Nina Roche wrote:If free movement for EEA citizen still stands, Not allowing them to bring their spouse and children sounds a little inhumane... isn't it?
If it is inhumane, they have the freedom
not to come to the UK
Nobody is compelling them to.
Also, nobody is suggesting an absolute bar on spouses and children accompanying their family members. All I think will happen is that the jurisdiction for spousal and family visas will be returned to national governments, as opposed to being granted by EU law. That is to say that EEA citizens in the UK will be treated at par with British citizens when it comes to having their non-EEA family members join them.
Also, look at the Surinder Singh route. It is a legal way to frustrate laws passed by the democratically elected government of the UK. People in the EU have been fussed about the democratic legitimacy of the will of the Greek people being overridden by the EU. But we have this lack of democratic mandate right here in our own country.
Nina Roche wrote:problem from immigrants, if any, is not about its number, but more about income
There are multiple ways of looking at this statement. At one level, you are quite correct that it is a political totem pole that has been erected by the UK government and that you can argue it is an artificial political problem, not an economic one.
On the other hand, UKIP's popularity has been in the areas where white working class families have been squeezed out by lower wages (and to an extent lower living standards) caused by an influx of EU migrants from Eastern Europe. The UK government can not control the EU migrants themselves and so, while not targeting them directly, can and does try to counteract any positive draw to the UK by making it difficult for their non-EEA family.
As regards the economic sense of it all, high value/high income migrants are welcome in most countries (except probably London, where we have been priced out our own housing
). But are their spouses and children equally likely to be high income in their own right?
Also, I think the issue at hand is the absolute right that EU law gives non-EEA family members, without taking into account, for instance, if they meet any national legal requirement or standards. I think it is the
absolute nature of that right that is the main concern.
If you look at EU law regarding "extended family members", it is much more measured. National governments must "facilitate" their movement, but that is not an absolute right to trammel over national law, only a relatively qualified right. I see that as the direction of travel as regards EU law.
Nina Roche wrote:It is very interesting to watch how history unfolds itself.
Indeed, we are watching history in the making. From the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall to the rising of the Wire Curtain (the barbed wire fence between Hungary and Serbia), the rise and the fall of the EU, we are in the midst of history being made.
Mind you, all of this has happened in the past. Whether it was the First Reich (the Holy Roman Empire), the Kalmar Union (of Denmark , Sweden and Norway) or the Latin Monetary Union (that suffered the same fate as seems to have befallen the Euro), it has all happened before. It is a great shame and a pity that people do not learn the history of their own countries.
Finally, I thank you for your courtesy in your response to my earlier post. Many people on these forums do not wish to hear an alternate viewpoint or be challenged on their beliefs and get over-defensive or ignore anything stated to the contrary of their opinions.
I know that my brain is not built to process political things. Only one thing I tend to believe when it comes to politics is power balance and re-balance