- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe, Administrator
Obie wrote: I always knew the British People, or people in England in particular are sensible, they care more about their economic situation, than their disdain for migrant.
1. The EU countries are well aware for sure, that their greatest challange if the UK leaves will be will be to save the Euro from freefall when one of their biggest contributors leaves. Apart from anything else, the UK attracts the biggest foreign investment in the block.Obie wrote:In my view I will welcome both outcome. Can't wait to see the invocation of Article 50. It will be quite remarkable as it has never been invoked before. The EU will definitely make an example of the UK, so no other country will dear to follow suit.
So what does this cancer expert think: let's send all the young, healthy, hardworking Poles home and let's get back all British pensioners from France and Spain? Imagine how the NHS would cope?The NHS has been left 'on its knees' by uncontrolled migration from the EU, a leading cancer expert will warn tomorrow.
Discussed at length on other fourms. The CTA is only an agreement. The UK leaving the EU and RoI remaining, will most likely see the end of that agreement and borders can go back up to protect the UK.fysicus wrote:I wonder what the Brexit advocates have in mind for the CTA (Common Travel Area with Ireland), and in particular the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Remember Iain Duncan Smith’s claim that Britain is more vulnerable to terrorist attack within the European Union...
Struggle away.Obie wrote:Well unfortunately petaltop, 60% of your compatriots, that is if you are a British of course holds contrary view.
Notwithstanding the fact that 2/3rds hold Eurosceptics views, most of them said they will vote to stay in.
I need not struggle with extrapolating what that means.
Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
Mahatma Gandhi
There are very different signals flying around. In the Conclusions of the European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016), on p21 of Section D: Social Benefits and Free Movement it says, with my emphasis:fysicus wrote:and to those who still think free movement rights are gone:
In the Brussels agreement last week (18 february) there is no amendment of the Lisbon treaty, and no amendment of directive 2004/38.
That's rather frightening, as the whole intention of the directive is to bypass national immigration rules, at least when moving between EU countries.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.
However, there is a relatively reassuring written parliamentary answer date 8 February:The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement of Union citizens in order to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host Member State.
Lord Green of Deddington wrote:To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether an EEA national residing in the UK who wished to bring a non-EU spouse into the country would, under the draft Decision by the European Council published on 2 February, have to meet the requirements for salary, and the spouse the conditions for language, as are required of a British citizen and set out under part 8 of the UK Immigration Rules.
Note the use of the word first. While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA. It remains to be seen which countries will raise their immigration requirements. It's also possible that Lord Bates has no real idea of what is planned.Lord Bates wrote:This is still a matter for negotiation. The European Commission has proposed bringing forward a legislative proposal to reverse the Metock judgment and prevent non-EU nationals from acquiring free movement rights simply by marrying an EU national. Instead, they will be subject to the domestic immigration controls of the first Member State they enter. In the UK, this means that they will need to meet language and income requirements.
The CTA predates the EU by a long way, I think it would continue. Even at the height of the IRA terrorist campaign the CTA largely held up.Petaltop wrote:Discussed at length on other fourms. The CTA is only an agreement. The UK leaving the EU and RoI remaining, will most likely see the end of that agreement and borders can go back up to protect the UK.fysicus wrote:I wonder what the Brexit advocates have in mind for the CTA (Common Travel Area with Ireland), and in particular the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Remember Iain Duncan Smith’s claim that Britain is more vulnerable to terrorist attack within the European Union...
Am not sure am following you. What do you mean moves to a SECOND eea country? Hiw about staying in the UK?Richard W wrote:There are very different signals flying around. In the Conclusions of the European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016), on p21 of Section D: Social Benefits and Free Movement it says, with my emphasis:fysicus wrote:and to those who still think free movement rights are gone:
In the Brussels agreement last week (18 february) there is no amendment of the Lisbon treaty, and no amendment of directive 2004/38.That's rather frightening, as the whole intention of the directive is to bypass national immigration rules, at least when moving between EU countries.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 specific threat within the Conclusions is on p35 in Annex VII Declaration of the European Commission on issues related to the abuse of the right of free movement of persons:However, there is a relatively reassuring written parliamentary answer date 8 February:The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement of Union citizens in order to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host Member State.Lord Green of Deddington wrote:To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether an EEA national residing in the UK who wished to bring a non-EU spouse into the country would, under the draft Decision by the European Council published on 2 February, have to meet the requirements for salary, and the spouse the conditions for language, as are required of a British citizen and set out under part 8 of the UK Immigration Rules.Note the use of the word first. While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA. It remains to be seen which countries will raise their immigration requirements. It's also possible that Lord Bates has no real idea of what is planned.Lord Bates wrote:This is still a matter for negotiation. The European Commission has proposed bringing forward a legislative proposal to reverse the Metock judgment and prevent non-EU nationals from acquiring free movement rights simply by marrying an EU national. Instead, they will be subject to the domestic immigration controls of the first Member State they enter. In the UK, this means that they will need to meet language and income requirements.
On the basis of Lord Bates' answer, Ryuzaki, Nemerkh and I will be fine for moves to a second EEA country.
I thought Latvia was your first EEA country. Weren't you lawfully resident there when you moved to the UK?nemerkh wrote:Am not sure am following you. What do you mean moves to a SECOND eea country? Hiw about staying in the UK?Richard W wrote: On the basis of Lord Bates' answer, Ryuzaki, Nemerkh and I will be fine for moves to a second EEA country.
What's your history Obie, genuinely interested, you do seem to have a massive anti-UK chip on your shoulder, wondering why...Obie wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... mf-lagarde
Wonder whether UK will be such an attractive country for immigrant to come or live in , after the referendum is over and UK leaves the EU.
I think you UK will get migration figures down, just in a way they could not have conceived.
Ok, chillax matey!!Obie wrote:History? What history is it. Do you want to sensor my ability to detail the economic consequences of UK leaving.
I am perfectly entitled to my opinion and view, so long as I do not offend others.
People like you who talk down the EU like it is some form of disease that was imposed on the UK, needs to understand that the EU is not some form of disease, but an institutions that benefits the UK and it's citizens immensely.
If showing these facts and figures make me anti UK, then fine, I am entitled to my views and owe no obligation to you or anyone on this forum to justify my views.
Richard W wrote:I thought Latvia was your first EEA country. Weren't you lawfully resident there when you moved to the UK?nemerkh wrote:Am not sure am following you. What do you mean moves to a SECOND eea country? Hiw about staying in the UK?Richard W wrote: On the basis of Lord Bates' answer, Ryuzaki, Nemerkh and I will be fine for moves to a second EEA country.
I second that as well althought the UK wasnt my first state.the3rdman wrote:RichardW,
Just out of curiosity, what did you mean with your statement: 'While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA.' Who are 'those using real jobs?'
Also, what are your thoughts about how this new proposal, should it come into law, would affect those EU citizens with their Non-EU families already in the UK, and also the UK as their first member state? I find it a bit hard to believe that they would restrict the rights of those Non-EU family members retroactively. Wouldn't that cause a bureaucratic nightmare?
Perhaps it is fairer to say that it is more difficult all round. The problem is that those who move to another country to find a job from a real employer will now have to find a job that is good enough for the local immigration rules. In some cases, there may be problems qualifying to sponsor an immigrant. For example, foreigners have to be settled in the UK before they can sponsor an immigrant spouse. (I think also before they sponsor an immigrant child!)the3rdman wrote:Just out of curiosity, what did you mean with your statement: 'While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA.' Who are 'those using real jobs?'
A very effective policy would be to check that people renewing residence cards had met the new requirements. Without a card or evidence of an application under review, the holders would have no job and, in some cases, no accommodation. Devilishly effective!the3rdman wrote:Also, what are your thoughts about how this new proposal, should it come into law, would affect those EU citizens with their Non-EU families already in the UK, and also the UK as their first member state? I find it a bit hard to believe that they would restrict the rights of those Non-EU family members retroactively. Wouldn't that cause a bureaucratic nightmare?
Richard W wrote:Perhaps it is fairer to say that it is more difficult all round. The problem is that those who move to another country to find a job from a real employer will now have to find a job that is good enough for the local immigration rules. In some cases, there may be problems qualifying to sponsor an immigrant. For example, foreigners have to be settled in the UK before they can sponsor an immigrant spouse. (I think also before they sponsor an immigrant child!)the3rdman wrote:Just out of curiosity, what did you mean with your statement: 'While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA.' Who are 'those using real jobs?'
Now, it is possible to set up false employment or self-employment with enough money. Perhaps this can still be done in member states with very liberal immigration policies.
A very effective policy would be to check that people renewing residence cards had met the new requirements. Without a card or evidence of an application under review, the holders would have no job and, in some cases, no accommodation. Devilishly effective!the3rdman wrote:Also, what are your thoughts about how this new proposal, should it come into law, would affect those EU citizens with their Non-EU families already in the UK, and also the UK as their first member state? I find it a bit hard to believe that they would restrict the rights of those Non-EU family members retroactively. Wouldn't that cause a bureaucratic nightmare?
If the couple cannot be self-sufficient as a couple, they may have big problems with national immigration laws.nemerkh wrote:How about self sufficient eu national and a working noneu spouse