The Nhs And Uk Ex-pats

[chiang mai]

There's been much discussion in this forum regarding the rights of UK ex-pats to NHS health care in the UK. A new consultation document sets out quite clearly the rules governing those rights hence I thought it would be helpful to set them out here so that eveyone can be aware - the following is an extract from that document:

"People living in the UK for part of the year, while also spending significant periods of time abroad, risk being considered as not ordinarily resident and so not entitled to free NHS treatment, although some exemptions do protect this group (and these are):

• Any UK state pensioner living abroad, who has previously lived in the UK for at least ten years, receives free treatment for immediate needs arising during any temporary visit to the UK, but not for existing conditions or elective needs;

• UK state pensioners, living for no more than six months per year in another EEA country, and the remainder of the year in the UK, retain full eligibility for NHS treatment for the period they reside in the UK, as long as they do not register as resident in the other EEA country;

• EEA nationals (including former UK residents) have the right under European Community Regulations to receive all clinically necessary healthcare when they visit the UK, which is covered by their European Health Insurance Card;

• Those working abroad for up to five years (who have previously resided in the UK for ten years) retain full eligibility during that period;

• Members of the Armed Forces and Crown Servants, together with their dependants, retain full eligibility;

• Those who have previously resided in the UK for ten years and are living in a country with which the UK has a bilateral healthcare agreement will also receive free treatment for needs arising during their visit (and in any case, such other care as is covered by the terms of the agreement);

• People returning from abroad to resume permanent residence are immediately entitled to full free treatment.

If a returning resident is not covered by an exemption, whether or not they are ordinarily resident will usually be assessed by a local Overseas Visitors Manager, on the basis of whether or not they are ‘settled’ with ‘a sufficient degree of continuity’ (based on the House of Lords definition12). People who may risk being assessed as not ordinarily resident include those on repeat extended holidays or visits to relatives abroad, and retirees living part of the year abroad, particularly those below state pension age and/or living outside the EEA".

I've highlighted the sentence above which I think is the "emergency lifeboat" of any UK ex-pat.

[crazydrummerpauly]

Hi - many thanks for this contribution to an ongoing debate which i started elsewhere on TV.

Personally i'm still down about this issue - it all feels potentially disastrous for certain categories of returning Brits.

Two thoughts:

1) The clause citing "exisiting conditions or elective needs" is a huge cop-out for the Brit.Govt. Anybody who has ever been involved

with medical insurance policies knows how slippery the concept of 'exisiting/pre-existing condition' is. E.g., if you have a heart-attack

while on a visit to the UK but have a history of moderately high blood-pressure..?

QUOTE:

• Any UK state pensioner living abroad, who has previously lived in the UK for at least ten years, receives free treatment for immediate needs arising during any temporary visit to the UK, but not for existing conditions or elective needs;

2) I see a real problem with your idea that THIS >>>

People returning from abroad to resume permanent residence are immediately entitled to full free treatment.

is what you call : "An emergency lifeboat of any UK ex-pat" - I mean, what are the chances of this reason working more than once ? The computerisation of medical records will keep this stated reason on your record, so the second time you try to use it, the medic involved can swiftly question the reality of you 'Permanent Residence' if you have actually been away for a period in each year for example.

The whole things stinks, and as it is currently working, it turns out that the single actual 'emergency lifeboat' is the prevailing attitude of MOST doctors and nurses in the Nhs, which is to be shocked that they are being asked to refuse treatment to folks who are in precisely the position that they also aspire to be in a few years down the road in their own retirement years.

Thanks again for keeping this thread alive - i think it is a potential socio-political time-bomb.

[chiang mai]

The simply answer is that you can't use the lifeboat more than once and quite rightly too IMHO, to do otherwise is deception and is fraud that needs to be targeted.

[khundon]

If a returning resident is not covered by an exemption, whether or not they are ordinarily resident will usually be assessed by a local Overseas Visitors Manager, on the basis of whether or not they are ‘settled’ with ‘a sufficient degree of continuity’ (based on the House of Lords definition12). People who may risk being assessed as not ordinarily resident include those on repeat extended holidays or visits to relatives abroad, and retirees living part of the year abroad, particularly those below state pension age and/or living outside the EEA".

I wonder if having a home in the UK and visiting friends and family in Thailand for say 2-3 months a year, would be refused NHS care, either as emergency on return to UK or after they had been back for a while?

It would be good to know for us that pay taxes in UK and who are to be denied access to the NHS, because we like to travel outside the EU on a regular basis.

[bunple]

if you cut all ties with the UK for what ever reason (usually tax purposes )then tuff shit if you can't get NHS, keep a permenant UK address pay taxes and when you need NHS don't mention you been living abroad, after all if you pay taxes in the UK then you should be entitled to NHS.

[MAJIC]

Hi - many thanks for this contribution to an ongoing debate which i started elsewhere on TV.

Personally i'm still down about this issue - it all feels potentially disastrous for certain categories of returning Brits.

Two thoughts:

1) The clause citing "exisiting conditions or elective needs" is a huge cop-out for the Brit.Govt. Anybody who has ever been involved

with medical insurance policies knows how slippery the concept of 'exisiting/pre-existing condition' is. E.g., if you have a heart-attack

while on a visit to the UK but have a history of moderately high blood-pressure..?

QUOTE:

• Any UK state pensioner living abroad, who has previously lived in the UK for at least ten years, receives free treatment for immediate needs arising during any temporary visit to the UK, but not for existing conditions or elective needs;

2) I see a real problem with your idea that THIS >>>

People returning from abroad to resume permanent residence are immediately entitled to full free treatment.

is what you call : "An emergency lifeboat of any UK ex-pat" - I mean, what are the chances of this reason working more than once ? The computerisation of medical records will keep this stated reason on your record, so the second time you try to use it, the medic involved can swiftly question the reality of you 'Permanent Residence' if you have actually been away for a period in each year for example.

The whole things stinks, and as it is currently working, it turns out that the single actual 'emergency lifeboat' is the prevailing attitude of MOST doctors and nurses in the Nhs, which is to be shocked that they are being asked to refuse treatment to folks who are in precisely the position that they also aspire to be in a few years down the road in their own retirement years.

Thanks again for keeping this thread alive - i think it is a potential socio-political time-bomb.

Crazy I can understand your concern about returning to the UK for Medical Treatment and possibly being refused,may I say you are worrying unduly.

You are a British Citizen and unless you relinquish Citizenship,you will always be one.

Do you really think a hospital or a Doctor would turn you away because you have been out of the Country a number of years? apart from the Newspapers going mad if this should happen, they have no interest in financial Witch Hunts that is not their remit,they are dedicated to helping cure patients ailments,not where the finances come from.

I can also tell you from personal experience that this scenario is highly unlikely to happen,our Doctors and Hospital staff are very caring people and their only interest is to the Patients well being, full stop.

Something else which should allay your fears,three of my friends are married to Thai ladies and have taken them back to the UK on Settlement Visas,and they were also officially entitled to immediate Medical care the same as any British Resident,all that was necessary was to Register with a Doctor and show their wifes Passport.

So how can an English man be refused treatment or have to pay for it,when his Thai wife is entitled to it free of charge?having never lived in the UK or paid a penny National Insurance?

I dont doubt for one moment what you are quoting from the official line is correct,but in reality the system is more flexible than that,in my case I told my new Doctor and Hospital and all and sundry that I had been in Thailand a number of years without any embellishment of the truth and I can say I had marvelous caring treatment from the numerous departments necessary,they dont have any prevailing attitude as you mentioned,only one of the Patients best interest.

Of course anyone planning on flitting over to the UK for a couple of weeks to get that nagging hernia fixed or a new hip joint will still be subject to the usual waiting list.

And finally under the Data Protection Act 1988 you and you alone are the only one entitled to see, and get a copy of Records held on your Doctors Computer system.

Don't believe all you hear from the mouths of the Ex Pat Bar room Lawyers in Thailand.

Relax Buddy its not going to happen.

[chiang mai]

Some people have the idea that because they have paid National Insurance Contributions (NIC's) at some point in their life that this gives them a right to use NHS facilities for their entire life and this is simply not the way, rightly or wrongly, that the system works. That person has the right to use those facilities as long as they are resident in the UK and this allows for an absence from the UK each year of up to three months (soon to be six months). The opportunity does exist however for a returning ex-pat to use all NHS facilities imediately upon arrival provided they declare that they are returning to the UK to stay permanently, although I suspect this is a one time offer only.

On a separate point, foriegn nationals who are granted Settlement visa's to remain in the UK are granted full access to the NHS from day one, regardless of whether or not they have made a single NIC payment. That is a function of the immigration process and visa laws and shouldn't be confused with the rules governing the rights of UK ex-pats because they are a very different set of rules.

[crazydrummerpauly]

QUOTE (crazydrummerpauly @ 2010-06-03 19:10:26) Hi - many thanks for this contribution to an ongoing debate which i started elsewhere on TV.

Personally i'm still down about this issue - it all feels potentially disastrous for certain categories of returning Brits.

Two thoughts:

1) The clause citing "exisiting conditions or elective needs" is a huge cop-out for the Brit.Govt. Anybody who has ever been involved

with medical insurance policies knows how slippery the concept of 'exisiting/pre-existing condition' is. E.g., if you have a heart-attack

while on a visit to the UK but have a history of moderately high blood-pressure..?

QUOTE:

• Any UK state pensioner living abroad, who has previously lived in the UK for at least ten years, receives free treatment for immediate needs arising during any temporary visit to the UK, but not for existing conditions or elective needs;

2) I see a real problem with your idea that THIS >>>

People returning from abroad to resume permanent residence are immediately entitled to full free treatment.

is what you call : "An emergency lifeboat of any UK ex-pat" - I mean, what are the chances of this reason working more than once ? The computerisation of medical records will keep this stated reason on your record, so the second time you try to use it, the medic involved can swiftly question the reality of you 'Permanent Residence' if you have actually been away for a period in each year for example.

The whole things stinks, and as it is currently working, it turns out that the single actual 'emergency lifeboat' is the prevailing attitude of MOST doctors and nurses in the Nhs, which is to be shocked that they are being asked to refuse treatment to folks who are in precisely the position that they also aspire to be in a few years down the road in their own retirement years.

Thanks again for keeping this thread alive - i think it is a potential socio-political time-bomb.

Crazy I can understand your concern about returning to the UK for Medical Treatment and possibly being refused,may I say you are worrying unduly.

You are a British Citizen and unless you relinquish Citizenship,you will always be one.

Do you really think a hospital or a Doctor would turn you away because you have been out of the Country a number of years? apart from the Newspapers going mad if this should happen, they have no interest in financial Witch Hunts that is not their remit,they are dedicated to helping cure patients ailments,not where the finances come from.

I can also tell you from personal experience that this scenario is highly unlikely to happen,our Doctors and Hospital staff are very caring people and their only interest is to the Patients well being, full stop.

Something else which should allay your fears,three of my friends are married to Thai ladies and have taken them back to the UK on Settlement Visas,and they were also officially entitled to immediate Medical care the same as any British Resident,all that was necessary was to Register with a Doctor and show their wifes Passport.

So how can an English man be refused treatment or have to pay for it,when his Thai wife is entitled to it free of charge?having never lived in the UK or paid a penny National Insurance?

I dont doubt for one moment what you are quoting from the official line is correct,but in reality the system is more flexible than that,in my case I told my new Doctor and Hospital and all and sundry that I had been in Thailand a number of years without any embellishment of the truth and I can say I had marvelous caring treatment from the numerous departments necessary,they dont have any prevailing attitude as you mentioned,only one of the Patients best interest.

Of course anyone planning on flitting over to the UK for a couple of weeks to get that nagging hernia fixed or a new hip joint will still be subject to the usual waiting list.

And finally under the Data Protection Act 1988 you and you alone are the only one entitled to see, and get a copy of Records held on your Doctors Computer system.

Don't believe all you hear from the mouths of the Ex Pat Bar room Lawyers in Thailand.

Relax Buddy its not going to happen.

HAHA - many many thanks for your post MAJIC - how I wish I knew how to RELAX - about this or any other potentially disastrous side-effect of opting to see a bit of the world before I keel over !

In my own little life, the only foreign experience I ever had before coming to LOS last year, was 1 Week in Teneriffe, and I'm 65 in August this year, so you can imagine how much work and contributing

to the UK social-security system I've done. I genuinely feel hurt and deceived by my own country in relation to the rules governing free access to NHS treatment which can ( I agree, only CAN ) kick in

after a British Citizen has been on a trip for just 3 months - now to be extended to 6 months (big deal). AGAINST the contented acceptance and even endorsement of these rules of a certain member

from a town in the North of Thailand - who does not even think that we have a 'RIGHT' to a retirement-pension for life - I always believed that since the momentous reforms carried out immediately after

the Second World War - reforms which absolutely TRANSFORMED the lives of hard-pressed working people - citizens of Britain had become one side of a CONTRACT with the UK State to provide

various 'safety-nets' at times of ill-health, poverty, and tragedy. At the time, those reforms were clearly presented in terms of being a CONTRACT - and if you read the speeches made at the time, they

were a HARD-SELL to make sure that the population was convinced that their weekly payments (PAYE etc) would be real value-for-money. At no time since those utopian days until the present time

has the idea that the BENEFITS ( not RIGHTS) of that contract should be diminished purely because a citizen has worked hard enough in life to afford a taste of foreign life - formerly having been the privilege

of a rich few - been openly debated, LET ALONE voted on. Many of the contributors to this discussion on TV - which is now spread across several threads - clearly exibit a state of SHOCK when they

first discover these rules denying free treatment, and that is because there is a citizenship aspect to this move by the state to save money, not merely a practical difficulty - I mean, people feel cheated,

tricked, abused, insulted, etc... it is the huge political-historical shift underlying these creeping exclusions from contractual benefits which depresses me - as a small matter of fact I am not sick, expecting

to be sick, or have ever been in need of major hospital treatment . But as you probably sensed, I do suffer from PARANOIA !!! - especially where a grey suit with a Biro or anyone

wearing a uniform has power over me ! The worst-case scenario thrown up by my paranoia contains these horrors: In a GP surgery, the deep impulse of most Doctors to treat without payment will be

blocked by 'ADMIN' staff who do screening prior to any face-to-face with a medic - same for hospitals. Second - we will be asked to show our Passports at the time of making an appointment - OR...

a link between airport data-bases and the NHS computer-network would reveal all our travels with no interviews necessary ! Third - for SOME conditions, involving major surgery or long-term in-patient

care - during which time there will be many ways in which an absence from the UK will be revealed or found out - it is possible as the law stands to be hit with a BILL for Nhs treatment that is so big that

either being in lifetime debt, or (if one has one) selling one's house, would be the only way to deal with the burden - probably at a time when one would be already at a very low ebb. I say this because

I feel that the vast majority of Brits have no real idea just how massive the real bill would be for many of the hospital procedures the Nhs carries out - not 1,000s, but Tens of 1,000s of pounds >>>>>

Just a small niggle which I'd like someone to answer : If an 18-year old takes a 'Gap Year' before going to university, and comes back with a serious illness, would his/her treatment be free in the Nhs,

or not ? Is there special rule for under-21s or ...? I guess someone will say that all they would need to say if challenged is : "I am back in the UK to live permanently" - ok, so what if they were going

to the USA for their university degree ?

Wishing good health to everyone.

[crazydrummerpauly]

Some people have the idea that because they have paid National Insurance Contributions (NIC's) at some point in their life that this gives them a right to use NHS facilities for their entire life and this is simply not the way, rightly or wrongly, that the system works. That person has the right to use those facilities as long as they are resident in the UK and this allows for an absence from the UK each year of up to three months (soon to be six months). The opportunity does exist however for a returning ex-pat to use all NHS facilities imediately upon arrival provided they declare that they are returning to the UK to stay permanently, although I suspect this is a one time offer only.

On a separate point, foriegn nationals who are granted Settlement visa's to remain in the UK are granted full access to the NHS from day one, regardless of whether or not they have made a single NIC payment. That is a function of the immigration process and visa laws and shouldn't be confused with the rules governing the rights of UK ex-pats because they are a very different set of rules.

A bit late, but I wanted to say a while back: The title of your post included the crucial term, EX-PAT. As this thread goes on and on, it becomes clear that 'EX-PAT' is not the title that

should be applied to many of the contributors, and further, that this whole issue needs to be divided up into consideration of how the rules impact on very different categories of travellers.

As the rules stand, being on a trip for one day over 3 Months - is that an EX-PAT ? No. Same applies even if the rule is changed to 6 months. In my opinion, your use of the term 'EX-PAT'

makes your arguments against ANY of the benefits due to citizens who entered into a CONTRACT with the UK government from the 1940s onwards, stronger than they deserve to be.

Many of the people who might get caught up in the denial of 'free' NHS treatment are just those who have been prudent or fortunate enough to hold on to enough cash to take extended

holidays - and many of them retain a home (and pay council tax) back in the UK. Do you seriously think that folks who take a long holiday every year should be excluded from the benefits

of a lifetime contract with the British state ?

[chiang mai]

Some people have the idea that because they have paid National Insurance Contributions (NIC's) at some point in their life that this gives them a right to use NHS facilities for their entire life and this is simply not the way, rightly or wrongly, that the system works. That person has the right to use those facilities as long as they are resident in the UK and this allows for an absence from the UK each year of up to three months (soon to be six months). The opportunity does exist however for a returning ex-pat to use all NHS facilities imediately upon arrival provided they declare that they are returning to the UK to stay permanently, although I suspect this is a one time offer only.

On a separate point, foriegn nationals who are granted Settlement visa's to remain in the UK are granted full access to the NHS from day one, regardless of whether or not they have made a single NIC payment. That is a function of the immigration process and visa laws and shouldn't be confused with the rules governing the rights of UK ex-pats because they are a very different set of rules.

A bit late, but I wanted to say a while back: The title of your post included the crucial term, EX-PAT. As this thread goes on and on, it becomes clear that 'EX-PAT' is not the title that

should be applied to many of the contributors, and further, that this whole issue needs to be divided up into consideration of how the rules impact on very different categories of travellers.

As the rules stand, being on a trip for one day over 3 Months - is that an EX-PAT ? No. Same applies even if the rule is changed to 6 months. In my opinion, your use of the term 'EX-PAT'

makes your arguments against ANY of the benefits due to citizens who entered into a CONTRACT with the UK government from the 1940s onwards, stronger than they deserve to be.

Many of the people who might get caught up in the denial of 'free' NHS treatment are just those who have been prudent or fortunate enough to hold on to enough cash to take extended

holidays - and many of them retain a home (and pay council tax) back in the UK. Do you seriously think that folks who take a long holiday every year should be excluded from the benefits

of a lifetime contract with the British state ?

Your point is entirely vaild, there are several levels or degrees of "ex-pat" but from a government and policy making standpoint there needs to be a cut-off point. At present that cut-off is set at three months and the discussion document I posted at the outset aims to make the cut-off at six months. Where ever the line is set, three or six months, one day past that timeframe makes a person inelligible for total and free care and that seems to be reasonable, to me at least. If people are aware of the rules they can make concious and informed decisions about how they want to live - want to live in say Thailand for five months out of the year and seven months in the UK AND have total and free NHS care, fine, that's allowed. But what's not fair and reasonable is to live in another country for say five years on a full time basis and then expect to be able to "pop back" and get a serious medical problem taken care free of charge and then to return to live in Thailand, that to me seems to be taking advantage and represents poor planning or worse, I think that's what the guidelines are aimed at preventing.

[crazydrummerpauly]

Some people have the idea that because they have paid National Insurance Contributions (NIC's) at some point in their life that this gives them a right to use NHS facilities for their entire life and this is simply not the way, rightly or wrongly, that the system works. That person has the right to use those facilities as long as they are resident in the UK and this allows for an absence from the UK each year of up to three months (soon to be six months). The opportunity does exist however for a returning ex-pat to use all NHS facilities imediately upon arrival provided they declare that they are returning to the UK to stay permanently, although I suspect this is a one time offer only.

On a separate point, foriegn nationals who are granted Settlement visa's to remain in the UK are granted full access to the NHS from day one, regardless of whether or not they have made a single NIC payment. That is a function of the immigration process and visa laws and shouldn't be confused with the rules governing the rights of UK ex-pats because they are a very different set of rules.

A bit late, but I wanted to say a while back: The title of your post included the crucial term, EX-PAT. As this thread goes on and on, it becomes clear that 'EX-PAT' is not the title that

should be applied to many of the contributors, and further, that this whole issue needs to be divided up into consideration of how the rules impact on very different categories of travellers.

As the rules stand, being on a trip for one day over 3 Months - is that an EX-PAT ? No. Same applies even if the rule is changed to 6 months. In my opinion, your use of the term 'EX-PAT'

makes your arguments against ANY of the benefits due to citizens who entered into a CONTRACT with the UK government from the 1940s onwards, stronger than they deserve to be.

Many of the people who might get caught up in the denial of 'free' NHS treatment are just those who have been prudent or fortunate enough to hold on to enough cash to take extended

holidays - and many of them retain a home (and pay council tax) back in the UK. Do you seriously think that folks who take a long holiday every year should be excluded from the benefits

of a lifetime contract with the British state ?

Your point is entirely vaild, there are several levels or degrees of "ex-pat" but from a government and policy making standpoint there needs to be a cut-off point. At present that cut-off is set at three months and the discussion document I posted at the outset aims to make the cut-off at six months. Where ever the line is set, three or six months, one day past that timeframe makes a person inelligible for total and free care and that seems to be reasonable, to me at least. If people are aware of the rules they can make concious and informed decisions about how they want to live - want to live in say Thailand for five months out of the year and seven months in the UK AND have total and free NHS care, fine, that's allowed. But what's not fair and reasonable is to live in another country for say five years on a full time basis and then expect to be able to "pop back" and get a serious medical problem taken care free of charge and then to return to live in Thailand, that to me seems to be taking advantage and represents poor planning or worse, I think that's what the guidelines are aimed at preventing.

[/quote]

Mmmmm - this issue doesn't get any simpler ! For me, as a life-long social theorist/ political philosopher, there is a deep underlying political and historical shift at work, which amounts to a sleight-of-hand by the British State. The state promised care "From the Cradle to the Grave".....NOT only so long as you reside inside the territorial borders of the United Kingdom. Second, its my guess that the vast majority of UK citizens have been encouraged to assume - and do in fact assume - that whatever they decided to do with their lives AFTER the age of reitrement (60 or 65) would have no impact on the security of their contract with the state, paid into by a working life of COMPULSORY contributions. Thirdly, ChiangMai - your very clear paragraph really baffles me - it has apparent logic and good sense all over it, but I think that is just an effect of its elegant simplicity. For example: 1) Who says "there needs to be a cut-off point" ? I don't remember anything about 'cut-off points' in the foundational UK-government rhetoric aimed at persuading citizens to fork out a whole new type of deduction from their wages. 2) What is it that you think is "reasonable, to me at least" ? The word Reasonable is a loaded one, echoing as it does all of the weight of the Enlightenment's passion for believing that humans had good enough minds to work out the truth of any dilemma wthout recourse to divine intervention or clerical guidance. All I can see in the fact that if we go one day over a pre-determined 'cut-off point' is that it is Categorical and Non-negotiable, not particularly 'Reasonable', which is a value-laden term. As our values on this issue clearly differ, your 'Reasonable' will not coincide with mine. 3) Your language in your last sentence is way too value-laden, biased if you like: "what's not fair and reasonable" / "expect to be able to 'pop back' " / "free of charge" ( it has been paid for inside the terms of the social contract ) / "taking advantage" / "poor planning" (not if one happens to believe the original promise from the UK State )....etc. All I'd like to have explained to me, is exactly WHY is it so BAD for a UK citizen to live in another country and return for medical treatment ? What in detail are they doing wrong ? I am absolutely sure that in many many cases, the cost to the state of older indivduals living mostly abroad and then returning for occasional medical treatment is actually LESS than it would be if they lived only at home in the UK - this definitely applies to anyone who is eligible for welfare or social-security type benefits/ carer's allowance/ council-tax subsidy / free prescriptions / pension credit (top-up).... by this I merely wish to point out that it would take considerable research and calculations to determine the 'cost vs. benefit' to the UK state of Uk citizens living abroad in retirement - it's far from simple, especially if you factor in the health benefits many people get precisely from living in a warmer climate - thousands of people are kept out of UK hospitals by this means.

I know we'll agree to disagree, and that's ok. At least we've put up enough angles to keep other members scratching their heads on this one !

Edited June 11, 2010 by crazydrummerpauly

[chiang mai]

That so called political promise that was made sixty years ago might reasonably be expected to change over time, if indeed it was entirely believed at the outset! Create a good and worthwhile system that serves and benefits the masses and some people will find a way to abuse it, that indeed is what has happened to the NHS and the benfits systems in the UK. It was never intended at the outset that benefits replace work, benefits were created to support the population in times of need and adversity, yet today we have millions who exist solely on those benefits. Ditto the NHS, it was never envisaged at the start that mass migration into the UK would have such an impact on NHS resources, the concept of medical tourism I'm sure was never even considered at the time. Yet today the NHS is overstretched and suffering abuse from people who don't live there, this despite the fact that the NHS system is the worlds largest employer behind the Indian railways and the Chinese Army! How can that possible be.

Six months is not good enough I hear you say, why not make it one day - simply because one day is not fair and reasonable whereby six months is. Ah yes, there's that word reasonable again, the happy medium between all the extremes and in line with what people might sensibly expect to be uncontrovertial, a point that might expect to satisfy the majority of people.

The idea of a cost/benefit analysis of the cost of ex-pats versus UK residents is not a bad one although, my guess is that residents, in the bigger picture, might be cheaper for the state to support, after all, ex-pats don't pay VAT on their eveyday purchases nor any of the myriad of stealth and other indirect taxes that UK residents pay and these surely add up over time, don't know.

You are correct that we are unlikley to be able to agree these issues but I agree that's OK also.