Immigration to Britain falls to five-year low ahead of Brexit: ONS

[snoop1130]

Immigration to Britain falls to five-year low ahead of Brexit: ONS

By David Milliken

 

FILE PHOTO: Demonstrators form a chain between Downing Street and the Houses of Parliament as they take part in a protest by groups representing EU citizens living in the UK, in Westminster, London, Britain, November 5, 2018. REUTERS/Simon Dawson/File Photo

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Net immigration to Britain sank to its lowest since 2013 during the year to the end of March, driven by a sustained fall in the number of immigrants from the European Union since 2016’s Brexit referendum, official figures showed on Thursday.

 

Rising immigration was a major public concern when Britain voted to leave the EU, though it has since dropped down people’s list of worries. Nonetheless, Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government plans to introduce restrictions on EU migration as after Britain leaves the bloc on Oct. 31.

 

Some 612,000 people moved to the United Kingdom during the 12 months to March, while 385,000 people emigrated, reducing net immigration to 226,000, its lowest since the 12 months to the end of December 2013, the Office for National Statistics said.

 

The data is based on a new experimental series that aims to reduce previous flaws that led to an undercounting of EU long-term immigrants and overestimating how many non-EU students remained in Britain after their studies.

 

Even after these adjustments, net inflows of non-EU migrants remain close to the record high of 236,000 set in the 12 months to September 2018, at 219,000 in the year to March.

 

However the net number of EU immigrants appears to have fallen sharply, to 59,000 in the year to March from a peak of 218,000 in 2015.

 

This is one of the lowest figures in the past 10 years, though comparisons are approximate as the ONS has so far only applied its latest, more accurate estimation techniques to EU migration data from before June 2016.

 

DEBT CRISIS

 

Immigration to Britain from the rest of the European Union surged after the euro zone debt crisis in 2012, as southern Europeans sought better job opportunities in Britain, on top of east Europeans seeking higher wages.

 

Madeleine Sumption, director of the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory, said the data pointed to a return to the pre-financial crisis trend in net EU migration, and widespread departures of current EU residents in Britain looked unlikely.

 

“EU emigration (is) still significant but now stable - and not the ‘mass post-Brexit exodus’ some talked about. Perhaps not surprising - most EU citizens (are) now resident here for a while, so are quite settled,” she said.

 

Immigration from outside the EU, which Britain’s government has much more legal control over, has steadily risen after a dip in the middle of the decade, despite a British government goal to cut total net immigration to under 100,000 a year.

 

Johnson has said that after Brexit, future immigrants from the EU will be subject to a “skills-based” test similar to that applied by Australia, as well as criminal record checks.

 

MigrationWatch, a group that wants less immigration, said after Thursday’s figures that inflows of immigrants were still “far too high” and that Brexit was a “golden opportunity” to impose greater controls.

 

A June 2019 poll by market researchers ICM showed that 53% of Britons wanted to reduce immigration, while only 13% wanted an increase. However, only 21% of respondents had a strongly negative view of immigration - slightly fewer than were strongly positive - and most were fairly indifferent.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-08-22

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

 

[moontang]

so it has already been a success.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Johnson has said that after Brexit, future immigrants from the EU will be subject to a “skills-based” test similar to that applied by Australia, as well as criminal record checks.

 Why not make them subject to the same immigration rules as non EU immigrants?

 

Maybe Boris doesn't know what they are? Wouldn't surprise me.

 

2 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

MigrationWatch, a group that wants less immigration, said after Thursday’s figures that inflows of immigrants were still “far too high” and that Brexit was a “golden opportunity” to impose greater controls.

Those of us who live in the UK with our Thai partners/spouses, plus those who wish to do so, are well aware of the recommendations of MigrationWatch which May, as Home Secretary, accepted when she introduced the iniquitous financial requirement. A requirement which over 40% 0f working British citizens in the UK cannot meet!

[St George]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Why not make them subject to the same immigration rules as non EU immigrants?

 

Maybe Boris doesn't know what they are? Wouldn't surprise me.

 

Those of us who live in the UK with our Thai partners/spouses, plus those who wish to do so, are well aware of the recommendations of MigrationWatch which May, as Home Secretary, accepted when she introduced the iniquitous financial requirement. A requirement which over 40% 0f working British citizens in the UK cannot meet!

 

 

£18,600 p.a. Is iniquitous?

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, St George said:

 

 

£18,600 p.a. Is iniquitous?

 As said, over 40% of British workers earn less than that.

 

But it's not just the amount. It's the way it's calculated, what's allowed and what isn't, what proof has to be supplied etc.

 

What was wrong with the pre 2012 requirement of proving a couple could support themselves without recourse to public funds? Nothing.

[St George]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 As said, over 40% of British workers earn less than that.

 

But it's not just the amount. It's the way it's calculated, what's allowed and what isn't, what proof has to be supplied etc.

 

What was wrong with the pre 2012 requirement of proving a couple could support themselves without recourse to public funds? Nothing.

 

I agree, it should be about affordability on a case by case basis.

 

Same as Thailand, many couples/families live quite adequately with less income than the immigration minima.

[juice777]

so it has already been a success.

True colours will be shown on this Thread that's for sure. When this madness happens and our great country is finished people like me won't ever forgive people like you and that will include all your own children and grandchildren.

 

All hang your heads in shame

 

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[brommers]

Why anyone wouldnwant to move to that damp, shabby introverted island is beyond me. Outside London which is ludicrously expensive lies neglected crumbling infrastructure, devastated industry and depressed miserable people. Is it any wonder that people over 40 are now binge drinking?

[dick dasterdly]

Interesting to see that we're now talking about net immigration...., but to look on the bright side the ONS has admitted it's previously flawed calculations and is trying another "experimental series".

[foxboy]

15 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

reducing net immigration to 226,000, its lowest since the 12 months to the end of December 2013, the Office for National Statistics said.

So we are supposed to be delighted that it's ONLY 226,000 extra people yearly now?? Wow, can someone put the brakes on please

[ivor bigun]

The only problem is the half a million that never get booked in

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Pattaya46]

5 hours ago, foxboy said:

So we are supposed to be delighted that it's ONLY 226,000 extra people yearly now?? Wow, can someone put the brakes on please

Why not look on the non-EU migration ? 

Last statistics show more than 3 new non-EU migrants for 1 new EU migrant.

Stopping only EU migration would not even stop 1/4 of your immigration...

[7by7]

8 hours ago, <deleted> dasterdly said:

Interesting to see that we're now talking about net immigration...., but to look on the bright side the ONS has admitted it's previously flawed calculations and is trying another "experimental series".

'Now talking about net immigration!'

 

Where have you been?

 

In the 20 years that I have been taking an interest, the figure produced has always been the net one.

 

Even if you have not been taking an interest as long as I, do you not remember the 2010 Tory manifesto pledge to cut net migration? A pledge repeated in 2015 and 2017?

 

That is net migration; those entering (immigrants) minus those leaving (emigrants), not net immigration.

 

Yes, the ONS have admitted there are flaws in the way they have previously estimated that net migration figure. But it has always been an estimate based upon a sample from the international passenger survey.

 

The ONS have admitted underestimating the number of net migrants from the EU, but overestimating the number from outside the EU; so the total net figure is near enough to previously to be statistically insignificant.

 

Of course, these simple and easily checked facts don't suit the hard Brexiteer agenda, enthusiastically fed by Farage and others, of EU immigrants flooding into the UK to scrounge from the British taxpayer!

[7by7]

7 hours ago, foxboy said:

So we are supposed to be delighted that it's ONLY 226,000 extra people yearly now?? Wow, can someone put the brakes on please

You do realise that most of these, wherever they come from, are contributing to the UK economy?

 

Many are students, whose higher university fees subsidise the lower ones of British students.

 

Many are workers who pay their taxes. Non EU ones having to satisfy the stringent requirements to obtain a General work visa (Tier 2). Many EU ones, until Brexit, coming to do the low skilled, low paid jobs British people don't want.

 

Don't come the old rant of these people taking British jobs. Apart from a rise caused by the 2008 financial crisis, the unemployment rate in the UK has been steadily falling since 1992 (source).

[Chomper Higgot]

“MigrationWatch, a group that wants less immigration”

 

Migration Watch does nothing to reduce immigration but does a great deal to fan the flames of xenophobia.

 

[superal]

On 8/22/2019 at 10:41 PM, 7by7 said:

 Why not make them subject to the same immigration rules as non EU immigrants?

 

Maybe Boris doesn't know what they are? Wouldn't surprise me.

 

Those of us who live in the UK with our Thai partners/spouses, plus those who wish to do so, are well aware of the recommendations of MigrationWatch which May, as Home Secretary, accepted when she introduced the iniquitous financial requirement. A requirement which over 40% 0f working British citizens in the UK cannot meet!

It seems so unjust to have imposed the minimal income level on UK nationalists .  It should be debated and repealed . I fail to understand why the spouse does not have their earnings potential considered . Even a restriction of DSS benefits could have been applied . I would like to hear how TM qualified the 18600 pounds income when the state pension for a married couple is at best around 12000 pounds .

This act along with the expats frozen pension nonsense need to be brought to the fore . I wonder if BJ and new H/S Priti Patel may be more considerate ?

[ivor bigun]

'Now talking about net immigration!'
 
Where have you been?
 
In the 20 years that I have been taking an interest, the figure produced has always been the net one.
 
Even if you have not been taking an interest as long as I, do you not remember the 2010 Tory manifesto pledge to cut net migration? A pledge repeated in 2015 and 2017?
 
That is net migration; those entering (immigrants) minus those leaving (emigrants), not net immigration.
 
Yes, the ONS have admitted there are flaws in the way they have previously estimated that net migration figure. But it has always been an estimate based upon a sample from the international passenger survey.
 
The ONS have admitted underestimating the number of net migrants from the EU, but overestimating the number from outside the EU; so the total net figure is near enough to previously to be statistically insignificant.
 
Of course, these simple and easily checked facts don't suit the hard Brexiteer agenda, enthusiastically fed by Farage and others, of EU immigrants flooding into the UK to scrounge from the British taxpayer!

Yea right

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[StayinThailand2much]

15 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

Why not look on the non-EU migration ? 

Last statistics show more than 3 new non-EU migrants for 1 new EU migrant.

Stopping only EU migration would not even stop 1/4 of your immigration...

I predict that, long-term, EU immigrants will only be replaced by other immigrants from South Asia, Africa, etc., who will be lured by the vacancies.

[St George]

Just now, StayinThailand2much said:

I predict that, long-term, EU immigrants will only be replaced by other immigrants from South Asia, Africa, etc., who will be lured by the vacancies.

 

 

Economic migrants will always follow the money.

 

 

There will always be employment in the UK for immigrants of any nationality. Any country needs a sensible immigration policy to understand and, if necessary, control it's immigrant population.

 

We are in Thailand and Thailand is perhaps a good example of where to start with immigration. If you can support yourself (against sensible financial criteria - not an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all number) without recourse to public funds - and adhere to the laws/rules of the country - then you are "welcome" to stay.

 

Skill-based or needs-based criteria can be amended as appropriate................ the NHS being one classic example.

[evadgib]

I wasn't able to find any reports until today but these might be of interest to the board:

 

Immigration statistics, year ending June 2019 second edition

 

Immigration statistics data tables, year ending June 2019 second edition

 

EU Settlement Scheme quarterly statistics, June 2019

 

Don't shoot the messenger...

[7by7]

7 hours ago, superal said:

It seems so unjust to have imposed the minimal income level on UK nationalists .  It should be debated and repealed . I fail to understand why the spouse does not have their earnings potential considered . Even a restriction of DSS benefits could have been applied . I would like to hear how TM qualified the 18600 pounds income when the state pension for a married couple is at best around 12000 pounds .

 

The minimum required income of £18,600 p.a., savings of £65,000 or a combination of the two was arrived at as these are the figures above which a British family would not be entitled to any income based public funds.

 

But, of course, it ignores two factors:

1. many British families relying on public funds actually receive an income well below this figure;
2.  family migrants are banned from receiving such public funds for at least the first 5 years of their residency, and their British partner is banned from claiming any extra due to them living together.

Under the previous regime there was no set minimum figure, but In 2006, the UKAIT in UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan), strongly suggested that it would not be appropriate to have immigrant families existing on resources that were less than the income support level for a British family of the same size. Decision makers therefore took this figure as a baseline, and if it was more likely than not that the total amount that the applicant and sponsor would have to live on was below the income support level for a British family of the same size then the application would usually be refused.

 

Furthermore, the figure they looked as was a net one; net of housing costs and all other fixed outgoings such as servicing debts. This is no longer the case; the current financial requirement takes no account of outgoings at all.

 

This means that we have the ludicrous situation where a sponsor with a pre tax income of £18,600 p.a., a mortgage or rent of £7000 pa and debt repayments of £2000 p.a. meets the requirement; but a sponsor with a pre tax income of £18,599.99 and no mortrgage or rent, no debts doesn't!

 

Remember, too, that this requirement has to be met at least three times; the initial visa, further leave to remain after 2.5 years in the UK and indefinite leave to remain after another 2.5 years. If it's not met at any stage then that application will be refused and, if already living in the UK, the applicant deported.

 

7 hours ago, superal said:

This act along with the expats frozen pension nonsense need to be brought to the fore . I wonder if BJ and new H/S Priti Patel may be more considerate ?

 

Many people have been campaigning against both scandals for a long time; but I doubt the new government will do anything.

 

I also doubt that they will do anything about the scandal of the rip off fees which means applicants paying up to 8 times the actual cost of processing their application.

 

Labour have pledged to unfreeze expat pensions, replace the financial requirement with a system akin to the old one and reduce visa and LTR fees to a level which reflects the actual cost of processing.

 

But, even if they can be believed, is all this worth having Corbyn as PM?

 

[7by7]

7 hours ago, StayinThailand2much said:

I predict that, long-term, EU immigrants will only be replaced by other immigrants from South Asia, Africa, etc., who will be lured by the vacancies.

 

Impossible.

 

Currently EU migrants are covered by the FoM directive, which means that they can come to the UK to do any type of work without restriction.

 

Non EU nationals, and I suspect EU nationals after Brexit, are subject to the immigration rules and to come to the UK to work need a General work visa (Tier 2).

 

As you can see, the requirements for this are strict and would not be met by the type of work currently being done by many EU migrants. A salary of at least £30,000 p.a. for example; how many construction labourers, even skilled tradespeople get that?

 

Those applying under the Immigration Rules Appendix K: shortage occupation list, such as nurses, can have a salary of less than that; but do need to be qualified!

 

Brexit is going to lead to a shortage of workers in the low, unskilled sectors of the labour market. Jobs which EU migrants have been able to take for the simple reason that not only do British workers not want them, the relatively low, and still falling, unemployment rates over the last 20 years have meant that they don't have to.

[superal]

23 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

The minimum required income of £18,600 p.a., savings of £65,000 or a combination of the two was arrived at as these are the figures above which a British family would not be entitled to any income based public funds.

 

But, of course, it ignores two factors:

1. many British families relying on public funds actually receive an income well below this figure;
2.  family migrants are banned from receiving such public funds for at least the first 5 years of their residency, and their British partner is banned from claiming any extra due to them living together.

Under the previous regime there was no set minimum figure, but In 2006, the UKAIT in UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan), strongly suggested that it would not be appropriate to have immigrant families existing on resources that were less than the income support level for a British family of the same size. Decision makers therefore took this figure as a baseline, and if it was more likely than not that the total amount that the applicant and sponsor would have to live on was below the income support level for a British family of the same size then the application would usually be refused.

 

Furthermore, the figure they looked as was a net one; net of housing costs and all other fixed outgoings such as servicing debts. This is no longer the case; the current financial requirement takes no account of outgoings at all.

 

This means that we have the ludicrous situation where a sponsor with a pre tax income of £18,600 p.a., a mortgage or rent of £7000 pa and debt repayments of £2000 p.a. meets the requirement; but a sponsor with a pre tax income of £18,599.99 and no mortrgage or rent, no debts doesn't!

 

Remember, too, that this requirement has to be met at least three times; the initial visa, further leave to remain after 2.5 years in the UK and indefinite leave to remain after another 2.5 years. If it's not met at any stage then that application will be refused and, if already living in the UK, the applicant deported.

 

 

Many people have been campaigning against both scandals for a long time; but I doubt the new government will do anything.

 

I also doubt that they will do anything about the scandal of the rip off fees which means applicants paying up to 8 times the actual cost of processing their application.

 

Labour have pledged to unfreeze expat pensions, replace the financial requirement with a system akin to the old one and reduce visa and LTR fees to a level which reflects the actual cost of processing.

 

But, even if they can be believed, is all this worth having Corbyn as PM?

 

Thanks for the info , interesting .  I am not well informed on the protocol of UK politics so how could the two points in question be delivered to the PM for comment and appeal  ?  I recall something about either a petition of 10,000 or 100,000 signatures  delivered to number 10 Downing Street or even  on line .Would that bring about an inquiry, or could the short cut be PMs question time by way of an MP ? 

As  you say there have been previous campaigns on the frozen pensions ( one only 1 year ago ) so I am intrigued how JC would be able to turn things around .  

My search shows that the European court of Human Rights voted 11 - 6 in favour of the UK government . If only 3 voters had voted the other way .

[Essex Reject]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

The minimum required income of £18,600 p.a., savings of £65,000 or a combination of the two was arrived at as these are the figures above which a British family would not be entitled to any income based public funds.

 

But, of course, it ignores two factors:

1. many British families relying on public funds actually receive an income well below this figure;
2.  family migrants are banned from receiving such public funds for at least the first 5 years of their residency, and their British partner is banned from claiming any extra due to them living together.

Under the previous regime there was no set minimum figure, but In 2006, the UKAIT in UKAIT 00065 KA and Others (Pakistan), strongly suggested that it would not be appropriate to have immigrant families existing on resources that were less than the income support level for a British family of the same size. Decision makers therefore took this figure as a baseline, and if it was more likely than not that the total amount that the applicant and sponsor would have to live on was below the income support level for a British family of the same size then the application would usually be refused.

 

Furthermore, the figure they looked as was a net one; net of housing costs and all other fixed outgoings such as servicing debts. This is no longer the case; the current financial requirement takes no account of outgoings at all.

 

This means that we have the ludicrous situation where a sponsor with a pre tax income of £18,600 p.a., a mortgage or rent of £7000 pa and debt repayments of £2000 p.a. meets the requirement; but a sponsor with a pre tax income of £18,599.99 and no mortrgage or rent, no debts doesn't!

 

Remember, too, that this requirement has to be met at least three times; the initial visa, further leave to remain after 2.5 years in the UK and indefinite leave to remain after another 2.5 years. If it's not met at any stage then that application will be refused and, if already living in the UK, the applicant deported.

 

 

Many people have been campaigning against both scandals for a long time; but I doubt the new government will do anything.

 

I also doubt that they will do anything about the scandal of the rip off fees which means applicants paying up to 8 times the actual cost of processing their application.

 

Labour have pledged to unfreeze expat pensions, replace the financial requirement with a system akin to the old one and reduce visa and LTR fees to a level which reflects the actual cost of processing.

 

But, even if they can be believed, is all this worth having Corbyn as PM?

 

''Remember, too, that this requirement has to be met at least three times; the initial visa, further leave to remain after 2.5 years in the UK and indefinite leave to remain after another 2.5 years.''

 

 

is that def right? I didn't realise it had to be shown again after 5 years. Can anyone clarify?

[7by7]

5 minutes ago, Essex Reject said:

''Remember, too, that this requirement has to be met at least three times; the initial visa, further leave to remain after 2.5 years in the UK and indefinite leave to remain after another 2.5 years.''

 

 

is that def right? I didn't realise it had to be shown again after 5 years. Can anyone clarify?

 From Immigration Directorate Instruction Family Migration: &nbsp;Appendix FM Section 1.7 Appendix Armed Forces Financial Requiremen

Quote

1. Introduction

Since 9 July 2012, the Immigration Rules in Appendix FM have contained a financial requirement to be met by a person applying for entry clearance to, leave to remain in or indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the non-European Economic Area (non-EEA) national partner or dependent child of a person who is:  
• a British Citizen; or

• present and settled in the UK; or

• in the UK with refugee leave or humanitarian protection.

Since 1 December 2013, the Immigration Rules in Appendix Armed Forces have also contained a financial requirement to be met by a person applying for entry clearance to, leave to remain in or indefinite leave to remain in the UK as the non-EEA national partner or dependent child of a person (British or foreign or Commonwealth) who is a member of HM Forces (as defined in paragraph 2(d) of Appendix Armed Forces).

 

[7by7]

@superal,

 

The changes to the family migration rules which came into effect on the 9th July 2012, especially the financial requirement, were subject to an enquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration which reported in 2013; to which several members here, including myself, gave evidence. 

Quote

Key findings

1. Some British citizens and permanent residents in the UK, including people in full-time employment, have been separated from a non-EEA partner and in some cases their children as a result of the income requirement

2. Some British citizens and permanent residents have been prevented from returning to the UK with their non-EEA partner and any children as a result of the income requirement

3. Some children, including British children, have been indefinitely separated from a nonEEA parent as a result of the income requirement

4. The current permitted sources in order to meet the income requirement may not fully reflect the resources available to some families

5. The adult dependent relative visa category appears in effect to have been closed

 This report was ignored by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May.

 

There have been many petitions on the Parliamentary petitions site on both the financial requirement and unfreezing expat pensions.

 

If a petition receives at least 10,000 signatures the government must produce a written response; if at least 100,000 signatures it will be considered (my emphasis) for debate in the House of Commons. But that's it, the government is under no obligation to take any action other than produce an excuse for why they are taking no action!

 

[Essex Reject]

43 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

@superal,

 

The changes to the family migration rules which came into effect on the 9th July 2012, especially the financial requirement, were subject to an enquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration which reported in 2013; to which several members here, including myself, gave evidence. 

 This report was ignored by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May.

 

There have been many petitions on the Parliamentary petitions site on both the financial requirement and unfreezing expat pensions.

 

If a petition receives at least 10,000 signatures the government must produce a written response; if at least 100,000 signatures it will be considered (my emphasis) for debate in the House of Commons. But that's it, the government is under no obligation to take any action other than produce an excuse for why they are taking no action!

 

So is it 2 or 3 times?

[observer90210]

Did they hire people from TAT to give such statements ? ????

 

Or a more serious note, a nation in Continent Europe, with a top flourishing economy and more then comfortable salaries, Switzerland,  that is, not in the EU racket, is also getting  public pressure to decrease their numbers of EU or UK expats in white collar jobs, social pressure to cease renewal of the existing annual work permits for EU or UK citizens and give national preference for white collar jobs in Switzerland.  Could be bad news and unfair for some of the expats long established in Switzerland. 

[7by7]

39 minutes ago, Essex Reject said:

So is it 2 or 3 times?

 

I assume you mean meeting the financial requirement.

 

To achieve settlement in the UK under the family migration rules the spouse/partner of a British citizen needs to make at least three applications:

1. initial visa, otherwise known as entry clearance to the UK;
2. further leave to remain in the UK after living here for 2.5 years;
3. indefinite leave to remain in the UK 2.5 years after that, 5 years in total.

As the IDI guidance I linked to and quoted from says, the financial requirement must be met "by a person applying for entry clearance to, leave to remain in or indefinite leave to remain in the UK."

 

So that is, of course, at least three times.

 

I say 'at least' because if for some reason, such as not meeting the language requirement, a person does not qualify for ILR, they can apply for FLR instead. But they must meet the financial requirement for each and every application.

[Essex Reject]

18 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

I assume you mean meeting the financial requirement.

 

To achieve settlement in the UK under the family migration rules the spouse/partner of a British citizen needs to make at least three applications:

1. initial visa, otherwise known as entry clearance to the UK;
2. further leave to remain in the UK after living here for 2.5 years;
3. indefinite leave to remain in the UK 2.5 years after that, 5 years in total.

As the IDI guidance I linked to and quoted from says, the financial requirement must be met "by a person applying for entry clearance to, leave to remain in or indefinite leave to remain in the UK."

 

So that is, of course, at least three times.

 

I say 'at least' because if for some reason, such as not meeting the language requirement, a person does not qualify for ILR, they can apply for FLR instead. But they must meet the financial requirement for each and every application.

First time I have read about 3 times, every other time I've seen this area spoke about I have only ever heard about doing it once again after 2.5 years, never after 5 years. It really is a huge effort to get any foreign spouse back there isn't it.