Non-EEA spouses excluded from EEA-route under EU-UK deal?

[Obie]

Wales is not a province . Northern Ireland may well be.

Of all the nations that makes up UK only Northern Ireland has never been a nation of its own.

Wales was a cletic nation until it was annexed by England in the 16th Century by the English and incorporated into England, but it once was an independent nation.

[Wanderer]

Wales is not a province . Northern Ireland may well be.

Of all the nations that makes up UK only Northern Ireland has never been a nation of its own.

Wales was a cletic nation until it was annexed by England in the 16th Century by the English and incorporated into England, but it once was an independent nation.

Yes, been reading, NI is a Province, Wales is a Principality, not sure of the difference.

Also Southern Ireland was part of the UK until 1922, and if I remember my history lessons NI became part of the Republic and was also part of Ireland for three days in 1922, before they partitioned off. Boxing Day rings a bell.

Funny too we have English (and Welsh) law, and Scottish Law, and English (and Welsh) Companies, and Scottish ones separate. Also NHS similar.

Interesting stuff....

[secret.simon]

The Soviet Union was an acknowledged federation (The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) and was in many ways similar to the EU.

The EU indeed is traveling in the same direction of travel as the United States, which started off as a very loose confederation of states (witness the Articles of Confederation), each of which had its own citizenship (the descendants of the Marquis de Lafayette successfully claimed US citizenship on the basis that he was granted Maryland citizenship before the formation of the US) and has developed into a much closer union.

Whether that is the direction that we in the UK want to be traveling in is the question we will answer in the EU referendum. Hopefully people will decide one way or the other for better reasons that the value of the euro one gets for one's vacation.

The United Kingdom is a different situation altogether, again with both Scotland and Northern Ireland being special cases.

Scotland merged with England in 1707 after being financially devastated by the Darien Scheme, inspite of their modern reputation for financial rectitude. It retained its judicial & legal system, its distinct church hierarchy ( a huge deal in those days) and its own education system (mainly because schools in those days were managed by the Church and the church hierarchy was separate). The '15 and '45 Jacobite rebellions led to stringent laws against Scottish nationalism (everything from tartans to the Gaelic language was proscribed). The arrival in 1822 of George IV in Scotland and his dressing up in tartan kilts relaxed the rules gradually. After that period, the Scots were as involved in the British Empire as the rest of the British. Even as late as the 1979 devolution referendum, only 32.9% of the Scottish electorate supported devolution. It is only Tony Blair who stoked the fires of Scottish nationalism by creating a Scottish Parliament.

Northern Ireland is British by choice. It's Assembly recently voted to return powers to Westminster. From a political science point of view, its system of government (a form of consociationalism) is very interesting and to the best of my knowledge, unique in the Commonwealth, though examples exist elsewhere.

Wales has been integrated into the English legal system since atleast the Statute of Rhuddlan. Culturally as well, the volume of English people moving to Wales over the period of centuries has also affected the identity of Wales to a much greater extent that say either Ireland or Scotland.

As an aside, from a titular point of view, Scotland and Ireland have been kingdoms while Wales has always been a Principality. Cornwall of course has a historic claim to being the first (and hence seniormost) Duchy, with Lancaster being a close second.

In my opinion and observation, the white indigenous people in the UK are far more likely to identify themselves as English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish, while people with ethnic origins outside these isles are more likely to identify themselves as British. That is true even of people that I know whose familes have lived in a particular part of the UK for generations. There are exceptions, notably in Scotland (Humza Yousaf readily springs to mind), but that is a broad general observation.

Why that is the case is for people here to tell me.

Perhaps a solution, a halfway house, is the concept of belonger status, which is something that holders of British Overseas Territories citizenship would be familiar with. It allows for an overarching citizenship while also retaining some sense of belonging to a specific region.

That is of course at odds with the European ideal of free movement and not being attached to a specific place, but there you go.

@Wanderer, I was only surprised that you had not intervened earlier. Don't get me started next time.

[secret.simon]

Wales is not a province . Northern Ireland may well be.

The United Kingdom does not have the concept of provinces.

Calling them nations may have implications in international law.

The Danish via media was to refer to the Greenlanders as "people", as opposed to either "nation" or "country".

Also Southern Ireland was part of the UK until 1922, and if I remember my history lessons NI became part of the Republic and was also part of Ireland for three days in 1922, before they partitioned off. Boxing Day rings a bell.

It was for one day in 1922, 7th December, a part of the Irish Free State. The Irish Free State from 1922 to 1936 was a Dominion and not a Republic. Its status between 1936 and 1949 is unclear/debatable. Only in 1949 did it unequivocally become a Republic.

Northern Ireland was, as Ulster, a "province" of Ireland. That was a colloquial expression and had no legal basis.

[Wanderer]

@SS, you know ur stuff, fascinating info!!

My Partner, Russian, considerers herself now she has naturalised as British, as English, despite her first living with me in Scotland, which is odd.....

[secret.simon]

I can be lethally boring in real life

[Wanderer]

I can be lethally boring in real life

Bet ur rubbish at quiz night in the pub cos you don't know which football tam scored the first ever Football League goal....

(Kenny Davenport, for Bolton Wanderers at the Pikes Lane Ground 07/09/1888) - one day after Jack the Ripper murdered his second victim.....

[secret.simon]

That is so true. Football bores me to tears, as do most sports.I enjoy most forms of music, but don't ask me to learn it. And I haven't got a TV at home. So, I suck at references to TV programs. So, it is true, I am the worst person to add to your team on pub quiz night. My team invariably comes last.

Returning to the earlier topic of citizenship, a common British citizenship was in fact created by a judicial decision rather than any Act of Parliament. Calvin's Case in 1608 was the basis of the legal concept of British Subject, which lasted broadly until 1948. It broadly stated that anybody owing allegiance to the same sovereign, although in right of different countries, was not an alien in any of his other dominions.

[357mag]

"The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement of Union citizens in order 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."

Something that bothers me about that which does not seem to have been touched on in this thread is that it is all referencing married couples. Got to be married before going to the host state.

It makes no mention of durable relations, I'm thinking the wording creates a bar against couples who choose not to marry or for some reason can't marry.

The concept of DR is recognised even in National law applications for a visa which allows unmarried couples. Unmarried couples are currently only "extended family members" when it comes to applying for a visa to a host state. Looking at the proposal the only way a DR partner could get into the host state is going to be to use their national law, they would no longer be extended family members.

Bulgaria does not recognise unmarried couples as a legal entity (I think its an anti gay thing), to get my partner in she currently needs to apply for a type D visa as a "family member", Bulgaria then accepts her as if we are brother and sister so family. If she comes in on say a visitor visa she cannot subsequently apply for a residence permit. Looking at the proposal we are going to be excluded from the scope of freedom of movement.

[ryuzaki]

Being only a draft I would assume that the intent is to write a final text that includes DR.

The bit about third country nationals with no prior lawful residence in a Member State is the most worrying part. It closes off a large part of the EEA route.

It appears that you would have to find an EEA country that you can get your non-EEA partner a spouse visa for (so for example a country where there are no language requirements or income requirements), rather than just a much easier short term visa. Well, I suppose it depends how you define residence... In Ireland, for example, you can get a >90 day visa to visit family. Does that count as "residence"?

[Casa]

@Obie Personally, I'd move it to the General Discussion board...and let it continue. Interesting stuff....I blame King Alfred and the burning of the cakes.

Edit: having posted that, I see we're back to the EU-UK deal issue.

[secret.simon]

I would suggest moving all posts starting from my post at 7:12PM yesterday through till (but not including) 357mag's post earlier today into a new thread in the General Discussion section, while retaining the rest. I had suggested earlier merging this thread with the one already existing on the EU Referendum and that suggestion may be worth a revisit.

[Obie]

@Obie Personally, I'd move it to the General Discussion board...and let it continue. Interesting stuff....I blame King Alfred and the burning of the cakes.

Edit: having posted that, I see we're back to the EU-UK deal issue.

Yes we are still on that and the impact on spouse or durable partner or Surinder singh .

I think some aspect of this thread needs to stay here.

The issue on Scotland Wales and Northernlreland could stay in another thread.

[Casa]

@Obie Personally, I'd move it to the General Discussion board...and let it continue. Interesting stuff....I blame King Alfred and the burning of the cakes.

Edit: having posted that, I see we're back to the EU-UK deal issue.

Yes we are still on that and the impact on spouse or durable partner or Surinder singh .

I think some aspect of this thread needs to stay here.

The issue on Scotland Wales and Northernlreland could stay in another thread.

CR001 has 'volunteered' to sort this out later during her well-earned lunch break.

[Petaltop]

Simon, you're a fountain of knowledge. A well read man with a good sense of humour. I always read your posts.

[357mag]

I don't think holiday visa or even some student visas in the host nation would work. Primary residence has a tighter set of rules.

I already have long term residence card in Bulgaria with the plan for my DR partner to join me later, she's not ready yet, but this proposal is a big kick in the teeth. We cant actually get married. She's Filipino and divorce is illegal there so she's been separated for over six years and been with me for the last four. maybe that she was resident in the UK for five years till a year ago would qualify the previous living in an EEA state but I think that's a bit thin.

I can't even go live in the Philippines because we would both face a mandatory seven years jail if we were under the same roof.

[secret.simon]

The proposals are pretty meaningless. Don't fret.

[Casa]

Interestingly, the Home Office originally introduced the Unmarried Partner visa for couples in your situation where in countries such as the Philippines divorce is illegal. The concession was later extended to all couples who could prove a relationship 'akin to marriage' for a minimum of 2 years.

[357mag]

Yes well we cant be living together for a minimum of two years. I'm stuck here she's stuck there.

[noajthan]

Yes well we cant be living together for a minimum of two years. I'm stuck here she's stuck there.

Mabuhay! As an aside, have you looked into annulment as an option?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/f ... 509519.stm
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... nt/396449/

[Obie]

The proposals are pretty meaningless. Don't fret.

This is an offense to Mr Tusk Who has worked tirelessly to come with a proposal which will transform the UK ' S relation with the EU for good and reduce net migration and ensure UK is not part of any integration.

It is wrong to call it meaningless.

[357mag]

Yes well we cant be living together for a minimum of two years. I'm stuck here she's stuck there.

Mabuhay! As an aside, have you looked into annulment as an option?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/f ... 509519.stm
http://www.theatlantic.com/internationa ... nt/396449/

Salamat, yes we have, she's talking to solicitors now but the lowest price we can find is £2700 and an estimated two years, and if she comes to Bulgaria by some miracle then she wont be in a position to go to court in PH. She was actually granted divorce while in UK but of course it's not recognised in PH. We were in Hong Kong last year and went through the whole procedure for a wedding except the final ceremony, couldn't risk that she would face jail when she went back to PH.
Another horrible aspect of annulment is the children become bastards and it can mess up their employment and schooling opportunities.

[357mag]

Sorry, now 've also deviated from the OP.

All I was going to say was the proposal does not cater for DR neither does it cater for Registered Partnership couples. All it says is must be married before going to host country.

[357mag]

As a subnote I wrote to the EU committee on petitions last year while my girl was still here.
https://petiport.secure.europarl.europa ... -of-people.

Their response was to quote Diatta v Land Berlin.
And conclusion
At a general level, the Commission considers that the practical problems the petitioner described in his petition are due to incorrect application of EU law on free movement of EU citizens by national authorities.The Commission, as a Guardian of the Treaties, has taken-and continues to take-enforcement measures against Member States that act in breach of their obligations under the Directive, for example by requiring evidence of living together for two years.

[avjones]

Wales was a cletic nation until it was annexed by England in the 16th Century by the English and incorporated into England, but it once was an independent nation.

I don't think that's right at all. Wales was mostly more than once principality, and was united only under a couple of Princes before King Edward I swept in and essentially helped himself to the lot in the 1270s. Thereafter, although Wales wasn't legally merged until the 1530s, it was in no sense a separate state or place. There were periodic rebellions, but none lasted very long.

So the only time Wales was an independent place was for a few decades in the 13th century, when it was a Principality. At the time there was no real concept of the "nation state" or "country" in our manner of using the terms.