Some one at the Home Office hasn't thought this through properly

[liberia03]

Wondering if we could have a compassionate thread about UK mothers being told by they may have to leave the country, despite having brought up families here.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/14/dutchwoman-resident-in-uk-for-30-years-may-have-to-leave-after-brexit

Just bumping that petition that was mentioned upthread.

toomuchtooold Thanks, signed.

(note: nowhere in the EU agreement is there something about earning a MINIMUM wage to fulfill the treaty requirements)

Yep. Can't stress this enough. Unilateral, poorly publicised and probably illegal attempt by the UK to water down the provisions of EU law. Not the only one in recent years. Important that people looking to blame the EU, the people stuck in limbo or anyone other than our own government are aware of this.

and probably illegal attempt by the UK to water down the provisions of EU law.

Which is why they don't want to be bound by EU laws - so that they can rip up the ones which they find inconvenient.

For certain sectors, it will be easier to leave the country than go through all the red tape required to stay. Many of those with advanced qualifications will probably find it easy to leave the UK.

However, the bulk of ordinary Britons will find it difficult to find employment elsewhere due to language barriers. Pay and conditions in the UK may be poor but it is relatively easy to find a job here. It usually is a lot more difficult to find a job in countries where there is stronger employment law.

I'm non British on indefinite leave to remain in the U.K. Fully qualified for a British passport for years but I've never applied for one. I'm now (along with a few people I know) hurrying to apply for a British passport/ citizenship because We don't know how Brexit will end up.
Many people content to be non British and living here with the aim of returning to their home countries in th future are rushing to get British citizenship so they are not booted out before they want to leave.
So much for Brexit.....

Unilateral, poorly publicised and probably illegal attempt by the UK to water down the provisions of EU law

Completely wrong.

EU law is that any EU citizen can move to any other EU country and stay there for up to 3 months. Unless they are a student they can only stay longer if they can prove that they have the financial resources to support themselves. Unless they have a large amount of capital available, that means earning enough to be self-sufficient. So no, the UK has not unilaterally watered down the provisions of EU law and it is definitely not acting illegally. It has implemented EU law correctly as it stands.

So, for the UK to have control of immigration, it has to resign from the EU?

Or not.

prh47bridge you're missing the point. We're discussing non-working EU spouses of British citizens. They don't need capital or financial resources if their spouse is supporting them. What they do need to qualify for residence under EU law is health insurance. The European Commission have stated that NHS cover fulfills that requirement so no private insurance is needed, the UK have unilaterally decided that it doesn't.

I know this thread has been going for a few days but hope to make some kind of contribution. The "ruling" re EU immigrants has been long standing regarding health. The EU has insisted that the NHS is insurance whilst the UK has said NO. If like other countries in the EU you want insurance you have to shop around to find the best deal, this is not the case in the UK. You cannot do deals with the NHS to get better service other than perhaps pay for a single room if there is one available and even that is rare as hens' teeth these days. Therefore you have to be able to prove you have contributed to the service to be able to use it. Makes sense. Try accessing health service for emergency even in USA, you are asked for your health insurance details, unless you go to a charity hospital and even then as a "foreigner" you are expected to make a contribution/donation.
As to residency, yes you have always had to take out citizenship to become a full blown and acknowledged citizen just like in all the other EU countries, nothing new on that score. What is new, is obviously due to Brexit is that more people are looking to protect what they thought to be their rights and entitlements and are discovering they have to go through a due process to establish these. Some EU residents in the UK actually access health services in both countries, their homeland and the UK so getting the best of both worlds having for eg. a Polish/EU passport. Please I only use Polish as an example and do not in any way mean to be offensive towards Polish residents. There has to be some restriction on who is entitled to what and when and becoming a citizen is one of them or having enough funds to pay for everything privately.

Only halfway through reading the thread, but for those like Martian Rothermere and Wolpertinger who are or have relatives who have been here for many years, but may not qualify as having exercised Treaty rights, there is a separate route under the Immigration Rules.

You can apply for indefinite leave to remain under paragraph 276ADE of the Rules if you have lived in the UK for 20 years or more, whether legally or not.

Particularly for older people it may be easier (albeit a lot more expensive) to show proof of residence over 20 years than to try to establish at what points you were self sufficient / self employed etc to acquire permanent residence under the EEA Regulations.

You misunderstood the post you were replying to there of mine phr47bridge, I think. It referred to stealth attempts to water down the provisions of the employed and self employed categories, not SAHPs who aren't working.

The problem with the treatment of SAHPs who aren't working is, as I said before, something a little different. Ie that for a long time the law said one thing and practice said another. The UK has always had the option not to allow EEA nationals not exercising Treaty rights to remain, but has in practice failed to exercise this control and indeed has often actively misled them. For example JobCentres advising people to apply for Income Support when their immigration status would require JSA. Those of us whose legal specialisms fall into these areas are well aware of the issue.

mani I'm surprised that you can access the health service of your home country when you don't live there.

Just as Brits who live abroad cannot access the NHS, I can't access the health service of my ccountry either, because I live in the UK, i.e. Have been there for more than 3 months.
When/if I relocate to my home country, it will take 3 months before I can access their NHS becausebore that I am considered living in the uk.

I have never ever heard about people getting access to both, unless you are happy to pay for it. That's what my parents do. They pay over the odds and it was considered a private health insurance by the Home Office.
Very different that what you seem to allude to, i.e. The possibility to freely access two systems.

Re the eu treaty
It says that people going into another country should either be working OR be looking for work OR be able to sustain themselves, e.g. If their partner is working and their wage covers the needs of the family.
In effect, the one thing you can't do is to get somewhere, start claims benefits and plan to live with those for the rest of your life.

It's VERY different than the situation we have all being talking about ther, SAHP who relies on her spouse wage, self employed people or part timers with low wage etc...
These people are totally ok to stay
In the uk or any other eu countries according to the treaty.

Finally re paying for the health insurance, if the only thing needed was to have paid for the NHS. This is very easy to do, and not that expensive.
But again, this needs to be clearly outlined, quite the opposite, and this has NOT being the case as manic pointed out.

I fail to understand why the woman featured in the original article doesn't just apply for British Citizenship: she speaks English, has lived here for over 5 years and is (one assumes) of good character. If she chooses not to become a British citizen for some reason then that is a decision for her alone. The rules seem fair enough though - either contribute to society by paying tax and NI, OR commit to the UK by becoming a British citizen, OR show that you can afford health insurance. What better system would people propose?

not She's started on that route and that's how this all came out. To get British citizenship as an EEA national you first need to have a Permanent Residency card. That's what she was applying for, IIRC.

Britain is definitely trying to force EU citizens out by a campaign of hostility - an 85 page application form is ridiculous!! Surely they could get essential information in fewer pages

When I moved to Denmark with DH I merely went to the town hall to report my presence and the clerk helped me complete the form - no requirement of health insurance and I was automatically enrolled for healthcare/education etc.

When I moved to Sweden with DH it was the same process - only at the Police station. When I applied for dual citizenship it was a 3 page form completed online and it took less than 2 weeks for a decision.

Germany is certainly currently going out of its way to facilitate long-term resident Brits becoming German. The majority of Brits in Germany are not badly-integrated retirees (the Costa del Sun phenomenon) but rather well qualified and high-income workers and their spouses. Germany has a dire lack of technical staff in particular, and certainly won't want to be losing engineers and the like. Virtually every British person I know in Germany is applying for citizenship right now - I don't need to, having gone through it a few years back - and the naturalisation people are certainly making sure Brits get appointments quickly and go through the system relatively smoothly. A huge contrast to what Germans in Britain are being put through! The British politicians are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats right now in the way they're treating EU citizens resident in the UK.

"As I didn't work at all whilst living in Germany, I rightly had private health insurance for the entire time. The same rule should apply to everyone from abroad that lives in the UK without working too. " But that's not the case for most people in Germany - you must have been some sort of exception because you weren't married to your partner and he was unemployed. Normally the amount you pay for healthcare depends on your income, and those with no or low income, eg dependent spouses, are usually covered free of charge by their working spouses' healthcare agency - as are children. My student DD will be covered free by our healthcare until she graduates and earns her own money. If you had chosen to get married to your DP, you wouldn't have needed your private insurance - that was your own free decision. So demanding that dependent spouses have a separate private policy in the UK is actually more than required in Germany, in almost all cases.

It referred to stealth attempts to water down the provisions of the employed and self employed categories, not SAHPs who aren't working.

Agree that it is cheeky attempts to add on extra qualifiers. The Danish authorities have done the same in the past (and likely continue to do so). They get away with it until someone has the time and money to take them to court. The details seem to be worked out through judgments by European courts as and when these challenges occur. E.g. how many hours or how much money you need to be working for to be seen as a worker.

And Germany is offering citizenship to Jews whose families had to leave during the holocaust. In contrast to May's 85 page doc, £2000 and sleepless nights.

I fail to understand why the woman featured in the original article doesn't just apply for British Citizenship: she speaks English, has lived here for over 5 years and is (one assumes) of good character. If she chooses not to become a British citizen for some reason then that is a decision for her alone.

Because she would fail.

You can't get British citizenship simply because you've lived here for 5 years. Before applying, she would need to have Indefinite Leave to Remain/permanent residence. She doesn't. The issue here is emphatically not the lady concerned choosing not to become British even though she could. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of her situation and also of the relevant law.

If someone hasn't worked and put into the system, then why should they be able to take anything out of the system? People are individuals, and just because they have married someone well off, it doesn't exempt them from their obligation to pay taxes. I don't think that someone who comes over here and sits on their bum should be entitled to NHS care.

I don't think those that voted leave have any idea of the anxiety and turmoil felt by EU citizens living here. I found it so hard to be surrounded by colleagues and members of DHs family who voted leave while dismissing my concerns about what might happen to people like me. I was accused of being ridiculous and hysterical because 'of course they won't deport you with a British DH and DCs'. Well we will see what happens in the coming months but I've yet to be reassured and although I hope for the best I think anything is possible. Let's just see how my staunch leave supporter MIL feels about me having to take her grandkids to live in my home country

Very good point faraway. It highlights how they didn't know the consequences of how they voted, or what they really voted for.

Faraway bet she will moan a bucket full when she has to wait for absolutely ages in the non EU queue at customs too when she comes to visit you