Why British Ex-Pats fear becoming “illegals” in a No-Deal Brexit

 “French Officials and politicians ... feel that the UK has a policy of withholding rights rather than granting rights.” - Kalba Meadows, British in France, describes the ‘feeling’ she is getting from French officials and politicians in Brexit limbo

British people working in continental Europe fear becoming ‘illegal’ in a no-deal Brexit scenario, MPs on the Exiting the EU Committee heard from campaign groups  ‘British in Europe’ and ‘Eurocitizens’ yesterday.

They heard that British expats could be looking at a ‘postcode lottery’ in a post-Brexit EU, with rights maintained in some countries and not in others. 

At one end of the scale, Germany has not drafted any ‘No-Deal’ law for British citizens except ‘emergency legislation’. Germany’s plan appears to campaigners to be  that they will tackle that if it arises, e.g.  ‘if Brexit happens’.

At the other end of the scale, France and Spain have set out in law what rights they would demand for their citizens in a no deal scenario.

As a result, while the UK stands rudderless, Brits living across the channel are in a painful state of uncertainty on what the next Prime Minister’s Brexit plan will be for them.

 Kalba Meadows, a campaigner for ‘British in France’, told MPs that any failure of diplomacy for British ex-pats could mean that “we would become illegal.”

This stems from her perception that a lot of EU countries have zero ‘no-deal Brexit’ laws in place and no “grace period”, meaning, no set time frame in which anyone’s rights are protected. 

In that scenario, Meadows explained: “the moment that the UK leaves without a deal the UK citizen has no rights”.

The French Government has legislated to say that UK citizens could retain a lot of their rights — but only if the same rights are guaranteed for French citizens living in the UK. Amidst all the Tory leadership candidates’ tough talk on Brexit, that question hangs in the balance.

Meadows can only assess the future based on a ‘feeling’ she is getting from EU sources, that EU citizens’ rights will need to be written into UK law before France, for example, will reciprocate.

The freedoms in France’s bucket list are far from trifling. Key rights at stake are:

- The right of British operators to operate on French soil

- The right of British operators to transit France carrying goods or passengers

- The right of British operators to transport between the UK and France.

Meadows distilled the risk to business that springs from this: “if the UK doesn’t reciprocate on citizens’ rights for French citizens, … transport of goods and people would also be suspended’.

In Spain, the difference is that there would be a ‘grace period’ of 21 months, after which UK rights would fall into question.

Fiona Godfrey, co-chair of British in Europe, communicated ex-pats’ sense of being side-lined and voiceless: “We are British citizens and so far we have been really badly let down. … We are losing a whole set of rights because of red lines laid down by the British Government”.

The question on all this for a new prime minister will be whether to draw up a new law to address guarantee EU citizens’ rights in the UK, as a form of guarantee for British ex-pats to have those same rights in Europe.

Meadows said: “The feeling that we are getting from talking to French officials and politicians is that they are not yet happy to say, ‘Yes, there is definitely reciprocity.’”

She elaborated: “They do not trust the UK. They feel that the UK has a policy of withholding rights rather than granting rights. They would really like to see EU citizens’ rights enshrined in primary legislation.”

ENDS.

Read more on BYLINE TIMES: https://bylinetimes.com/2019/07/04/campaigners-for-british-ex-pats-condemn-boris-johnsons-do-or-die-brexit-threat/

FULL TRANSCRIPT:  http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/exiting-the-european-union-committee/the-progress-of-the-uks-negotiations-on-eu-withdrawal/oral/103464.html

From the notebook: Education Secretary challenge

One way or another I did not manage to get this story placed today, within the confines of fast news expiry dates, so am self-blogging it for the first time in years.

It is a little rough around the edges, not entirely finalised copy and not as short as it would need to be- I always try to allow a little space to play with depending on the publication... but would seem a shame to just shelve it quietly. So here is the rough cut.

Education Secretary grilled over cash-strapped councils ‘unlawfully’ cutting support for disabled and special needs children

STORY SUMMARY: Damian Hinds is under pressure in Court and Parliament over an estimated one fifth of special needs or disabled children who applied for an education plan being ‘refused offhand’, without an assessment.

The alleged discrimination is taking place against the backdrop of a £1.6bn gap in special needs funding flagged by the Local Government Association.

COPY:

Education Secretary Damian Hinds this week responded to accusations he is ‘presiding over’ a system alleged to be 'unlawfully' discriminating against special needs or disabled pupils.

MPs challenged Hinds in Parliament, while the Treasury is in court defending its decisions on the policy.[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/special-educational-needs-funding-cuts-high-court-government-children-parents-a8974876.html]

One of the parents applying for judicial review of the Government’s spending commented that the issue is one of ‘discrimination’: ‘more disabled children are being excluded from mainstream education, and this has been happening over the last ten years.’

“‘No resources’ ain’t no excuse.” - Sir James Eadie QC, for the Treasury

The High Court today heard from Sir James Eadie QC about the legal constraints that local authorities are operating under, They are “responsible for making the necessary provision” for disabled or special needs children, and resource scarcity is not a valid reason for not doing so.

"’No resources’ ain’t no excuse.”, Sir Eadie observed. “There is case law on that. They can move money from schools to ‘high need’ children", or perhaps "they can supplement the ‘high needs’ block with non-ring-fenced spending." However, Eadie said that this hdemands 'decisions' on how to remove that money from other policy areas.

Meanwhile. Education Secretary Damian Hinds has promised to correspond with the Education Select Committee over the crisis.

Hinds is under pressure to give answers on whether councils have behaved 'unlawfully' in shutting the door to approximately one-fifth of SEND — special educational needs and disabled — child applicants requesting educational support. 

Those failures, MPs suggested, result in more than 90% of parents winning support for their children when they challenge Local Authority decisions at tribunal. Families have battled for support against a backdrop of a ‘£1.6bn’ funding shortfall that has allegedly ‘hamstrung’ local authorities and led to what parents say are unlawful decisions being made.

“One fifth of local authority testimony that we took sees them turn Special Needs or disabled children away at application stage not assessment stage, which by my reckoning is unlawful” - James Frith MP, on the Education Select Committee 

Labour MP James Frith opened scrutiny of the lawfulness of funding refusals, putting it to Hinds: “On this day in what might be your last appearance as Secretary of State, in anticipation of a reshuffle, the irony isn’t lost on me that the Government is in the High Court defending its record on SEND [Special Educational Needs and Disabilities] funding. The Local Government Association is on record as saying the the ring fenced funding is 1.6 billion short.”

Hinds refused to comment on an ongoing court case but acknowledged that the number of children on Educational Health and Care Plans has increased, necessitating new commitments as to funding.

Frith challenged Hinds: “One fifth of applications [for an ‘Education Care and Health Plan’] are refused out of hand, would you agree that that practice is unlawful under the legislation?”

Hinds said: “I would need to see what you are talking about and I would be happy to do that by correspondence.”

Frith continued: “If you apply for EHCP you should be assessed. What we have now is that applications are refused out of hand.” Frith claims that this is happening in one-fifth of cases, based on evidence to the Education Select Committee.

Hinds said: “I would need to understand a lot more in depth and on paper exactly what the suggestion is and the analysis is, I’d be happy to follow-up on that.” 

He added: “I do want to correct you on exclusions. You said exclusions have been rising, this is true the last few years but the rate of permanent exclusions is still lower than it was ten years ago.”

1.28 million children more likely to need SEN support

Pupils listed as Special Educational Needs increased from 1.24 million pupils in 2017 to 1.28 million pupils in 2018. Within this, the DfE reports that children with special education needs ‘account for just under half of all permanent exclusions and fixed period exclusions.’ [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/804374/Special_educational_needs_May_19.pdf]

In 2016-2017, 171,580 pupils with special educational needs had fixed period exclusions and 3605 experienced ‘permanent exclusion’ from school, the most recent statistics also show.

Robert Haflon MP, the Conservative Chair of the Education Select Committee, pressed Hinds on how schools are using those increasingly stretched resources: "Are you concerned that there is no proper way of tracking how schools spend their SEN [Special Educational Needs] support?” Haflon asked whether Osted should play a ‘greater role’ in this.

Hinds said the DfE ‘trusts schools’ and that this is not, in his view, a solution. "I am reluctant to introduce new burdens on new tracking and so-on for Ofsted to look at.”

Parents’ and disability campaigners’ crowdfunded application for Judicial Review of the Treasury’s special needs’ funding decisions will conclude today, with the decision reserved for a later date.