Who says they would have remained legal? Could not the UK argue that the Metock decision was wrong, and that they would only honour it only as far as achieved permanent residence was concerned. (Revoking permanent residence could cause additional havoc with the operation of British nationality laws - the current law already makes it difficult to establish whether a child born in the UK is British.) So, three years of legal residence before plus two years after the law change = 2 years of overstay, plus possibly a charge of illegal working.nyabs wrote:Your answer is very misleading. Those people who have already got their family permits will by law have acquired parmanent residence after five years provided they meet all the current requirements. To suggest that they will suddenly be required to meet the new regulations after they have already lawfully resided here for the required five years simply does not add up. That is why we have transitional laws.
I am wondering why the government isn't clamping down on unlawfully present EU nationals. I can only think that it's because its not illegal to overstay after one's exemption from the requirement of leave expires. Enforcement in Northern Ireland would be particular awkward, because EU nationals can stay legal by taking a stroll across the border every two months, and there's no reliable record of the border crossing. I'm not sure where the burden of proof would be.