Brexit better for non-EU migrants

sebseb wrote:Many non-eu migrants are not expecting lax of restrictions but simply want to see similar level of the rules applied to eu migrants for fairness reasons. The thought is also shared by many Kiwis and Aussies who are eligible to vote, as reported by the bbc.

Seb I respect your views but it would be unfair (and illegal) to apply to EU citizens exercising their right to free movement the restriction that non-EU immigrants face for one very simple reason: FREE MOVEMENT is a two way street. Between 1 and 2 millions UK citizens have used free movement to move visa free without normal immigration controls to other EU states and many others UK citizens including many professionals I know work part of the year in other EU countries without needing business visas. Non-eea migrants come from countries where Britons are not able to just move and work as they wish. Plenty of Britons are kicked out of Australia for overstaying their working holiday visas for example and good luck to anyone trying to move to the States from the UK unless you are very wealthy or win the green card lottery.
EU and non-EU migration are two completely different categories of migration, one is (as long as Britain remains in the EU or EEA) a form of internal migration within a free trade/movement bluc of countries that have a framework of shared rights for their citizens across all of the member states and the other is immigration from countries that offer UK citizens no right to settle or work without restriction.

According to most recent poll from Yougov the vast majority of Britons even many leave supporters want to keep the right of Britons to settle in other European countries without restriction, that can only happen if other EEA citizens are treated the same. Until Australia and other non-EEA countries open their borders to UK citizens without restrictions the way the EU states do then it isnt unfair that migrants from those countries face more restrictions than EEA citizens do.

Millerco wrote:(and illegal) to apply to EU citizens exercising their right to free movement

That is under the current arrangements. One of the main reasons to have this referendum, if not the main reason, is precisely to look at altering and possibly restricting free movement of people (as opposed to the free movement of capital, goods and services).

Millerco wrote:FREE MOVEMENT is a two way street.

Absolutely. Were there to be a Brexit, there would be changes in both directions. British expats abroad would face barriers just as EU migrants in the UK would. Most expats who are eligible for it would likely take up another EU citizenship, just as many EU citizens have done so in this country.

Millerco wrote:EU and non-EU migration are two completely different categories of migration

The objective of the Leave campaign is to merge them into one.

Millerco wrote:one is (as long as Britain remains in the EU or EEA) a form of internal migration within a free trade/movement bluc of countries that have a framework of shared rights for their citizens across all of the member states

To redetermine that is the very raison d'etre of having this referendum for many people. It has been argued that that is not what we had originally signed up to. And the supine UK government of both parties signed up to the changes without the people's approval.

The Labour government of 1997-2010 did the UK a great disservice by not blocking immigration from the A8 countries in 2004, as many other countries had done. That flood of people moving to the UK in pretty much one go is what has given freedom of movement a bad name at this point in time.

The flood of people moving across from the A8 countries that is mentioned above is best underscored by the 2011 census, which stated that in the past decade 2001-2011, Polish jumped from nowhere to being the second most spoken language in the UK, over taking Punjabi and Hindi-Urdu, with Polish speakers numbering more than the speakers of the latter two languages combined. And that is just the Poles, not counting any of the other A8 nationalities.

It is that speed of cultural change, rather than the quantity, that people find unsettling and that is leading to a backlash not just in the UK, but also elsewhere in Europe. We have seen the Swiss referendum results of 2014 and in the past month, the Austrian far-right win 49.7% of the vote for the presidency of that country. In just the past day, a Swiss village opted to pay a fine of £200,000 rather than take in just 10 refugees.

Whatever the outcome of the referendum, the EU will have to come up with better mechanisms to control both internal and external migration. Treating it as a sacred cow is not going to help keep either free movement or the EU alive. And it is worth remembering that sacred cows do eventually die, notwithstanding their sacred status.

Millerco wrote:that can only happen if other EEA citizens are treated the same. Until Australia and other non-EEA countries open their borders to UK citizens without restrictions the way the EU states do then it isnt unfair that migrants from those countries face more restrictions than EEA citizens do.

You are erring in imagining that treatment of citizens in other countries is only a matter of reciprocity. It is possible for citizens of one country to be treated better or worse in one country rather than the other way round. The UK still offers civic rights to Commonwealth citizens inspite of reciprocity on part of most Commonwealth citizens ceasing in the 1980s. US citizens can get a visa on arrival in the UK, but UK citizens must apply for an ESTA when traveling to the US.

Reciprocity or not in treatment of citizens in other countries is a matter for diplomacy, trade agreements and need to be attractive to investment. Even in the event of a Brexit, I doubt the Spanish or Greek authorities would be in a hurry to chuck out the British citizens, whose money and investment they need. On the other hand, the German authorities do not need the investment and can afford to be harsher. So, reciprocity is not a matter of international law or being a member of a trade bloc. It is a case of "money talks".

secret.simon wrote:

Millerco wrote:(and illegal) to apply to EU citizens exercising their right to free movement

That is under the current arrangements. One of the main reasons to have this referendum, if not the main reason, is precisely to look at altering and possibly restricting free movement of people (as opposed to the free movement of capital, goods and services).

Millerco wrote:FREE MOVEMENT is a two way street.

Absolutely. Were there to be a Brexit, there would be changes in both directions. British expats abroad would face barriers just as EU migrants in the UK would. Most expats who are eligible for it would likely take up another EU citizenship, just as many EU citizens have done so in this country.

Millerco wrote:EU and non-EU migration are two completely different categories of migration

The objective of the Leave campaign is to merge them into one.

Millerco wrote:one is (as long as Britain remains in the EU or EEA) a form of internal migration within a free trade/movement bluc of countries that have a framework of shared rights for their citizens across all of the member states

To redetermine that is the very raison d'etre of having this referendum for many people. It has been argued that that is not what we had originally signed up to. And the supine UK government of both parties signed up to the changes without the people's approval.

The Labour government of 1997-2010 did the UK a great disservice by not blocking immigration from the A8 countries in 2004, as many other countries had done. That flood of people moving to the UK in pretty much one go is what has given freedom of movement a bad name at this point in time.

The flood of people moving across from the A8 countries that is mentioned above is best underscored by the 2011 census, which stated that in the past decade 2001-2011, Polish jumped from nowhere to being the second most spoken language in the UK, over taking Punjabi and Hindi-Urdu, with Polish speakers numbering more than the speakers of the latter two languages combined. And that is just the Poles, not counting any of the other A8 nationalities.

It is that speed of cultural change, rather than the quantity, that people find unsettling and that is leading to a backlash not just in the UK, but also elsewhere in Europe. We have seen the Swiss referendum results of 2014 and in the past month, the Austrian far-right win 49.7% of the vote for the presidency of that country. In just the past day, a Swiss village opted to pay a fine of £200,000 rather than take in just 10 refugees.

Whatever the outcome of the referendum, the EU will have to come up with better mechanisms to control both internal and external migration. Treating it as a sacred cow is not going to help keep either free movement or the EU alive. And it is worth remembering that sacred cows do eventually die, notwithstanding their sacred status.

Millerco wrote:that can only happen if other EEA citizens are treated the same. Until Australia and other non-EEA countries open their borders to UK citizens without restrictions the way the EU states do then it isnt unfair that migrants from those countries face more restrictions than EEA citizens do.

You are erring in imagining that treatment of citizens in other countries is only a matter of reciprocity. It is possible for citizens of one country to be treated better or worse in one country rather than the other way round. The UK still offers civic rights to Commonwealth citizens inspite of reciprocity on part of most Commonwealth citizens ceasing in the 1980s. US citizens can get a visa on arrival in the UK, but UK citizens must apply for an ESTA when traveling to the US.

Reciprocity or not in treatment of citizens in other countries is a matter for diplomacy, trade agreements and need to be attractive to investment. Even in the event of a Brexit, I doubt the Spanish or Greek authorities would be in a hurry to chuck out the British citizens, whose money and investment they need. On the other hand, the German authorities do not need the investment and can afford to be harsher. So, reciprocity is not a matter of international law or being a member of a trade bloc. It is a case of "money talks".

I love how you refer to the migration of people from Eastern EU as a 'flood of people', this is exactly the type of language I knew this thread would lead to. That flood, and lets not pretend flood has anything but negative connotations, consists overwhelmingly of well educated/trained highly motivated people who take benefits less than the native UK population or non-EU migrants and who have according to most studies played a major role in the growth of the UK economy over the last decade.

But to address some of your arguments/statements quickly
1, There is no possibility of altering free movement and maintaining single market access, NONE - as someone whose job very much involves understanding global and European affairs I can assure you of this. It is a cornerstone legally and in principle of the European single market. And just two days ago a poll of the leading economist in this county said by a margin of 9 to 1 that leaving the single market (not the EU but the single market) would be devastating for the British economy. So despite all of the noise and debate I seriously doubt that even in the event of Brexit free movement will change much. There might be a billateral agreement putting in some more minor restrictions but that bit of cosmetic watering down will come at enormous cost to British influence over EU decisions that will still affect it.

2. Freedom of movement is exactly what the UK signed up for in 70s. It was clear from day one that it was a principle the UK would have to abide. If you referring to the policital structures of the EU thats a different argument but freedom of movement is nothing new and was in force when the UK decided to join the EEC.

3. I am not erring in saying that freedom of movement is based on reciprocity. My point wasnt that all countries exactly mirror privileges others countries give their citizens when they visit or work in them. But I am making a very clear point that the UK must accept free movement from other EU states to maintain it for UK citizens - that is a fact! Yes commonwealth citizens have certain rights (voting rights not settlement or employment rights) here that most dont offer UK citizens but thats mostly just a legacy of history from a time of common British Empire 'citizenship' and one that parliament could easily scrap tomorrow with no real repercussions for the UK. Scrapping freedom of movement would instantly affect the plans and working habits of millions of Britain (people who work part of the time in the other EU states or who are planning to retire/work there).


4. You are right money does talk - and unfortunately for the UK it is not exactly an economic superpower anymore - there is a reason why we have had 5 years of austerity. The idea that Germany and France, one of which is much wealthier than Britain and the other having an economy equal in size will somehow let the EU post Brexit be bribed (with that money??) into giving the UK all the privilege of EU membership without the thing it doesnt like is absurd. I have no doubts the rights of currently settled EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in other parts of the EU will be maintained whatever the referendum but if you think that somehow the British government will be able to divide the EU and get some countries to give its citizens semi free movement while closing its doors to workers from places like Poland and Romania you know nothing about EU politics or decision making, any post brexit deal will need to done by consensus and that process will be led by Germany a country whose political value the European project and principles above all else.


But this is all getting off track.

My basis points are EU migrants are not to blame for the issues non-EU migrants face with the Home Office and also that even after Brexit the UK would almost certainly continue to make very favorable/generous allowances for EU workers to settle in the country (only slightly tweaked free movement) as otherwise would mean 1. Britons who will lose their rights to free movement to ALL EU countries including their favourite settlement destinations and 2. nobody has any serious economic alternative to single market membership which can only come with free movement - ask the Swiss and Norwegians, two countries which are far far richer on a per capita basis than Britain.

Millerco wrote: I have no doubts the rights of currently settled EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in other parts of the EU will be maintained whatever the referendum but if you think that somehow the British government will be able to divide the EU and get some countries to give its citizens semi free movement while closing its doors to workers from places like Poland and Romania you know nothing about EU politics or decision making, any post brexit deal will need to done by consensus and that process will be led by Germany a country whose political value the European project and principles above all else.

You seemed to have missed the fact that Germany limited how many migrants they would take from A8 countries and the UK's Labour government made the error of not doing this to protect the UK too from mass migration.

Even for those that did move to Germany under those limited numbers allowed, those people had to contribute before they could claim German benefits and there was no free healthcare there for them either. While in the UK there was instant access to all UK benefits (and the benefits for children were more generous in the UK than in Germany anyway) and instant access to social housing and free healthcare.

It wasn't long before, for the first time ever, the UK's welfare bill exceeded what the government took in income tax. Mass panic then from the Labour gavernment as they then started the welfare reforms to cut benefits: appointed ATOS for medicals for the sick and looked at a one income based welfare payment to replace income based benefits.

The UK is not alone in this. There is little appetite for free movement in it''s present form from the wealthier countries, who have after all, received the brunt of mass migration. You might have to accept that with or without the UK, free movement in it's present form will have to end.

Millerco wrote:

sebseb wrote:Many non-eu migrants are not expecting lax of restrictions but simply want to see similar level of the rules applied to eu migrants for fairness reasons. The thought is also shared by many Kiwis and Aussies who are eligible to vote, as reported by the bbc.

Seb I respect your views but it would be unfair (and illegal) to apply to EU citizens exercising their right to free movement the restriction that non-EU immigrants face for one very simple reason: FREE MOVEMENT is a two way street. Between 1 and 2 millions UK citizens have used free movement to move visa free without normal immigration controls to other EU states and many others UK citizens including many professionals I know work part of the year in other EU countries without needing business visas. Non-eea migrants come from countries where Britons are not able to just move and work as they wish. Plenty of Britons are kicked out of Australia for overstaying their working holiday visas for example and good luck to anyone trying to move to the States from the UK unless you are very wealthy or win the green card lottery.
EU and non-EU migration are two completely different categories of migration, one is (as long as Britain remains in the EU or EEA) a form of internal migration within a free trade/movement bluc of countries that have a framework of shared rights for their citizens across all of the member states and the other is immigration from countries that offer UK citizens no right to settle or work without restriction.

According to most recent poll from Yougov the vast majority of Britons even many leave supporters want to keep the right of Britons to settle in other European countries without restriction, that can only happen if other EEA citizens are treated the same. Until Australia and other non-EEA countries open their borders to UK citizens without restrictions the way the EU states do then it isnt unfair that migrants from those countries face more restrictions than EEA citizens do.

I have no doubt there would be some transnational agreement where existing migrants, be they eu migrants or brit expats, will be considered. There's also no doubt many eu migrants or brit expat might choose to rush in or out should brexit happen.

However the increasing population is simply not sustainable at the this level, so it's simply a "better late than never" thought that is being widely shared by not only local people but also many settled migrants who are eligible to vote.

Petaltop wrote:

Millerco wrote: I have no doubts the rights of currently settled EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in other parts of the EU will be maintained whatever the referendum but if you think that somehow the British government will be able to divide the EU and get some countries to give its citizens semi free movement while closing its doors to workers from places like Poland and Romania you know nothing about EU politics or decision making, any post brexit deal will need to done by consensus and that process will be led by Germany a country whose political value the European project and principles above all else.

You seemed to have missed the fact that Germany limited how many migrants they would take from A8 countries and the UK's Labour government made the error of not doing this to protect the UK too from mass migration.

Even for those that did move to Germany under those limited numbers allowed, those people had to contribute before they could claim German benefits and there was no free healthcare there for them either. While in the UK there was instant access to all UK benefits (and the benefits for children were more generous in the UK than in Germany anyway) and instant access to social housing and free healthcare.

It wasn't long before, for the first time ever, the UK's welfare bill exceeded what the government took in income tax. Mass panic then from the Labour gavernment as they then started the welfare reforms to cut benefits: appointed ATOS for medicals for the sick and looked at a one income based welfare payment to replace income based benefits.

The UK is not alone in this. There is little appetite for free movement in it''s present form from the wealthier countries, who have after all, received the brunt of mass migration. You might have to accept that with or without the UK, free movement in it's present form will have to end.

I didnt miss that point, I just found it irrelevant to the wider discussion. The transitional restrictions on the A8 countries ended in 2011, over half a decade ago. And in the last five years Germany has taken in hundreds of thousands of EU migrants from both southern and eastern Europe on a scale not very different to what the UK has done.

Concerning the benefits issues and health care issues well one as I said repeatedly and studies show EU migrants are less likely to claim out of work benefits than either native Britons or non-EU migrants, even the most high profile leave campaigners have said EU migrants come to work and restricting benefits wont have an impact on their numbers as very few come to claim them.

And yes the UK is alone in this, no other country despite the appearance of right parties across the continent has a press that is so obsessed with blaming other EU citizens for their countries problems. I spend a lot of time in two other major EU countries and speak three different languages and the obsession with EU migration is from I have seen fairly unique to this country. Norway which isn't even in the EU gets more EEA/EU migrants per head that Britain and still there the isnt the kind of dramatic fear mongering there about the issue as there is here. I don't have to accept the point you made because there is no evidence for it, Cameron went to his negotiations with all other 27 EU members and didnt find a single ally to fight for his plans to put a break on inter EU migration as none of them were willing to sacrifice what is as I have an inherent legal and ethical principle of european integration. If the UK chose to leave as a result that is fine, its democracy in action, but price will be very high and in all likelihood for vital economic reasons most aspects of free movement will remain.

I dont want to contribute anymore to this debate I respect other views but to be honest as sad it would make me to see this country, which I love, weaken itself and make itself poorer and less influential in some ways I think Brexit might be good for the British to give the people of this country a wake up call about its real place in the world and not just the imagined one some people have in their heads.
I am relatively young but old enough to remember when Britain was for many a laughing stock among western countries for its failing economy, crumbling cities and decrepit infrastructure and this was in the 80s not 50 or 60 years ago. I have now lived in four western countries all wealthier than the UK and I believe there are widespread delusions how economically independent Britain is and how much influence this country on its own has. Brexit will mean this country getting and taking a terrible deal from the far more powerful combined 500 million people strong bloc of EU countries while gaining very little including very few additional controls on EU migrants.

As a commonwealth citizen with 'Leave to Remain' work visa i thought it's in my personal best of interest to LEAVE EU, so sent my postal vote yesterday.
Post Brexit, Points-based system (PBS) may or may not come, but there is certainly hope for revival and better prospects for us non-EU migrants than current system, which made me post my decision.
All Brexit campaigners are calling for PBS system and support commonwealth skilled migrants, even assuming they are lying i only see no-loss scenario.
About Economy, it's very dicey subject which someone claims to understand but none does, and it is something never permanent and according to me does not have dependency on single issue of Remain/Leave EU.

Millerco wrote:Concerning the benefits issues and health care issues well one as I said repeatedly and studies show EU migrants are less likely to claim out of work benefits than either native Britons or non-EU migrants,.

No, you didn't say that before. You claimed -

Millerco wrote: The idea that the process for non-EU migrants who actually are more likely to be on benefits and earn less than EU migrants will get easier and cheaper is just a fantasy

If what you claimed is true, then why do you think Poland protested at the proposals the UK made to make EU nationals wait 4 years until they could access UK benefits?

Non-EUs have to wait 5 years to claim these benefits and have to support their own families during that time, a fact you seem to have missed, or perhaps didn't know?

Of course EUs are now claiming less out of works benefits but that is because the UK had to stop them claiming these benefits as too many were doing it. https://www.freemovement.org.uk/existin ... g-benefit/

The in-work benefits are for people who don't work enough hours to keep themselves and their families. Often they claim more money from the welfare state than they pay in taxes and the UK still has to pay for their healthcare and pay to educate their children.

It was no surprise that the in-work benefits of Tax Credits and Housing Benefit are now the two biggest income based welfare bills to the UK's welfare state. It is these two benefits that have pushed the UK's welfare bill to, for the first time ever, to more than the government takes in taxes. This happened when Labour were in government and after they allowed some Eastern European citizens to live in the UK without restriction on the numbers and claim full benefits when they arrived.


Parliament has now been forced to bring in an annual werlfare cap to halt the ever rising welfare bill whcih was getting out of control. This will mean more reductions in benefits as more people want to claim. This is why the UK wanted to make EU citizens wait 4 years before they can claim UK benefits and it is this 'wait for UK benefits' that the Polish government protested about.

A change of government saw the UK start to keep a record from 2010, of the nationalities of benefit claimants, something that had not been done before. In 2014 MAC reported to the government on the high percentage of “foreign born” claiming the benefit Tax Credits (for those that don't work enough hours to keep their own families). Are you seriously suggesting that most of the “foreign born” are non-EU citizens?

Millerco wrote: Germany has taken in hundreds of thousands of EU migrants from both southern and eastern Europe on a scale not very different to what the UK has done.

As said, EEA citizens have to contribute to Germany before they can claim German benefits and they can’t have free healthcare.

Interestingly, since the UK announced they are going to be reducing their very generous benefits for children to below that of many other EEA countries, including Germany, and bringing in tough new work requirements and sanctions for benefit claimants, Germany carried out a study to see how to amend free movement. The suggestion being, to only pay benefits for their children at the same rate as they would get in their own country, to stop people using free movement for ‘moving for better benefits’.

Millerco wrote:I love how you refer to the migration of people from Eastern EU as a 'flood of people', this is exactly the type of language I knew this thread would lead to.

Thank heavens I did not write a "horde", as that would have been so much worse. I would not want this thread to degenerate into a discussion on semantics. So, how about "a significant influx of people"? Still too extreme for your tastes? It certainly was a "noticeable influx of people" as many people and organisations made observations on it in the past and hence must have noticed it.

Millerco wrote:as someone whose job very much involves understanding global and European affairs

I am tempted to ask you for what your job involves.

Millerco wrote:you know nothing about EU politics or decision making

My knowledge is, as you have correctly surmised, entirely academic. I am unfortunately not one of the negotiation teams in Brussels, as you undoubtedly are.

Millerco wrote:I spend a lot of time in two other major EU countries and speak three different languages and the obsession with EU migration is from I have seen fairly unique to this country.

I am so sorry, I did not realise you were Nick Clegg. Then again, you are probably as well-educated as Boris, who after all knows Ancient Greek and Latin.

Millerco wrote:I have now lived in four western countries all wealthier than the UK

I think you have made your point that you are far better off and better educated than us already.

Millerco wrote:France...having an economy equal in size

Undeniably why migrants are flocking at Calais...to get into France. The land of love, of romance, of revolutions and instability, of banlieues and increasingly of the far-right Front Nationale. Yes, I can certainly see France objecting to any concessions to the UK. But that is a part of their history. Let us see after 2017 if such refusal is a part of their future, with either President Sarkozy or Le Pen.

Millerco wrote:Germany a country whose political value the European project and principles above all else.

Germany, and especially the current chancellor, is a country that I have great respect (and affection), partially because they are very pragmatic and don't get stuck up in ideology, which seems to be the preserve of the French. I have no doubt that if Germany were to be left to guiding the EU on its own, that they would come up with a practical/pragmatic structure that would suit everybody to a greater extent that the current structure, which due to its French influence, is ideologically driven but not very practical.

Millerco wrote:no other country despite the appearance of right parties across the continent has a press that is so obsessed with blaming other EU citizens for their countries problems.

The difference between the continent and the UK is that parties in the UK have been too prim and polite in addressing EU immigration for fear of being branded dearly beloved. The history of beloved in the UK post-Windrush is so fresh in the memory here that politicians would do anything not to be called dearly beloved. Indeed, in many cases, they likely genuinely believed that any reference to immigration was dearly beloved. Witness the Gillian Duffy episode in 2010.

The press in the UK do the same role as political parties on the continent in airing such politically incorrect views. They do not generate them, but they allow them to be aired, and in doing so, do the same function as the political parties on the Continent.

Petaltop wrote:There is little appetite for free movement in it''s present form from the wealthier countries, who have after all, received the brunt of mass migration.

I would agree with this in a different way. When the UK joined the EU, most countries in the EU were at the same economic level at the time of joining. Even as late as the last pre-A8 accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden to the EU, most countries in the EU had broadly the same level of living as each other and hence free movement (only limited to workers till 1992) was not a big issue.

The post Cold War 2004 accession of 10 countries (the A8 + Cyprus and Malta) (for political reasons, to show solidarity with them rather than for economic reasons) most of who were significantly poorer than the existing members, without changing the rules on freedom of movement, is, in my opinion, the reason for the current referendum and the strength of the Leave campaign.

I doubt that the Leave campaign is against the freedom of movement for countries with an equivalent standard of living. But the disparity in the standard of living between say Poland and the UK is so high as to encourage a noticeable influx to arrive and it is the size of that noticeable influx that is putting a burden on standards of living in some communities here.

Millerco wrote:I don't have to accept the point you made

You don't have to accept any points made here, because this is a discussion offering different opinions that are equally valid. That is its very existence.

Millerco wrote:Cameron went to his negotiations with all other 27 EU members and didnt find a single ally to fight for his plans to put a break on inter EU migration

I think Victor Orban of Hungary did side with Cameron, but I could be wrong. Let us see what the state of play is in 2017. I think that the current right-wing Polish and Slovak governments at the very least may side with Cameron on some aspects of any plan put forward to control immigration. President Le Pen may too as well, which will radically alter the balance of power in Europe.

Millerco wrote:I think Brexit might be good for the British to give the people of this country a wake up call about its real place in the world and not just the imagined one some people have in their heads.

I think it will be a wakeup call for the EU as well for the same reasons. Were a referendum to be held across the EU on June 23rd, I have no doubt that there would be a majority to dissolve it in a majority of its constituent countries (a double majority).

Millerco wrote:I am relatively young but old enough to remember when Britain was for many a laughing stock among western countries for its failing economy, crumbling cities and decrepit infrastructure and this was in the 80s not 50 or 60 years ago.

Oh, like France right now, after years in the EU.

Millerco wrote:Brexit will mean this country getting and taking a terrible deal

Reminds one of the deal that the Greek people voted against but got anyway. In this sense, the EU sounds like an abusive partnership, either be browbeaten or get thrown out of the house with nothing.

MillerCo

You are creating a straw man argument. If you have lived in 4 Western economies as you state I hope they value freedom of expression more than yourself.

The only way the UK government are increasing aggregate demand is through increasing the labour market and population not through productivity or some new found mineral wealth. We have anaemic levels of growth in the service sector. We need a steady supply of people to issue debt to so that we can get people to consume more than what they can earn. The levels of wage growth is stagnant.

What it requires is better policies all round not just in immigration. Yet all you see is the immigration issue.

We have cuts being made to social services, healthcare, education whilst we have an expanding population. Immigration control is not the silver bullet solution and no one is suggesting that. All I am trying to get across is that there needs to be better control over the number so we can expand and contract the labour supply to meet the needs of the economy and not leave it to the free market.

So tell me this do you believe in the free market for healthcare?

secret.simon wrote: Yes, I can certainly see France objecting to any concessions to the UK. But that is a part of their history. Let us see after 2017 if such refusal is a part of their future, with either President Sarkozy or Le Pen.

2017 is also when the in-work benefits in the UK will start to reduce for existing claimants and I think that is when claimants will first wake up to how much their benefits will reduce. In his speech a few years ago on these planned benefit cuts, the Chancellor said the UK were reducing benefits to below that of France, Germany and Sweden. The UK won't be as attractive to the low paid EU citizens when they can get more benefits in other EEA countries.

There is quite an upset in Australia on how EU mass migration to the UK has made it harder for Commonwealth citizens to get UK visas. They are urging Aussies in the UK and Brits who live in Oz but can still vote in the referendum, to use their votes.

Petaltop wrote:There is quite an upset in Australia on how EU mass migration to the UK has made it harder for Commonwealth citizens to get UK visas. They are urging Aussies in the UK and Brits who live in Oz but can still vote in the referendum, to use their votes.

I can certainly see their point. I remember even so late as a few years ago, after I arrived in the UK, how some parts of London (Wimbledon, Hammersmith, Fulham, Ealing) were full of Old Commonwealth students (Aussies/Kiwis/Saffas mainly, not so many Canadians who would go to the US presumably) on their gap year, getting in touch with their roots on the Tier 5 Youth Mobility visas, pulling pints in pubs, staffing youth hostels and having a good time. Now you don't see them any more in London, you hear of their adventures in South East Asia. Their places in the UK have been staffed by cheaper labour from the A8 countries. In that sense, the UK has lost some of its "soft power" in the Antipodes. I can certainly see the resentment Down Under on this point.

Even apart from Petaltop's, abhisheks9's and sebseb's posts in this thread, I have been struck in my conversations with my work colleagues as to how deeply the EU is resented by non-EEA migrants. Given London's diverse population, it is no surprise that my work place is like a veritable United Nations, with people from around the world. And it is striking that almost all the non-EEA citizens, most of whom, like abhisheks9, have Commonwealth citizenship and hence the right to vote, have said that they are either voting to leave or at the very least abstaining.

On further discussion, what appears to irk them the most is the sense of entitlement that EEA citizens display, that an EEA citizen can't be denied, whereas even a British citizen can be refused in an identical situation. From their point of view (which I share, as I am a non-EEA migrant myself), immigration, like citizenship, is a privilege and not a right.

This feeling is pronounced among first generation migrants, who have had to work their way through the UKBA system and do not see why others should get a shortcut through the system, especially others in the UK as the non-EEA spouses of EEA citizens in the UK. Second generation migrants seem to think on the same lines as native born British, being native born British themselves. Their key concerns, like that of most people in the UK, are the values of their homes and holidays.

This is anecdotal hearsay, based on conversation with people in the work place but I would still like to hear from others about conversations in their workplaces.

It is worth reminding the Remain campaign that they still have time to come up with a good plan to sway the votes of the Commonwealth citizens who have been adversely affected.

And EEA citizens could stop harping on about their rights and stress more on how happy and lucky they are to live in the UK. Be nice and courteous, guys. You are in your neighbour's house, not your own and behave accordingly.

You never get more rights by restricting somebody else's rights.

rooibos wrote:You never get more rights by restricting somebody else's rights.

Very true

Noetic wrote:

rooibos wrote:You never get more rights by restricting somebody else's rights.

Very true

But jealousy and envy are potent emotions, insusceptible to reason.

Majority of the asian community I know is voting for Brexit for two reasons. Firstly they are not happy that immigration rules have been tightened for non-eu citizens whilst EU citizens can bring there whole families over without any difficulty.

Secondly they are not happy with certain EU nationals who have settled in their areas and have caused crime rates to rocket.

There has been a lot of issues between the community and national of these certain countries. They see this referendum as an opportunity to put this right.

What they don't understand is the fact that even if the result is Brexit, the UK will not be able to stop freedom of movement unless they withdraw from the single market which is very unlikely.

mkhan2525 wrote:Majority of the asian community I know is voting for Brexit for two reasons. Firstly they are not happy that immigration rules have been tightened for non-eu citizens whilst EU citizens can bring there whole families over without any difficulty.

Secondly they are not happy with certain EU nationals who have settled in their areas and have caused crime rates to rocket.

There has been a lot of issues between the community and national of these certain countries. They see this referendum as an opportunity to put this right.

What they don't understand is the fact that even if the result is Brexit, the UK will not be able to stop freedom of movement unless they withdraw from the single market which is very unlikely.

Your specific reference to 3 EU nationalities has been removed and your post edited. There should be no derogatory or discriminatory reference to race, religion, nationality etc on the forum. See #1 of the Forum T&Cs (click)

CR001 wrote:

mkhan2525 wrote:Majority of the asian community I know is voting for Brexit for two reasons. Firstly they are not happy that immigration rules have been tightened for non-eu citizens whilst EU citizens can bring there whole families over without any difficulty.

Secondly they are not happy with certain EU nationals who have settled in their areas and have caused crime rates to rocket.

There has been a lot of issues between the community and national of these certain countries. They see this referendum as an opportunity to put this right.

What they don't understand is the fact that even if the result is Brexit, the UK will not be able to stop freedom of movement unless they withdraw from the single market which is very unlikely.

Your specific reference to 3 EU nationalities has been removed and your post edited. There should be no derogatory or discriminatory reference to race, religion, nationality etc on the forum. See #1 of the Forum T&Cs (click)

Sorry, my intensions were not to cause offence in anyway. I was merely expressing the views of the people I know in the Asian community and why they have chosen to vote for Brexit.

mkhan2525 wrote:Sorry, my intensions were not to cause offence in anyway. I was merely expressing the views of the people I know in the Asian community and why they have chosen to vote for Brexit.

Understood, but you are opening yourself up to some nasty posts by referencing specific EU nationalities as 'criminals' when criminals can be from many or any nationality, EU and non-EU (including Asian).

So lets keep it simple and stick to the topic and keep it a bit more 'generic'.

CR001 wrote:

mkhan2525 wrote:Sorry, my intensions were not to cause offence in anyway. I was merely expressing the views of the people I know in the Asian community and why they have chosen to vote for Brexit.

Understood, but you are opening yourself up to some nasty posts by referencing specific EU nationalities as 'criminals' when criminals can be from many or any nationality, EU and non-EU (including Asian).

So lets keep it simple and stick to the topic and keep it a bit more 'generic'.

Where have I said only these nationals are criminals and no other national can be?

You have completely twisted my post and besides as I've already said they aren't my views. They are what majority of the people in the Asian community think.

Reflecting on the past few posts, I came to the realisation that many EEA migrants do not appreciate just how biased the system is in their favour, just how extraordinarily privileged they are, simply because they don't go through the same immigration rigmarole that non-EEA migrants do. So, I have summarised the salient points for them. Others please feel free to chip in if I have missed anything out.

Given the fact that the Leave campaign is harping on about an Australian points-based system and how it will help reduce migration, most people (likely including EEA migrants) probably don't realise that the UK already has a Points Based System, comprising of five Tiers. It was introduced in the dying days of the last Labour government, when concerns about immigration started growing. But of course, it does not apply to EEA migrants.

Points Based System
Since the 2010 elections, the rules on almost all the Tiers have been tightened up so considerably as to reduce migration through the PBS. Let's look at the Tiers by turn.

Tier 1 - This tier had many subcategories, but it was broadly meant for highly skilled migrant workers. The number of points (based on salary, age and education) required to qualify for the general category of this Tier (Tier 1 General) was increased in 2010. Entry to that category itself from outside the UK was shut in 2011 and the category was shut completely in 2015. Existing T1G visa holders have until 2018 to acquire ILR.
Sub-categories of this Tier aimed at entrepreneurs and investors require initial capital investment of £50,000 for the former and £2 million for the latter. Not exactly chump change.

Tier 2 - Again with many sub-categories, this category is aimed at sponsored workers. The terms of the general category of this visa has also been tightened up and now requires annual income in excess of £35,000 to qualify for ILR. Furthermore, the company sponsoring the worker itself must be licensed to sponsor the worker and have to submit proof that the position was advertised in the whole EU and that no suitable person was found (The Resident Labour Market Test).
Sub-categories of this Tier include people who are subject of Intra Company Transfer, who are not eligible for ILR at all.

As these are sponsored visas, the company employing them control their future by either terminating or transferring them to another country. If terminated, there is a 60 days window to find another sponsor, another visa category or leave the UK with family.

Tier 3 - Aimed at low-skilled workers, it was never activated because of the inflow of such workers from the A8 countries.

Tier 4 - Aimed at students coming to the UK, it initially used to come with the opinion of continuing onto a Post Study Work visa after the studies. But now, that option is gone and the only way to work in the UK after your studies is to find a Tier 2 sponsor.

Tier 5 - This tier covers a swath of temporary visas that allow work, such as the Youth Mobility visa (the former Working Holidaymaker visa) for people under a certain age or temporary Ministers of Religion, etc. Even here, there has been a tightening of the criteria, though it has been relatively minor. The number of YM visas for some countries have been cut or eliminated altogether.

At no point before ILR are any of the above eligible for benefits.

Family members
The above was an overview of the situations as regards what are generally called the main applicants. But the situation as regards family members is much stricter.

Non-EEA dependents of the main applicants of the Tier system above have their own requirements.

Spouses of British citizens are people settled in the UK
But non-EEA dependents of people on ILR and even British citizens are still subject to significant requirements, such as the requirement of the British citizen/person on ILR to be earning at least £18,600 per annum or have savings of £62,500 in readily accessible bank accounts. 43% of the British population do not meet this earnings requirement and hence it is no surprise this requirement is currently being adjudicated on by the UK Supreme Court. Many moderators on these forums are here because they have been a subject of this requirement and have spent months if not years battling the Home Office for a right so basic as having your spouse in your house.

The spouse is also required to demonstrate a minimal knowledge of English (A1 on the CEFR scale, rising to A2 in October this year) to qualify as a dependent and B1 on the same scale to qualify for ILR.

And the spouses are not eligible for benefits either.

Parents
And that is just the spouse. It is practically impossible to get your parents to come and live with you in the UK. The standards for getting your parents to come and live in the UK are that they require assistance with basic actions like bathing, washing, etc AND that such care is not affordable in their home country. Given that you must also prove that you can pay for such care in the UK, it means that only parents from countries with high social care costs (such as the US) are eligible. Is it any wonder that there are only 34 known cases of an Adult Dependent Relative visa being issued SINCE 2012?

Fees
The starkest differences between the EEA route and the non-EEA route are in the fees that are charged for non-EEA applications. As leave to remain is granted and not an automatic right, it is possible to pay thousands and have the application fail. Most fees for individual applications run in the thousands of pounds sterling. My personal journey through the system cost me about £5000 and that was a few years ago, when it was cheaper. And I was on a 5 year route. Some people going through the 10 year route pay more.

Also, all non-EEA migrants (no exemption for children) must now pay an Immigration Health Surcharge of £200 per year or part thereof per person per application.

Now imagine a family of four applying to stay in the UK. The fees for the application of the four together would easily be £5000+. And that is not even for five years, but only 2.5 years or less.

These fees go up at the rate of 25%-50% some times. For instance, the fees for ILR jumped from £1093 to £1500 (per person) overnight last year.

None of the fees above include citizenship fees, which are the same for both EEA and non-EEA migrants. And obviously, these are just the application fees. If you want to pay for a solicitor to do the filing for you or because it is a complex case, put aside a few more thousand pounds.


EEA Migrants
Waltz in with a maroon passport. It is your right.

Don't just get your non-EEA spouse, get the whole family, parents, siblings, half-brothers and nephews et al (Rahman judgment of the ECJ/CJEU). You need only prove that they were your dependents at some point in the past. You need not even prove financial dependency, emotional dependency is sufficient.

Salary requirements? You must be having a laugh. It is your right to live in the UK.

Come straight in, but broke? Your entire family (EEA & non-EEA) can qualify for benefits on arrival by signing up as job-seekers.

Fees? Pay a princely sum of £65 for any application? What an outrage? (I am not making the last one up. There are threads on these forums where the applicants are genuinely outraged at having to pay £65 for a PR card application. As mentioned above, an ILR application costs £1500 and there is no guarantee of succeeding.)

Why fees matter
The current government has stated that it intends to make the immigration system effectively self-funding. If EEA citizens can not be charged more than £65 an application (which the EEA citizens themselves don't need), the cost (and any future increase) must fall disproportionately on non-EEA migrants.

The last time there was so much gap between two classes of people, the French had a revolution (just kidding, in a serious way). But I hope that it throws in sharp relief just why non-EEA migrants would be jealous and envious of EEA migrants and why they would use their vote to have the revolution of a Brexit.

I am aware that some people reading this post will consider it polemic, but I invite them to dispute the facts that I have laid out above. That is what discussion and forums are for.

Returning now to the subject of this thread, what would be better for non-EEA migrants; Remain or Leave? My thoughts are that remaining in the UK has benefits in the short-term for migrants already in the UK, while a Brexit has advantages for migrants in the longer term.

In the short-term
The Surinder Singh route is the only viable mechanism by which parents and spouses (whose British sponsor can not meet the earnings target) can come to the UK. Leaving the EU will lead to the eventual end of this route. As this route is derived directly from the Treaties, it is practically impossible to amend.
So, if you are planning to undertake this route in the near future, it makes sense to vote Remain.

If you are a young and upwardly mobile professional whose career requires mobility within the EU for work purposes, again, it makes sense to vote Remain. Likewise if you are a student planning to study in the EU.

In the long-term
John Maynard Keynes had famously remarked that "in the long term, we are all dead". But we must consider the impact of our actions on the longer term as well.

A Brexit will mean more opportunities for non-EEA citizens. Let there be no illusions, there is no prospect of more immigration being allowed. Indeed, for many people, the whole point of this referendum is that there would be less. Also, some jobs will relocate to the rEU. But the jobs that remain and are not filled by British citizens would be open to people from around the world, rather than going first to EEA citizens. So, an Indian or Nigerian or Ukrainian would have the same chance of getting a shot at UK migration as a Pole or a Greek or Latvian. Ironically that would mean that the latter would be undercut by cheaper labour from outside the EEA. Now where have we heard that one before?

A Brexit will mean that the ironic situation that it is easier for a non-English speaking European to settle in the UK than an English speaking Commonwealth citizen will be ameliorated if not ended.

The government is currently 200% (300,000 as opposed to the target of 100,000) adrift of its immigration target. If we vote to remain, given that the government is committed to reducing immigration, we will see even tougher/harsher requirements for spouses and other dependents and Tier 2 workers. A Brexit will not mean more relaxed rules, but it is less likely to get tougher.

Pause for thought
But there is a far more important point that I suggest that people reflect on.

I will pick up on MillerCo's point earlier in this thread about the press in the UK being anti-immigrant while on the continent it is the political parties. We have been fortunate so far that due to the legacy of beloved in the 1960s and 1970s in this country, political parties are scared stiff of appearing dearly beloved. But it is not that difficult for the situation to change.

Whether we like it or not, this referendum has become a referendum on immigration, with the leave side gathering its support primarily from people opposing any further immigration. Repeated polling has suggested a circa 50% split between Remain and Leave. That suggests a sizeable (about 40% in my opinion) percentage, verging on almost half, of the population, who are uncomfortable with immigration.

As migrants and families of migrants on these forums, we must recognise and address this phenomenon. Unfortunately, I do not know how and would love to hear from others on the way forward. But this is a phenomenon we ignore at our own peril.

secret.simon wrote:Returning now to the subject of this thread, what would be better for non-EEA migrants; Remain or Leave? My thoughts are that remaining in the UK has benefits in the short-term for migrants already in the UK, while a Brexit has advantages for migrants in the longer term.

In the longer term, the interests of migrants already here are best served by keeping the UK a place worth living in. That includes, to an extent, preserving prosperity, though I do wonder how long a bully-boy EU will continue to prosper.

secret.simon wrote:Don't just get your non-EEA spouse, get the whole family, parents, siblings, half-brothers and nephews et al (Rahman judgment of the ECJ/CJEU). You need only prove that they were your dependents at some point in the past. You need not even prove financial dependency, emotional dependency is sufficient.

The reversal of Metock will remove this right for family members from outside the EEA. I'm not even sure that non-permanent EEA residents will get the same immigration concession as other settled residents.

secret.simon wrote:In the short-term
The Surinder Singh route is the only viable mechanism by which parents and spouses (whose British sponsor can not meet the earnings target) can come to the UK. Leaving the EU will lead to the eventual end of this route. As this route is derived directly from the Treaties, it is practically impossible to amend.
So, if you are planning to undertake this route in the near future, it makes sense to vote Remain.

Again, reversing Metock will soon put a dent in this. It is by no means certain that shopping around for the member state with the most liberal immigration rules will work. The wording of Cameron's deal implies that in many cases, nothing but naturalisation in the first host country will provide a right to move on to the UK, be the sponsor British or Romanian. (I'm assuming that naturalised EEA citizens will have freedom of movement rights - but perhaps this will be declared an abuse of the directive.) In this, the deal goes beyond simply undoing Metock.

@Richard W
You talk about the reversal of Metock. But most people reading these forums likely have no clue about who or what Metock is.

Can I suggest that you write a short piece, with relevant links, explaining what Metock is and how it would impact EEA migrants and those on the SS route.

To the best of my knowledge, the UK-EU deal plans to get around Metock by issuing what it calls a legally binding decision of the European Council.

The relevant paragraph is on Page 21 of the document.

In accordance with Union law, Member States are able to take action to prevent abuse of rights or fraud, such as the presentation of forged documents, and
address cases of contracting or maintaining marriages of convenience with third country nationals for the purpose of making use of free movement as a route for regularising unlawful stay in a Member State or
address cases of making use of free movement as a route for bypassing national immigration rules applying to third country nationals.

The whole paragraph is phrased in such a manner that I think Metock still continues to apply. Metock is part of EU case law and the paragraph starts with "In accordance with Union law".

So plus ça change...

To overrule Metock, which is a judgment on the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC, an equivalent judgment or a new directive would be needed. The first is unlikely, while the second would need to be drafted by the European Commission and cleared by both the Council of the European Union (relatively easily done, given that the European Council has approved the document linked to above) and the European Parliament, which would take a while (given that its President is quite hostile to the whole deal). So, it ain't gonna happen in a hurry.