Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
I'm now sure of it. The Danish prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, is quoted in a Danish article The Utopia of pre-Metock? as saying of the agreement (Google translation):Richard W wrote:I still think that reversing Metock is the best explanation of the declared proposed change, but the effects will be more far-reaching, especially with regard to fees...
So, what does prior legal residence mean? The best example I have found of its use is in Regulation 2 of Irish S.I. 656 of 2006: European Communities (Free Movement of Persons) (No. 2) Regulations 2006:We get Metock ruling rolled back. Now we roll the legal situation back to what it was before the Metock judgment was rendered.
That's a nice example of demanding 'prior lawful residence', and corresponds roughly to the first part of the declared proposal. It's more restrictive than the corresponding British regulations from 2006, which had a loophole if one could reach a British port or border post.These Regulations shall not apply to a family member unless the family member is lawfully resident in another Member State and is
(a) seeking to enter the State in the company of a Union citizen in respect of whom he or she is a family member, or
(b) seeking to join a Union citizen, in respect of whom he or she is a family member, who is lawfully present in the State
Hyperbole has always been your strong point.Obie wrote:I think i find it quite odd and at the higher spectrum of absurdity,outrageous even, for a contributor to dictate how moderators should undertake their functions in moderating the forum.
You had made that abundantly way before this post. And you are welcome to hold your opinion. My objection is to the language used to describe views that do not entirely accord with your own. It behoves all moderators to set an example by using temperate and dispassionate language, no matter how strongly one disagrees with the subject-matter.Obie wrote:I have formed my legal view on the EU deal, and nothing anyone will say will change it either way.
I do not doubt that the moderators have the right to lock the thread. I question whether it is right to do so in the circumstances of this thread. There is not much concrete paperwork to refer to and the contributors are trying to make the most of press statements and such like. To lock such threads only suggests that this forum does not welcome dialogue and discussion on a topic that is at the present point in time by its very nature entirely speculative.Obie wrote:it will be perfectly within our right to lock it.
I would agree with you if you were to be concerned about inaccurate facts (things that can be empirically and independently ascertained, such as the text of a law or a court judgement or the contents of a container). It is quite easy and straightforward to ascertain whether such fact is accurate or not and take action on that.Obie wrote:I think that lots of the contents are inaccurate,
I have great respect for the moderators when they stick to facts or express their opinion as contributors without letting their opinions interfere with the running of the forums. As you have said many times, we are all learning here. I for one am here purely to learn and to give back. Part of learning comes from discussing possibilities that are unpopular but possible. I do not think that they should be shut down just because they may induce anxiety.Obie wrote:Therefore I will appreciate if some contributors show respect to moderators and the contribution they make to the running of the forum rather than insultingly dictating to them how to undertake their duties.
Most of the discussion has been about the changes in EU law that will occur after the referendum. What happens if the UK leaves the EEA probably belongs in the thread PR after Brexit. The title of the thread could have been 'New EU deal: Will Free-movement rights be gone?', but that is unnecessarily long. I suppose some non-native speakers may be confused by the use of a present tense to refer to the future.Obie wrote:Under International treaties, the UK will have to apply EU law to all those who resided in the UK, before it abandon the treaty, so the whole idea of this thread is a complete Baloney.
UK citizens in other countries will be protected, and UK citizens in other countries will be protected.
The question is the position with people who wish to move afterwards.
They can't start acting on the clarifications until those clarifications are given some force of law - they may wish to do so, but I'm sure any attempt to use them would be struck down by the courts.Richard W wrote:.................
As you've said, it should be business as usual until the referendum. Then, if the vote is to remain in the EU, I believe ECOs and IOs will act upon the clarifications - unless they start acting on them beforehand. I wouldn't be surprised if the clarifications were issued regardless of the vote. The biggest effects seem likely to come from the proposed legal changes, though some suspect they will simply be thrown out by the ECJ, if not by the European Parliament.
Yes, it is a risk to move sooner and of course that only applies to those that are in a position to relocate inside of a couple of months or so.shnooks1 wrote:I'm in the same boat as you. I'm a non-EU with EU husband, both of us living outside the EU and planning to move to Ireland this summer with no intention of moving to the UK either.
Short answer: Nobody knows.
My husband and I were thinking of leaving earlier, but we decided not to risk it since we don't have a flat yet and may not be able to apply for a RC in time. Also no one even knows what will happen to those who have pending applications- if they will be allowed to stay or they will not be granted. I've been stressing over all the "what ifs", but all we can do is wait till June and see what happens.
Thanks Richard. I did have a look through the Spanish Ministry for Work and Social Security website for Foreigners - but no, I'm not aware of the rules you mentioned. I know they made some significant changes in 2012 or thereabouts. Do you have a reference or link I can study?Richard W wrote:bongwozzer wrote:So I'm UK citizen (but living outside the EU). I have a non-EU spouse and step-daughter. We were planning a move next year to Spain under free-movement.../quote]
Have you studied the Spanish 'domestic' rules on immigration? From what little I can find, which may be 2 years out of date, it seems to me that they would not cause you any trouble if you were treated the same as a Spaniard or as a resident foreigner. In particular, it seems that stepchildren under 18 are allowed in, unlike the British rules, which require sole responsibility.
I think, therefore, that the worst that could happen is that you would be moved from the EEA route to the Spanish route to settlement.
Have you set up plans for a supply of fresh (< 90 days old when used) marriage certificates and for legalising them? People going to Spain have had a lot of problems with non-EU marriage certificates. There may be some helpful information via foreign marriage recognition. The British embassy in Bangkok has been forced to print letters for people to give to the Spanish consulate there explaining that the British Government does not validate foreign marriages.
Actually, in constitutional law, Parliament can legislate at any time, even while the Treaties are in effect.Obie wrote:Some people have alluded that parliament could legislate even when article 50 is in operation..
But this thread is primarily about what will happen if there is a vote to remain in the EU.ohara wrote:I think vague is certainly an apt word to describe the entire situation of what the state of the UK will be in after an exit vote.
I'm not so sure. This could be compared to the check that someone is of good character when he applies for registration as British as of right except for the need to be of good character. I think the Handbook on addressing the issue of alleged marriages of convenience between EU citizens and non-EU nationals in the context of EU law on free movement of EU citizens is the sort of document where this 'clarification' might be incorporated. This handbook is issued by the European Commission, not the parliament and not the courts.tebee wrote:They can't start acting on the clarifications until those clarifications are given some force of law - they may wish to do so, but I'm sure any attempt to use them would be struck down by the courts.
I'm extremely pissed that it might be very difficult for me to relocate with my husband just because we happened to meet and marry outside of the EU. They mostly want to stop everyone from getting around the financial requirement for UK, but that would make no sense and be unfair for those like us who have no intention of going to the UK or leaving the first country they reside in.bongwozzer wrote:Yes, it is a risk to move sooner and of course that only applies to those that are in a position to relocate inside of a couple of months or so.
I know this is easy to say - but we shouldn't stress about those things we have no control over. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't be mighty pissed about the whole issue
I did find what looked like a report for the European Commission, but now I can't find it. There are guides for settled foreigners, such as this. One of the things that is up in the air with the proposed directive is what rules EU foreigners would have to follow for bringing in their families.bongwozzer wrote:I did have a look through the Spanish Ministry for Work and Social Security website for Foreigners - but no, I'm not aware of the rules you mentioned. I know they made some significant changes in 2012 or thereabouts. Do you have a reference or link I can study?