Seekingasylum

I can well understand your motive for relocation but is it strictly necessary?  If your son is happily ensconced with grandparents who enjoy his company and he is settling into school nicely then perhaps trips back home to Thailand during the summer/xmas vacs would be a reasonable accommodation? Thailand where you presumably are well established after all these years and where you are gainfully employed, and enjoy a good standard of living, might be a better bet than Blighty - ultimately, for a family to enjoy a reasonable life one would need a minimum  annual income of around £30,000 nett, assuming average rental/mortgage etc. Think of it as boarding school and one could possibly accept the arrangement as normal, particularly if you and mum weave in an annual trip to Blighty.

Still, if you do decide to proceed then I think with proper care and attention in the presentation of the application your wife should be able to obtain a visit visa allowing you to travel as a family and to assist in the preparation  of your future home life. A letter of support from your MP would not come amiss provided it is made clear you are known to each other personally and he can proffer a reference as to good character. In terms of the Rules it means bugger all but it can't hurt.

As long as the visit visa application is accompanied by a well drafted submission explaining that a settlement visa will be lodged in due course, subject to you meeting the relevant criteria, ( and preferably drafted by a qualified legal practitioner ) in addition to all the other bits and bobs, she should get it.

The current Rules as they stand are an attack on ordinary British citizens and are unique in the developed world for their arbitrary and mercenary nastiness. The view is that they will be reviewed and amended  if a Labour government is elected but in the meantime the disease that is May remains the reality. Best of luck to you and remember, you are not alone. 

Have you not considered that another forum elsewhere might be better for you? You seem to have missed most points and introduced non sequiturs as incoherent as your apparent thought processes.

Well said, Sandy.

May's loathsome exploitation of the incipient racism now manifested openly since the referendum is of course laid bare as a cheap political means of enhancing her power. But folk want this, it excuses them from dealing with inconvenient truths and makes it easier to wallow in bigotry.

So often we hear that it is the EU migration that has driven down wages and affected productivity, and strained our infrastructure. The NHS would be crippled without migration but the low wages were not imposed by them but by government policy restricting pay rises to 1% per annum. PWC have estimated there are over 50,000 EU nationals working in London's finance sector - have our own indigenous bankers been impoverished as a consequence ?

As someone said a few years back, it's alles der fault of der Juden, Ja! 

Whipping up discrimination against minorities to boost cheap nationalism is hardly new.

It was May who introduced the Appendix FM rules in 2012 and created the Skype generation of broken families, it is she who has ratcheted up the fees enormously to a degree that they are now punitive and act as a deterrent. It was she who withdrew all appeal rights. It is she who will ensure EU citizens are treated the same as the rest of the world and Britain will once again become isolated form the world and she with her grammar schools and devotion to her white Anglican God shall take England back to the 1950s.

The woman is insane now with an emerging power she never dreamed of wielding before her bizarre election as the default leader. 

<removed>

10 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

 and English language requirements will be 'tightened up'.

Fine I suppose if one is North American, Antipodean or South/West African but not so good for the Thai. 

In the circumstances, I shall be writing soon to General Prayuth asking that the Thai reciprocate this discrimination and compel British visitors who wish to settle in Thailand as spouses or as retirees to be conversant and literate in Thai to a competent degree.

Err, the Schengen requirements currently posted on their various websites indicate that the applicant must demonstrate they have sufficient funds available to cover the expenses of their visit(s). Try and spot the relevant word there, if you can Jaak.

The issue is clear: did the arriving passenger have extant leave to enter and was the basis on which it had been granted still valid? Even if she had been estranged from her spouse and had deserted her children, unless there had been a decree nisi made absolute she would still qualify as a returning spouse. The immigration officer was indulging in spurious questioning but, as I have said earlier, many simply don't know what questions to ask and when to ask them.

They are in many instances quite dreadful in their ignorance but since that is not an issue which seems to trouble them I daresay they'll continue with their redundancy.

The arrivals control has been so diminished in terms of what an officer may do it is not surprising there has been a commensurate reduction in skills and expertise necessary to carry out the function and the lower standard of staff is a predictable consequence.

From my experience it was probably just a fishing expedition by an officer who didn't really know what they were looking for but thought that they might as well ask questions in the erroneous belief they were somehow discharging their function all the better.

Many immigration officers haven't a clue about the legal basis of the conferring of leave to enter or remain and what may constitute a de facto removal of the basis upon which it may have been obtained. Their interview technique is actually quite amusing in the few cases I have had the opportunity to listen in and in most cases it is usually because the officer is either a legacy Customs officer (re-trained) or an assistant immigration officer who may well be challenged to construct a grammatically correct sentence.

I say to all folk with foreign spouses on conditions of leave to enter or remain is to answer the best they can but if it gets too complex for them they should ask to speak to the Chief Immigration Officer and to make contact with the husband/wife. Anyone on ILR should simply reply that they have not been absent for more than two years and that the basis on which they have obtained their ILR has not been removed and if they persist with redundant questioning they should, again, ask to speak to the Chief Immigration Officer.

These days there are quite simply too many officers manning the desk as fodder who haven't a clue about anything very much.

What I don't understand is why folk don't simply get the DWP to pay their pension into their British bank account and then transfer funds to Thailand when necessary online according to a protocol which they know will always work.

This may well have been covered before, but this is such a long thread and covers a multitude of UK pension issues that I simply don't have enough time to trawl through the whole thread - sorry.

The current basic pension is around £107pw (pls correct me if that is wrong). What is the minimum amount one has to pay in to get that amount upon reaching retirement age?

I left the UK when I was 31 (in 2001) and have lived here ever since. Would I be entitled to anything or would I have to top it up? If I didn't top it up, is there somewhere I can take a look at that tells me roughly what I might be entitled too?

Thanks.

Under the new rules you will have to have made a minimum of 10 years worth of contributions in order to qualify for a state pension allowance. The maximum pension payable requires a minimum of 35 years of contributions. The proposed maximum unified pension is currently estimated to be around £7,500 per annum although this depends on the nature of your national insurance contributions. For many state and local authority employees viz. armed forces, civil servants, police, firemen, teachers etc., the pension will be reduced since their contributions were made at a lower rate. The estimated maximum pension for them is currently in the order of £6,500 per annum. If you have not been able to attain the maximum pension through 35 years contributions then you will receive a proportion dependent upon the number of years contributions you have made. You may be able to buy extra years but this will depend on several factors and be subject to a defined limit - you would need to write to the DWP for a definitive response.

This may well have been covered before, but this is such a long thread and covers a multitude of UK pension issues that I simply don't have enough time to trawl through the whole thread - sorry.

The current basic pension is around £107pw (pls correct me if that is wrong). What is the minimum amount one has to pay in to get that amount upon reaching retirement age?

I left the UK when I was 31 (in 2001) and have lived here ever since. Would I be entitled to anything or would I have to top it up? If I didn't top it up, is there somewhere I can take a look at that tells me roughly what I might be entitled too?

Thanks.

The truth is nobody has a clue.

By the time you retire the new system will be in force.

You would need to have made 35 years of contributions.

If not you will get a reduced amount providing you have paid more than 10 years.

You may be able to top it up.

The day Thailand operates a nuclear reactor will mark my last day in the Kingdom.

A country which to date cannot operate a functioning, safe, pedestrian crossing system within its urban areas is not one yet ready for the storage of radioactive material.

Generally speaking, extradition treaties only permit the return of a fugitive, inter alia, when the offence for which they are to be charged is a crime specified in both countries' penal codes. LM is not an offence in the NZ criminal calendar and therefore the Thai chap cannot be extradited. The Thai authorities are well aware of this but from time to time the junta are compelled to re-activate the issue, presumably for domestic consumption. They have done this in respect of other Thai nationals living in the UK and Japan and still persist in making representations to those countries' governments despite having been told on numerous occasions that the offence is not extraditable. Given the futility of these representations one must conclude their purpose is simply to maintain linkage between the Red Shirt movement and lese majeste in the minds of the Thai people thereby undermining its popularity.

I agree with your analysis of the situation but differ somewhat with your conclusion.I don't believe the Thai population follows these matters with rapt attention and in any event takes a more sophisticated approach than many believe.In other words they can recognise and discount propaganda.

More particularly the fanatics on the extreme right appear to be in grip of a cult which defies reason and common sense.Alongside these crazies, politicians (including the military government) seek to wrap themselves in royalist clothing so that their self serving antics can be justified.

The reality that these peoples behaviour undermines the whole purpose of the LM laws is apparently of no consequence to them.

For those like myself who believe strongly in the value of the great Thai institution there is little to be optimistic about.

Whether or nit the junta are right, or indeed effective, in pursuing their aims is really neither here nor there, my point was simply to provide some explanation as to why they were pursuing futile extradition requests in these cases.

Generally speaking, extradition treaties only permit the return of a fugitive, inter alia, when the offence for which they are to be charged is a crime specified in both countries' penal codes. LM is not an offence in the NZ criminal calendar and therefore the Thai chap cannot be extradited. The Thai authorities are well aware of this but from time to time the junta are compelled to re-activate the issue, presumably for domestic consumption. They have done this in respect of other Thai nationals living in the UK and Japan and still persist in making representations to those countries' governments despite having been told on numerous occasions that the offence is not extraditable. Given the futility of these representations one must conclude their purpose is simply to maintain linkage between the Red Shirt movement and lese majeste in the minds of the Thai people thereby undermining its popularity.

To be practical the OP should await the child's birth and obtain a British passport shortly thereafter before travelling himself to the UK in order to begin his employment and secure accommodation. Once he has achieved this, his wife can apply for a visit visa to join him for a short period and until he has qualified as a sponsor under Appendix FM. If there is a history of compliance then so much the better.

To negotiate the EEA route is fraught with difficulty bearing in mind the intransigence of the British in their currently narrow and bizarre interpretation of Surinder Singh. The British are determined to stop this route undermining their Appendix FM settlement criteria, hence the daft and unlawful 'centre of life' test and their evident desire to maintain the requirement that any applicant must first be economically active in the EEA state before submitting an application for his dependent wife.

Thailand's growth and emergence as a significant economy in the region was based on its low labour costs offering inducements to foreign companies which could expect increased profits. This was at a time when regional neighbours could not offer better terms. The low cost base was somewhat offset by a less well educated workforce but the profits more than compensated. However, costs are now rising which, when coupled with a labour force still hampered by poor skills and a lack of training and education, has led to several companies exiting Thailand for her neighbours which are now offering better environments for their investment. Viet Nam, Myanmar, and the Philippines are the winners in this. The major problem that has arisen is that the low quality of Thailand's workforce has now become a factor and cannot be compensated by lower wages, alone.

I suspect this re-think on a minimum wage is a reaction but, frankly, it fails to address the fundamental issue which is the failure to up-skill and improve training/vocational centres. Making the provincial poor even poorer is not a solution and will only exacerbate the situation whereby the capital, already a primate city, will simply expand with migrants looking for better paid work.

You reap what you don't sow and in this case the Thai are paying the penalty for not investing more in education and vocational training.

Have you not understood any of the previous posts?

7by7,

The UK has yet again invented a regulation which has no basis in the EU Directive 2004, the EU Regulations 2006 or any subsequent judgement from the Courts. Their regulation 9(2)c etc relating to Surinder Singh case applications for residence cards is not compliant with EU law and is quite simply an invention dreamed up by May and her lawyers.

But, if you wish to see how the Home Office are interpreting their own nonsense then I suggest you actually read the relevant application form, now 129 pages long.

It is no different to the regulation the Home Office inserted back in 2006/7 in their transposition of the EU Regularions 2006 which sought to curtail freedom of movement of non- EU spouses of EU nationals entering the UK from outside the EU. That was blown out of the water by Akrich/ Metock in 2008 as indeed will be this " centre of life " nonsense.

There is no requirement in the Directive 2004 to demonstrate one has shifted one's centre of life to qualify for freedom of movement.Period.

Their European Policy group is simply churning out self serving twaddle at May's behest to close a loophole that annoys her,,as if freedom of movement was a loophole.

Err, why would the OP's family apply for Schengen visas and then carte de sejours?

Listening to lay people offering their unqualified advice on a forum without any personal responsibility is better than a professional opinion?

The problem now in acquiring EU rights as a British citizen who has been economically active in another EU state and wishes to return to the UK under the EU regulations, utilizing the Surinder Singh judgement, is that the British government has incorporated a new stipulation that in order to qualify the British citizen must demonstrate that he has made that EU state ( i.e. In your case, France ) the centre of your " life". This is actually unlawful and appears nowhere in the 2004 Directive from which member states transpose the regulations into their own legislation.........

With respect, SA, does the "centre of life" requirement not come from the case of O and B v The Netherlands?

From Free Movement

New case: O and B v The Netherlands

The most important change since Surinder Singh itself is the new case of O and B v The Netherlands Case C-456/12, handed down by the Grand Chamber of the Court of the European Union on 12 March 2014. Without much mentioning Surinder Singh, the judgment completely re-writes the legal basis of the earlier case and sets out important and binding new guidance........

........The following important points emerge:

1. A residence period of at least three months is required (para 54)

2. Weekend visits and holidays do not count as residence for this purpose (para 59)

3. Any citizen of the Union can potentially benefit from this right, not just workers and the self employed (references to Article 7 of Citizens Directive 2004/38 , e.g. para 56, and to Article 21 of the TFEU, e.g. para 54)

4. During the period of residence family life must have been “created or strengthened” (para 51)

5. Abuse is impermissible (para 58)

Surely points 1,2 and 4, especially 4, are the reasoning behind the "centre of life" requirement?

However, whilst the UK has been quick to implement this part of the ruling, they have yet to implement point 3, and still insist that the British citizen has been working, employed or self employed, in the other EEA state.

But as the OP says he will have a job in France for 9 months, he will be ok on this point.

No, this is wrong.

The Home Office's current view is that their interpretation of the judgement, i.e a period of residence in the EU state must comprise a core change in the 'centre of one's life', is EU compliant - it isn't. They have stretched the creation or strengthening of family life to mean something else entirely and interpreted it as moving one's centre of life from the UK to the other member state. In practical terms they are demanding that Surinder Singh applicants should demonstrate this by means that include a forsaking of any financial interest in their home state ( mortgages, property ownership) in favour of establishing a financial bedrock in the adopted EU state and, my own personal favourite, show for example any charitable works they may have undertaken in the new state.

The issue of non compliance notices against the UK is moving ahead inexorably to force them to give up their daft interpretation but, so far, they are digging their heels in and dragging the issue out but the consensus is that they will have to accept the O and B judgement as it was intended.

Anyone thinking they are going to breeze through a Surinder Singh application because they and their family lived together for three months in wherever better think again. A refusal is likely and a wait of another year for the appeal is inevitable.

If you are minded to seek an opinion in Thailand, then the only company worth considering from my own knowledge would be the sponsor of this forum, Thaivisa Express, which employs a chap called Tony Martin who worked for the Home Office for over 30 years and I believe attained the rank of Chief Immigration Officer. He has a wealth of experience in visa matters and from his regular and frequent posts on this board keeps abreast of significant changes to legislation, practice and procedure.

If I were you I should discuss with him the prospect of a full consultation.