When will the Renegotiation rules come into effect?

If the UK stays in EU then how much time will it take for the new rules for immigration to be implemented approximately? This is important because most of the people on this forum would likely be undergoing immigration procedures and would like to know when the door is closing?

We can only guess, but here are my thoughts.

Also see this post.

Will these rules definitely come in effect if the UK stays? Is the legality of the deal still being questioned or will all non-Eu marriages officially be classified as a sham after they vote to stay?

What is the current status of durable partnerships of convenience? Are they likewise ignored under the directive?

Absolutely spot on!

@Casa: Sorry. I thought my question was relevant to the topic.

shnooks1 wrote:@Casa: Sorry. I thought my question was relevant to the topic.

On a pessimistic reading, It is. Part of Cameron's deal, already agreed, is that there will be a 'clarification' that:

The concept of marriage of convenience - which is not protected under Union law – also covers a marriage which is maintained for the purpose of enjoying a right of residence by a family member who is not a national of a Member State.

.
This clarification will apparently only be made if the UK chooses to remain in the EEU; there is no official threat to apply this deal if the UK leaves the EU but remains in the EEA. The apparent changes are that it applies to the motives during rather than merely at the commencement of the marriage, and that the limitation to 'sole purpose' will be removed, and not even replaced by 'primarily'.

Many couples have married so that they can live together - consideration of immigration advantage may be relevant to the decision to marry as opposed to merely cohabiting to the extent otherwise possible. The immigration advantage can apply to both partners' home countries.

The one saving argument, and I distrust it as being hair-splitting, is that it is hard to see a difference between maintaining a marriage and maintaining the durable partnership of the couple. So, for example, while immigration advantage was a significant consideration in marrying my wife as opposed to merely having a long-distance relationship, I would still maintain our marriage even if there were no immigration advantage.

I think this clarification is intended to reverse the Diatta ruling - though I wouldn't trust the Home Office to interpret it that way. Even with that understanding, how the clarification will apply to marriages that have subsisted for three years needs to be clarified. Presumably the constitutional mechanism is for the executive to persuade the judiciary to reverse itself.

The main tool against non-EU spouses will be the reversal of Metock, which very definitely requires legislation.

Casa wrote:

heyitsme wrote:If the UK stays in EU then how much time will it take for the new rules for immigration to be implemented approximately? This is important because most of the people on this forum would likely be undergoing immigration procedures and would like to know when the door is closing?

Where has the OP asked about the validity of marriage? This thread is about timing of any renegotiation.

Implicitly, in the first sentence of the OP.

What renegotiation do you expect if the UK votes to remain in the EU?

On the other hand, Cameron renegotiated the EU arrangements culminating in an agreement in an agreement for two clarifications, one relating to Surinder Singh and the other to the validity of marriages, to be made very shortly after a vote to remain, and for a serious attempt to somehow make a change to Directive 2004/38/EC. The broad aim of the change will be to reverse the Metock ruling. This change could be rejected by the European Parliament; only governments and the Commission have made any commitment to the change. The question raised in the OP is when these three changes will take effect.

You may also remember that Obie has opined that this agreement is fraudulent. If he is right, then the answer is 'never'. In part, the timing of the implementation will depend on how the wording of the clarifications is twisted ('interpreted'). Reversing Metock will be more complicated, as the one sentence statement is far too obscure to be anything but a guide to the changes to make. Or maybe the explicit change will preserve the obscurity, and what the change actually is may be heavily dependent on the views of the ECJ.

Locking due to off topic posts adding no value to thread,

A thought from respected guru secret.simon...

Time to deliver on special status deal if UK votes to stay in EU

Unlocking.

Gentle reminder, the topic is When will the Renegotiation rules come into effect?

noajthan wrote:Unlocking.

Gentle reminder, the topic is When will the Renegotiation rules come into effect?

But what does that mean? Does 'renegotiation rules' mean 'rules about renegotiation', or does it mean 'rules resulting from renegotiation''? (The only relevant renegotiation I am aware of is the one concluded in February, which can be called "Cameron’s renegotiation'.)

noajthan wrote:A thought from respected guru secret.simon...

Time to deliver on special status deal if UK votes to stay in EU

Am I missing something there? There's noting on the immigration changes proper, rather just a suggestion that laws adjusting benefit rights won't be drafted until September. It implies that the immigration changes will be later, though the near silence could be interpreted as meaning that they are expected to be abandoned!

Richard W wrote:But what does that mean? Does 'renegotiation rules' mean 'rules about renegotiation', or does it mean 'rules resulting from renegotiation''? (The only relevant renegotiation I am aware of is the one concluded in February, which can be called "Cameron’s renegotiation'.)

I think the OP was specifically referring to the UK-EU deal of February 2016, "Cameron's renegotiation" in your terminology.

I requested for the link to be added as it had at least some information about timescales for any EU legislation to get through, as I believe that is what the OP was looking for.