Max has published some thoughts.... as the new year looms, thought you'd like to see -
Some
thoughts on the 90/180-day restriction for second home owners.
The
access restrictions likely to be introduced as a result of the UK leaving the
European Union will make it difficult for many second-home owners to maximise
their use of the property. With a restriction of 90 days within any rolling
180-day period, including, of course, any other travel into the Schengen area
for pleasure or business, this rule will be difficult to manage.
The
restriction is unusual. In almost every other country in the world, access is
granted by proving to an immigration official that the traveller can support
themselves while in the country. There is a maximum stay of (usually) three or
six months, after which the traveller must depart. However, there are not
exclusionary periods; a visitor to the UK, Canada or the US, for example, is
entitled to return the following day and if able to persuade the immigration
officer of their self-sufficiency, will be granted another three or six months.
There
is no exclusionary period.
The
90/180-day issue is, presumably linked to the EU regulations of freedom of
movement. The entitlement for EU citizens is to go to another member state for
whatever reason they wish. However, after 90 days, if they are not employed,
studying or otherwise self-supporting, there is a requirement to leave. While
this has been ignored by many states, including the UK, the requirement to
leave a host country is only logical if there is some sort of exclusionary
period before returning. This regulation has, I am assuming, transferred into
the restrictions of entry to the Schengen region.
It
is worth noting here that Schengen is an agreement between a number of
countries, some are members of the EU and some are not. Not all EU members are
signatories to the agreement, and it is not an EU directive.
It
is a lowest-common-denominator entry protocol; each country, however, already offers
their own portfolio of specific visas covering educational, commercial,
long-stay and other explicit purposes.
I
believe that the development of a new visa type is an administrative exercise,
and not a legislative one. It is simply the determination by a host country
that a specific category of visitor, whose purpose is not covered by the
general admission convention, should be encouraged to travel to their
territory.
The
development of a specific visa for second-home owners is a logical move.
Such a visa
could be offered for a period of time, one to three years, for multiple entries
of stays that are wholly covered by external medical insurance. It would be
available to property owners and their immediate families, and allow access to
the property. It would carry no entitlement to work, no state support and would
simply be designed to allow the significant economic activity that this
category of visitor engenders.
I
believe that it is in the interest of France, Spain, Portugal and other
countries with a substantial investment by second-home owners to give this
proposal significant thought. The prospect of these people selling their
properties and moving to another more welcoming jurisdiction, even the US,
Mexico, Costa Rica and Bulgaria offer simpler access, and the loss of many
billions of economic activity and the resulting jobs should be a disturbing
prospect.
What
next?
The
process of having a new visa designed is opaque. However, if there is sufficient
lobbying to our local Maries, who have a vested interest in keeping the
second-home owners’ in their communities, there may be a path to the correct
department. Similarly, I will send this piece to various French diplomatic
posts, and to the English language French media. We can but make a noise and
suggest options.
There
may well be other solutions to the 90/180-day issue, but as yet I have seen
none. A specific visa would work for everyone involved, and as it is an
individual country issue, and not an EU one, it could happen quickly. We will
see.
No comments:
Post a Comment