New EU deal: Free-movement rights gone?

thommot wrote:

secret.simon wrote:But in any case, I am sure you would agree that it is for a democratically elected government, and not for a person having an interest in the outcome, to make the rules.

There also things called human rights, which I'm sure the UK rules for spousal visas violate if they ever get challenged in an independent court. Of course the UK also wants to leave the jurisdiction of the european court of human rights.

In the case of nation-states, rights are granted by the consensus of the people of the country not to violate them. They are not granted by a piece of paper or an international court.

thommot wrote:

secret.simon wrote: Non-EEA spouses of British citizens are subject to IHS during their immigration journey.

I clarified the post to say "an entirely British couple".

I was likely already drafting my response to your post and hence missed the updates.

There is a case to be made for getting rid of NI Credits that are marked for people who do not work. As conceived, the NI system was contributory and perhaps it would be better and stronger if it went back to its roots.

thommot wrote:an increase of 5 percentage points to my tax rate.

Is that your definition of "humane"?

I suppose mine is much lower. I appreciate the fact that I am not shot dead in the streets by a police that is supposed to protect me. That given that I am an obvious rank outsider, people are pleasant to me. That is "humane" enough for me.

thommot wrote:I also do wonder how other countries have much lower fees, yet not any higher tax rate? Perhaps because the rich don't pay any taxes in the UK? (The NI is a big hoax, as you stop paying the NI exactly when there's some progression in the tax rate.)

I did not understand this post. Can you elucidate further?

thommot wrote:an increase of 5 percentage points to my tax rate.

Is that your definition of "humane"?

The fees such a significant fraction of my income, and especially someone's at the lower income limit, that they are purely punitive. As we have seen, they are significantly higher than the costs, and shifting tax burden onto the poor from the rich.

thommot wrote:I also do wonder how other countries have much lower fees, yet not any higher tax rate? Perhaps because the rich don't pay any taxes in the UK? (The NI is a big hoax, as you stop paying the NI exactly when there's some progression in the tax rate.)

I did not understand this post. Can you elucidate further?

In my home country, the fee for one-year initial residency for my wife would be €159. It's the same for EU citizens and natives. The tax rates (from low income to upper middle income at least) are roughly the same as the UK—and pay for one of the world's best educations, including university. Unfortunately there are no academic jobs there, thanks partly to historical structural problems of having no junior academics, a lot of seniors going to go on pension in the next 5-10 years, and partly to the current redneck–dearly beloved–Thatcherite government (so pretty much the same government as the UK, except three different parties providing the different aspects). In my wife's country, I would have to pay $400 for a permanent residency. And they're actually cashing in on those fees due to the current economic situation; the fees used to be half of that. The tax rates are low. It's where we're eventually going to live anyway, but if the UK imposes punitive fees on us, we'll just stick the middle finger up and move there sooner.

thommot wrote:The fees such a significant fraction of my income, and especially someone's at the lower income limit, that they are purely punitive. As we have seen, they are significantly higher than the costs, and shifting taxes onto the poor from the rich.

Firstly, we have not seen that they are significantly over the cost, as I have demonstrated an alternative approach to calculating costs.

Secondly, it can be argued that paying the cost of a service does not constitute a tax. The cost of a rail ticket does not constitute a tax, but a price to pay and the price is the same irrespective of your income. Likewise for the cost of the immigration service.

thommot wrote:It's where we're eventually going to live anyway

What are you waiting for? We would not want to hold you back from your low-tax paradise.

thommot wrote:we'll just stick the middle finger up and move there sooner.

That is very rude. How dare you misappropriate a British gesture when leaving the UK?

secret.simon wrote:

thommot wrote:The fees such a significant fraction of my income, and especially someone's at the lower income limit, that they are purely punitive. As we have seen, they are significantly higher than the costs, and shifting taxes onto the poor from the rich.

Firstly, we have not seen that they are significantly over the cost, as I have demonstrated an alternative approach to calculating costs.

If the BritCits article is correct, the fees are 3x the cost (accounting for the recent increase in the fees). And this factor does not include the healthcare surcharge, which is yet another tax on top. Shifting any other government functions to be funded by those fees is exactly what I said: shifting the tax burden from the rich onto the poor.

Secondly, it can be argued that paying the cost of a service does not constitute a tax. The cost of a rail ticket does not constitute a tax, but a price to pay and the price is the same irrespective of your income. Likewise for the cost of the immigration service.

The actual cost of the service is much lower than the fee charged. Anything that is above the actual cost of processing the application is a tax when charged by the government. And this one, as well as the healthcare surcharge are sadistic *regressive* taxes, as the rich pay comparably less.

I think we can agree to disagree on this one

I certainly expect an academic to argue a more detailed analysis of the alternate points put forward in a discussion than to repeat the same point again-and-again, which is what politicians do.

Be that as it may, on a point of interest, are you an INTP/INTJ?

secret.simon wrote:I certainly expect an academic to argue a more detailed analysis of the alternate points put forward in a discussion than to repeat the same point again-and-again, which is what politicians do.

I'm not a political scientist, but I can recognise injustice and rip-off from miles away. I'm just a STEM academic that could be very valuable to this country if it didn't try to rip me off, as it is planning to. If it proceeds on those plans, I will take my services elsewhere.

... as students are already taking their money elsewhere, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36203613 and others are not accepting job offers in fear of brexit https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ne ... rexit-vote (probably unaware of the Tory hell that awaits even without brexit).

Obviously, my job applications will have to mention why I'm leaving the job so soon, and will therefore act as a warning about the UK to the whole community. International marriages are quite common in academia.

Be that as it may, on a point of interest, are you an INTP/INTJ?

INTP

thommot wrote:I can recognise injustice and rip-off from miles away.

Injustice and rip-offs are loaded words and like good and evil, entirely moralistic and based on opinion. One person's good is another person's bad and who is to say which one of them is right? Why does one person's opinion matter more than another's?

I'd rather go by logic and independently verifiable facts and if they are not available, challenge and question people's opinions (as they are so bad at doing it themselves). That incidentally is why I would want to be an academic.

I would have thought that as a STEM academic (and a fellow INTP), you would be even more fact-based, not opinion-based.

thommot wrote: Be that as it may, on a point of interest, are you an INTP/INTJ?
INTP

It takes one to know one Your incessant editing of posts gave you away.

Here is a thread on another (non-immigration) forum that you may find interesting (though if you are INTP, you have probably already been there).

secret.simon wrote:

thommot wrote:I can recognise injustice and rip-off from miles away.

Injustice and rip-offs are loaded words and like good and evil, entirely moralistic and based on opinion. One person's good is another person's bad and who is to say which one of them is right? Why does one person's opinion matter more than another's?

Sorry but the broad strokes of politics and laws are mostly about moralistic (and sadistic) preferences. You can use facts to decide whether a particular policy will have or has had the desired broad stroke outcome.

The UK broad strokes appear to be: f*ck the poor and the immigrants, unless they're super-rich.

Well, the world of Bleak House and Dickensian poverty gave us the empire over which the sun did not set, while the welfare state has only given us a sense of entitlement and dependency.

There is good and bad in every situation.

thommot wrote:You can use facts to decide whether a particular policy will have or has had the desired broad stroke outcome.

It is an interesting way of formulating the situation.

secret.simon wrote:Well, the world of Bleak House and Dickensian poverty gave us the empire over which the sun did not set, while the welfare state has only given us a sense of entitlement and dependency.

The sun did actually set. Only the Tories have not realised it yet, and are acting like bitches to the EU.

thommot wrote:The sun did actually set.

Yes, the sun did set, around the time that people's "rights" started trumping their duties. The duties were corporatised, so that abstract corporations, be they private or public, had duties to people, whereas people only had rights, not duties.

thommot wrote:Only the Tories have not realised it yet, and are acting like bitches to the EU.

Oh, just you wait a few more years and most governments in the EU will be acting like bitches to the EU. The Polish government is already at odds with the EU and there is a chance that the whole Visegard group will be moving in that direction. Even if we vote to Remain, there is no reason why the government be sweet to an organisation that nearly half the voters would vote against.

The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, recognised that. “It is us who today are responsible,” he said, speaking at a conclave of Christian-Democrat and centre-right leaders in Luxembourg. “Obsessed with the idea of instant and total integration, we failed to notice that ordinary people, the citizens of Europe, do not share our Euro-enthusiasm.”

Funnily enough, a Brexit will almost certainly also mean that the EU is unlikely to have any treaty changes of its own for the foreseeable future, because even a founding member such as the Netherlands is likely to lose a referendum on further treaty change.

On a lighter note, Canada's Supreme Court has ruled that most bestiality is legal. I wonder what the world's bitches feel about that.

Even if we vote to Remain, there is no reason why the government be sweet to an organisation that nearly half the voters would vote against.

Oh, the Tories are already planning another round of bitching to destroy the remains of free movement left from the previous round. I say the EU should kick the UK out, as it's the most destructive, non-constructive, and divisive of all the members.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tays-in-eu

Anyway, I'm tuning out of this discussion, as it's getting off-topic for this thread.

thommot wrote:I'm definitely not going to pay those fees, if they start applying them to my wife. We had a huge fight to get the EEA Family Permit, and will not be able to apply for the EU-style residency card until the autumn as it's difficult to arrange for half a hear without travel.

Regardless of your immigration status, your wife wouldn't be eligible under UK Immigration Rules. The couple have to intend to live together permanently in the UK, and you're already planing to leave the UK.

Richard W wrote:

thommot wrote:I'm definitely not going to pay those fees, if they start applying them to my wife. We had a huge fight to get the EEA Family Permit, and will not be able to apply for the EU-style residency card until the autumn as it's difficult to arrange for half a hear without travel.

Regardless of your immigration status, your wife wouldn't be eligible under UK Immigration Rules. The couple have to intend to live together permanently in the UK, and you're already planing to leave the UK.

Not right now. We are only eligible under the EU rules, as I'm not a settled person. But the rules are going to change if the UK votes to remain.

thommot wrote:

Richard W wrote:

thommot wrote:I'm definitely not going to pay those fees, if they start applying them to my wife. We had a huge fight to get the EEA Family Permit, and will not be able to apply for the EU-style residency card until the autumn as it's difficult to arrange for half a hear without travel.

Regardless of your immigration status, your wife wouldn't be eligible under UK Immigration Rules. The couple have to intend to live together permanently in the UK, and you're already planing to leave the UK.

Not right now. We are only eligible under the EU rules, as I'm not a settled person. But the rules are going to change if the UK votes to remain.

Even if you were a settled person (which is what I meant by 'regardless of your immigration status'), she wouldn't be eligible.

While I believe the restriction to settled persons should be relaxed, do you have any evidence that a change to the rules is planned? I think it is quite likely that such a relaxation will have to be forced on the government through the courts. The UK immigration system does not allow for a native to intentionally bring his foreign family members to the UK for just a few years.

Richard W wrote: While I believe the restriction to settled persons should be relaxed, do you have any evidence that a change to the rules is planned? I think it is quite likely that such a relaxation will have to be forced on the government through the courts. The UK immigration system does not allow for a native to intentionally bring his foreign family members to the UK for just a few years.

I don't know if anyone knows what the new rules will be, but EU citizens bringing their non-EU spouses into the country will have to be put under some rules, since free movement is being butchered. Treating them as UK citizens seems the most logical option to me.

Obie wrote:Well I don't think they are meaningless. Mr Cameron has most of what he wanted. He got his deal and I am happy for him.

I only have difficulty accepting that some of these proposed changes to secondary legislation will have effect on primary legislation like the treaty or the decision of the CJEU .

The CJEU has special status in the Treaty and it decision has special status in the European communities Act 1972 .

I wonder how in law this proposal can have the effect of overturning Metock, Jia.

So strange. I aspire to study it more . But so far I will not say I am overly worried.

I make no secret of my view on immigration.

I am a global minded person, who strongly believe that there we must be in a borderless world were people can move freely and join their families and live their lives happily.

I am not a dearly beloved, and I believe all human are equal.

I am of the view that most of this talk of immigration is centred around race and culture .

If a million aussie or Canadian or Kiwi were migrating to UK , we possibly will not be having this debate.

Hi obie, i am silent reader of all ur posts for many years. I hv 2 questions for you. First one is: what will happen to non eu who already hv rc card in uk (after brexit) sencond one is: i am lithuanian national working in uk since 2009 and i never had WRS. i am always working but last nov i went on holidays back home for 3 weeks but i spent 4 months there as i had to fix my teeth, my company where i was workng they removed me from job. I came back 5 march and went to job centre, they started to pay me for one mnth as i joined same previouse company once again.. i m in process to apply for my PR status. Can u tell me what 5 periods i should choose so i get PR ...many thanks

@kkash786,
This area of the forums is for debate and discussion about the theory and ideas behind the Brexit referendum.

As yours is a very specific case, I suggest that you repost it in the EEA-Route Applications forum.

I agree with you boss and i have done.