Richard W

It's actually worse than £18,600. When I came back to the uk I started work where the bulk of the money is commission. I had a small salary of £15k and with commissions I earned just shy of £48k. Before you can apply you have to be earning this and on paye for a year first. So after a year made the application. It was noted on my bank statements and pay slips that on two months I had no commission. So they failed me. They told me they take the lowest income month and multiply that by 12!! When I pointed out that's not what the paper says I was told "that's how we do it". So £1500 odd down the drain and restart the whole process again! Company adjusted my salary to £25k for me just in case of a non commission month. I restart the whole process again in March. It's a joke.

Did you select the salary method or the irregular wage method? Under the latter, the income should be calculated as the minimum of the 12 months' pay and twice the last 6 months' pay. (If this threatens to become a long discussion, I think we should detach it from this thread.)

Yes, Cameron has threatened to withdraw from the ECHR if the UK is not allowed a veto on decisions of the ECtHR.

But that has nothing to do with the EU. They are completely separate entities. Being a member of one does not make a country a member of the other.

If the UK leaves the EU we will still be a signatory of the ECHR; unless we also leave the ECHR and it's court.

Actually, to be in the EU, a country is required to sign up to the ECHR.

If the child is also in the UK on a setllement visa why should they be given free schooling?

The Uk parent is only going to be a stepparent so why should that entitile that child to free schooling at the tax payers expense

'Only' a step parent!

I have been more of a father to my now 25 year old daughter than her biological father, who abandoned her and her mother when she was 2, ever was!

If the child is going to settle in the UK, it's a good idea for it to be educated.

Actually, one of the biggest savings from the raised threshold comes from excluding British citizen children from the UK be keeping their mothers out. Additionally, child benefit (some of which is the old tax allowance) is only payable for children resident in the EU.

The latter point is one of the worrying things about the sole responsibility rule. It means, for the most part, that the UK gets the children of irresponsible fathers, not the children of responsible fathers. That is not a good way to select future generations!

Casualbiker, keep an eye on the change to freedom of movement rules (currently Directive 2004/38/EC). If the announcements are to be trusted, a lot of Thai wives will be stripped of their EU freedom of movement rights around the end of this year.

is that the Surinder Singh loophole you're talking about?

The least alarming interpretation, given in this parliametary answer by Lord Bates, is that EU law will simply be changed to overturn the Metock judgement. The Metock judgement restored the state of affairs whereby an EEA citizen could easily enter a member state other than his own with his family members. Your wife's free Spanish visa probably depends on this ruling. Lord Bates' answer implies that the change restores the state of affairs in the 2006 version of the British 2006 EEA Regulations, whereby to get a family permit the non-EEA family member must already have lawful residence in an EEA member state.

The statements released by the European Council alarmingly imply that if the non-EEA spouse had not had such lawful residence when she married the EU citizen, she would never have the free movement rights of non-EEA family members.

Either way, you lose your free Spanish visa.

Casualbiker, keep an eye on the change to freedom of movement rules (currently Directive 2004/38/EC). If the announcements are to be trusted, a lot of Thai wives will be stripped of their EU freedom of movement rights around the end of this year.

Which actually means those people who have sham marriages, but there is nothing about those people who married maybe in the third country nationals home country, lived there for years then decided to return to Europe, when an offer of a decent job arose.

I wonder how many people who get hit by this will look at using the Human Rights process.

First port of call will be the EU treaties. Next will be anchor babies - any EU citizen children of the family, and then pure Article 8. As the last resort, you'd have to explain that your going to Thailand would face an insuperable obstacle. I'm not sure if one's allowed to cite the illegality of overstaying or working without a work permit as evidence of an insuperable obstacle.

I presume the 'which' refers to your previous post. That wasn't at all obvious to me - I was struggling to work out how it referred to the quotation from Tebee's post or the communiqué.

This is what I got for information from the BBC Website about the Freedom of Movement changes that have been agreed

Some limits on free movement - Denying automatic free movement rights to nationals of a country outside the EU who marry an EU national, as part of measures to tackle sham marriages. There are also new powers to exclude people believed to be a security risk - even if they have no previous convictions.

Does not really state what some people were suggesting in this thread.

For the best analysis I can find - though the logic is not the best - see Professor Steve Peers' EU law blog. The actual text is at European Council conclusions - there's also an introductory web page. The relevant text is in Annex VII. As regards our wives, "denying automatic free movement rights to nationals of a country outside the EU who marry an EU national" is a fair summary, though it's not quite as bad as that in general. The key point to note is that it isn't just sham marriages that will be penalised. Rather, the scope is cast wide enough to catch sham marriages. Note also that Surinder Singhing couples are rarely in sham marriages, even if there are cases where the arrangement is effectively a sex for visa deal (as opposed to the more normal sex for security deal).

If I've understood it correctly, the proposal isn't to abolish the Surinder Singh route, just make it more difficult and less open to abuse.

People, like the OP and his wife, who have been living and exercising an economic treaty right for a considerable period in another EEA country and have lawful residence there shouldn't be affected.

If that is a moral obligation, I agree. If it's a deduction, then which part of "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" don't you understand? That excludes Thailand-born Thais who marry an EU citizen before ever leaving Thailand.

If the referendum result is for Brexit, imagine the furore if the government announces that we've left the EU according to the people's wishes, but we are staying in the EEA. So the freedom of movement regulations still apply and nothing in this area has changed!

There's a UKIP tactical discussion which finds that an acceptable temporary half-way house. In the EEA but outside the EU, one can unilaterally invoke emergency provisions. Liechtenstein allows EEA nationals to work there freely, but there are restrictions on how many can reside there!

how would she manage if she only has a thai passport,i know before my wife got british citizenship and a passport she had to have a visa everywhere we went,mind you that was 26yrs.ago.

Under the current system, the residence card will be her visa. The only issue is when it has to be validated by also presenting the EEA national whose family member she is.

The one aspect I don't understand is how a non-EEA family member living in the state of the EEA national is supposed to go and shop in a supermarket across the internal international border. When the borders are down it doesn't matter. Perhaps I've missed a detail of continental national identity cards for foreigners. Under the proposed new system, this problem will always arise for someone who immigrated to the EEA as a spouse.

i thought you had to be a british citizen and have ILR before you can settle elswhere.and to get it you had to be in the uk.for 3yrs.with no breaks.

One idea if EU free movement is that an EU citizen and his family can work anywhere in the EU. One problem is that if they move around a lot, they are unlikely to be able to obtain local citizenship anywhere, because they haven't been there long enough. Obtaining local citizenship is a matter of local law. If the EU citizen stops working (e.g. if he dies), I believe his non-EEA family members are stuck where he was last economically active, but there may be relevant EU laws of limited scope (excluding, for example, the UK and Denmark) that allow cumulative residence in the EU states to provide a degree of mobility.

Now, I'm not sure what manner of non-EEA family members the law makers have in mind. The way the proposed restrictions are worded will often prevent those who came in from outside moving around as part of an EU citizen's family. Perhaps the idea is that non-EEA spouses should arrive in the EU as non-EEA children. For example, the eldest child of a Danish-born Dane and a Thai settled in the UK might end up being just Thai, while the youngest child might end up as British (and also Thai) because the parents were 'settled' by the time it was born. (Their eldest child could be bought British citizenship, and there are mechanisms to enable the two children to remain Danish rather than losing Danish nationality at the age of 22.)

Given the current uncertainties, I strongly recommend that Duncsmove not give up his family's prospect of British citizenship until he knows that they can acquire and keep the rights of non-EEA members of an EEA national's family.

Closing down the Surinder Singh route is one of the things that form part of Cameron's 'renegotiation' with the EU. Leave or stay, I am sure the Surinder Singh route will be finished.

Tebee's offered a mechanism to keep it going in the Surinder Singh thread - the 'Bulgarian route'.

This paragraph is quite a good one from the declaration:

As regards situations of abuse in the context of entry and residence of non-EU family members of mobile Union citizens the Commission will clarify that:

• Member States can address specific cases of abuse of free movement rights by Union citizens returning to their Member State of nationality with a non-EU family member where residence in the host Member State has not been sufficiently genuine to create or strengthen family life and had the purpose of evading the application of national immigration rules.

I wonder if this is addressing the 'Belgian route', whereby the family home is in Belgium or Sweden and the Dutch or Danish spouse commutes to his home country for work. Weekly commuting could be argued to weaken family life!

I do not think that they will remove the status of people who have already qualified under the old rules, the new rules would be implemented for future movement of EU citizens.

The UK followed that policy when it was discovered that dual nationals started out disqualified in both countries rather than privileged in both. As a result, the UK issues (permanent) residences cards to people who are not entitled to them! However, in many cases the error could have been fixed by the British dual nationals renouncing British nationality, which was probably not considered a desirable outcome.

I would not be surprised if the EU directive contained no transitional provisions, but instead left it to national governments to decide. It will cause chaos if there are no proper transition arrangements. I can just imagine the Home Office gleefully prosecuting small employers for ignoring the fact that some residence cards had just become invalid.

Cheaper to have the Thai birth certificate translated in Thailand than pay £105 for a consular registration plus £65 for a copy of the certificate!

<snip>

Passport applications etc. are expensive enough as it is; why give HMG another 170 quid when there is no need?

What I had in mind was replacing a lost birth certificate issued in Thailand when in the UK.

The new legislation says about those who abused the rules, well I see no abuse here, I work in Germany, and she has been here for nearly 3 years, the document you provided a link for says they expect people to work or live in another European country for 3 months but best 12 months.

"Couples who have attempted to use the loophole will have to leave any jobs or homes in Britain and set up home in another EU country, most usually Ireland, for at least three months, but more often six to 12 months. “We usually say to people the longer the better,” Mehta said. “We actually advise people to make as much of a go of it in that country as they can, to build a life.”

I haven't referred to that recently (if at all), though it does seem familiar. I was referring to a proposed change of rules. The most chilling paragraph in the change is:

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.

I think both our marriages fall foul of the red text; yours may also fall foul of the green text. My wife and I are not exercising the right of freedom of movement, but you may have to transfer to the purely German settlement route. I hope the red 'before marrying a Union citizen' is simply an error that will be rectified, but I haven't seen any evidence that such an error has been acknowledged.

To say that the proposed legislation only affects those who abused the rules is very dubious. You seem to have 'abused' the rules simply by moving your wife from Thailand to Germany under EU rather than German provisions.

Speaking of abuse, there's a suggestion that 'primary purpose' has returned in spades:

The concept of marriage of convenience - which is not protected under Union law – also covers a marriage which is maintained for the purpose of enjoying a right of residence by a family member who is not a national of a Member State.

You could possibly fall foul of that if one reason you married your wife rather than just shacking up together or you merely visiting her as a lover was that you wanted her to be able to reside with you.

Now, as Duncsmove has been able to satisfy the UK requirements, it's probable that his biggest European problem outside Denmark would be the language test. A lesser problem is that there may be immigration requirements that only make sense for a home citizen or someone already resident.

My wife has an article 10 card, this allows here to travel to the UK with me.

The validity of the card is not 5 years as some people say, the validity is up to 5 years but dependent on the validity of the passport, for example my wife holds a Thai passport, the Residence Card from Germany is valid for 4 years and 4 months, the date her passport expires.

Presumably she'll soon be losing her free movement right as a non-EEA member of the family of an EEA national. I'm presuming she didn't have previous lawful residence in the EU when you married. Are you expecting her status to be grandfathered when she ceases to qualify for that status later this year?

The draft declaration is available on-line. I wonder what 'prior lawful residence' means. Would 'temporary residence' in the UK on a spouse visa count as lawful residence?

On rereading, that seems to be a silly question. You don't get a spouse visa unless you're married, so the question would only be relevant if the condition for disqualification from free movement were different to its plain reading, as I read it. (I'm still waiting for Bob Russell to explain my reading problem.)

The strange thing is even if these proposals are implemented it won't stop Surinder Singh, just make it harder.

It's possible to get a visa to some countries much more easy than to get one to the UK. You fiance say gets a student visa in Bulgaria. You go there, marry her, start a business selling things on Ebay or whatever and six months later you can return to the UK.

However, if you're already married, can you undo the disqualification by divorcing? I suspect I wouldn't be able to undo the disqualification by getting a quickie divorce in Thailand and then remarrying. I rather fear the first rather than latest marriage of a couple would be counted.

Actually the UK accepts both article 10 and article 20 ( permanent residence) cards

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/entering-the-uk-as-the-holder-of-an-article-10-residence-card/entering-the-uk-as-the-holder-of-an-article-10-residence-card

It's good to know that common sense has been allowed to show its face officially. However, the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, at least with amendments up to June 2015, still don't allow foreign permanent residence cards. (The 'permanent residence card' in Regulation 11(2)(b ) is a British permanent residence card.)

They should get 5 year card under article 10 straight off, after 5 years they can get an card under article 20 which is usually issued for 10 years. The main difference between these is the latter is not dependent on the EU citizen for their residence rights.

The other difference is that the 5-year residence card + the EEA national serves as a visa for EEA countries, whereas a foreign permanent residence card may not be accepted as a visa by non-Schengen countries. Last time I looked, the regulations of the UK and the Irish Republic didn't accept them! There was a petition to change the directive so that permanent residence cards should be accepted throughout the EEA, but it was dismissed as unnecessary because Schengen rules already treated them the same.

Until they find that the UK withdrawing from the treaty means they may need a visa for their holiday in Europe and that their dream of retiring to the Costas is now a visa nightmare. By which time it will be too late.

I strongly doubt holidays will be affected - or is Spain willing to undertake the work to exclude yobbos? Retirement may indeed be affected.

Anyone living in another country, with a genuine job, kids in the local schools, that decides to return some time later will still have the existing rights.

Clearly I am having a problem with my English. Could you explain how that works. The key text is highlighted in red.

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.

The simplest problem scenario is:

1) Englishman (or Dutchman) meets Thai girl and marries her in Thailand. She had never left Thailand, so she had no prior lawful residence in a Member state before they married.

2) They move to Germany and live there for many years. The Thai girl does not surrender her Thai nationality to become German.

3) They try to move to England. She does not qualify as a non-EEA family member, despite having been in Germany legally.

She will have to start the normal spouse visa route, and the family must meet the financial requirement.

Similarly, my wife and I are going to lose out freedom of movement rights until my wife becomes British. I married her before she'd ever left Thailand, and we as a couple will lose the EEA freedom of movement rights.

What have I misunderstood?

Now 'lawful residence' is apparently not a clear term. Perhaps a girl who came to England on a fiancée visa and married just before the six months expire will qualify for non-EU family member rights, while a similar girl who married within a month will not! Some think there will be a three month threshold to qualify as 'lawful residence' - it wasn't my idea.

Of course if we leave the EU, but stay in the EEA for the free trade like Switzerland, the UK is also stuck with the free movement part too and won't even get Cameron's changes applied as we will have no say anymore!

The changes may be pushed through regardless. Denmark and the Netherlands probably like them.

And all this because Cameron foolishly made an EU referendum a manifesto commitment as a sop to his Eurosceptics and due to a fear that UKIP would cost him the election.

Not entirely. Denmark and the Netherlands don't like Surinder Singh either, and Spain seems deliberately obstructive towards non-EU family members immigrating from outside. He's more the disruptive element that enables a change that's been coming for some time.

The draft declaration is available on-line. I wonder what 'prior lawful residence' means. Would 'temporary residence' in the UK on a spouse visa count as lawful residence?

I guess that's goodbye to free visas for visits by many Thai-only wives of EU citizens resident in Thailand.

There is no requirement, or much point, in registering the birth in the UK. You should just apply for the UK passport.

There's no requirement, but if the child moves to the UK it may be a useful source of spare birth certificates that don't have to be expensively translated and then legalised.

Being pedantic, she is 100% British and 100% Thai.

Dubious. Her Britishness is attenuated by being born overseas and never having resided in the UK and is not secure because of her Thai nationality. She has not yet acquired any right to transmit British citizenship to her children. The degree of insecurity depends on what Parliament is deemed to have intended in the 2006 act. The worst case is that the law means what it says, and a Treasury Counsel has needlessly claimed that it does, though the judge wasn't convinced.

I was wondering. If my child holds a British passport as she would be half British, would i need to show the extra income for my child?

Not if she's a British citizen, which is the usual form of British nationality held. Strictly she doesn't need a British passport, but that's usually the cheapest way for a British national to get into the UK.