New EU deal: Free-movement rights gone?

Even David Cameron at the parliament today was not stupid enough to suggest the UK can repeal the 1972 act before the 2 years period provided in Article 50 of the Treaty.

He is hoping that the Memberstate will renew it if a trade agreement is not reached before the 2 years elapse.

He is also aware the free movement will continue without the restrictions on Benefit that he had secured if UK voted to leave.

Only Boris Johnson thinks we will get a second referendum .

Obie wrote:Even David Cameron at the parliament today was not stupid enough to suggest the UK can repeal the 1972 act before the 2 years period provided in Article 50 of the Treaty.

He is hoping that the Memberstate will renew it if a trade agreement is not reached before the 2 years elapse.

He is also aware the free movement will continue without the restrictions on Benefit that he had secured if UK voted to leave.

Only Boris Johnson thinks we will get a second referendum .

Yes, on a personal level, if it was an Out and took the full 2 years from date of the Referendum, my wife's 5 years would be up in just over 18 months from today, so would well be in the time to get PR before anything changed.

Just have to not stress too much, and wait and see what happens.

Obie wrote:Only Boris Johnson thinks we will get a second referendum .

I agree with Boris on this point. The EU has done that in the past. The Danes and Irish got important concessions in 1992 and 2001. The way it works with the EU is that you keep repeating referendums until you vote the right way.

This is even more likely if as expected the results will be close, something like a 48-52 result to leave. I believe that the EU will make concessions and there will be a rerun.

Obie wrote:Fysicus is talking about law .

And I am talking politics. And politics shapes the law.

Obie wrote:Wish I had changed last week.

You had mentioned in an earlier post that your vote is determined by the euros you get for your European vacation. I see that you keep a close eye on the market.

Obie wrote:UK Is bound by its international obligations under the treaty until and unless it officially vacates the EU in accordance with the treaty.

International treaties don't stop the UK from changing its own laws unilaterally.

Obie wrote:There are over 2 million Britain living in the EU and it will be odd for the UK to apply policy and legislation without those other states taking reciprocal steps.

LIfe is odd. I am an oddity, as are you and yet life goes on.

I hope that all those British citizens who are eligible to vote as overseas voters register to vote for the referendum. Given how close the results are expected to be, their votes may be crucial. Please repeat the link on your social media accounts if you know people who are eligible.

No I never said my vote is determined by EURO.

I have always advocated for the UK to be kicked out of the EU because of its disregards for EU law.

I have the misfortune of working in a border county , so I have dealing with pounds and Euros .


I am not a politician . I am practical and interpret laws.

Obie wrote:I have always advocated for the UK to be kicked out of the EU because of its disregards for EU law.

I advocate for the EU to be kicked out of the UK because of its disregard for UK law.

Obie wrote:I am not a politician . I am practical and interpret laws.

Neither am I. I am practical and follow politics. At last, something that we agree on

After doing a bit of reading, the emergency brake is applied only to newcomers with David Cameron emphasysing that. Also the child benefit payments will start getting indexed in 2020. There is no mention about the no eu thingy but am assuming in this case it should be applied to new comers

nemerkh wrote:After doing a bit of reading, the emergency brake is applied only to newcomers with David Cameron emphasysing that. Also the child benefit payments will start getting indexed in 2020. There is no mention about the no eu thingy but am assuming in this case it should be applied to new comers

One would hope that, but as you say, it's a assumption, we'll have to wait and see.

Well I have no problems with your political position . As an English man , that is if you are, I am very content for you to hold the position you hold.

What I found most troubling and annoying is when your political views moves into the realms of legal interpretations. This is the reason I was minded to refer to such views as views that are consistent with a Walter mitty character.

I found your legal interpretations so out of the ordinary with reality or within an acceptable perimeter of accepted norms, that I get most agitated when I read them.

Just to make it clear, I have absolutely no problems with your political views. I have full respect for them even when I am minded of your background in regards to your membership of this forums.

However I am most worried about your interpretation of international provision, in relation to the UK'S obligation under its international treaties.

Personally I take your views with a pinch of salt, but I noticed that some members are deeply anxious and worried, and this is actually the source of my agitation. .

This amendment only affects a couple of hundred so its a bit petty, will it greatly reduce immigration numbers? I don't think so. I think it was stuck in to appease the Home Office after they got whupped on a couple of court cases, just my view.
The financial requirement is a different kettle of fish, figures I've seen are like 200,000 so it wouldn't surprise me if the Supreme court is not ahem influence by government agenda.

Obie wrote:I an minded of your background in regards to your membership of this forums.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? If this thread is not an appropriate forum, perhaps a PM may be suitable.

I personally think that EU immigrants who have established residence should be treated as UK citizens. That is if established residence means that they have attained permanent residence. It takes five years for an EU immigrant to establish residence in the UK. If they marry after they have established residence, then national immigration rules should apply. This is the same thing they introduced to student visa. They call it established presence. I might be wrong but I think we are missing a key word "Established". If you don't believe me, go get a dictionary and check what established means in this context. Also look for established presence and see if there is any coloration.

Perhaps I'm one the few here who can remember when UK wasn't in the EU. It wasn't that bad.

Whilst I am generally in favour it, I wouldn't miss it, I like the freedom of movement in terms of no visas etc, UK is powerful enough to retain that anyway.

What I won't miss it the stupid Human rights impositions from Strasbourg or wherever, granting leave to all sorts of undesirables, attempting to give prisoners voting rights etc, common sense approach is needed.

nyabs wrote:I personally think that EU immigrants who have established residence should be treated as UK citizens. That is if established residence means that they have attained permanent residence. It takes five years for an EU immigrant to establish residence in the UK. If they marry after they have established residence, then national immigration rules should apply. This is the same thing they introduced to student visa. They call it established presence. I might be wrong but I think we are missing a key word "Established". If you don't believe me, go get a dictionary and check what established means in this context. Also look for established presence and see if there is any coloration.

No established residence simply means they've exercised their treaty rights here. It has nothing to do with permanent residence.

Wanderer wrote:Perhaps I'm one the few here who can remember when UK wasn't in the EU. It wasn't that bad.

Whilst I am generally in favour it, I wouldn't miss it, I like the freedom of movement in terms of no visas etc, UK is powerful enough to retain that anyway.

What I won't miss it the stupid Human rights impositions from Strasbourg or wherever, granting leave to all sorts of undesirables, attempting to give prisoners voting rights etc, common sense approach is needed.

I'm singing from the same hymn sheet Wanderer. Have I poor recall, or didn't we 'sign up' for free trade...not the EU we find ourselves part of now?

Wanderer, you aren't the first and won't be the last to confuse the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and the EU. They have nothing to do with each other, apart from the fact that all EU member states are obliged to be party to the ECHR.

The Council of Europe (not to be confused with either the European Council or the Council of the European Union, both of which are EU bodies) is a separate organisation, which is also based in Strasbourg, but which has 47 members states, including such outstanding exemplars of human rights as Russia (with apologies to your significant other) and Turkey. Indeed, the UK was a founding member of the Council of Europe.

The speech by Lord Mance that I referenced earlier contrasts the level of control the UK has over the ECHR vs that of the EU. Most importantly, the Council of Europe does not have legislative powers, merely the power to suggest.

The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) does give judgments that to some may seem perverse, but I think it is good that they provoke discussion (my role on these forums). Crucially, it itself has held that it has no power to annul national legislation and that contracting parties undertake to follow its judgements.

The Convention is a part of UK law by the Human Rights Act and there is talk about replacing it with a British Bill of Rights (I hope they name it something else; we already had a Bill of Rights in 1688).

But just to reiterate, the EU and the ECHR are completely different organisations and should not be confused.

These proposals are all BS. What has got the publics back up is the hoardes coming in and claiming asylum. The proposal does little to address the public anger all it does is stop maybe 200 British subjects from being with their partners. That's hardly going to persuade anyone to vote to stay in.

357mag wrote:These proposals are all BS. What has got the publics back up is the hoardes coming in and claiming asylum. The proposal does little to address the public anger all it does is stop maybe 200 British subjects from being with their partners. That's hardly going to persuade anyone to vote to stay in.

What?

I thought we were discussing the change of EU Citizens being now possibly denied the Right to have their non EU spouse join them in the UK. Nothing to do with British subjects, except that some are, with some justification, annoyed that is has been easy for the EU Citizen, compared to the hoops they have to jump through to bring a non EU spouse to the UK, no?

357mag wrote:British subjects

British subject is a very specific form of British nationality and one that is dying out as it can not be inherited.

What you mean to say is British citizen.

secret.simon wrote:Wanderer, you aren't the first and won't be the last to confuse the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and the EU. They have nothing to do with each other, apart from the fact that all EU member states are obliged to be party to the ECHR.

The Council of Europe (not to be confused with either the European Council or the Council of the European Union, both of which are EU bodies) is a separate organisation, which is also based in Strasbourg, but which has 47 members states, including such outstanding exemplars of human rights as Russia (with apologies to your significant other) and Turkey. Indeed, the UK was a founding member of the Council of Europe.

The speech by Lord Mance that I referenced earlier contrasts the level of control the UK has over the ECHR vs that of the EU. Most importantly, the Council of Europe does not have legislative powers, merely the power to suggest.

The ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) does give judgments that to some may seem perverse, but I think it is good that they provoke discussion (my role on these forums). Crucially, it itself has held that it has no power to annul national legislation and that contracting parties undertake to follow its judgements.

The Convention is a part of UK law by the Human Rights Act and there is talk about replacing it with a British Bill of Rights (I hope they name it something else; we already had a Bill of Rights in 1688).

But just to reiterate, the EU and the ECHR are completely different organisations and should not be confused.

SS, you amaze me!

You keep giving me things to research, not in a bad way, in way that helps me expand my knowledge rather than the anti-UK rants, we get so often here from some - kudos mate. You've got me researching Nationhood from another post of yours....

You truly deserve your blue font status!!

Well these proposals were supposed to be Camerons negotiations pre referendum to persuade the voters that we should stay in the EU.
Do they do that? I would say no, all they have done is reduce free movement right, one of the prime functions of the treaty, one which Merkel said was not up for negotiation. Weve all lost that right whether we wanted to exercise it or not. It wont do anything to appease the voters in June.

crunchycracker wrote:

liksah wrote: If you are illegal in the UK, you cannot marry a Polish citizen and continue living in the UK under EU free movement laws. You need to apply under UK law (this will probably result in a denial of residence).
If you are legally currently in Spain, you cannot marry a French citizen (who is already established in Spain) and continue to stay in Spain under EU free movement rights. You need to go through the national re-unification procedure.
What do you think about this interpretation?

I agree with both of your interpretations. For the first case, free-movement rights will never be entitled to the non-EU spouse due to the lack of lawful residence. For the second case, yes - free-movement rights will not be entitled to the non-EU spouse if they both remain in Spain.

In the first case, I presume the Polish citizen is already established in the UK. The non-EU national fails both tests - and would be unlikely to be allowed to marry in the UK. To get EU residence, he would need a visa in his own right for another EU country, which might well be refused under UK advice. While they could marry outside the UK, test 1 would be failed. Test 2 would be failed with respect to the UK as the host state, so 'OR is AND' still keeps the non-EU national out.

As for the second case, I'm not sure we will really begrudge Mrs The3rdman's presence once she depends on the EEA route. (Incidentally, it seems that The3rdman has been an Italian all along.)

Obie wrote:The 1968 act is nothing comparable to UK'S international obligation under the treaty.

There was no need for an impact assessment . It had no effect on British Citizens.

In 1968, the nearest thing to a British Citizen was two groups - a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) with a passport issued by the British Government or whose passport would be issued by the British Government, as opposed to a colonial government, and those who later became patrials. The CUKCs had already been separated by the 1962 act - those who could freely move to the UK (the first group), and those who couldn't.

The 1968 act further divided the first group.

357mag wrote:These proposals are all BS. What has got the publics back up is the hoardes coming in and claiming asylum. The proposal does little to address the public anger all it does is stop maybe 200 British subjects from being with their partners. That's hardly going to persuade anyone to vote to stay in.

More like it is the hordes coming from Europe. It is worth having a look at the latest immigration statistics on the gov.uk website. About 50,000 residence certificates and cards have been issued every year from 2006-2014. It dipped down to about 30,000 in 2013 before climbing back to 40,000 in 2014. Given that EU citizens do not need a registration certificate to prove right to work, but that their non-EEA family members do, it is not too difficult to assume that most of that number are for non-EEA family members of either EEA citizens or British citizens. So, at a stroke, the actual influx of people from the rEU can be seen to be upto twice the number of residence cards issued.

So, you are looking at about 50,000 immigrants a year at least (it could be twice as high if you assume that each one has a different EEA family member) from just the EU alone each year that the government can not do anything about. It is not hordes of asylum-seekers. It is hordes of people fleeing the Continental utopia.

Wanderer, thank you for the compliment. I assume that everybody knows what I know, that it is common knowledge. After all, all the information I cite is out in the public domain.

On the topic of the concept of a nation and a nation being a different body from the state, I had the conversation about whether we identity as English, British or European at work. It was an interesting conversation because we have a Scotsperson at work raised in England and likewise a Welshperson raised in England and their views surprised me.

I am of the opinion that the concept of nation and of a common culture help us give us as individuals our identity and that a community, be that a race, a city, a trade union, a state has a right to protect its culture without generating conflict with other communities as far as possible. After all, even the concept of Europe having common values of human rights is a culture in itself. What I hope we never descend to is being a nation or a continent of a bland, insipid, uniform blancmange culture. A continent like North Korea.

SS I think the hoardes coming from EU countries is a smokescreen. There are 3.5 million from the EU here and 3.25 Brit ex pats in the EU a pretty even balance I think. OK some from the EU are pretty lowly characters but should we really judge them? I'm of a similar stance to Obie when it come to whether there should be borders.

357mag wrote:3.25 Brit ex pats in the EU

May I request the source of these figures.

357mag wrote:I'm of a similar stance to Obie when it come to whether there should be borders.

The absence of borders is a utopia. The last two times it happened were under Napoleon and Hitler and neither of them lasted long. Before that, the Holy Roman Empire (best remembered for Voltaire's observation that it was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire) aspired to something similar, but that was before the concept of a nation-state existed. Indeed, the demise of the Holy Roman Empire gave rise to the modern concept of the nation-state.