”

In other words, there are many EU citizens exercising their right to free movement here in blissful ignorance of the fact that our Home Office now considers their presence not just unwelcome but unlawful. Residence in breach of the immigration laws can theoretically land you in prison.

Wolfgang states confidently that the deportation of people in Collette’s situation "has not happened, and it will not happen". He is probably right but he displays astonishing complacency.

As both foaming-at-the-gills Brexiters like Jacob Rees-Mogg and liberal remain voters like Professor Ford are fond of chanting in unison “The idea that the Home Office will round up and deport three million people is bonkers”. What they don’t seem to realize is that – as Professor Jonathan Portes keeps shouting to anyone who will listen[ii] immigration control is – especially for foreigners with visa-free travel to the UK – increasingly conducted not by passport control but by employers. Landlords, banks, and hospital doctors seem destined to take on more and more of this role too.

So, assuming there is no change of heart or policy at the Home Office (a qualification that I apparently have to keep emphasizing) hundreds of thousands of EU citizens resident in the UK - those who never got around to filling in the forms, those without the required proof of status, homemakers and students who “need” but can’t get or afford comprehensive medical insurance, those whose applications are refused by the Home Office etc – are increasingly going to find themselves with no continuing right to work here or rent a house or open a bank account or receive medical treatment or get back into the country if an official at LHR (correctly) refuses to believe they are coming here as a tourist and they cannot furnish a residency permit.

There will be no mass round ups, just a slow war of attrition over many years during which the lives of “low value / high volume” EU migrants (to use Iain Duncan Smith’s charming turn of phrase) are made difficult or impossible.

I suppose that many of the hundreds of thousands working in the UK’s large black economy and the destitute may simply carry on living here until they get caught. Below the radar, the UK is already interning and deporting thousands of EU nationals it considers unfit to be here.

Negotiating with the EU is not going to help any of those people. Even if the Home Office does have a change of heart and starts trying to think of new ways to help rather than new ways to hinder EU citizens, and vastly simplifies its procedures, is it then going to write to all the people it has rejected apologizing and rescinding the rejections it has issued under current rules? This seems fanciful.

This is our story: “EU citizens in the UK are already facing Home Office threats”. My wife and I will be fine. I refuse to be bullied by the Home Office and we are already considering going to retire in Germany (if they’ll have me). I no longer feel at home in the UK and my wife certainly doesn’t.

Tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of other EU citizens are going to suffer a great deal more than we are and I intend to keep hyperventilating on their behalf as long as I draw breath.




[i] Their continued rights to pensions, healthcare, study, free travel etc are another matter and will hinge more directly on what is agreed with the other 27 EU countries.