Many thanks for your observations. I have updated the original post with a link to the 37th report of the UK European Scrutiny Committee.

These are my observations on the European Parliament’s vote on adopting a Report on Succession and Wills by 457 votes in favour to 51 against with 22 abstentions.

Not only does what is proposed in this Bill come at a most sensitive time for the bereaved, it also, as most ordinary people have come to learn the hard way, may cost a great deal more than it costs at present through our own long standing legislation, it will cost each and every one of us, whether at home or abroad, a great deal more money. Nothing that the European Union does is free or cheap.

We in the United Kingdom of Great Britain are already used to different kinds of legislation, Scotland has always had its different kind of legislation (law) to England and Wales on certain matters. This is written very clearly in the Act of Union 1707. We are used to dealing with it. Northern Ireland is also somewhat different. We deal with it. Since “enforced Devolution, many things are different. Scotland and Wales have their own Parliaments, England does not have their own Parliament, yet.

When some one in any family dies, it takes time to sort things out, it has to be done. Sometimes people have not even made a Will. That too has to be dealt with. Sometimes, the person may make a “death bed” will, nothing will be ‘officially recorded’ anywhere, not even in England, but it is usually dealt with to every one, or most people’s satisfaction.

Especially at the time of great sadness in family matters-I emphasize that these mostly are private family matters, there is enough paperwork for the remaining member or members of family to deal with without the added burden of notifying an external European body.

A great many people now go to live abroad in warmer countries especially upon retirement. However with the retirement age extended, people maybe too old to up sticks and retire ‘abroad’ as they have done and generally older people make wills in preparedness and to make things easier for their loved ones to sort out.

Many people go to live in Canada or America on their retirement, some even as far away as Australia, yet over hundreds of years there has been absolutely no need for one organisation to intrude on what after-all is a national affair for its own nationals.

Problems may well arise over property and belongings over divorce, but this too is a national affair once again, all laws are different and it is virtually impossible to harmonise these matters. These too are national and most certainly not for any further interference or bureaucracy by anyone outside of our Country, or organisation outside of it. I can do no better than to place here part of the UK comments from their Thirty-Seventh Report:
“The UK Government agrees with the Commission that the diversity of the laws of succession in operation across Member States makes full harmonisation of these laws inconceivable. The Government considers that such harmonisation would be a fundamental interference in the domestic affairs of Member States, which could have unpredictable social and cultural outcomes. It would be undesirable and unnecessary.
“It is the UK Government’s view that the diversity of legal traditions in Member States must be fully respected. This is essential because the differences in the approaches taken by Member States to the transfer of property on death are fundamental. Some Member States, such as the UK, favour freedom of testamentary disposition, whilst others provide for reserved heirship. Some allow property to pass direct to the heirs, but the UK and others operate a court based system, which, on the death of the deceased, gives ownership of the deceased’s property to a third party. This third party is entrusted with the administration of the estate of the deceased and its distribution to his or her beneficiaries. Some, including the UK, define the estate as the property of the deceased at the date of death, others include gifts made by the deceased during his or her life. This diversity is entirely legitimate. It reflects the differing approaches adopted by different societies within the European Union to questions about the nature of ownership and about family obligations. It limits the extent to which any harmonisation proposed in a European instrument could be acceptable. However, although the UK Government would, in principle, be able to support measures of limited harmonisation that would bring real benefits to citizens, it considers that there is very little scope for creating them in the field of succession”(I do not agree with that last bit at all)
“The UK Government strongly believes that any European legislation on cross-border succession cases must not adversely affect the working of important aspects of the domestic succession laws of the UK. Therefore, any European instrument must not:
· limit the operation of the principle of freedom of testamentary disposition or affect the operation of the rules of intestacy;
· change the court based system of probate and the associated office of executor;
· interfere with the use of trusts, joint tenancies or life policies; or
· adversely affect the working of the national land registration or tax law systems.”
This is giving in to the European Union, a point that anything the EU wants will eventually have to get. Not so if the citizens of this Country say “NO, enough is enough”. Death in families is enough to cope with, without interference or more EU legislation to think about from Government or the European Union.
I personally see no point in “registering wills” in all member states, including the proposed central European Register, and our Government believes that any registration of wills should be voluntary and should not preclude informal and deathbed wills, both of which are regularly made in UK jurisdiction. Most certainly the cost of registering Wills on all Member States would be prohibitive and this would not help those that retire to America or Australia.
Freedom of movement no longer matters to the person that is dead. Freedom to move around the EU is no longer important to them. Perhaps this maybe the first time they have been “free” since 1972.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeuleg/34-xxxvii/34×27.htm