- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, Administrator
I do not deny that he is popular or sensible. But neither are adjectives to be used of current policy espoused by the present Labour party leadership.Petaltop wrote:He is a very popular MP with longterm Labour votors (longterm = families voted Labour for many generations) as he is part of the real Labour, instead of the New Labour that Blair created.secret.simon wrote:
With respect, Petaltop, Frank Field is one of the most moderate (Blue Labour) Labour MPs and certainly not in tune with the current Labour leadership. Given that he is citing (and being quoted in) the Daily Wail, I would not take his statements as reflective of Labour party policy.
I think we both know that the current Labour leader wasn't what Labour wanted. Putting someones name up for a joke and then ending up with a leader the party never wanted because their "anyone can vote for £3" became an open target for Greens, Journalists and Conservative supporters.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/cat ... .bfXk6Qy4K
Something else they will need to sort before the next election if they want a chance of winning.
In my understanding marrying in your non-EEA partner's country wouldn't make any difference. For instance, we got married in my non-EEA wife's country when I had been resident in the UK for several years as an EEA citizen. Would that save us from the proposed new rules? I don't think so.ryuzaki wrote:It seems like the ban on non-EEA spouses who married inside the EEA wouldn't stand up to a challenge. It seems like it would unfairly disadvantage people who made the mistake of getting married in the EEA. People who could afford to would simply take a trip to some non-EEA country, probably their partner's home country, to sign that form.
Actually, you are misguided in the belief that; 'At the moment you can be completely up front about moving to another EEA country for the minimum amount of time possible purely to make use of your treaty rights.:ryuzaki wrote:It seems like the ban on non-EEA spouses who married inside the EEA wouldn't stand up to a challenge. It seems like it would unfairly disadvantage people who made the mistake of getting married in the EEA. People who could afford to would simply take a trip to some non-EEA country, probably their partner's home country, to sign that form.
What really concerns me is the language that talks about the reason for moving to an EEA country. At the moment you can be completely up front about moving to another EEA country for the minimum amount of time possible purely to make use of your treaty rights. I suppose the main thing is that the onus is still on the UK to prove their case, unlike UK immigration rules that require the application to prove their's.
So it very much sounds like they want a change here, implying that at the moment bypassing national immigration rules is acceptable.‘In accordance with Union law, Member States are able to take action to prevent abuse of rights or fraud, such as the presentation of forged documents, and address cases of contracting or maintaining of marriages of convenience with third country nationals for the purpose of making use of free movement as a route for regularising unlawful stay in a Member State or for bypassing national immigration rules applying to third country nationals.’
Emphasis mine. That "and" is very important, as it implies you would have to fail both the centre of life test and be shown to be done to evade national immigration rules.‘Member States can address specific cases of abuse of free movement rights by Union citizens returning to their Member State of nationality with a non-EU family member where residence in the host Member State has not been sufficiently genuine to create or strengthen family life and had the purpose of evading the application of national immigration rules’
Which would seem to imply and end to the SS route for most people. Urgent clarification is needed, but I can see many people (including myself) forced to leave the UK because of this.‘to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host Member State. Accordingly, in such cases, the host Member State's immigration law will apply to the third country national.’
https://t.co/LxU58xLwRHThis Decision shall take effect on the same date as the Government of the United Kingdom informs the Secretary-General of the Council that the United Kingdom has decided to remain a member of the European Union.
That may not be bad.ryuzaki wrote:Maybe the best result then would be for the UK to vote out, and the EU to ditch the proposals. Then I move to Scotland which becomes independent and re-joins the EU.
It's unfortunate when British citizens are forced out of their own country because of extreme xenophobia and lovely.
Not constitutional; political yes, but not a constitutional outrage.Obie wrote:It will be a constitutional outrage for the England to take them out.
I too would welcome a "Leave" victory, but for different reasons. The EU only makes realistic concessions when faced with a No vote in referendums. The Danish got substantial concessions after rejecting the Maastricht Treaty in a referendum in 1992 and the Irish got some concessions rejecting the Treaty of Nice (not a nice treaty) in 2000. In both cases, the No vote was in the region of 53-55%.ryuzaki wrote:Maybe the best result then would be for the UK to vote out, and the EU to ditch the proposals. Then I move to Scotland which becomes independent and re-joins the EU.
You might be surprised at my current reading.Obie wrote:Perhaps you should do some background reading on devolution, Northern Ireland assembly and Scottish parliament, and first minister. The different power and functions.
Perhaps we could have further debates after your reading.
Try saying that in the bars of Ponty or Blaenau Ffestiniog.Wanderer wrote:But then again, Wales is only a Province ...
I know - I did two six month contracts for DVLA in Swansea (Abertawe).....noajthan wrote:Try saying that in the bars of Ponty or Blaenau Ffestiniog.Wanderer wrote:But then again, Wales is only a Province ...