Will it be easier for non-EU parents if the UK leaves EU?

May I ask this question?

If the UK leaves EU, will it be easier for non-EU parents to join their children to live in the UK?

At the moment, as you all know, it is virtually impossible for non-EU parents to live permanently in the UK with their children.

Will Brexit change this situation?

Thank you

Why would you think so?

Leaving the EU will close off the only route for non-EEA parents to join their British citizen children in the UK; the Surinder Singh route.

So, I believe the answer to your question is No.

secret.simon wrote:Why would you think so?

The assumption is that EU immigration will drop off, and therefore constraints on non-EU immigration will be relaxed, allowing more foreign competition for skilled employees.

Whether the government will then be moved by the thought of highly skilled people emigrating to look after their parents is another matter.

Richard W wrote:

secret.simon wrote:Why would you think so?

The assumption is that EU immigration will drop off, and therefore constraints on non-EU immigration will be relaxed, allowing more foreign competition for skilled employees.

Whether the government will then be moved by the thought of highly skilled people emigrating to look after their parents is another matter.

Your post suggests that highly skilled migrants would settle in the UK as a means to look after their parents.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36123492
link from beeb wont be available for long.
According to home secretary if Britain leaves the EU then will still have to allow free movement in order to have access to the free market but will have no say on the rules.

357mag wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36123492
link from beeb wont be available for long.
According to home secretary if Britain leaves the EU then will still have to allow free movement in order to have access to the free market but will have no say on the rules.

Presumably services are the big issue. The EU and Turkey have a customs union with free movement of goods, but not services and people.

The UKIP plan is to copy Liechtenstein. We would have quotas on who could settle, but not on who could work in the UK. EU nationals and families would be free to commute for work.

From what I can see we have two possible situations.
UK vote to stay in, that would mean Camerons deal would be binding and place more restrictions on free movement but still possible to use the EEA route. For the OP it would mean things stay the same or get worse.
Or UK vote to leave, UK will have to accept free movement to remain in the free market. Camerons deal will be scrapped. UK will have no say in the rules of free movement so for the OP things could get easier. But its going to take a minimum of two years for UK to leave because the EU rules demand it must take that long.
I could well be wrong but it looks to me to be better to leave.
A bad point for me is Bulgaria probably wont accept my EHIC card as evidence of health insurance so I would have to pay for private cover.

Richard W wrote:

357mag wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-36123492
link from beeb wont be available for long.
According to home secretary if Britain leaves the EU then will still have to allow free movement in order to have access to the free market but will have no say on the rules.

Presumably services are the big issue. The EU and Turkey have a customs union with free movement of goods, but not services and people.

The UKIP plan is to copy Liechtenstein. We would have quotas on who could settle, but not on who could work in the UK. EU nationals and families would be free to commute for work.

UKIP don't have any plan. This is why they are successful. Actually none of the Brexiters have come up with any plan.

357mag wrote:UK vote to stay in, that would mean Camerons deal would be binding and place more restrictions on free movement but still possible to use the EEA route. For the OP it would mean things stay the same or get worse.

Actually, were the UK to stay in, the restrictions would come in, followed immediately by a lawsuit to the ECJ to test whether it is in conformity with the Treaties. There is a very high probability that it would be thrown out by the ECJ. So, it would be back to the current status quo in about a year's time.

357mag wrote: UK vote to leave, UK will have to accept free movement to remain in the free market.

Again, it is not as cut-and-dried as that.

The EU has internal issues of its own on immigration, with the AfD in Germany doing rather well and the Freedom Party's (their version of UKIP) candidate for President coming first in the polls in Austria. There is a very good chance that Marine Le Pen will come among the top two, if not the first, in the presidential polls in France next year. Eastern Europe may be happy to send its citizens to the West, but isn't so keen on migrants from the Middle East.

The UK's exit on the point of immigration may put the whole of the EU into sufficient turmoil that it is unable to insist on free movement of people.

There are alternatives, such as NAFTA, a revitalised EFTA (possibly with Denmark, Sweden and Austria leaving the EU and joining EFTA) which would considerably weaken the EU's hand or just going it alone.

Whether the UK is in or out of the EU, it is going to have a long hard look at the freedom of movement principle.

Richard W wrote:Presumably services are the big issue. The EU and Turkey have a customs union with free movement of goods, but not services and people.

I think you have nailed it. Services form the bulk of our economy and our exports. A treaty like the EU-Turkey Association Agreement won't help much because we need free movement of services, but if that is tried to the free movement of people, that may not be palatable.

To be honest, there is practically no doubt that the UK is going to vote to stay in, the main question is by how much. Never mind the opinion polls, the odds of the UK leaving the UK has fallen from 15/8 to 5/2. The euro and other currencies have returned to a more sensible value against the pound, to the delight of travelers.

One of the criticisms made is that if we withdraw from the EU, and the nationals of Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. then need visas to come here, their countries will retaliate by requiring UK tourists to have visas to go to the Costa del Sol, etc.

The travel expert on the BBC News quashed that idea. These other countries depend too much on the money UK tourists spend in their countries to give them a hard time coming there. So they are unlikely to want UK tourists to fill out visas, or to fill out anything but very simple forms. He also said that before the UK was in the EU, holidaymakers from the UK did not have to get visas to enter places like Spain anyhow.

Once immigration controls are re-established, and the government can finally control the flow of immigration, it may be (but who can say for sure?) that they will be a bit more relaxed about people from outside the EU coming to live here. As things stand, they have every reason to harden immigration barriers to those from outside the EU in order to meet those politically driven immigration targets, which Labour shows no signs of scrapping if they were in power either.

John Green wrote:The travel expert on the BBC News quashed that idea. These other countries depend too much on the money UK tourists spend in their countries to give them a hard time coming there.

Quashed? It is a bad argument. Russians say exactly the same about Russian tourists. Doesn't seem to work.