New EU deal: Free-movement rights gone?

[Petaltop]

I wonder what the Brexit advocates have in mind for the CTA (Common Travel Area with Ireland), and in particular the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Remember Iain Duncan Smith’s claim that Britain is more vulnerable to terrorist attack within the European Union...

Discussed at length on other fourms. The CTA is only an agreement. The UK leaving the EU and RoI remaining, will most likely see the end of that agreement and borders can go back up to protect the UK.

[nemerkh]

Does somebody have an exact meaning for the new regulations assuming uk will stay in eu? Mostly am interested in my case:
We are on our 2nd eea2. Am non eu wife is eu, married in 2006 in Latvia i was a student then we then came to uk in 2007. My wife was self emp initially but due to kids didnt have enough incone hence they refused pr, we then got a CSI wife got a job along woth another csi now waiting till 2017-2018 for pr.
Does the new regulations assuming uk will stay affect me or my wife in any way?
We got two uk born children and a mortgage to say the least. No benefits whatsoever.any help appreciated.

[Petaltop]

Well unfortunately petaltop, 60% of your compatriots, that is if you are a British of course holds contrary view.

Notwithstanding the fact that 2/3rds hold Eurosceptics views, most of them said they will vote to stay in.

I need not struggle with extrapolating what that means.

Struggle away.

I am British now but was an EEA citizen. Like others on here, I dreamed of getting to the UK and achieved my dream. But I am grateful of being granted British citizenship, unlike these (minority I hope) of failed people who achieve their dream of being British and then moan about Britain, while living in the UK and not wanting to return home to their own countries. More working and less complaining.

[nemerkh]

Funny Petaltop

I know one or two noneu/eu family who got their PR and subsequently citizenship here by providing false docs (fictual work) and having criminal records; we genuinely couldnt make it due to child care and were punished by reapplying for eea2. Now this shit is happening. C'est la vie i guess

[chriskv1]

A recent poll on Brexit . Might be interesting to have a look .

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/fbcf81e4d ... b16_pv.pdf

43% Remain
39% Leave

[Richard W]

and to those who still think free movement rights are gone:

In the Brussels agreement last week (18 february) there is no amendment of the Lisbon treaty, and no amendment of directive 2004/38.

There are very different signals flying around. In the Conclusions of the European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016), on p21 of Section D: Social Benefits and Free Movement it says, with my emphasis:

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 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 address cases of making use of free movement as a route for bypassing national immigration rules applying to third country nationals.

That's rather frightening, as the whole intention of the directive is to bypass national immigration rules, at least when moving between EU countries.

The specific threat within the Conclusions is on p35 in Annex VII Declaration of the European Commission on issues related to the abuse of the right of free movement of persons:

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.

However, there is a relatively reassuring written parliamentary answer date 8 February:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether an EEA national residing in the UK who wished to bring a non-EU spouse into the country would, under the draft Decision by the European Council published on 2 February, have to meet the requirements for salary, and the spouse the conditions for language, as are required of a British citizen and set out under part 8 of the UK Immigration Rules.

This is still a matter for negotiation. The European Commission has proposed bringing forward a legislative proposal to reverse the Metock judgment and prevent non-EU nationals from acquiring free movement rights simply by marrying an EU national. Instead, they will be subject to the domestic immigration controls of the first Member State they enter. In the UK, this means that they will need to meet language and income requirements.

Note the use of the word first. While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA. It remains to be seen which countries will raise their immigration requirements. It's also possible that Lord Bates has no real idea of what is planned.

On the basis of Lord Bates' answer, Ryuzaki, Nemerkh and I will be fine for moves to a second EEA country.

[Wanderer]

I wonder what the Brexit advocates have in mind for the CTA (Common Travel Area with Ireland), and in particular the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Remember Iain Duncan Smith’s claim that Britain is more vulnerable to terrorist attack within the European Union...

Discussed at length on other fourms. The CTA is only an agreement. The UK leaving the EU and RoI remaining, will most likely see the end of that agreement and borders can go back up to protect the UK.

The CTA predates the EU by a long way, I think it would continue. Even at the height of the IRA terrorist campaign the CTA largely held up.

Ireland was part of the UK for around 200 years, let's no forget that.

[nemerkh]

and to those who still think free movement rights are gone:

In the Brussels agreement last week (18 february) there is no amendment of the Lisbon treaty, and no amendment of directive 2004/38.

There are very different signals flying around. In the Conclusions of the European Council meeting (18 and 19 February 2016), on p21 of Section D: Social Benefits and Free Movement it says, with my emphasis:

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 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 address cases of making use of free movement as a route for bypassing national immigration rules applying to third country nationals.

That's rather frightening, as the whole intention of the directive is to bypass national immigration rules, at least when moving between EU countries.

The specific threat within the Conclusions is on p35 in Annex VII Declaration of the European Commission on issues related to the abuse of the right of free movement of persons:

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.

However, there is a relatively reassuring written parliamentary answer date 8 February:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether an EEA national residing in the UK who wished to bring a non-EU spouse into the country would, under the draft Decision by the European Council published on 2 February, have to meet the requirements for salary, and the spouse the conditions for language, as are required of a British citizen and set out under part 8 of the UK Immigration Rules.

This is still a matter for negotiation. The European Commission has proposed bringing forward a legislative proposal to reverse the Metock judgment and prevent non-EU nationals from acquiring free movement rights simply by marrying an EU national. Instead, they will be subject to the domestic immigration controls of the first Member State they enter. In the UK, this means that they will need to meet language and income requirements.

Note the use of the word first. While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA. It remains to be seen which countries will raise their immigration requirements. It's also possible that Lord Bates has no real idea of what is planned.

On the basis of Lord Bates' answer, Ryuzaki, Nemerkh and I will be fine for moves to a second EEA country.

Am not sure am following you. What do you mean moves to a SECOND eea country? Hiw about staying in the UK?

[Obie]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... mf-lagarde


Wonder whether UK will be such an attractive country for immigrant to come or live in , after the referendum is over and UK leaves the EU.

I think you UK will get migration figures down, just in a way they could not have conceived.

[Richard W]

On the basis of Lord Bates' answer, Ryuzaki, Nemerkh and I will be fine for moves to a second EEA country.

Am not sure am following you. What do you mean moves to a SECOND eea country? Hiw about staying in the UK?

I thought Latvia was your first EEA country. Weren't you lawfully resident there when you moved to the UK?

[Wanderer]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... mf-lagarde


Wonder whether UK will be such an attractive country for immigrant to come or live in , after the referendum is over and UK leaves the EU.

I think you UK will get migration figures down, just in a way they could not have conceived.

What's your history Obie, genuinely interested, you do seem to have a massive anti-UK chip on your shoulder, wondering why...

[Obie]

History? What history is it. Do you want to sensor my ability to detail the economic consequences of UK leaving.

I am perfectly entitled to my opinion and view, so long as I do not offend others.

People like you who talk down the EU like it is some form of disease that was imposed on the UK, needs to understand that the EU is not some form of disease, but an institutions that benefits the UK and it's citizens immensely.

If showing these facts and figures make me anti UK, then fine, I am entitled to my views and owe no obligation to you or anyone on this forum to justify my views.

[Wanderer]

History? What history is it. Do you want to sensor my ability to detail the economic consequences of UK leaving.

I am perfectly entitled to my opinion and view, so long as I do not offend others.

People like you who talk down the EU like it is some form of disease that was imposed on the UK, needs to understand that the EU is not some form of disease, but an institutions that benefits the UK and it's citizens immensely.

If showing these facts and figures make me anti UK, then fine, I am entitled to my views and owe no obligation to you or anyone on this forum to justify my views.

Ok, chillax matey!!

Was just interested that's all.

I'll leave it alone if it's such a sore subject....

[nemerkh]

On the basis of Lord Bates' answer, Ryuzaki, Nemerkh and I will be fine for moves to a second EEA country.

Am not sure am following you. What do you mean moves to a SECOND eea country? Hiw about staying in the UK?

I thought Latvia was your first EEA country. Weren't you lawfully resident there when you moved to the UK?

Oh i get you now. Yes lawfully in Latvia, we then married then cane to Uk. Got it

[the3rdman]

RichardW,

Just out of curiosity, what did you mean with your statement: 'While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA.' Who are 'those using real jobs?'

Also, what are your thoughts about how this new proposal, should it come into law, would affect those EU citizens with their Non-EU families already in the UK, and also the UK as their first member state? I find it a bit hard to believe that they would restrict the rights of those Non-EU family members retroactively. Wouldn't that cause a bureaucratic nightmare?

[nemerkh]

RichardW,

Just out of curiosity, what did you mean with your statement: 'While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA.' Who are 'those using real jobs?'

Also, what are your thoughts about how this new proposal, should it come into law, would affect those EU citizens with their Non-EU families already in the UK, and also the UK as their first member state? I find it a bit hard to believe that they would restrict the rights of those Non-EU family members retroactively. Wouldn't that cause a bureaucratic nightmare?

I second that as well althought the UK wasnt my first state.

And in my humble insignificant opinion, kind of difficult to annulate the Residence Cards, be it EEA2s or EEA4s for noneu spouse already in the UK.

[Richard W]

Just out of curiosity, what did you mean with your statement: 'While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA.' Who are 'those using real jobs?'

Perhaps it is fairer to say that it is more difficult all round. The problem is that those who move to another country to find a job from a real employer will now have to find a job that is good enough for the local immigration rules. In some cases, there may be problems qualifying to sponsor an immigrant. For example, foreigners have to be settled in the UK before they can sponsor an immigrant spouse. (I think also before they sponsor an immigrant child!)

Now, it is possible to set up false employment or self-employment with enough money. Perhaps this can still be done in member states with very liberal immigration policies.

Also, what are your thoughts about how this new proposal, should it come into law, would affect those EU citizens with their Non-EU families already in the UK, and also the UK as their first member state? I find it a bit hard to believe that they would restrict the rights of those Non-EU family members retroactively. Wouldn't that cause a bureaucratic nightmare?

A very effective policy would be to check that people renewing residence cards had met the new requirements. Without a card or evidence of an application under review, the holders would have no job and, in some cases, no accommodation. Devilishly effective!

[nemerkh]

How about self sufficient eu national and a working noneu spouse

[nyabs]

Just out of curiosity, what did you mean with your statement: 'While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA.' Who are 'those using real jobs?'

Perhaps it is fairer to say that it is more difficult all round. The problem is that those who move to another country to find a job from a real employer will now have to find a job that is good enough for the local immigration rules. In some cases, there may be problems qualifying to sponsor an immigrant. For example, foreigners have to be settled in the UK before they can sponsor an immigrant spouse. (I think also before they sponsor an immigrant child!)

Now, it is possible to set up false employment or self-employment with enough money. Perhaps this can still be done in member states with very liberal immigration policies.

Also, what are your thoughts about how this new proposal, should it come into law, would affect those EU citizens with their Non-EU families already in the UK, and also the UK as their first member state? I find it a bit hard to believe that they would restrict the rights of those Non-EU family members retroactively. Wouldn't that cause a bureaucratic nightmare?

A very effective policy would be to check that people renewing residence cards had met the new requirements. Without a card or evidence of an application under review, the holders would have no job and, in some cases, no accommodation. Devilishly effective!

Your answer is very misleading. Those people who have already got their family permits will by law have acquired parmanent residence after five years provided they meet all the current requirements. To suggest that they will suddenly be required to meet the new regulations after they have already lawfully resided here for the required five years simply does not add up. That is why we have transitional laws.

[Richard W]

How about self sufficient eu national and a working noneu spouse

If the couple cannot be self-sufficient as a couple, they may have big problems with national immigration laws.

One way for governments around the issue of barriers to free movement within the EU might be for the immigration rules not to depend on the country of first entry but on the nationality of the EU citizen. This raises human rights problems - what is proportional for one country is not for another, so I think it is unlikely.

[Richard W]

Your answer is very misleading. Those people who have already got their family permits will by law have acquired parmanent residence after five years provided they meet all the current requirements. To suggest that they will suddenly be required to meet the new regulations after they have already lawfully resided here for the required five years simply does not add up. That is why we have transitional laws.

Who says they would have remained legal? Could not the UK argue that the Metock decision was wrong, and that they would only honour it only as far as achieved permanent residence was concerned. (Revoking permanent residence could cause additional havoc with the operation of British nationality laws - the current law already makes it difficult to establish whether a child born in the UK is British.) So, three years of legal residence before plus two years after the law change = 2 years of overstay, plus possibly a charge of illegal working.

I am wondering why the government isn't clamping down on unlawfully present EU nationals. I can only think that it's because its not illegal to overstay after one's exemption from the requirement of leave expires. Enforcement in Northern Ireland would be particular awkward, because EU nationals can stay legal by taking a stroll across the border every two months, and there's no reliable record of the border crossing. I'm not sure where the burden of proof would be.

[ryuzaki]

Thanks Richard, finally a useful post among all the political stuff.

This is still a matter for negotiation. The European Commission has proposed bringing forward a legislative proposal to reverse the Metock judgment and prevent non-EU nationals from acquiring free movement rights simply by marrying an EU national. Instead, they will be subject to the domestic immigration controls of the first Member State they enter. In the UK, this means that they will need to meet language and income requirements.

Note the use of the word first. While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA. It remains to be seen which countries will raise their immigration requirements. It's also possible that Lord Bates has no real idea of what is planned.

On the basis of Lord Bates' answer, Ryuzaki, Nemerkh and I will be fine for moves to a second EEA country.

Sadly I think you are reading too much into that one word. The EU statement sounds like it just wants to take away SS completely, and Lord Bates is either clueless or just didn't choose his words very carefully. We can hope though, as there are many EEA countries with better immigration rules than the UK, but of course it does mean we need to find work there.

Either way, it is going to get much harder to use the SS route after June. I've decided to abandon ship before it sinks and look at moving to another EU country as soon as possible. Hopefully even if the UK leaves the EU there will be a way for ex-pats to stay, because I can't imagine the UK wanting to take 2 million people back, many of them elderly and all of them unemployed.

[alphagear]

When will these laws most likely come into effect?

June?

[Starnes]

Thanks Richard, finally a useful post among all the political stuff.

This is still a matter for negotiation. The European Commission has proposed bringing forward a legislative proposal to reverse the Metock judgment and prevent non-EU nationals from acquiring free movement rights simply by marrying an EU national. Instead, they will be subject to the domestic immigration controls of the first Member State they enter. In the UK, this means that they will need to meet language and income requirements.

Note the use of the word first. While this will make the EEA route more difficult for those using real jobs, it will preserve free movement within the EEA. It remains to be seen which countries will raise their immigration requirements. It's also possible that Lord Bates has no real idea of what is planned.

On the basis of Lord Bates' answer, Ryuzaki, Nemerkh and I will be fine for moves to a second EEA country.

Sadly I think you are reading too much into that one word. The EU statement sounds like it just wants to take away SS completely, and Lord Bates is either clueless or just didn't choose his words very carefully. We can hope though, as there are many EEA countries with better immigration rules than the UK, but of course it does mean we need to find work there.

Either way, it is going to get much harder to use the SS route after June. I've decided to abandon ship before it sinks and look at moving to another EU country as soon as possible. Hopefully even if the UK leaves the EU there will be a way for ex-pats to stay, because I can't imagine the UK wanting to take 2 million people back, many of them elderly and all of them unemployed.

Here's the white paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ssible.pdf

Specifically mentions the following: 'In addition, non-EU nationals who are married to or who marry EU nationals already living in a host Member State will need to meet the domestic immigration rules of the first EU country they reside in.'

[giorgosa]

There are married couples that get married 9 years before moving to UK. Although I understand that UK wants to close the door to non-genuine marriages (and this is the correct thing to do), there should be some criteria (length of marriage is the obvious one) that should leave the process as it is now.

I don't care this to change, as I'll be covered both for language and income tests but there should be some common sense in this.

Furthermore, and I know that it is a bit early for this question, what is going to happen for EEA/EEA family members currently on EEA1/EEA2? In theory I need 18 months to get permanent residency, I am the EU national, working in the UK since day 1 of coming here.