Obtaining an EU dog passport

[Ian789]

Yes it makes perfect sense for the EU to shelter behind part 2 listed country regulations and deal with a nation on its doorstep, that is a major market, a proven defence ally (at great cost to itself 3 times in the previous 207 years) in exactly the same manner it deals with Ascension Island. If only there was some way a huge bureaucracy representing 27 different countries, many with conflicting national interests, had the ability and more importantly the will to prove flexible enough to adapt to a new situation, and adjust some of those said regulations for a mutual benefit.

 

[WelshGas]

EU regulations are enforced by the ECJ. Britain no longer accepts the jurisdiction of the ECJ. So you are incorrect, regulations have changed.

By aligning ourselves to EU regulations we have become a part 2 listed country for pets. Same as Ascension Island, United Arab Emirates, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Aruba, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Barbados, Bahrain, Bermuda, Bonaire, Saint Eustatius and Saba (the BES Islands), Belarus, Canada, Chile, Curaçao, Fiji, Falkland Islands, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Japan, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Cayman Islands, Saint Lucia, Montserrat, North Macedonia, Mauritius, Mexico, Malaysia, New Caledonia, New Zealand, French Polynesia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Russia, Singapore, Saint Helena, Saint Maarten, Trinidad and Tobago, Taiwan, United States of America, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, British Virgin Islands, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna, Mayotte.

We might want our cake and eat it, but we can’t.

So we’re amongst good company.

 

[Amarillo]

Yes it makes perfect sense for the EU to shelter behind part 2 listed country regulations and deal with a nation on its doorstep, that is a major market, a proven defence ally (at great cost to itself 3 times in the previous 207 years) in exactly the same manner it deals with Ascension Island. If only there was some way a huge bureaucracy representing 27 different countries, many with conflicting national interests, had the ability and more importantly the will to prove flexible enough to adapt to a new situation, and adjust some of those said regulations for a mutual benefit.

It seems to be that EU countries and EU aligned countries which accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ are Part 1 listed. E.g. San Marino, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Norway.

Countries with regulations aligned to the EU are part 2 listed. E.g UK, US, Canada, Hong Kong.

Others are unlisted. E.g Ukraine, Albania, Montenegro, Moldova.

All those last examples have a land border with the EU. So the listing status is not about proximity or being on the “door step” or even about contribution or otherwise in European wars. It is about regulation and jurisdiction. Britain simply doesn’t fit the criteria for Part 1 listing.

 

[pjm-84]

Regulation - 576/2013 - EN - EUR-Lex

eur-lex.europa.eu

Did a search for cake and eating it and couldnt find anything in the above legal document.

 

[Ian789]

So we’re amongst good company.

It seems to be that EU countries and EU aligned countries which accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ are Part 1 listed. E.g. San Marino, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Norway.

Countries with regulations aligned to the EU are part 2 listed. E.g UK, US, Canada, Hong Kong.

Others are unlisted. E.g Ukraine, Albania, Montenegro, Moldova.

All those last examples have a land border with the EU. So the listing status is not about proximity or being on the “door step” or even about contribution or otherwise in European wars. It is about regulation and jurisdiction. Britain simply doesn’t fit the criteria for Part 1 listing.

It seems to be that EU countries and EU aligned countries which accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ are Part 1 listed. E.g. San Marino, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Norway.

Countries with regulations aligned to the EU are part 2 listed. E.g UK, US, Canada, Hong Kong.

Others are unlisted. E.g Ukraine, Albania, Montenegro, Moldova.

All those last examples have a land border with the EU. So the listing status is not about proximity or being on the “door step” or even about contribution or otherwise in European wars. It is about regulation and jurisdiction. Britain simply doesn’t fit the criteria for Part 1 listing.

Yes obviously being under the jurisdiction of a foreign 'impartial' court should be the primary factor in determining whether the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' can easily take his dog to travel on the Paris Metro. If it was about an economic relationship to the mutual benefit ofvthe people of both parties then the proximity and the size of a market would he a significant factor in the adjustment and application of criteria regarding that relationship. But if the purpose is to exercise a degree of political control then those potential mutual economic benefits carry much less weight. In the increasingly volatile situation on it's Eastern border, the historical and ongoing support of a reliable ally might also in the world of realpolitik have some bearing on the management of that relationship. I mention our 'contribution' (aka liberation from tyranny) because I suspect it influences aspects of our current relationship, certainly with French politicians. General de Gaulle had a very robust negative attitude to the UK and I suspect his stance is sometimes a convenient populist go to for some French politicians to garner support. Just as Boris laughably tries to channel Churchill, and every leadership candidate seems to want to channel Margaret Thatcher, politicians being what they are the world over, the same tactics will be used by Macron and others e.g. Darnanin. And often it seems to be Macron (or Germany) influencing the tone of the EU negotiations (See current NI protocol talks). Although I am sure that the other 25 are fully consulted. Because the EU is not dominated in any way by those two countries.

 

[Ian789]

Yes obviously being under the jurisdiction of a foreign 'impartial' court should be the primary factor in determining whether the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' can easily take his dog to travel on the Paris Metro. If it was about an economic relationship to the mutual benefit ofvthe people of both parties then the proximity and the size of a market would he a significant factor in the adjustment and application of criteria regarding that relationship. But if the purpose is to exercise a degree of political control then those potential mutual economic benefits carry much less weight. In the increasingly volatile situation on it's Eastern border, the historical and ongoing support of a reliable ally might also in the world of realpolitik have some bearing on the management of that relationship. I mention our 'contribution' (aka liberation from tyranny) because I suspect it influences aspects of our current relationship, certainly with French politicians. General de Gaulle had a very robust negative attitude to the UK and I suspect his stance is sometimes a convenient populist go to for some French politicians to garner support. Just as Boris laughably tries to channel Churchill, and every leadership candidate seems to want to channel Margaret Thatcher, politicians being what they are the world over, the same tactics will be used by Macron and others e.g. Darnanin. And often it seems to be Macron (or Germany) influencing the tone of the EU negotiations (See current NI protocol talks). Although I am sure that the other 25 are fully consulted. Because the EU is not dominated in any way by those two countries.

Anyway to return to the OPs innocent question about AHCs ( they really should have guessed how it would develop haha) , we're heading back to France (love Europe but not the.... stop it Ian keep on subject - sorry) in a few weeks. I'll report back on whether the Spanish passport was as successful as the AHC from the vets in Folkestone.

 

[Amarillo]

Yes obviously being under the jurisdiction of a foreign 'impartial' court should be the primary factor in determining whether the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' can easily take his dog to travel on the Paris Metro. If it was about an economic relationship to the mutual benefit ofvthe people of both parties then the proximity and the size of a market would he a significant factor in the adjustment and application of criteria regarding that relationship. But if the purpose is to exercise a degree of political control then those potential mutual economic benefits carry much less weight. In the increasingly volatile situation on it's Eastern border, the historical and ongoing support of a reliable ally might also in the world of realpolitik have some bearing on the management of that relationship. I mention our 'contribution' (aka liberation from tyranny) because I suspect it influences aspects of our current relationship, certainly with French politicians. General de Gaulle had a very robust negative attitude to the UK and I suspect his stance is sometimes a convenient populist go to for some French politicians to garner support. Just as Boris laughably tries to channel Churchill, and every leadership candidate seems to want to channel Margaret Thatcher, politicians being what they are the world over, the same tactics will be used by Macron and others e.g. Darnanin. And often it seems to be Macron (or Germany) influencing the tone of the EU negotiations (See current NI protocol talks). Although I am sure that the other 25 are fully consulted. Because the EU is not dominated in any way by those two countries.

So you think that Britain’s status as a Part 2 listed country is an act of spite rather than one of regulation?

Perhaps in time there will be some sort of EU regulation fudge to readmit Britain to Part 1 listing, and I agree that it should be possible. But I don’t see it as being very high on the EU’s priority list of things to fix.

We have twice taken Meg to the EU since being Part 2 listed (Spain and France). Two things have changed.
1. The need to visit a vet before departure.
2. The cost.

Pet check in on departure and return are the same. The visit to a vet before return to the UK is the same.

Given that the EU gain no advantage, and some disadvantage with potentially fewer visitors, by listing Britain as Part 2, I cannot believe our Part 2 listing is an act of spite. That leaves it driven by rules and regulation.

When you look at the non-EU countries which are Part 1 listed, the list is very short, and all have much closer ties to the EU than Britain has now.

 

[sidepod]

Pet check in on departure and return are the same. The visit to a vet before return to the UK is the same.

Really? Previously there was no pet check in at all for departure.

 

[Amarillo]

Really? Previously there was no pet check in at all for departure.

Oh yes, you are right. There was nothing. Sorry!

 

[Ian789]

So you think that Britain’s status as a Part 2 listed country is an act of spite rather than one of regulation?

Perhaps in time there will be some sort of EU regulation fudge to readmit Britain to Part 1 listing, and I agree that it should be possible. But I don’t see it as being very high on the EU’s priority list of things to fix.

We have twice taken Meg to the EU since being Part 2 listed (Spain and France). Two things have changed.
1. The need to visit a vet before departure.
2. The cost.

Pet check in on departure and return are the same. The visit to a vet before return to the UK is the same.

Given that the EU gain no advantage, and some disadvantage with potentially fewer visitors, by listing Britain as Part 2, I cannot believe our Part 2 listing is an act of spite. That leaves it driven by rules and regulation.

When you look at the non-EU countries which are Part 1 listed, the list is very short, and all have much closer ties to the EU than Britain has now.

It's continuing to recognise a Pet passport not governing GM crops. Instead it's been replaced by an AHC that proves the dog has a rabies jab( from a country with no Rabies) . It's a classic example of EU inflexibility.
Spite,?? Sadly a number of EU officials have publicly stated we should be punished, Macron and Darmarins rhetoric suggests an element of bad faith yes. See Dover now
'
'Isnt the statement: "Given that the EU gain no advantage, and some disadvantage with potentially fewer visitors ...' flawed. The advantage to the EU (well its businesses an people not it's politicians) is that they avoid the disadvantage of having fewer visitors. N'est ce pas? Maybe that type of thinking explains their approach to this regulation.
a

 

[Ian789]

It's continuing to recognise a Pet passport not governing GM crops. Instead it's been replaced by an AHC that proves the dog has a rabies jab( from a country with no Rabies) . It's a classic example of EU inflexibility.
Spite,?? Sadly a number of EU officials have publicly stated we should be punished, Macron and Darmarins rhetoric suggests an element of bad faith yes. See Dover now
'
'Isnt the statement: "Given that the EU gain no advantage, and some disadvantage with potentially fewer visitors ...' flawed. The advantage to the EU (well its businesses an people not it's politicians) is that they avoid the disadvantage of having fewer visitors. N'est ce pas? Maybe that type of thinking explains their approach to this regulation.
a

Not just me apparently. But can we trust those European citizens? I mean does the EU when it introduces a new treaty?

 

[Ian789]

It's continuing to recognise a Pet passport not governing GM crops. Instead it's been replaced by an AHC that proves the dog has a rabies jab( from a country with no Rabies) . It's a classic example of EU inflexibility.
Spite,?? Sadly a number of EU officials have publicly stated we should be punished, Macron and Darmarins rhetoric suggests an element of bad faith yes. See Dover now
'
'Isnt the statement: "Given that the EU gain no advantage, and some disadvantage with potentially fewer visitors ...' flawed. The advantage to the EU (well its businesses an people not it's politicians) is that they avoid the disadvantage of having fewer visitors. N'est ce pas? Maybe that type of thinking explains their approach to this regulation.
a

Although they didn't use the word punish. I think it was teach us a lesson or something about ensuring it was damaging. Mind you Macron has a similar attitude to his dealings with Putin doesn't he. What what's that you say?

 

[Amarillo]

It's continuing to recognise a Pet passport not governing GM crops. Instead it's been replaced by an AHC that proves the dog has a rabies jab( from a country with no Rabies) . It's a classic example of EU inflexibility.
Spite,?? Sadly a number of EU officials have publicly stated we should be punished, Macron and Darmarins rhetoric suggests an element of bad faith yes. See Dover now
'
'Isnt the statement: "Given that the EU gain no advantage, and some disadvantage with potentially fewer visitors ...' flawed. The advantage to the EU (well its businesses an people not it's politicians) is that they avoid the disadvantage of having fewer visitors. N'est ce pas? Maybe that type of thinking explains their approach to this regulation.
a

Yes - the EU rules are notoriously inflexible, but at the same time the EU like nothing better than a good fudge to resolve internal disputes.

I remain confident that in time the pet passport regulations will be changed to include a greater number of countries.

But until then I respectfully suggest that those who supported the British decision to leave the EU consider this: you won, get over it!

 

[Amarillo]

Does anyone know what the consequence would be of smuggling a pet into the EU without an AHC.

The likelihood of getting caught seems low. But if the consequence could be euthanasia the risk too high, but if the consequence a €50 fine the risk is lower.

 

[TwoDogs]

Typical of those pesky foreigners to take control of their borders

 

[AlisonF]

Really? Previously there was no pet check in at all for departure.

There was for ferry at Newcastle and still is the same.

 

[Amarillo]

Typical of those pesky foreigners to take control of their borders

How dare they want to take back control!!!

 

[Ian789]

Typical of those pesky foreigners to take control of their borders

Yeah putting up razor wire fences to stop people arriving from the East. I hope they Okayed it with rhe Guardian

 

[Ian789]

Yeah putting up razor wire fences to stop people arriving from the East. I hope they Okayed it with rhe Guardian

And paying a fortune to that staunch defender of democracy Erdogan to keep people from crossing to Europe.

 

[Amarillo]

Yeah putting up razor wire fences to stop people arriving from the East. I hope they Okayed it with rhe Guardian

Razor wire came down and refugees (with undocumented pets) welcomed from Ukraine.

 

[Ian789]

Razor wire came down and refugees (with undocumented pets) welcomed from Ukraine.

Are you claiming these are no policed border fences on the South Eastern /Eastern borders of EU members. Has Erdoğans bribe totally stopped the flow of people across the Eastern Mediterranean then. Yes fortunately people from Ukraine anlevto to easily move west. German armaments moving in the opposite direction not so much I believe.

 

[Ian789]

Yes - the EU rules are notoriously inflexible, but at the same time the EU like nothing better than a good fudge to resolve internal disputes.

I remain confident that in time the pet passport regulations will be changed to include a greater number of countries.

But until then I respectfully suggest that those who supported the British decision to leave the EU consider this: you won, get over it!

Get over it ? I haven't posted on here for a while, but keep an eye open cos there's loads of valuable general info on here. I'd hoped my AHC experience in April would fall into that category. In posting I find you're still posting comments about Brexit and apportioning responsibility for any issues arising. And I should get over it? Pot /kettle maybe.

 

[BeeBee]

Just been to the vet for a booster for rabies for our hound. Was told by the vet that the Health Certificate is 17 pages long and costs about £150 and will expire after 14 days. So we need to do this EACH TIME we cross the Channel “do you still want me to give her a booster?” says our vet.

This cumbersome new system precludes travel with our faithful friend for us at least. We will just have to tour every inch of the UK instead. This is a bitter blow to our enjoyment of our van. Kennels are a non-option and leaving our Vizsla with family is a big ask.

From what I can glean it’s the UK that require all this not France et al. Is it a cunning plan to keep spending ‘at home?’

A letter to my MP is fermenting…

View attachment 96529

Another Brexit benefit !

 

[WelshGas]

Another Brexit benefit !

No, EU punishment. The UK accepts the EU Passport, but the EU won't accept the UK equivalent. Take it up with the EU.

 

[TwoDogs]

No, EU punishment. The UK accepts the EU Passport, but the EU won't accept the UK equivalent. Take it up with the EU.

Why would they? We left, remember