Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

But if the same rule exists doesn't that leave UK retirees vulnerable if any EU country decides to apply the little-known rule....as UK has just done.

Has UK applied this rule before, or has it just emerged due to Brexit?
If so...isn't it possible others will apply reciprocity.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

Yeah, well good luck with that! :lol:

You don't follow the rules, then complain at the outcome and expect the rules to be changed half way through the game. :rolleyes:

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

The rest of Europe doesn't operate a public healthcare system like the NHS so a direct comparison isn't possible.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

Saw an article in The Times yesterday (21 Feb 2017) by Hannah McGrath -

Amongs those who joined hands in Parliament Square before meetings to lobby MPs was Michael Arapis, 34, a Greek student who had travelled from Cardiff, where he has been studying to become an international trade lawyer. Mr Arapis, who arrived in the UK 15 years ago, fears that he may not fulfil residency criteria after Brexit.

He said: "There are thousands in my situation, many of them have families and children and we are all concerned about what happens next."

Many protesters expressed fears that they could lose residency rights and benefits including state pension contributions as a result of a legal requirement for EU citizens to have paid for private health cover for five years.

My limited understanding in the matter is that only EU citizens exercising treaty rights as students and self sufficient people are required to have private health cover during their stay in the UK. However, this article from The Times seems to suggest that every EU citizen needs to have private health insurance. Am I wrong?

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

In my experience even quality papers with good journalists often print articles with glaring errors if you are familiar with the minutiae of the topic. .... The problem in this case is only for those who were not working or, not seeking work, during those first five years in the UK.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

And if I remember correctly, many of the EU countries require CSI for those going the self-sufficient or student routes of free movement. But until last year, the UK didn't accept self-sufficiency or study as a free movement right. The Home Office then brought in a CSI requirement for EU nationals exercising free movement in the UK in November.

So although CSI has long been a feature of the EU free movement directive, it's a recent thing as far as EU nationals were concerned. At least from what I've seen over the years.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

"EU citizens living in the UK say they are being denied a guarantee of permanent residency because they do not have health insurance."

It is a criminal offence in Germany (I was told) not to subscribe to any sort of health insurance either private or through the govt. regulated system. In fact this applies to all EU countries. Due to free movement EU country citizens ignore this rule or may be they are not aware of it. However, if you are employed you automatically get signed up by employer. Freelance needs to buy private cover. Anybody applying for a Schengen visa e.g. has to show insurance cover. Only UK embassies don't seem to have this requirement.
May be they will from now on.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

Quite. Unless Mr Arapis has spent the last 15 years studying or being self-sufficient without CSI will he have a problem. If he has already worked for a period of five years during the last 15 years then he's already a permanent resident and his study now will have no effect on his residence status. And no-one is going to lose their state pension if they're been paying NI contributions. Not sure why that's even in there. "Many protesters expressed fears" is a neat way of appearing to suggest those fears are legitimate without actually doing any fact-checking. Disappointed in The Times if that's true. It was the one broadsheet left that was doing responsible journalism.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

Unfortunately based on my experience "inside" a big news story back in the 1990's I saw first hand how even the best, highest quality newspapers and media and their journalists, reporters, and investigators can make a pig's breakfast out of a story, and I mean everyone upto and including The Times, the FT, and the BBC. I noticed that reports of a story over time very quickly become a mish-mash of official news release material (you might say "the true story") blended with stale information, opinions of outside "experts" and politicians sticking their oar in, comparisons with other situations (possibly of little or no relevance, such as from other countries), plus some of the journalist's own "investigations", and then smoothed over with "logical assumptions" and "deductive reasoning", such that by the time the report was published/ broadcast the report bore very little resemblance to the real story. :(

My experience back then has affected my view of almost all reporting ever since, and that I can frequently pick up errors in reports on, among other things, business and finance, countries, and in all manner of articles on science and technology, has only served over the years to reinforce my view that most journalists are hacks, and even the best only know, at best, about 75% of what they're talking about. :(

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

Can we deduce, from your post, that only you know 100% of what you're talking about?
I have personally known journalists that didn't fit your definition.
One is Freddy Forsyth who, some 50+ years ago, was a 'hack' reporting for the King's Lynn News and Advertiser.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

I think Pulaski ahs a valid point in that most journalists are as he describes. I had to deal just a few years ago with journalists publishing articles about a company I worked for than even the most cursory internet search or common sense would have shown were not based in fact.

An older journalist friend has the opinion that this in the USA at least, was a negative fall-out of Watergate- that journalists developed a more inflated view of themselves, and over time felt their ideological goals and career goals of scoring a "coup", were more important than journalistic integrity.

Radio talk shows and cable news seem to make issue even worse. Watching Fox or CNN and one wonders if there is any concern with objectivity at all.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

Agreed. A decade ago a local paper here in the US posted a "fact" several times, in different articles, about a US based business, that 30 seconds with Google would have proved was utter nonsense.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

It is a mistake to assume that journalists are literate.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

Italy applies the rule. Unless in employment or married to an Italian, for the first 5 yrs, you must have medical insurance. Pensioners are the exception. Under EU rules -which the UK fought tooth and nail to avoid- your home country pays.

Re: EU citizens 'denied residency documents'
 

I regularly read the Guardian, Financial Times, BBC news, the Economist, and occasionally other reputable media such as Huffington Post, Slate, or the Washington Post. I think that the quality of news reporting in all of them is very high.

The Guardian, FT and the Economist have, between them, covered the issue of EU national's status in the UK, and UK nationals in the EU, post Brexit in depth and accurately.

Press freedom is currently under threat from authoritarian governments and movements. It should be defended.