Brexit and application fees that EU nationals will pay.

The reason I am asking is not to glee. I am very much pro-EU. Brexit camp are the same people who made our lives so difficult over the past 6 years.

Assuming Article 50 is triggered and UK ends up quitting EU officially. I presume that EU nationals already in UK will have their residency rights grandfathered i.e. they will qualify for ILR upon UK's exit. Lets assume that this happens for the purposes of this question.

My question is, what application fees will they have to pay? Will they have to pay on the same fee scale as all non-EU citizen who are applying for ILR? or will they have a much reduced fee scale, a new one reserved for EU nationals?

BREXIT camp claims that the EU nationals already in UK are safe and can stay in the event of Brexit. What they are not saying is what price those EU nationals will have to pay to stay here. A little but very important detail that is being overlooked.

Let's see who can predict the future on this forum.
My friend you are well aware that 2 years process of negotiations will determine everything in complete details.
Right now not even Mr Prime Minister can answer your questions.
Cheers

Stand by, while I polish my crystal ball. When UK immigration fees are revised annually (generally with an increase), how can anyone possibly predict if and how much EEA nationals will be asked to pay in the future?

Casa wrote:Stand by, while I polish my crystal ball. When UK immigration fees are revised annually (generally with an increase), how can anyone possibly predict if and how much EEA nationals will be asked to pay in the future?

I wonder if they will have much of an increase if EUs have to pay at the same rate? The idea was that those who use a service have to pay for it, instead of the taxpayers funding that service. At present, those using UK rules have to also pay for those using EU rules.

Petaltop wrote:

Casa wrote:Stand by, while I polish my crystal ball. When UK immigration fees are revised annually (generally with an increase), how can anyone possibly predict if and how much EEA nationals will be asked to pay in the future?

I wonder if they will have much of an increase if EUs have to pay at the same rate? The idea was that those who use a service have to pay for it, instead of the taxpayers funding that service. At present, those using UK rules have to also pay for those using EU rules.

Can't remember how much you paid for your PR again? You ignore the fact that the same rule applies across the Member States, British citizens and their spouses in other Member States do not pay a disproportionate fee for their residency applications, and in some cases zero contributions towards confirmation of right to reside applications.

lurli wrote:Can't remember how much you paid for your PR again? You ignore the fact that the same rule applies across the Member States, British citizens and their spouses in other Member States do not pay a disproportionate fee for their residency applications, and in some cases zero contributions towards confirmation of right to reside applications.

That rule might not survive a departure from the EEA. I'm beginning to think we will stay in the EEA.

Richard W wrote:

lurli wrote:Can't remember how much you paid for your PR again? You ignore the fact that the same rule applies across the Member States, British citizens and their spouses in other Member States do not pay a disproportionate fee for their residency applications, and in some cases zero contributions towards confirmation of right to reside applications.

That rule might not survive a departure from the EEA. I'm beginning to think we will stay in the EEA.

We shall find out soon enough, as you said, I do think there will be departure from the EEA, however, UK link to the EU would be by some other arrangements, something similar or identical to pre-Maastricht, I do not very much fancy speculating or predicting what may or may not be in situations like this.

Assuming there's no general election and we have a continuation of the current government, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they introduced some sort of fee for EU citizens seeking ILR. I think this would be consistent with their general agenda on immigration. It's obvious that in the non-EU categories they have increased fees to create a barrier to people renewing visas. For example after they closed Tier 1 General they had to allow existing visa holders to extend, but they put the fees up drastically to discourage people.

anniecc wrote:Assuming there's no general election and we have a continuation of the current government, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they introduced some sort of fee for EU citizens seeking ILR. I think this would be consistent with their general agenda on immigration. It's obvious that in the non-EU categories they have increased fees to create a barrier to people renewing visas. For example after they closed Tier 1 General they had to allow existing visa holders to extend, but they put the fees up drastically to discourage people.

And the legal basis to do this in EEA applications would be?

lurli wrote:

anniecc wrote:Assuming there's no general election and we have a continuation of the current government, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they introduced some sort of fee for EU citizens seeking ILR. I think this would be consistent with their general agenda on immigration. It's obvious that in the non-EU categories they have increased fees to create a barrier to people renewing visas. For example after they closed Tier 1 General they had to allow existing visa holders to extend, but they put the fees up drastically to discourage people.

And the legal basis to do this in EEA applications would be?

It's not yet clear whether the UK would be part of the EEA.

Yet it's not clear UK will out from EU or not.
So, have to wait.

If UK out from EU officially then there will no treaty agreement vaild with EU and EU can not give pressure on UK. SO, I think EU people have to pay Non EU fees.

Theresa May has made it very clear that until the UK knows what will happen to Brits in EU countries, she cannot say what will happen to EUs and their family members living in the UK using EU rules.

Petaltop wrote:Theresa May has made it very clear that until the UK knows what will happen to Brits in EU countries, she cannot say what will happen to EUs and their family members living in the UK using EU rules.

Brexit is no doubt going trigger mass migration to the UK over the next two years under EU rules, so they will also have to sort out who will be allowed to remain and on what terms

Petaltop wrote:

Petaltop wrote:Theresa May has made it very clear that until the UK knows what will happen to Brits in EU countries, she cannot say what will happen to EUs and their family members living in the UK using EU rules.

Brexit is no doubt going trigger mass migration to the UK over the next two years under EU rules, so they will also have to sort out who will be allowed to remain and on what terms

No doubt? I doubt it. Actually many of my EU migrant friends are thinking of packing their bags. We're already looking for work abroad, which will make some in Grimsby very happy indeed!

rooibos wrote:

Petaltop wrote:

Petaltop wrote:Theresa May has made it very clear that until the UK knows what will happen to Brits in EU countries, she cannot say what will happen to EUs and their family members living in the UK using EU rules.

Brexit is no doubt going trigger mass migration to the UK over the next two years under EU rules, so they will also have to sort out who will be allowed to remain and on what terms

No doubt? I doubt it. Actually many of my EU migrant friends are thinking of packing their bags. We're already looking for work abroad, which will make some in Grimsby very happy indeed!

Besides, the economy is going to tank in Q4 2016 and 2017. This will reduce the demand for labour, including that of EU. Migration flows will abate purely because of economics and uncertainty. This, combined with inevitable decline in house values, may cause a rethink about freedom of movement terms on grassroot levels. Note, the bedrock of Tory voters are home owners outside of major metropolitan areas.

MadNomad wrote: Besides, the economy is going to tank in Q4 2016 and 2017.

That's not what the IMF report is showing. It predicts that growth in the UK will be (slightly) better than in the EU and the US.

MadNomad wrote:This will reduce the demand for labour, including that of EU.

The "demand for labour" is different to uncontrolled, free movement mass migration, which puts a strain on services, jobs, schools, the welfare state, housing etc. Control the numbers and immigration ceases to be a problem for a country. This also means they can then only take hardworking immigrants who keep themselves without welfare and not keep those who move to take.

Petaltop wrote:

MadNomad wrote: Besides, the economy is going to tank in Q4 2016 and 2017.

That's not what the IMF report is showing. It predicts that growth in the UK will be (slightly) better than in the EU and the US.

MadNomad wrote:This will reduce the demand for labour, including that of EU.

The "demand for labour" is different to uncontrolled, free movement mass migration, which puts a strain on services, jobs, schools, the welfare state, housing etc. Control the numbers and immigration ceases to be a problem for a country. This also means they can then only take the workers and not those who plan to take.

Which planet are you living on?! The overwhelming consensus is that there is going to be a contraction. Confidence, both business and consumer is sharply down. When the madmen in No.10 trigger Article 50 expect sterling to hit parity with USD. Then enjoy the sticker shock on your next trip to Tesco

The solution to the so called strain from migrants is very simple: Build more Infrastructure, Build more Houses. Archaic backward planning regulations are UK's purely domestic problem designed to serve the interests of older home owners. They just want see their housing values continue growing at the expense of younger generation. Those are the very same people who voted for BREXIT.

MadNomad wrote: The solution to the so called strain from migrants is very simple: Build more Infrastructure, Build more Houses. Archaic backward planning regulations are UK's purely domestic problem designed to serve the interests of older home owners.

The solution is very simple - control the numbers of migrants.

Petaltop wrote:

MadNomad wrote: The solution to the so called strain from migrants is very simple: Build more Infrastructure, Build more Houses. Archaic backward planning regulations are UK's purely domestic problem designed to serve the interests of older home owners.

The solution is very simple - control the numbers of migrants.

No, the solution is to take away planning permissions from local councils who serve the interests of locals sabotaging any new construction. Then launch a nation-wide program of public infrastructure investment (railways, clinics, schools) and assign 5% of greenbelt for new housing construction. Pressure on service and housing solved for generations.

Petaltop wrote:[
The "demand for labour" is different to uncontrolled, free movement mass migration, which puts a strain on services, jobs, schools, the welfare state, housing etc. Control the numbers and immigration ceases to be a problem for a country. This also means they can then only take hardworking immigrants who keep themselves without welfare and not keep those who move to take.

But EEA migrants already have to be exercising treaty rights without recourse to public funds to be here legally. How does culling those stop this imaginary wet dream of "unbridled mass migration of Europeans only here to get benefits" that you UKIP types are so excitable about?!

Noetic wrote:But EEA migrants already have to be exercising treaty rights without recourse to public funds to be here legally. How does culling those stop this imaginary wet dream of "unbridled mass migration of Europeans only here to get benefits" that you UKIP types are so excitable about?!

No, they do have recourse, nominally on the same basis as locals. This causes disquiet when benefits are a significant part of the income of comparable local workers.

Similarly, application fees for residence documents are supposed to be charged at the same rates as locals pay. The Home Office switched from the interpretation that locals don't pay any such fees to the interpretation that the British equivalent is a passport. I suppose the point of comparison would be that a British passport is the preferred British document for providing an employer with a statutory excuse against the fine for employing an illegal worker. Quite conceivably, the view might switch to the notion that the fee for registration as a British citizen is the comparable charge.

Noetic wrote:

Petaltop wrote:[
The "demand for labour" is different to uncontrolled, free movement mass migration, which puts a strain on services, jobs, schools, the welfare state, housing etc. Control the numbers and immigration ceases to be a problem for a country. This also means they can then only take hardworking immigrants who keep themselves without welfare and not keep those who move to take.

But EEA migrants already have to be exercising treaty rights without recourse to public funds to be here legally. How does culling those stop this imaginary wet dream of "unbridled mass migration of Europeans only here to get benefits" that you UKIP types are so excitable about?!

To avoid confusion:
"EEA nationals who are not working but are looking for work, may be eligible for certain public
funds if they are ‘habitually resident’ in the UK, but not housing or homelessness assistance. In
Wales however, jobseekers who are habitually resident are entitled to housing and homelessness assistance."
and
"Local authority housing departments have a power under Section 188 Housing Act 1996 to
provide temporary accommodation to EEA nationals while they are making a decision on
eligibility for public funds or while an appeal is being made on a negative decision."

Casa wrote:

Noetic wrote:

Petaltop wrote:[
The "demand for labour" is different to uncontrolled, free movement mass migration, which puts a strain on services, jobs, schools, the welfare state, housing etc. Control the numbers and immigration ceases to be a problem for a country. This also means they can then only take hardworking immigrants who keep themselves without welfare and not keep those who move to take.

But EEA migrants already have to be exercising treaty rights without recourse to public funds to be here legally. How does culling those stop this imaginary wet dream of "unbridled mass migration of Europeans only here to get benefits" that you UKIP types are so excitable about?!

To avoid confusion:
"EEA nationals who are not working but are looking for work, may be eligible for certain public
funds if they are ‘habitually resident’ in the UK, but not housing or homelessness assistance. In
Wales however, jobseekers who are habitually resident are entitled to housing and homelessness assistance."
and
"Local authority housing departments have a power under Section 188 Housing Act 1996 to
provide temporary accommodation to EEA nationals while they are making a decision on
eligibility for public funds or while an appeal is being made on a negative decision."

EEA nationals are well aware they can claim UK benefits, and they do.


Just as those who enter the UK under UK immigration rules are aware they must keep their own families as they can't have any UK public funds for at least 5 years. For these people there is no Child Benefit, Tax Credits, Housing Benefit, Sickness benefits, Income Support etc.