# €5 visa to get into Europe for Brits.



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Just heard this on the news tonight. Not sure how probable or not.
Seems Brits are going to have to go online and answer some security questions and stump up €5

Ray.


----------



## ThePrisoner (Jan 13, 2009)

As long as it works the other way.........


----------



## jo662 (Jul 27, 2010)

raynipper said:


> Just heard this on the news tonight. Not sure how probable or not.
> Seems Brits are going to have to go online and answer some security questions and stump up €5
> 
> Ray.


As far as I can make out,its 5 euros and lasts 5 years!

Similar to what you have to get into the USA!


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I wonder how long that will last?

It is being out forward now as a deterrent to show how tough the EU are going to be..... But bringing it into practice is a long way off....

Dave


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

So long as we can still show our passports and get free entry to galleries, museums etc. That is a huge saving for us and one which I suspect will go. 

I don't mind a 5 euro visa charge though I heard 20 euros so shows how accurate the guesses are.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Yeah, the $9 US charge has stopped me going to the states. Stuff em.!!

Ray.


----------



## jo662 (Jul 27, 2010)

raynipper said:


> Yeah, the $9 US charge has stopped me going to the states. Stuff em.!!
> 
> Ray.


We so need a funny tab!!:serious:


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

"The Commission estimates set-up costs at around €200m (£172m) and annual running costs at €85m (£73m). It is intended to be self-financing through the application fee."

"EU officials hope the screening can close loopholes at its borders for violent militants, criminals and would-be illegal immigrants."
I can see those migrants arriving at Greece and Italy being sent back because they haven't completed the on line application and don't have €5. I doubt it will have much effect on violent militants and criminals as most have EU residency anyway.
http://news.sky.com/story/eu-plans-...ravellers-in-crackdown-on-extremists-10659536


----------



## listerdiesel (Aug 3, 2012)

USA visa waiver scheme is $US 14.00 for 2 years.

https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/

Just renewed ours.

Peter


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Penquin said:


> I wonder how long that will last?
> 
> It is being out forward now as a deterrent to show how tough the EU are going to be..... But bringing it into practice is a long way off....
> 
> Dave


As I understand it the proposal is for all citizens of Non-Schengen countries worldwide to be included in the scheme.

It is not an EU scheme as such and is not connected to Brexit.

Geoff


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

When you say. as you understand it, is that an opinion or the actual fact.

cabby


----------



## siggie (Oct 2, 2010)

The scheme is a Schengen Zone one. It is a security check and not a visa per se.

ALL holders of passports from non-Schengen countries that DO NOT need a Visa to enter the Schengen zone have to pay for this check.

ALL holders of passports from non-Schengen countries that DO need a Visa to enter the Schengen zone do not have to pay for this check as the check is a standard part of the Visa approval process.

As the UK is outside the Scengen zone we would have to pay for this check regardless of whether we are in or out of the EU, unless, after we leave, we do require Schengen Visas. But many non-EU countries do not require Schengen Visas, so requiring the UK to need them would be due to pure spite.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

I would suspect its highly likely we will need a visa and whilst its only €5 I assume it will be checked and date tagged on entry into Schengen (Mainland Europe) and can be checked at any time and presumably will be checked and tagged on your exit. Given that entry to schengen countries for none EU citizens is limited to just 90 days if this does go ahead I would say its definitely going to be a way of checking how long you have been in mainland Europe and if you have overstayed. It was and still is one of the concerns and issues I and others have brought up several times as a potential problem should we leave the EU. What it will mean is (if it goes ahead) that any trips you do in your motorhome to Europe will be limited to just 90 days and if there is a visa in place I cannot see how you will get around that. Not good news for all those over wintering in places like Spain or if like us you spend up to six months travelling in Europe. Full timers will need to plan ahead as well.

Still there is always the hope (slim though it is) that the proposal to grant those UK citizens that wish to remain in the EU and retain their EU Citizenship which we have enjoyed since 1993 will go ahead. Not holding my breath on that one.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Barry

Are you sure about this 90 day thing as I am NOT aware of that restriction applying to people HOLIDAYING in the UK.

IF it does come in I am sure there will be some form of provision for those wishing to stay longer than 90 days whilst not being in employment (or a student) as few countries will be willing to discourage foreigners who want to spend money in their country. 

90 Days is still three months (which is a decent length of time) I accept that there are people, such as yourself, who visit for longer, BUT they (you?) are in a VERY small minority indeed, and, EVEN IF we remain part of the EU by not being part of Schengen (and long may THAT continue to be so) all UK citizens will STILL have to abide by the rules (So please DONT try and use it as another reason to "Remain") 

Andy


----------



## siggie (Oct 2, 2010)

Mrplodd said:


> Barry
> 
> Are you sure about this 90 day thing as I am NOT aware of that restriction applying to people HOLIDAYING in the UK.
> 
> ...


A standard multiple-entry tourist Schengen Visa limits visits to a total of 90 days in a 6 month period. The 6 month period begins on first entry for that block of 90 days. So you can actualy do 180 days in the EU each year, but you would need to split your trips.

Not looked into it, as we manage fine with the standard long-term multiple-entry visa, but I am sure that there must be a visa option available for long-term tourists.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Siggie

So as I see it Barryd's comment of.......

_It was and still is one of the concerns and issues I and others have brought up several times as a potential problem should we leave the EU._

Is wrong in as much as the new rule will apply to all UK citizens regardless of Brexit (or non Brexit) as we are a non Schengen zone country anyway.

Have I got that right???

Andy


----------



## siggie (Oct 2, 2010)

Mrplodd said:


> Siggie
> 
> So as I see it Barryd's comment of.......
> 
> ...


I think Barry was referring to the 90 day maximum in a 6 month period that normally applies to Schengen Visas.

As to the actual subject of this thread...

If we had to apply for a visa to enter the Schengen zone post Brexit then the €5 security check would not affect us - the check is a part of the visa approval process. If we remain visa free, as now (and as many 'Western' nations are now) then we would have to spend a massive €5 every 5 years for a security check. If we stay as we are right now, i.e. in the EU and outside the Schengen zone then we would still have to pay for the security check. Irish passport holders will also have to pay.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Hold on

I think we have to distiguish Citizens of 

EU countries within Schengen.

EU countries not in Schengen

Non- EU countries within Schengen, e.g Norway

Countries outside both EU and Schengen to which 'Visa-waiver', ie no Visa required, applies.


UK is already outside EU and Schengen. I doubt whether UK, outside EU would be excluded from the 'Visa waiver' list of countries.

Whilst there is a 90 day rule on visa-holders, I have not yet seen a suggestion that such 90 day rule would apply to the security check, which would not have evidence in one's passport. Anyway the check would probably only be executed on entry not exit.

So generally, the requirements for visas and the security check are separate issues which apply to Citizens of different countries in differing ways.

Geoff


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

I guess we just wont know until it happens. You can bet though that no thought and consideration of long term travellers will be undertaken. At the moment the 90 day rule does stand and overstayers have been fined and thrown out of Europe. It doesn't apply to us at the moment as despite us not being in Schengen because we are in the EU we are still allowed free movement rights.

A lot of people have said either it wont effect them or they will just wing it and stay as long as they like if the 90 day rule is applied. It occurred to me though that if there is to be some kind of visa introduced that IF we are limited to 90 days then this could be a fool proof way of the authorities knowing you have overstayed.

Of course if it does become law that your only allowed 90 days then there is a good chance things like 365 insurance, breakdown cover and travel insurance would change. Why would an insurance company cover you for more than 90 days if thats the maximum your legally allowed?

We can only wait and see what happens but I think it would effect more of us than you think if it does turn out to be the case.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Like the whole Brexit mess, conjecture and suppositions. 
But the Pound is creeping up 1 GBP =1.16908EUR.

Ray.


----------



## siggie (Oct 2, 2010)

barryd said:


> I guess we just wont know until it happens. You can bet though that no thought and consideration of long term travellers will be undertaken. At the moment the 90 day rule does stand and overstayers have been fined and thrown out of Europe. It doesn't apply to us at the moment as despite us not being in Schengen because are in the EU we are still allowed free movement rights.
> 
> A lot of people have said either it wont effect them or they will just wing it and stay as long as they like if the 90 day rule is applied. It occurred to me though that if there is to be some kind of visa introduced that IF we are limited to 90 days then this could be a fool proof way of the authorities knowing you have overstayed.
> 
> ...


The rule is 90 days in a 6 month period, so you can actualy do two lots of 90 days a year. If you first travel on your Schengen Visa on 1 January then you are allowed a maximum of 90 days in the Schengen Zone until 1 July, when your next 6 months start and you get another 90 days. My understanding is that the second 6 months only starts when you enter the Schengen Zone on or after its start date, you can not extend inside the zone beyond your first 90 days, you must first leave the zone.

As I said before, there is probably a visa available for longer trips - how else would Americans or Australians get to do year long tours of Europe?

However, none of this is related to the subject of the OP. That is about a security check. I doubt the security check will have anything to do with visa overstay or anything else. That is done already when immigration scans your passport at the border as you enter and leave. When you get your security check it will be entered into a database with your passport details and be checked automatically when your passport is scanned, just like your API is now at UK borders.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

barryd said:


> I would suspect its highly likely we will need a visa ......


Why do you suspect that Barry given that visas are not presently required for citizens of the USA, Canada, just about every country in South America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and various other countries. Please don't say it will be to punish us for daring to exit the EU!


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

peribro said:


> Why do you suspect that Barry given that visas are not presently required for citizens of the USA, Canada, just about every country in South America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and various other countries. Please don't say it will be to punish us for daring to exit the EU!


I was talking about the newly proposed €5 visa Peter. I thought we all would have to get one if it goes through. Yes I am aware that Americans etc do not need one but are still only allowed 90 days in any 180 in Schengen countries. My concern was that this new proposed visa could act like a tag if you like to flag up any over stayers. However it may not matter because if it becomes law that you cannot stay more than 90 days chances are you wouldnt be covered for insurance etc as I mentioned earlier anyway. I certainly wont be "winging" it as a lot of Snowbirds seem to think they will be able to. Well those that are even thinking about it that is which is not many from what I can gather.

No I wouldnt dream of suggesting the EU would punish us by denying us access in our motorhomes. I am sure we are not on their radar but we are not on anyones radar and I fear that we will end up with something slipping into place that wont effect hardly anyone but could certainly put an end to our care free travel days on the mainland we have enjoyed in the past. I Think the EU will punish us for leaving but they will make sure its something that effects everyone here not just a handful of wealthy motorhomers.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

peribro said:


> Why do you suspect that Barry given that visas are not presently required for citizens of the USA, Canada, just about every country in South America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and various other countries. Please don't say it will be to punish us for daring to exit the EU!


Barry and others

Whatever side one is on for Brexit or Stay, I think Peter's opinion holds good. The visa requirements of both the EU and Schengen are separate from Membership of the EU.

It would be very cherlish for the Schengen countries to allow Visa-free entry to Japanese and not British, who fought the war against Japan.

Could people please remember that the Schengen Agreement is not a EU Treaty, although it is a requirement for new EU applicant countries to agree to sign up to Schengen.

Geoff


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

nicholsong said:


> Barry and others
> 
> Whatever side one is on for Brexit or Stay, I think Peter's opinion holds good. The visa requirements of both the EU and Schengen are separate from Membership of the EU.
> 
> ...


Geoff, I am not disputing that as it stands now but the proposal is for a new €5 visa for ALL none EU travellers. Americans, Japanese etc as well as people from the UK will all have to have them if that is how I understand the scheme to be brought in by 2020 works. Visa or no visa at the moment Americans, Japanese etc etc all have just 90 days in schengen countries. I have no reason to think the UK would be treated differently unless perhaps it negotiates a soft Brexit by retaining single market access which would come with free movement of people. My point is that if this new visa is introduced would it be a way of tracking who is in and out of the UK and for how long?


----------



## siggie (Oct 2, 2010)

barryd said:


> Geoff, I am not disputing that as it stands now but the proposal is for a new €5 visa for ALL none EU travellers. Americans, Japanese etc as well as people from the UK will all have to have them if that is how I understand the scheme to be brought in by 2020 works.


This new scheme is NOT a "€5 visa", it is a security check.

This new scheme is NOT "for ALL non EU travellers", it is for all non Schengen country travellers that DO NOT require a visa to enter the Schengen Zone. Ireland is an EU member but outside Schengen and Irish travellers will need to get the €5 security check. Norway is not an EU member but is inside Schengen and Norwegian travellers will not need the €5 security check. American and Japanese travellers are from outside Schengen and do not require a visa to enter the zone and so they WILL have to pay for the €5 security check.

If you are a traveller from a non Schengen country that DOES require a Schengen visa before you travel then you will NOT have to pay the €5 security check as the check is a part of your visa application process.



barryd said:


> My point is that if this new visa is introduced would it be a way of tracking who is in and out of the UK and for how long?


It is NOT a visa.

It has nothing to do with the UK or tracking people for how long they are in a country/Schengen zone, that is done already with API in the UK and by scanning your passport, anywhere in the world. This scheme is about a security/criminal background check on travellers.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

So will I have to 'buy' one to get out.??

Ray.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Sadly Ray, the way things seem to be panning out at the moment with the rise of the crazies it looks as if the UK will NOT get anything like what it predicted and the results will be that the UK will literally be outside Europe. 

At present the route that is looking most likely for us will be to take French citizenship, something I did NOT want to do, but the effect of the sort of comments Doris is making it is looking more and more unlikely that Free Trade, limited migration and the ability to remain living in the EU will not be achieved.

So quite what the benefits will be to the UK seems even more difficult to perceive but for us it may well be that we have to sever some connections with the UK in order to stay living here..... and we are only one of a large number of UK expats living here who are sadly coming to the same conclusion including senior retired members of all the arms of HM Forces. Serve your country, then get pushed away.....

The UK is pushing it's own citizens away, what a welcoming place it is not.....

Dave :frown2:


----------



## salomon (Apr 20, 2011)

Why do you think you need to become a French citizen Dave ? Its a genuine question as I do not have the same potential problem.
My first thought would be to apply for French residency ie Carte de sejour. I realise at the moment its technically impossible as UK is still in the EU but why cannot you be treated like other non EU residents when the time comes ?


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

It is not yet clear how this ETIAS system would work, as to whether the information a passenger provides would be checked centrally or by the Schengen country to which he/she is travelling and whether the Schengen country from which he/she is leaving will make any check, and whether all countries will have access to the information on when a person entered the Schengen area.

I presume that like the US system the info will be filed through the carrier. So who will sailors file with?

I cannot see that the UK being in the EU or not will make any difference, as UK is not in Schengen so UK residents would have to comply with this rule whether IN or OUT.

Geoff


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

siggie said:


> This new scheme is NOT a "€5 visa", it is a security check.
> 
> This new scheme is NOT "for ALL non EU travellers", it is for all non Schengen country travellers that DO NOT require a visa to enter the Schengen Zone. Ireland is an EU member but outside Schengen and Irish travellers will need to get the €5 security check. Norway is not an EU member but is inside Schengen and Norwegian travellers will not need the €5 security check. American and Japanese travellers are from outside Schengen and do not require a visa to enter the zone and so they WILL have to pay for the €5 security check.
> 
> ...


Yes you are quite correct, it is not a Visa. The thread title states it is a Visa hence the use of the term but it is indeed another form of security check. API checks are carried out by the UK Authorities I believe though and are designed for the UK to keep track of peoples movements. My point is that this new document (not visa) will presumably be logged somewhere on the European side of the border and could possibly be used to check how long you have stayed. Currently over stayers from none EU countries are caught and fined heavily and can be refused entry back into Schengen countries for three years. Interesting article here. http://www.euro-dollar-currency.com/overstaying_schengen_visa.htm

Presumably its easier to check if you are an over stayer if you go through an airport but it seems likely with all the security checks and proposed further increased security checks at ferry ports that we will face similar there also.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Dave I think Geoff is probably right. As we are established residents of France with Carte de Sejour and history of paying Impots. It's very unlikely we would be asked to leave or even suggested. There are more French in UK than Brits in France. Even the folly of Brexit can't uproot millions of migrants either way.

Also before 1992 many thousands had holiday homes in various European countries. I'm sure it will still be possible to by property and reside for whatever length of time we choose. The world aint gonna come to a standstill over Brexit.
It might cost me a few more Shekels to exist though.

Ray.
p.s. yep, sorry Barry as 'visa' was the only label I could think of at the time.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Salomon, the advice that we are receiving concerns the impossibility for obtaining a _carte de sejour_ while the UK is part of the EU, but as soon as an exit is secured we would not be able to stay in France without it and most local Prefectures are saying that it will not be issued unless the Health arrangements are made - residing in Franc with the UK underwriting Health via the S1 system is one of the "negotiating points" and while TM has said "protecting our citizens is of paramount importance" she has said the same about no free movement and free trade.

They are not all going to be delivered and the Health underwriting is the critical part, without that many UK expats would not be able to stay in France.

Dave


----------



## salomon (Apr 20, 2011)

Which is what I thought. Carte de sejour is ( will be ) possible.
I am suprised that health insurance would be considered too expensive to enable people to stay. I accept that if you have an existing condition then insurance could be prohibitive but the difference between full health insurance and a mutuelle top up is not actually that great.
If the usual residency rules were applied then proof of income is needed...which would cause many Brits to fall short I would imagine , given what you say above.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

barryd said:


> s. Interesting article here. http://www.euro-dollar-currency.com/overstaying_schengen_visa.htm


That article refers to holders of visas.

For those on the 'visa waiver' scheme this might be more relevant

https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/barbados/documents/eu_travel/visa_waiver_faqs_en.pdf

Geoff


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

If this scheme comes into effect then anyone within the Schengen area on date of implementation would only become subject to the 90/180 restriction if they exited the area and then only from the date of re-entry to Schengen.

For MHomers who drive out of Schengen after the implemention date I wonder *how* one will be supposed to submit the required information for driving back in.

Barry, it could be a persuasive reason to stay within the lands of Leffe and French cheese:wink2::smile2:

Geoff


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Penquin said:


> Salomon, the advice that we are receiving concerns the impossibility for obtaining a _carte de sejour_ while the UK is part of the EU, but as soon as an exit is secured we would not be able to stay in France without it and most local Prefectures are saying that it will not be issued unless the Health arrangements are made - residing in Franc with the UK underwriting Health via the S1 system is one of the "negotiating points" and while TM has said "protecting our citizens is of paramount importance" she has said the same about no free movement and free trade.
> They are not all going to be delivered and the Health underwriting is the critical part, without that many UK expats would not be able to stay in France.
> Dave


Dave.
We have had a Carte de Sejour for over 20 years. It was taken off us when we sold the Bergerac house in 1993 but given back when we bought in Normandy 1994/5.
Each time we have renewed we have always been told by well meaning Brits (Connexion) and our Mairie it was not necessary. But I always insisted (politely) it made dealing with lawyers, Notaires and Prefectures easier. So we have had one all the time we have had a house in France. I carry mine always and on the odd occaision been asked for ID produce it, it's always worked for us and in hospital with the Carte Vitale.

Ray.


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

Thanks it is the Prefecture in Bergerac that is digging their heels in now, according to them they CANNOT be issued to EU citizens and if the UK leaves they will only be able to issue them after being given official guidance from Paris. They also have commented that without such proof residence in France can be terminated rapidly.....

The Prefecture there does have the reputation for being unhelpful and this has apparently hardened since the result was disseminated.......

Sadly, I suspect this will be one of the "unofficial" ways that their displeasure is shown, by being bl00dy awkward when they can - and the French bureaucracy can really excel at that..... Nothing official I am sure, but they will ONLY act as they are told, when they are told and at present they have NOT been told to issue such things.

Interestingly things seem to have changed on 31st October....

application for Carte de Sejour 


I was under the VERY strong impression that 5 years was the length required, that page now says 10......

Dave


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

nicholsong said:


> If this scheme comes into effect then anyone within the Schengen area on date of implementation would only become subject to the 90/180 restriction if they exited the area and then only from the date of re-entry to Schengen.
> 
> For MHomers who drive out of Schengen after the implemention date I wonder *how* one will be supposed to submit the required information for driving back in.
> 
> ...


Sadly though rules is rules, visa or no visa if you not in the EU its 90 days unless you have negotiated free movement. Nobody really knows what our deal will be but as I said earlier the only way we will get what we have now is if we agree to free movement I reckon. Otherwise it will just default to what every other none EU country has. My worry as I said earlier is it just wont be on the radar as its not a problem for most people.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Penquin said:


> Thanks it is the Prefecture in Bergerac that is digging their heels in now, according to them they CANNOT be issued to EU citizens and if the UK leaves they will only be able to issue them after being given official guidance from Paris. They also have commented that without such proof residence in France can be terminated rapidly.....
> The Prefecture there does have the reputation for being unhelpful and this has apparently hardened since the result was disseminated.......Dave


Dave, I have heard similar stories about the main Prefecture in Perigeux. But possibly your smaller local Mairie might warm to you.
We have a friend in the Mussidan Mairie who might be some help if we ask??

Ray.


----------



## Harrers (Dec 21, 2011)

raynipper said:


> Dave, I have heard similar stories about the main Prefecture in Perigeux. But possibly your smaller local Mairie might warm to you.
> We have a friend in the Mussidan Mairie who might be some help if we ask??
> 
> Ray.


Ray, the link Dave posted seemed to indicate that one has to apply to the Prefecture or sub-Prefecture. That is Angouleme or Cognac for me I believe. I am really not sure what my position will be as I only completed the purchase of my house in August. I have been working in France this year since March but this has been for UK companies. I intend doing seasonal work again next year but my intention is to live permanently in France. I keep telling myself that Brits lived in France before we joined the Eu but as others have posted, attitudes may harden. Are you suggesting that the Mairie can help with obtaining the Carte de Sejour?


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Unless things have changed dramatically we have always used our local village Mairie for all requests. Our Mairie has processed and sent off to the Prefecture.
Both when we had a house near Bergerac and more recently here in Normandy. This has been for Carte de Sejour, Change of driving licenses and other permits.

The Perigeux Prefecture was known to be particularly difficult to deal with possibly due to the numbers of Brits residing in The Dordogne. Even if you had everything required on their list of docs, at the last minute they would dream up another non related doc to be able to complete any application.

Ray.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

barryd said:


> Sadly though rules is rules, visa or no visa if you not in the EU its 90 days unless you have negotiated free movement. Nobody really knows what our deal will be but as I said earlier the only way we will get what we have now is if we agree to free movement I reckon. Otherwise it will just default to what every other none EU country has. My worry as I said earlier is it just wont be on the radar as its not a problem for most people.


For those already in the Schengen area there is free movement within the area. From when would the 90 days start? No dates in passport etc. No house.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I'm interested to read about theses problems with French officialdom. My BiL who lives near Poitiers is having similar problems trying to get on to the health care system despite fulfilling all the conditions. They just keep asking him for one or other of the documents he's already submitted over and over again. He's sure it down to brexit.


----------



## salomon (Apr 20, 2011)

Its true that French paperwork has always been OTT. I am not sure that it has got worse due to Brexit. There is an almagamation of regions going on, designed to reduce the number of fonctionaires ( the state spends 57% of GBP, beaten only by Finland...). They are not happy to say the least. 
Most French people also struggle with the paperwork as it is complicated and the rules are not necessarily clear. Often, one office will treat things differently to another and even different people in the same office.
The number of functions a sub prefecture can perform has been reduced over time. In general, its easier to go to the prefecture as they have no one else to pass you on to. I have 2 examples of French paperwork :

-Car matriculation. Not really complicated. Forms filled in, taken to prefecture. Wait in queue, everything stamped. Docs in post. 9 out of 10 people in front of me had their paperwork incorrect and were sent away. And they were all French.

-Hospital stay. We are trying to pay the bill. Or do I mean actually get the bill? There will be 4 different bills. So far we have received and paid one. 2 different offices for 2 different things in the same building. The main bill is just under €5k. We know this as we have visted the office to demand the bill...and we still havnt got it. We were prepared to pay the bill on the spot but that just wasnt possible ( but I could pay the other one ? ) It seems they dont want the money. It is baffling. And I am fluent in French !!!!


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Agreed Solomon.
Different Mairies and Departments interpret the 'rules' differently and often wrongly. It pays to persevere.
We also are awaiting the hospital bill. They just say it will be in the post.??

Ray.


----------



## salomon (Apr 20, 2011)

raynipper said:


> Agreed Solomon.
> Different Mairies and Departments interpret the 'rules' differently and often wrongly. It pays to persevere.
> We also are awaiting the hospital bill. They just say it will be in the post.??
> 
> Ray.


Yes Ray.
In the UK we used to say that the cheque is in the post. Here its always the bill !
Go figure...


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

nicholsong said:


> For those already in the Schengen area there is free movement within the area. From when would the 90 days start? No dates in passport etc. No house.


I am not sure being in the Schengen area the day the new rules start and therefore being in some kind of Euro Schengen limbo status is the answer we are looking for Geoff. 

Its all just speculation at the moment I guess as nobody knows what the situation will be 2,3 or even 5 years down the line (Maybe 10!). The chaos theory of Brexit has not even started yet and it could go in all kinds of directions. I just have a feeling that for motorhomers and ex pats like yourself and others in this thread none of them will be good ones.


----------



## salomon (Apr 20, 2011)

I am resident in a non schengen country, but surrounded by schengen countries. We have no airport and only sporadic border checks. Its always been understood that we have unlimited access to both France and Spain. I cannot see that changing quickly. Its not what the new regs are designed for. I have no doubt that there will be ways for Brits to spend as much time as they want to in Europe. Non europeans can do that today. I dont think the intention is to stop ordinary citizens from travelling but rather to keep undesirables out. Which is why a british passport is so much more valuable than say e.g Afghanistan.

I would not have an issue to take citizenship of my chosen country if that were required. It would not stop me being British per se.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

barryd said:


> I am not sure being in the Schengen area the day the new rules start and therefore being in some kind of Euro Schengen limbo status is the answer we are looking for Geoff.
> 
> Its all just speculation at the moment *I guess as nobody knows what the situation will be 2,3 or even 5 years down the line (Maybe 10!)*. The chaos theory of Brexit has not even started yet and it could go in all kinds of directions. I just have a feeling that for motorhomers and ex pats like yourself and others in this thread none of them will be good ones.


Barry

Bit in bold is true, but some of us have to have a plan.

I have researched Andorran Residence, but there are still difficulties with the 90 day rule.

If push comes to shove I could become resident in Poland - I am sure the Polish Government would not say 'no' to a few thousand quid of extra tax revenue it would cost me - Basia may not be so pleased when I cut her housekeeping and wine allowance:surprise:

Please do not call me an 'Ex-Patriate' - at least not while I still have a house in UK, pay all my taxes there, am not resident anywhere else - just happen to travel a lot in my MH, even if it is parked a lot in certain places:wink2::laugh:

Geoff


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

salomon said:


> I am resident in a non schengen country, but surrounded by schengen countries. We have no airport and only sporadic border checks. Its always been understood that we have unlimited access to both France and Spain. I cannot see that changing quickly. Its not what the new regs are designed for. I have no doubt that there will be ways for Brits to spend as much time as they want to in Europe. Non europeans can do that today. I dont think the intention is to stop ordinary citizens from travelling but rather to keep undesirables out. Which is why a british passport is so much more valuable than say e.g Afghanistan.
> 
> I would not have an issue to take citizenship of my chosen country if that were required. It would not stop me being British per se.


Sarah

You were posting that while I was researching the Andorran Residents' rights in Schengen.

It may be that you and I would fall into the same category under whatever new rules might apply.

We do not want to bore the good folks of MHF with our personal situations, so I will be in private contact by other means..

[Basia has just gone off to a 'Health Farm' with our (Pretty) Family Doctor for a week - they did not invite me:crying:- thank goodness:smile2:]

Geoff


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

nicholsong said:


> Barry
> 
> Bit in bold is true, but some of us have to have a plan.
> 
> ...


Presumably then Sal (Above) has residency or citizenship elsewhere as well then. I suspect you will need to become resident somewhere long term then as well as will anyone living in Schengen permanently. I cannot see a way around that.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

salomon said:


> I am resident in a non schengen country, but surrounded by schengen countries. We have no airport and only sporadic border checks. Its always been understood that we have unlimited access to both France and Spain. I cannot see that changing quickly. Its not what the new regs are designed for. *I have no doubt that there will be ways for Brits to spend as much time as they want to in Europe*. *Non europeans can do that today*. I dont think the intention is to stop ordinary citizens from travelling but rather to keep undesirables out. Which is why a british passport is so much more valuable than say e.g Afghanistan.
> 
> I would not have an issue to take citizenship of my chosen country if that were required. It would not stop me being British per se.


How? As I understand it you can apply for an extension or long term visa with good reason for some countries but not all, I think France may do it but it can take some time to get one.

I would be interested to know what legal, above board and easy to obtain methods there are which would include all Schengen countries for continued access beyond the 90 day agreement.


----------



## salomon (Apr 20, 2011)

Many cross postings !

Yes, I am resident in Andorra. We also have a home in France. Passive Andorran residency requires 90 days per year in Andorra. In reality, it is never respected. I know of many people who retain residency but never set foot in the country. The trick is not to be deemed resident elsewhere...
As we shuffle between Andorra and France (3.5 hour drive ) it is no problem for us. We are above board , so to speak.
The distance bewteen Andorra and Poland is somewhat different though !


----------



## salomon (Apr 20, 2011)

barryd said:


> How? As I understand it you can apply for an extension or long term visa with good reason for some countries but not all, I think France may do it but it can take some time to get one.
> 
> I would be interested to know what legal, above board and easy to obtain methods there are which would include all Schengen countries for continued access beyond the 90 day agreement.


France is not really a problem. I have friends who do it frequently.
I have an American couple coming next month who have spent the last year in Europe. They have been in Belgium, greece, now Bulgaria, then Spain . I dont know exactly how they did it but I did not have the impression it was difficult. 
Most countries accept holidaying as a good reason to be there. You are spending your money there and not taking state handouts. 
Sorry, I cannot tell you exactly how its done, but it certainly is done and if Americans can manage it then I dont see why Brits cannot.


----------



## barryd (May 9, 2008)

salomon said:


> France is not really a problem. I have friends who do it frequently.
> I have an American couple coming next month who have spent the last year in Europe. They have been in Belgium, greece, now Bulgaria, then Spain . I dont know exactly how they did it but I did not have the impression it was difficult.
> Most countries accept holidaying as a good reason to be there. You are spending your money there and not taking state handouts.
> Sorry, I cannot tell you exactly how its done, but it certainly is done and if Americans can manage it then I dont see why Brits cannot.


Thanks Sarah. Maybe next time you see them you could find out. Perhaps a PM if you dont want to post on here. I agree it would seem daft to turn people away who are clearly there with money to spend and on holiday. We roughly spend about a £1000 a month when in Europe so who is going to want to turn that away from their economies when you times it by several thousand motorhomers each year? My concern however is that the whole issue will slip under the radar so to speak and we will find ourselves whilst perhaps welcome travelling illegally and that raises questions with such things as health care, insurance etc. Of course there are well documented cases of over stayers being heavily fined as well. I wont suggest that your American friends are doing anything illegal as they may have well found a legal loophole to remain in Schengen legally or may indeed just have not realised that they are over stayers I dont know.

It would be pretty easy right now to just wander around Europe as many do without any checks or problems and at the moment thanks to Free movement we can do exactly that. I, like many others I am sure however do not want to find ourselves suddenly in a situation where I cross a Spanish border having spent four months lolling about in Provence only to get a stubborn Guardia civil pulling me over for a broken brake light who then discovers I am an over stayer and impounds my motorhome and stuffs me with a heavy fine.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

barryd said:


> Presumably then Sal (Above) has residency or citizenship elsewhere as well then. I suspect you will need to become resident somewhere long term then as well as will anyone living in Schengen permanently. I cannot see a way around that.


That is the worst-case scenario.

Most countries are happy to give one Residency, as that enables them to tax you, but are more reluctant to give Citizenship, with voting rights etc. So Residency alone amounts to 'Taxation without Representation'

The financial consequence of Residency in Poland is that, although there is a double-taxation agreement with UK, and although their standard rate of income tax is 1% lower, their tax-free personal allowance is negligible compared with the £11,000 in UK, so there is a considerable additional amount due.

Trusts, Offshore companies etc.are starting to come into my mind. "Don't let the B*stards get you down!"- or your money:wink2:

Geoff


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

I must admit that we have never applied for residency in Spain despite spending more than 90 days at a time there in winter. I don't actually know anyone who has done though most people know that they are supposed to.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/residency-requirements-in-spain

I can't see any reason why, given the documentation you are asked to produce, there should be any problem post-Brexit. The UK government state on the above website that there are no changes as a direct result of the referendum so, possibly the issues that Barry fears concerning long-term European visits, might well have passed over the desk of someone in the FCO or similar for future resolution.


----------



## salomon (Apr 20, 2011)

nicholsong said:


> That is the worst-case scenario.
> 
> Most countries are happy to give one Residency, as that enables them to tax you, but are more reluctant to give Citizenship, with voting rights etc. So Residency alone amounts to 'Taxation without Representation'
> 
> ...


Gibraltar. 2.5% flat rate. Monies moved into Andorra, 0% on a 90 day residency.
I have paperwork at the Gibratar tax office now. I will let you know how it progresses...


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Grizzly said:


> *I must admit that we have never applied for residency in Spain* despite spending more than 90 days at a time there in winter. I don't actually know anyone who has done though most people know that they are supposed to.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/residency-requirements-in-spain
> 
> I can't see any reason why, given the documentation you are asked to produce, there should be any problem post-Brexit. The UK government state on the above website that there are no changes as a direct result of the referendum so, possibly the issues that Barry fears concerning long-term European visits, might well have passed over the desk of someone in the FCO or similar for future resolution.


Chris

Do you spend your time in the MH or accomodation?

If the MH then looking at the British Embassy advice here

*Who should register?*

It is obligatory by Spanish law to register on the padrón at the Town Hall where you *habitually reside, *yet many British ex-pats still have not done so. Perhaps some view the padrón as a means of vigilance by the state, in 'big-brother' fashion. However, in reality, it is simply a way for the town hall to know how many people live in their area, without entering into investigations as to a person's official residence status or financial affairs.
*How you register*

You don't have to own your house to register, just have* an address where you habitually live*, no matter whether you are the owner, you rent, or live with family or friends

So I would surmise that anyone in a MH does neither 'reside' nor 'habitually live' at 'an address'.

My opinion may not hold good in a Spanish Court:wink2:

Geoff


----------



## salomon (Apr 20, 2011)

barryd said:


> Thanks Sarah. Maybe next time you see them you could find out. Perhaps a PM if you dont want to post on here. I agree it would seem daft to turn people away who are clearly there with money to spend and on holiday. We roughly spend about a £1000 a month when in Europe so who is going to want to turn that away from their economies when you times it by several thousand motorhomers each year? My concern however is that the whole issue will slip under the radar so to speak and we will find ourselves whilst perhaps welcome travelling illegally and that raises questions with such things as health care, insurance etc. Of course there are well documented cases of over stayers being heavily fined as well. I wont suggest that your American friends are doing anything illegal as they may have well found a legal loophole to remain in Schengen legally or may indeed just have not realised that they are over stayers I dont know.
> 
> It would be pretty easy right now to just wander around Europe as many do without any checks or problems and at the moment thanks to Free movement we can do exactly that. I, like many others I am sure however do not want to find ourselves suddenly in a situation where I cross a Spanish border having spent four months lolling about in Provence only to get a stubborn Guardia civil pulling me over for a broken brake light who then discovers I am an over stayer and impounds my motorhome and stuffs me with a heavy fine.


I will most certainly find out what they did. I am sure they did it legally as they had a minor concern about crossing the year end here in France. It turned out to be harmless.
You are right to be concerned though. IMO you should always know the rules and regs with travel, residency, tax, health insurance ..all that stuff. When things change it can happily bite you in the backside without a thought. If you are prepared in advance then nothing can go wrong...for normal people, naturally. Some people just attract hassle !
I am still of the firm belief that if you are an honest citizen, no one will want to stop you enjoying your motorhome wherever you want to as long as you abide by the rules. I also think that when (if) the rules change there will be an appropriate change over period for those you are somewhere wandering without soeaking the lingo and no clue what is going on in the world.
Tomorrow is the start of French voting season, if Marine Le Pen gets in next spring then you probably wont want to come back anyway. The end of Europe would be well and truely nigh.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Couldn't you end up being required to register your motorhome in Spain or wherever too?


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

erneboy said:


> Couldn't you end up being required to register your motorhome in Spain or wherever too?


Alan

I think in most countries the time requirement to re-register a vehicle is 6 months, but I may be wrong. I think it is contained in the provisons of the 'Vienna Convention' about the circulation of vehicles.

What happens if one took a NI(UK) registered vehicle to ROI, or vice versa, for more than 6 months? Would anyone notice - or care?

Geoff


----------



## salomon (Apr 20, 2011)

You can have vehicles registered in places where you are not resident. We kept a French car when we lived in the UK. We still keep a French car now. But many French are fined in portugal for the 6 month rule ( large portuguese population in France go back frequently ). No one is 100% sure on the legality of the fines but they dont want to fall foul of residency rules so cough up and say nothing.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

nicholsong said:


> Alan
> 
> I think in most countries the time requirement to re-register a vehicle is 6 months, but I may be wrong. I think it is contained in the provisons of the 'Vienna Convention' about the circulation of vehicles.
> 
> ...


As with everywhere it would depend if anybody cared enough to report it. There was a bit of a fad amongst petty criminals for buying and using Southern registered vehicles in the North, the intention was not to be picked up by the the number plate recognition cameras so they could drive without tax or insurance. That would still work but the police are wise to it and on the look out for it.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

salomon said:


> *You can have vehicles registered in places where you are not resident. *We kept a French car when we lived in the UK. We still keep a French car now. But many French are fined in portugal for the 6 month rule ( large portuguese population in France go back frequently ). No one is 100% sure on the legality of the fines but they dont want to fall foul of residency rules so cough up and say nothing.


The rules for vehicles are country-specific unlike the Schengen 90 day rule.

In UK all one has to do is provide a UK address for registration, but of course there is no document proving residence in the UK.

Some countries require proof of residence before registration, e.g here in Poland, but we would only need for Basia to own 5% of the vehicle to register it in her name as a resident.

So one's vehicle (car MH etc.) has a right to stay in a country longer than a person, and the car/MH does not need advance information to travel.

Who put these F*ckwits in charge of the asylum?

A lot of it can be blamed on Napoleon, Napoleonic Law and the countries that used it as a model, and then the new breed of 'Administrators' of the EU, which have latched onto the 'Power', as they see it, granted to them under that sort of 'Administrative Law'

I have gone a little bit off topic - but please consider the difference in treatment of vehicles and people.

Geoff


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

I had a friend that was fined for keeping a French registered vehicle in the UK without re-registering it and that was back in 1974, he had bought a 2CV while on his year abroad in La Rochelle, drove it back to Uni at Exeter and did not register it in the UK, he was fined after 8 months (part way through his final year), so it DOES happen.

We also know many people here who have UK registered vehicles and have done for more than 10 years..... it appears to be persuading the insurance company that dictates it - if they are happy to continue covering it, then there is virtually no pressure to change it as the authorities don't seem to have any clue how long it's been there, besides if you keep it for 6 months and then drive it into Spain and back again the six month permitted stay appears to start again....

The rules, like so many things were put together in a similar manner to the proposals for the Referendum - put together by idiots and they refused to accept suggestions as to how to clarify them and make them effective.....

Dave


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Penquin said:


> The rules, like so many things were put together in a similar manner to the proposals for the Referendum - put together by idiots and they refused to accept suggestions as to how to clarify them and make them effective.....
> 
> Dave


And Polititcians no longer seem *wise enough* to consult Constitutional Lawyers about drafting, implementing and enforcing their ideas.

Of course I would say that. But it does not stop it being a valid comment.

Geoff


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

totally agree with that Geoff, sadly, like many people the Politicians concerned believed that they knew it all - even though they were not teenagers....

It was pointed out to them that they had made fundamental errors in the legislation for the Referendum, but to no accord...

similarly when handguns were banned in the UK, they acted in haste and repented at leisure as the number of illegal handguns has sky-rocketed according to the Police,

or when they introduced the "Dangerous Dogs Act" and banned ownership of certain breeds, they ignored the advice from the experts in identifying or recognising breeds and the difficulties that entailed, so the Law was introduced in haste and has been VERY difficult to enforce ever since - leading to dogs being seized for months or years while an identification of breed is sought (and in Devon leading to the dogs being confined to kennels and given no exercise on the instructions of the Police. That has amounted to charges of cruelty being levelled, all because the identification is VERY difficult....

There are numerous examples of laws being introduced in a hurry that frankly contain contradictory parts - as Tax Advisers exploit to minimise Income Tax for the rich and famous.......

It is not a new characteristic in politicians but is certainly developing to a very high level - which will at least give them something to claim they do well.....  :frown2:

and of course it is a very good clue as to why the current Appeal from the Government is likely to fail as the Judges concerned most probably understand the Law as it is actually written and recorded better than TM _et al...._

Dave :dontknow:


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Penquin said:


> There are numerous examples of laws being introduced in a hurry that frankly contain contradictory parts - as Tax Advisers exploit to minimise Income Tax for the rich and famous.......
> 
> It is not a new characteristic in politicians but is certainly developing to a very high level - which will at least give them something to claim they do well.....  :frown2:
> 
> ...


I'm sure you know better but, from all I know from relatives working at the Palace of Westminster, it's a complex and slow procedure getting a bill into law and it passes through very many hands - most of whom are civil servants or lawers, not politicians- before it can even be debated let alone become law. A lot of work goes into getting the wording as unambiguous as possible.

This explains some of them:

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Grizzly said:


> I'm sure you know better but, from all I know from relatives working at the Palace of Westminster, it's a complex and slow procedure getting a bill into law and it passes through very many hands - most of whom are civil servants or lawers, not politicians- before it can even be debated let alone become law. A lot of work goes into getting the wording as unambiguous as possible.
> This explains some of them:http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/


Then why do we end up with such a shambles G.?
It's trying to cover any and every possibilities and eventualities. You can't please all the people all the time.

Ray.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

raynipper said:


> Then why do we end up with such a shambles G.?
> It's trying to cover any and every possibilities and eventualities. You can't please all the people all the time.
> 
> Ray.


If you mean over Brexit Ray then 1) because both sides lied unashamedly in the pre- referendum period, 2) many voters were unable or unwilling to check facts and went with emotions instead 3) the media propagated false information and most believe what they tell us, unquestioningly 4) as a country we revel in bleating about how little we get from and how much we give to the EU and, unlike our European neighbours, don't advertise where money from major projects involving EU money comes from and 5) we have a PM who seems unable to distinguish between Parliamentary and Governmental rights.

Meanwhile the laws are usually totally unambiguous.

OT but, if you want a really fascinating day out in London then visit the Supreme Court. They are very keen that we all should and, apart from a lovely building, there are excellent interactive exhibitions, detailed talks on how the place works and a good cafe too ! Very well worth it.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Not specifically Brixit G but almost all recent legislation and new laws as has been said are often knee jerk reaction and short term fixes.
OK we have had the old EU chestnut bandied about as excuses why we can't get our house in order. But often so many other important aspects of UK law have been a shambles. Immigration, Child Support, vehicle homologation, pensions, taxes, etc. etc.

I have served on juries both at The Old Bailey and County Courts. Yes fascinating but also frustrating in the extreme. I chose not to go to London now as the changes depress me. Plus rats in a cage always springs to mind.

Ray.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

raynipper said:


> Not specifically Brixit G but almost all recent legislation and new laws as has been said are often knee jerk reaction and short term fixes.
> OK we have had the old EU chestnut bandied about as excuses why we can't get our house in order. But often so many other important aspects of UK law have been a shambles. Immigration, Child Support, vehicle homologation, pensions, taxes, etc. etc.
> 
> Ray.


Goodness Ray: Where to start ! Care is usually taken so that the actual mechanics of the laws themselves are sound.

I think at the root of our chaotic state is ( possibly) short-termism. Our governments spend one year, post election settling in, 2- 3 years working and 1 year seeking re-election. In the 2 to 3 years they have to do a " me ! me ! act to get noticed and make sure we all remember how wonderful they are at the election. At the moment we don't seem to have a viable opposition from any party so they can probably get away with more but, I don't see this government lasting another year and then, its all in the air again. How can we do any long term planning when the next government will be along shortly and back track ?

Meanwhile, the great British public want their pet or local schemes ratified and, being lead to understand that Democracy means just that, will press their MP for more and more laws.

We have planning laws and checks- good mostly - that mean that even erecting a bus stop can take years of planning, cost countless millions and spoil the lives of hundreds of people by uncertainty. The laws themselves are not to blame but there are still those who challenge every dot and comma and this takes time and money.

We seem unable to prioritise. What is more important: that our citizens are healthy or that some of us are able to get from Birmingham to London 10 minutes faster than they can now ? In 20 years time people might well prefer to do their meetings online and not travel at all. There will still be sick people though.

I could go on but am thoroughly demoralised by it all. We seem to be turning ( have turned ?) into an uncaring, aggressive society.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I agree with most of what you say G. but there are plenty of badly written laws and as Ray says a good many were knee jerk reactions to this or that event and the ensuing hysteria in the tabloids.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Yep, can't argue with anything you said here G. 
I have always wondered if there was any other job paying £75k a year to try and keep that job.? Little else is needed other than the odd appearance to a subsidised work place.

I worked on TSR2 and Concorde. Looking back it was amazing either actually got off the ground with all the negative actions created. The smallest detail would take many months to resolve by the time various committees and departments had their say.

Public projects have seemingly bottomless buckets of cash. Latest follies are two aircraft carriers and HST.

Ray.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Grizzly said:


> We have planning laws and checks- good mostly - that mean that even erecting a bus stop can take years of planning, cost countless millions and spoil the lives of hundreds of people by uncertainty. The laws themselves are not to blame but there are still those who challenge every dot and comma and this takes time and money.
> I could go on but am thoroughly demoralised by it all. We seem to be turning ( have turned ?) into an uncaring, aggressive society.


Another fiasco G.
As a landlord I was required to upgrade the fire regs to my property in multiple occupation. One item was a mandatory external fire escape which because of the very complex rules governing fire escapes took months to create and then projected beyond the building line.
Planning was sought and months later refused. This went on for another year before I gave up and said to the fire people and planning let me know when you have sorted it all out.
Planning won, no fire escape and any tenants caught on the top floor would die.

Democracy in action???

Ray.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

raynipper said:


> Another fiasco G.
> As a landlord I was required to upgrade the fire regs to my property in multiple occupation. One item was a mandatory external fire escape which because of the very complex rules governing fire escapes took months to create and then projected beyond the building line.
> 
> Ray.


The snag is Ray that the actual laws surrounding some action HAVE to be written so that they are unambiguous. That makes them complex and that means that everyone can put in their twopennorth to argue for and against clauses in them. I don't blame the actual people who write the laws. ; they do their best with difficult circumstances. We have got to the stage where we have to legislate for those who simply lack common sense and a sense of self-preservation.

In the USA if the red light says " Don't Cross" and you do then you've broken the law. Period. If I challenge that law, because I crossed when the road was empty, then it costs me and the state and takes time. On the other hand, to write a law that says " you can cross if the road is empty, even if the red light is showing" is difficult. What is " empty ? How long a gap between cars is safe ? What if I'm a slow walker ? It all has to be defined so as to be unchallengable. It's much easier to make an " either/or" type law even if sometimes that law seems daft.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

As an aside: A fine example of short termism announced this morning on the news.

There is to be an " Expressway" between Oxford and Cambridge.

Recently we have had an immense amount of work done in Oxfordshire to improve Thames flood defences, improve access to the A34, electrify the Great Western line, add another railway station and track to Oxford, replace bridges and so on and so on. The new Expressway, inevitably, is going to impinge on some of the nearly finished or finished work. Why is this idea suddenly sprung on us ? Has anyone thought to leave space for it to go through the flood defences, over the new railway etc ? What happened to the promised railway line which was going to be rebuilt between Oxford and Cambridge ? Do we need an Express motorway ? 

Yet more massive expense and disruption of travel and lives and money taken away from projects which do make a difference. Looks much better for the government than a day centre for the elderly or a youth club however.


----------



## raynipper (Aug 4, 2008)

Yes G, this has been common knowledge since I was a kid.
Typical is digging up the road/path for one service or another. Only to be dug up again for the next pipe/wire.

How many town centres have been pedstrianised with pattered block paving only to be dug up and badly relaid for fibre etc.

Ray.


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

raynipper said:


> Yes G, this has been common knowledge since I was a kid.
> Typical is digging up the road/path for one service or another. Only to be dug up again for the next pipe/wire.
> 
> How many town centres have been pedstrianised with pattered block paving only to be dug up and badly relaid for fibre etc.
> ...


Exactly. We also have a tendency to patch jobs rather than do them properly. Properly costs more money but saves in the long term...but our local councils and government are not in it for the long term. They might not be there after the next local or national election and it will then be someone else's responsibilty.

To use your example. After cables have been laid in the road or pavement, rather than simply filling in the trench left, the the whole pavement or road should be resurfaced. Filling in simply results in potholed roads and uneven pavements. These have to be sorted out sooner or later and meanwhile claims from motorists with damaged suspensions or pedestriams with broken hips have to be met and roads closed a second time.

Sorry...a long way OT and I ought to be getting lunch ready.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Grizzly said:


> I'm sure you know better but, from all I know from relatives working at the Palace of Westminster, it's a complex and slow procedure getting a bill into law and it passes through very many hands - most of whom are civil servants or lawers, not politicians- before it can even be debated let alone become law. A lot of work goes into getting the wording as unambiguous as possible.
> 
> This explains some of them:
> 
> http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/


That seems to concentrate ont the politicians roles.

There is no mention of Parliamentary Counsel/Draughtsmen, who are the real craftsmen in draughting legislation. I suspect the linked piece was draughted by politicians to emphasise their role.

Unfortunately, after the Draughtmen have produced a Bill, the politicians muck it around, without sending it back for review about the wording. There was less of this when there were were more lawyers in both Houses. Unfortunately when the House hours were extended and the idea came in that MPs should work full-time, then many lawyers were dissuaded from standing, since the could not combine two jobs. I believe this is a regressive step since a major function of Parliament is to make *Law*.

Parliament also needs people who are from other professions and skills - Doctors, Teachers, Military personnel as well as Train/Bus drivers etc. My personal view is that there are too many 'Career Politicians' who have come up through the Party system via Research jobs or being Local Councillors, but without experience in any other profession/work.

Geoff


----------



## Penquin (Oct 15, 2007)

If joining the EU was a big mistake and the legislation for that was flawed, what hope is there for high quality legislation for an exit?

IMO we are likely to end up with a mish-mash of Laws which suit no-one and causes the biggest problems in the long term..

But how else can it be done? We all elect people to be responsible for the laws, and trust them to get the Laws right. Lawyers then dissect the laws afterwards to find the numerous loop-holes that exist so that individuals can either avoid the effect of the law on them personally or avoid their intentions for their own monetary benefit.

But I cannot see any other way that it can be done *UNLESS* as the law is drawn up senior legal figures are directly involved and their advice incorporated, but even then other lawyers may take a different view based on different *OPINIONS* - hence why the current Article 50 pre-launch Parliamentary vote is going to the Appeal Court; Government lawyers want to interpret laws differently to the way the High Court Judges have done. The result of that Appeal will directly affect the way that the UK exits from the EU. All based on different *OPINIONS.*

Unlike my scientific background where there are *FACTS*, these do not appear to exist in politics, it is all *OPINIONS*

Dave


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

nicholsong said:


> That seems to concentrate ont the politicians roles.
> 
> 
> > I did only say " explains some of them". I understood that no law could go for debate, before or after an amendment, before it had gone via the office of the Pariamentary Counsel for draughting and checking.
> ...


----------



## Grizzly (May 9, 2005)

Penquin said:


> If joining the EU was a big mistake and the legislation for that was flawed, what hope is there for high quality legislation for an exit?
> 
> IMO we are likely to end up with a mish-mash of Laws which suit no-one and causes the biggest problems in the long term..
> 
> ...


Dave: the biggest problem in the bickering that is going on at the moment is that there is a conflict between Parliament and Government. I understand and sympathise with Mrs May not wanting to show her hand before she triggers Article 50 but, if we stick to the letter of the law, and I believe it is unambiguous, then Parliament must know what is being put up for approval or disproval and Mrs May, the leader of the Government, does not have a right to over-ride Parliament.

Parliament - both Houses- exists to represent our interests and make sure that Government takes them into account. Government is responsible for the day to day things but it is the responsiblity of Parliament to monitor those day to day things and their execution in our interests.


----------

