New EU deal: Free-movement rights gone?

[Casa]

And the quote prior lawful residence, to my knowledge, and what i have read regarding this on a legal law firms website. it's regarding illegals in the UK ( or eu perhaps ) marrying an eu national in order to obtain residence in the country, i know this for a fact that i know loads of people illegal in the uk, that once marrying an eu citizen, they obtained right to remain.

Has there been any official news stating if this is true or not? Will we definitely not know until June, or is there a chance for it to be clarified sooner? It would be referring to non-eea spouses in both the UK and EU.

No there hasn't. I believe that this was Santanaronaldo1's personal interpretation.

[vinny]

Ramifications of (b)?

“spouse” does not include—

(a) a party to a marriage of convenience; or

(b) the spouse (“S”) of a person (“P”) where a spouse, civil partner or durable partner of S or P is already present in the United Kingdom;

“civil partner” does not include—

(a) a party to a civil partnership of convenience; or

(b) the civil partner (“C”) of a person (“P”) where a spouse, civil partner or durable partner of C or P is already present in the United Kingdom;

“durable partner” does not include the durable partner (“D”) of a person (“P”) where a spouse, civil partner or durable partner of D or P is already present in the United Kingdom and where that marriage, civil partnership or durable partnership is subsisting;

[Richard W]

Tosh. However, it's a good example of how badly the regulations can be drafted.

[tebee]

That's not a recent change - it came in on 22nd June 2012 http://www.eearegulations.co.uk/Archive/V20120622

[Dirk]

The idea of "prior lawful residence" will make things more difficult but not impossible. About half of EU states apply the same rules to spouses of EU citizens as they do their own citizens. Even those who have stricter rules are nowhere near as bad as the ones in the UK.

When we applied for my wife's Residence Card in Spain we got chatting with a couple where the husband was American and wife Spanish. The process was more difficult than for us but it is one we could have done ourselves so not much worse. Ireland however may decide to massively up their requirements as they already seem to feel aggrieved that Britons are using it as a springboard to get back home by creating huge waiting times for C visas and Residence Cards. Currently Ireland, Spain and Malta seem to be the choice destinations for SS route applicants, this change may simply just change the countries people use.

[Sincejune]

The idea of "prior lawful residence" will make things more difficult but not impossible. About half of EU states apply the same rules to spouses of EU citizens as they do their own citizens. Even those who have stricter rules are nowhere near as bad as the ones in the UK.

When we applied for my wife's Residence Card in Spain we got chatting with a couple where the husband was American and wife Spanish. The process was more difficult than for us but it is one we could have done ourselves so not much worse. Ireland however may decide to massively up their requirements as they already seem to feel aggrieved that Britons are using it as a springboard to get back home by creating huge waiting times for C visas and Residence Cards. Currently Ireland, Spain and Malta seem to be the choice destinations for SS route applicants, this change may simply just change the countries people use.

Hi dirk

How long is the wait in Spain for spouse EEA residence card after find a job or registering as a self employed?

Thanks.

[Dirk]

How long is a piece if string. Depends on the local office. The EU needs to get their green NIE card first which is relatively easy though if you're self employed you will need evidence of this from the department of social security. Once you have the green NIE card from the National Police toddle into your local "foreigners office" you may need an appointment online dependkng where you live. Just need marriage certificate tranated into Spanish, your green NIE and bizarrely a photocopy of every page of the non EU passport. It took about 6 weeks to get a decision, then booked an appointment to provide biometrics then they say "come back in 30 days" after you've done that.

[thommot]

To put a bright note on this...
I non eea family members need to comply with UK law, that doesn´t mean they are not allowed to live in the UK, it just means that the process to get a visa/permit will be different. Of course could be harder or have limitations (for example income minimum limit). Some people miss this.
Being positive, you can take advantage of the premium service to get the visa on the same day instead of wait 6 months....

Personally, worse than the income limits are the frankly sadistic fees that British citizens face when not being able to take the Surinder-Singh route, and that might be extended to EU citizens as well: http://britcits.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/ ... 01229.html
And these are still the old fees from more than a year ago; they were only recently significantly increased.

The only hope seems to be that not being permanent resident, the Tier visa fees apply instead, which are a little bit more humane... unless the EU citizen themself also has to get a Tier visa to bring a non-EU spouse into the country. Then the fees would again rise to inhumane levels.

[secret.simon]

The current government in the UK has broadly adopted a "user pays" policy when it comes to government funding, be it in transport (higher fares, lower subsidies), housing (more private, less social housing) and benefits (lower, just lower).

It is therefore not surprising that such a policy is extended to immigration, with users of the immigration system footing the bill for the immigration system.

Given that half the migrants to the UK do not pay anything (they can live in the UK on their original passport anyway) and even when they do, only pay a pittance of £65, it is unsurprising that the burden of financing the immigration system falls completely on the half of the immigration system that is obliged to pay, the non-EEA migrants.

Were there to be a Brexit, I would not expect the fees to fall, but I would expect that migrants from the rEEA would be expected to start contributing more fully towards the costs of the immigration system. That should stop the upwards spiral of the immigration fees, though given the inelastic nature of demand for immigration services, I do not expect to see a fall in fees.

For reference, here is a link to the latest immigration fees table on the Gov.uk website. The Fees for ILR have jumped from £1093 in 2014 to £1875 in 2016, an increase of 72% in two years.

[thommot]

The current government in the UK has broadly adopted a "user pays" policy when it comes to government funding, be it in transport (higher fares, lower subsidies), housing (more private, less social housing) and benefits (lower, just lower).

How would an EU migrant burden the immigration system at all? The vast majority of them do not come into any contact with the system, besides the (ridiculous) passport control, which should be funded through airport taxes. In the link I posted the average cost of every immigration decision is reported to be £182. EU permits and short-term tourists visas have lower cost, so it's reasonable that more permanent visas could cost more. According to the article the government says that the cost of a spouse visa is £278, which is about 1/3rd of the current fee! The actual cost is roughly in line with the fees of other countries that I know of. To the already inflated fee a massive healthcare surcharge is applied, despite at least one of the couple having to work and pay taxes to even get the visa! Most likely both will work and pay taxes. The high fees are therefore purely punitive.

http://britcits.blogspot.com/2015/04/br ... 01229.html

Direct link to government average cost PDF: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... l_Data.pdf

[secret.simon]

Normally, when setting the fees and charges for users of a large national service, the cost of maintaining the presence of the infrastructure is spread across all users of that infrastructure, even if they do not use a significant part of that service.

Part of my transport fares almost certainly funds transport in remote parts of Scotland. The immigration fees paid by me likely also funds a part of the immigration appeals process, which I have never had to use. The profits that the Royal Mail gets in London (where it is cheaper to deliver letters) are used to cross-subsidise services in the Outer Hebrides, where it is more expensive.

So, your argument about the cost of individual visa applications and of EEA citizens not having to pay for a service is not entirely correct. I can appreciate that EEA citizens do not utilise a service, but their non-EEA family members do and they should be treated as being on par with the same application for the family member of a British citizen.

Another picture of the situation comes from the Home Office Annual Report and Accounts 2014-15 (the most recent I could find). Page 114 suggests that in financial year 2014-15, UKV&I makes a nett income (monopoly profit perhaps ) of about £182 million and the HMPO of £104 million, both of which were however, completely subsumed by an expenditure of £436 million on Immigration Enforcement.

Now, to you, it may seem that the cost of immigration enforcement should not be applied to you as you have not broken any laws (presumably), but to an external analyst, the cost of the system should be borne by all users, not just ones benefiting (or not) from it.

PS: There are some really interesting stats in that report. Page 120 states that there are 6,315 people in UKV&I and 4811 staff in Immigration Enforcement. So, almost 80% as much staff in Immigration Enforcement as in the whole of UKV&I. And the HMPO get by on 3352 staff, just half of the UKV&I.

[thommot]

So, your argument about the cost of individual visa applications and of EEA citizens not having to pay for a service is not entirely correct. I can appreciate that EEA citizens do not utilise a service, but their non-EEA family members do and they should be treated as being on par with the same application for the family member of a British citizen.

I agree that it should be the same rules, but the humane EU rules, not the sadistic UK rules.

Now, to you, it may seem that the cost of immigration enforcement should not be applied to you as you have not broken any laws (presumably), but to an external analyst, the cost of the system should be borne by all users, not just ones benefiting (or not) from it.

How about the massive healthcare surcharges, which make a significant part of the visa fees? I'm already paying for healthcare in my taxes. My wife would probably also have to pay taxes in the UK. Even if she didn't work and pay taxes, if they impose healthcare surcharges on my wife, by your logic of sharing the costs, shouldn't the non-working (non tax-paying) member of an entirely British couple also pay a yearly fee for healthcare?

I'm definitely not going to pay those fees, if they start applying them to my wife. We had a huge fight to get the EEA Family Permit, and will not be able to apply for the EU-style residency card until the autumn as it's difficult to arrange for half a hear without travel. This may already be too late. If it is, I will leave. As someone who recently started in a permanent academic position, and is being trained for such a permanent role in a publicly funded institution, I think the UK will lose more money that way than it would gain by ripping us off through those fees.

[secret.simon]

I agree that it should be the same rules, but the humane EU rules, not the sadistic UK rules.

Fifty Shades of Grey was written by a British author. Perhaps sadism does come easily to a country that has predominantly grey weather.

But in any case, I am sure you would agree that it is for a democratically elected government, and not for a person having an interest in the outcome, to make the rules.

How about the massive healthcare surcharges, which make a significant part of the visa fees?

Firstly these fees have come in in the recent past. The way I see it, it is the equivalent of making up the NI contributions for the years before you emigrated, though I would be happier (as I am sure many people would be) if they counted formally as NI payments for specified number of years.

shouldn't the non-working (non tax-paying) spouses of British citizens also pay a yearly fee for healthcare?

Non-EEA spouses of British citizens are subject to IHS during their immigration journey.

As someone who recently started in a permanent academic position, and is being trained for such a permanent role in a publicly funded institution,

I am disappointed that for somebody in the academic field, your arguments are not more balanced and better supported by facts (if they are backed by facts, they have not been cited and hence can't be challenged).

I am not an academic (but aspire to be one someday when I won't do any damage to anybody by thinking an original thought), but I think the core duty of an academic is to provoke thought by going against the current and by citing facts and arguing the side that is not popular. The academic has a duty to be society's devil advocate.

[thommot]

I also do wonder how other countries have much lower fees, yet not any higher tax rate? Perhaps because the rich don't pay any taxes in the UK? (The NI is a big hoax, as you stop paying the NI exactly when there's some progression in the tax rate.)

[thommot]

But in any case, I am sure you would agree that it is for a democratically elected government, and not for a person having an interest in the outcome, to make the rules.

There also things called human rights, which I'm sure the UK rules for spousal visas violate if they ever get challenged in an independent court. Of course the UK also wants to leave the jurisdiction of the european court of human rights.

Non-EEA spouses of British citizens are subject to IHS during their immigration journey.

I clarified the post to say "an entirely British couple".

I am disappointed that for somebody in the academic field, your arguments are not more balanced and better supported by facts (if they are backed by facts, they have not been cited and hence can't be challenged).

A £1200/year fee is an increase of 4 percentage points to my tax rate. ~10% for someone at the lower income limit to even get the visa. Since percentages can be hard, to clarify, those two numbers are something you add to the usual tax rate, or a fraction of what you pay of your income above the standard personal allowance. There's some facts for you. That is not humane and fair by any standards, and only a government that only represents the super-rich would come up with such fees.

[secret.simon]

But in any case, I am sure you would agree that it is for a democratically elected government, and not for a person having an interest in the outcome, to make the rules.

There also things called human rights, which I'm sure the UK rules for spousal visas violate if they ever get challenged in an independent court. Of course the UK also wants to leave the jurisdiction of the european court of human rights.

In the case of nation-states, rights are granted by the consensus of the people of the country not to violate them. They are not granted by a piece of paper or an international court.

Non-EEA spouses of British citizens are subject to IHS during their immigration journey.

I clarified the post to say "an entirely British couple".

I was likely already drafting my response to your post and hence missed the updates.

There is a case to be made for getting rid of NI Credits that are marked for people who do not work. As conceived, the NI system was contributory and perhaps it would be better and stronger if it went back to its roots.

an increase of 5 percentage points to my tax rate.

Is that your definition of "humane"?

I suppose mine is much lower. I appreciate the fact that I am not shot dead in the streets by a police that is supposed to protect me. That given that I am an obvious rank outsider, people are pleasant to me. That is "humane" enough for me.

I also do wonder how other countries have much lower fees, yet not any higher tax rate? Perhaps because the rich don't pay any taxes in the UK? (The NI is a big hoax, as you stop paying the NI exactly when there's some progression in the tax rate.)

I did not understand this post. Can you elucidate further?

[thommot]

an increase of 5 percentage points to my tax rate.

Is that your definition of "humane"?

The fees such a significant fraction of my income, and especially someone's at the lower income limit, that they are purely punitive. As we have seen, they are significantly higher than the costs, and shifting tax burden onto the poor from the rich.

I also do wonder how other countries have much lower fees, yet not any higher tax rate? Perhaps because the rich don't pay any taxes in the UK? (The NI is a big hoax, as you stop paying the NI exactly when there's some progression in the tax rate.)

I did not understand this post. Can you elucidate further?

In my home country, the fee for one-year initial residency for my wife would be €159. It's the same for EU citizens and natives. The tax rates (from low income to upper middle income at least) are roughly the same as the UK—and pay for one of the world's best educations, including university. Unfortunately there are no academic jobs there, thanks partly to historical structural problems of having no junior academics, a lot of seniors going to go on pension in the next 5-10 years, and partly to the current redneck–dearly beloved–Thatcherite government (so pretty much the same government as the UK, except three different parties providing the different aspects). In my wife's country, I would have to pay $400 for a permanent residency. And they're actually cashing in on those fees due to the current economic situation; the fees used to be half of that. The tax rates are low. It's where we're eventually going to live anyway, but if the UK imposes punitive fees on us, we'll just stick the middle finger up and move there sooner.

[secret.simon]

The fees such a significant fraction of my income, and especially someone's at the lower income limit, that they are purely punitive. As we have seen, they are significantly higher than the costs, and shifting taxes onto the poor from the rich.

Firstly, we have not seen that they are significantly over the cost, as I have demonstrated an alternative approach to calculating costs.

Secondly, it can be argued that paying the cost of a service does not constitute a tax. The cost of a rail ticket does not constitute a tax, but a price to pay and the price is the same irrespective of your income. Likewise for the cost of the immigration service.

It's where we're eventually going to live anyway

What are you waiting for? We would not want to hold you back from your low-tax paradise.

we'll just stick the middle finger up and move there sooner.

That is very rude. How dare you misappropriate a British gesture when leaving the UK?

[thommot]

The fees such a significant fraction of my income, and especially someone's at the lower income limit, that they are purely punitive. As we have seen, they are significantly higher than the costs, and shifting taxes onto the poor from the rich.

Firstly, we have not seen that they are significantly over the cost, as I have demonstrated an alternative approach to calculating costs.

If the BritCits article is correct, the fees are 3x the cost (accounting for the recent increase in the fees). And this factor does not include the healthcare surcharge, which is yet another tax on top. Shifting any other government functions to be funded by those fees is exactly what I said: shifting the tax burden from the rich onto the poor.

Secondly, it can be argued that paying the cost of a service does not constitute a tax. The cost of a rail ticket does not constitute a tax, but a price to pay and the price is the same irrespective of your income. Likewise for the cost of the immigration service.

The actual cost of the service is much lower than the fee charged. Anything that is above the actual cost of processing the application is a tax when charged by the government. And this one, as well as the healthcare surcharge are sadistic *regressive* taxes, as the rich pay comparably less.

[secret.simon]

I think we can agree to disagree on this one

I certainly expect an academic to argue a more detailed analysis of the alternate points put forward in a discussion than to repeat the same point again-and-again, which is what politicians do.

Be that as it may, on a point of interest, are you an INTP/INTJ?

[thommot]

I certainly expect an academic to argue a more detailed analysis of the alternate points put forward in a discussion than to repeat the same point again-and-again, which is what politicians do.

I'm not a political scientist, but I can recognise injustice and rip-off from miles away. I'm just a STEM academic that could be very valuable to this country if it didn't try to rip me off, as it is planning to. If it proceeds on those plans, I will take my services elsewhere.

... as students are already taking their money elsewhere, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36203613 and others are not accepting job offers in fear of brexit https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ne ... rexit-vote (probably unaware of the Tory hell that awaits even without brexit).

Obviously, my job applications will have to mention why I'm leaving the job so soon, and will therefore act as a warning about the UK to the whole community. International marriages are quite common in academia.

Be that as it may, on a point of interest, are you an INTP/INTJ?

INTP

[secret.simon]

I can recognise injustice and rip-off from miles away.

Injustice and rip-offs are loaded words and like good and evil, entirely moralistic and based on opinion. One person's good is another person's bad and who is to say which one of them is right? Why does one person's opinion matter more than another's?

I'd rather go by logic and independently verifiable facts and if they are not available, challenge and question people's opinions (as they are so bad at doing it themselves). That incidentally is why I would want to be an academic.

I would have thought that as a STEM academic (and a fellow INTP), you would be even more fact-based, not opinion-based.

Be that as it may, on a point of interest, are you an INTP/INTJ?
INTP

It takes one to know one Your incessant editing of posts gave you away.

Here is a thread on another (non-immigration) forum that you may find interesting (though if you are INTP, you have probably already been there).

[thommot]

I can recognise injustice and rip-off from miles away.

Injustice and rip-offs are loaded words and like good and evil, entirely moralistic and based on opinion. One person's good is another person's bad and who is to say which one of them is right? Why does one person's opinion matter more than another's?

Sorry but the broad strokes of politics and laws are mostly about moralistic (and sadistic) preferences. You can use facts to decide whether a particular policy will have or has had the desired broad stroke outcome.

The UK broad strokes appear to be: f*ck the poor and the immigrants, unless they're super-rich.

[secret.simon]

Well, the world of Bleak House and Dickensian poverty gave us the empire over which the sun did not set, while the welfare state has only given us a sense of entitlement and dependency.

There is good and bad in every situation.

You can use facts to decide whether a particular policy will have or has had the desired broad stroke outcome.

It is an interesting way of formulating the situation.

[thommot]

Well, the world of Bleak House and Dickensian poverty gave us the empire over which the sun did not set, while the welfare state has only given us a sense of entitlement and dependency.

The sun did actually set. Only the Tories have not realised it yet, and are acting like bitches to the EU.