formula

Cameron gave a speech to the house on what will happen if the UK votes to stay in the EU.

This seems relevant for Singh, and maybe Chen too.

"We agreed longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages. And an end to the frankly ridiculous situation where EU nationals can avoid British immigration rules when bringing their families from outside the EU. Mr Speaker, this agreement broke new ground – with the European Council agreeing to reverse decisions from the European Court of Justice."
Cameron fights back: his full statement on the EU deal | Coffee House

It was the European Court of Justice who changed EU directives when they said that non EU citizens could also use free movement to move to the EEA as family members. It would appear that the EU is going to reverse that European Court of Justice decision. As I said on the other thread, Denmark and Ireland have been active in calling for that decision, known as Metock, to be reversed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metock...and_Law_Reform

The reversal of Metock will right the wrong of an EEA citizen moving to another EEA country, having more rights than a citizen of that country.

Tusk said that the UK will get all the things they asked for when they vote to stay in the EU. The vote is in June.


People seem focused on what will happen if the UK leaves the EU and how long they will take. When if fact there are changes if the UK votes to stay in the EU and they will happen a lot faster.

formula

Or EU laws could cease with a Leave vote until the UK decides what to do. A country hasn't left the EU before so we don't know what will happen. Nor do we know if the UK leaving will trigger other unhappy wealthy EEA countries to leave too as that will up the stakes. The Swiss have already voted to limit immigration and the UK and Swiss could even enter into joint negotations for an agreement like Turkey has of free trade with no free movement. It's all guessing.

However we do have a rough idea what will happen with a Stay vote and that those changes will happen when the UK votes to stay. I should imagine all EEA countries will want to adopt the changes when Metock is reversed (certainly Ireland and Denmark as they have been calling for that) if not then they will become a target for those looking to bring non EU citizens family members to the EEA.

BritInParis

Whilst it's true that a country hasn't left the EU before there is a legal framework for any member state wishing to withdraw so it's not true that we don't know what will happen between a 'Leave' majority and our withdrawal from the EU.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty states that the Treaties will remain in force until a withdrawal agreement is reached so any changes will not happen overnight. The suggested period is two years but the government could extend this further if they deemed it necessary.

Given that the referendum is on our EU membership and not our membership of the EEA it is also perfectly feasible that this will continue after our withdrawal from the EU and freedom of movement, including Surinder Singh, will continue as before.

formula

If that 2 years is just a suggestion, then why do you assume that a country would want to extend that 2 years and not reduce it?

We also don't know what will happen to those already in the UK when the treaties end. This is why so many on the EEA forums are now rushing to get British citizenship.

Did you ever expect the Schengen area to have border checks as they are doing now? Did you ever imagine that non-EU citizens would be allowed to enter the EEA as family members too, before the Metock judgement in 2008 allowed that change? Did you imagaine that non-EU nationals would be allowed to live in the EEA if they had an EEA child, before the Chen judgement? I doubt Mrs Singh expected her ex to be allowed to move to the UK when she left him behind and returned to the UK. There are loads of cases like this as things do change.


That would mean the UK chosing the Swiss or Norway formula. It woud also rely on the Metock judgement not being reversed, which seems highly unlikely now the EU has finally signalled a reversal of that. The biggest protesters about the Metlock judgement seem to have been Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands, not the UK.

The treaty also says that we must not be a burden to another member state when we move there. The wealthiest countires are calling for that to be addressed too. Changes will happen, with or without the UK still being there with them.

BritInParis

If such an agreement could be drawn up in the time then it could be less but I highly doubt it given the government is leading the 'Remain' campaign. I should think that they'll want as much time as possible.

A sensible precaution perhaps but not based on any material facts at the moment.

Not really understanding the point you're trying to make here. Judicial reinterpretations of existing laws happen all the time. I don't think that the European Court is going to suddenly reverse one of its previous decisions to block the Surinder Singh route however.

Not necessarily. It could keep the status quo by choosing one of those formulas, by rejoining EFTA, having its own 'British formula' or none of the above. It will depend on what the UK wants, what the other 27 member states want and what everyone is willing to give and then locking them in a room for two years or more to hammer it out. There's no point speculating as it's impossible to predict.

Saying that change is inevitable isn't much of a revelation. For what it's worth I don't believe that the UK will vote to leave rendering the whole discussion moot.

formula

The European court won't be reversing a judgement, EU laws will be changed to reverse the 2008 Metock court decision which then allowed non- EUS to enter the EEA as family members. Once Metock is reversed, then that takes out other routes (judgements) to the EU for non-EU family members.



Exactly. That's why the proavctive ones are going for Brtish Citizenship even though some have lived in the UK for years under free movement.



Nor do I, but part of me thinks it may happen as the 'Leave' seems to be ahead in the polls.

But what people seem to be overlooking is all the changes that will come if the UK votes to stay and how quick they come in.

i.e. Taking the EU laws back to how they were to stop non-EU citizens from entereing the UK as family members under free movment, was one of the changes offered.

This would mean that UK immigratiion laws would need to met to bring a non-EU to the UK, for Brits and EEA citizens. An EEA citizen would need PR in the UK and meet the British immigration law requirements to be able to have their non-EEA family members in the EEA/UK. In other words, back to how it use to be for free movement before the courts changed that.

formula

The European Court of Justice won't be reversing a judgement, the European council will be to reverse that court judgement. It was always "when" and not" if" with that Metock ruling.

"We agreed longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages.And an end to the frankly ridiculous situation where EU nationals can avoid British immigration rules when bringing their families from outside the EU. Mr Speaker, this agreement broke new ground – with the European Council agreeing to reverse decisions from the European Court of Justice."
Cameron fights back: his full statement on the EU deal | Coffee House



Exactly. That's why the proactive ones are going for Brtish Citizenship now even though some have lived in the UK for years under free movement, just in case the UK vote to leave. PR is a directive and not British law.



Nor do I, but part of me thinks it may happen as the 'Leave' seems to be ahead in the polls.

But what people seem to be overlooking are all the changes that will come if the UK votes to stay and how quick they will come in.

i.e. Taking the EU laws back to how they were to stop non-EU citizens from entering the UK as family members under free movment, was one of the changes offered.



This would mean that UK immigratiion laws would need to met to bring a non-EU to the UK, for Brits and EEA citizens. An EEA citizen would need PR in the UK and meet the British immigration law requirements to be able to have their non-EEA family members in the EEA/UK.

BritInParis

A change in the law, i.e. Treaty change, is not the same as reversing a ECJ ruling. Given that it would affect freedom of movement, one of the four core freedoms of the EU and one that the UK has battled and failed to modify even slightly in its interpretation unsuccessfully, I don't see that happening any time soon.

They would need to been in the UK for at least five years to qualify regardless but I get your point.

Most recent polls are for 'Remain' albeit by a narrow margin. Voter turnout will be crucial.

Until that withdrawal agreement is in place then the status quo will continue. The UK government won't be able to start picking and choosing which part of the EU treaties it wants to follow on the basis of a referendum result.

What people are overlooking IMO is that if the UK does decide to leave then there'll probably be at least a two year window where EEA citizens can move freely to the UK and we'll see a massive surge to get in before that window closes.

formula

The European council are the ones who will reverse the the ruling. I changed my post since you answered to give the full quote although I had already given that full quote earlier in this thread at the top of the page, in bold..


That core freedom was never for non-EU citizens.

Decades later, in 2008, the courts included non-EEA citizens family members in free movement with the ruling on Metock. This is what the EU intend to reverse, so that that they get back to those core freedoms.

As said, it is mainly Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands who have been active in returning free movement to the main core principle by making sure the Metock court ruling is reversed.

That Metock ruling has also allowed a cheap way for extended families, often from countries where corruption is the norm, to migrate to the EEA.

The wealthy EEA countries have stated that since that Metock ruling, high numbers of non-EU citizen men (usually from a third world country) who marry an EEA citizen female (usually from Poland) arrive in their countries and that they then divorce after 3 years - which just happens to be the time when EU laws says that all the non-EUs can stay in that country.

That non-EU man also brought all their non-EU family with them (parents, cousins, siblings, neices, nephews and all their spouses and children) all as family members of their new EEA citizen bride. They too get to stay in that EEA country after that divorce.

Once divorced from that EEA citizen, these counties have said that they bring their wife from their own non EEA country as their EEA family member, under those same new free movement rules that the Metock court ruling allows. Although some of the EEA countries now insist that they can't bring their non-EU wife until they have PR in their country (two more years to wait after the divorce from the EEA citizen).

It is not in the EEAs favour to allow the Metock court ruling to remain.

bobbyleo

IMO, I do not think there will be a 'two year window'. I think any changes will result in an immediate suspension of EEA immigration and no later than three months. However, if the latter, any EEA applications sitting on a desk beforehand could be delayed and either not processed or made very difficult for applicants.
This of course is just my opinion.
Just look at recent changes in immigration practices worldwide to see how quickly the rules can change.

formula

The UK seem to have already done that, just before they announced that they were bringing the EU vote fowards 18 months to June 2016. The UK usually does have a habit of saying 'from this date that applicatants are granted' for changes that are in the UK's favour.

For EEAs and their non-EU family members, from 15 November 2015 all applications for British citiznehsip from that date (by doing that they caught the ones that had applied before that date) now have to prove they have obtained PR with their British citizenship application. To do this they have to apply for a PR certificate from UKVI and then when they get that, they can apply for citizenship.

This means they get stuck waiting in two long queues, the one for PR and the one for citizenship.

The dedicated UKVI team for EU laws, now have to check each PR claim to not only look bak at their 10 year history to make sure they complied with not only UK immigratiuon rules of good character for all that time (new UK laws), but that they have also exercised treaty right as a qualified person continuously for at least 5 years. That includes them keeping up with all the changes the UK has made for free movement, regardless of what those rules were when they entered the UK.