EU to investigate UK interpretation of Surinder Singh

[7by7]

Just noticed this from Colin Yeo on Free Movement.

EU to investigate UK interpretation of Surinder Singh

The EU Commission is fully au fait with the amendments the UK made to its EU free movement rules in January 2014 and has stated in a recent letter that the UK rules are incompatible with EU law. Further, the EU intends to contact the UK authorities to seek their “observations” on the incompatibility, the first step in pursuing infringement proceedings against the UK.

[transam]

And...?

[jacky54]

should tell the EU to mind it's own business, sooner we are out the better

[7by7]

It is obvious that the above two posters have absolutely no idea what Surinder Singh is and how many, many British/non EEA national couples, including members of this forum, have used it to enable them to live together in the UK.

Maybe they should do some research before making inane comments.

I hope that future posts will discuss this important issue rather than make such comments.

[transam]

It is obvious that the above two posters have absolutely no idea what Surinder Singh is and how many, many British/non EEA national couples, including members of this forum, have used it to enable them to live together in the UK.

Maybe they should do some research before making inane comments.

I hope that future posts will discuss this important issue rather than make such comments.

I asked....And...........?

Go for it............

[7by7]

If you read the article linked to the answer to your question and how it could effect members of this forum, such as the OP in this current topic, is obvious.

[slipperx]

Immigration does need control in the UK mainly because of the benefits system available to all after a fairly short time. However the UK has dropped the ball in stopping their own citizens returning to their home country with a foreign wife.

If you are like me with several kids and wish to return to the UK or have to - and there are many reasons why you may have to - then it would mean the break up of my family. That is unconscionable. There are exceptions like having pay slips for several months showing income or 70k in cash in a UK bank for 6 months prior to return - not something most people could manage. The Surinder Singh route involves living with your family in another Eurozone country for a short time and repatriating from there basically because EU citizens have freedom of movement. I cannot understand how, for example, a French couple with their family get welcomed with open arms yet my three kids who are UK citizens along with me cannot return with their mother because she was born in s non European country. It is wrong. Laws that break up families are bad.

[7by7]

Surinder Singh is important because, as you say, it allows people who, although they are perfectly capable of supporting their family without recourse to public funds, cannot meet the government's ridiculously high financial requirement to use this route to living together in the UK.

But the UK has a history of not complying with the freedom of movement regulations in general and Surinder Singh in particular as they should.

Hopefully this investigation will make the UK government do so.

BTW, It is these same freedom of movement regulations which allows your French family to live in the UK which allow British citizens, whether they have non EEA national family members or not, to live in France, or anywhere else in the EEA.

Your French family, if one were a non EEA national, would have to comply with the French immigration rules in order to live in France; just as British/non EEA national families have to comply with the UK immigration rules to live in the UK.

The EEA regulations do not apply if the non EEA national family member is moving to the state of which their EEA national family member is a citizen.

Unless they qualify under Surinder Singh. I am sure, but have no figures to show, that there are French/non EEA national couples currently living in the UK in order to then move to France using this route.

Other EEA nationals too.

[Basil B]

I welcome this intervention by the EU, but unfortunately if the EU fines the UK it will not be David and the Tories that will have to pay...

Anyone marrying a person from abroad should really consider their responsibilities, particularly if they wish to bring there spouse to the UK.

I always believe a married couple should be able to live as man and wife, having said that no one should have the right to come here and get benefits when they have not contributed.

More importantly will they have the opportunity to work the required 35 years to get a full pension? if not will the country they come from be providing some form of pension or the spouse has funds or private pensions for their old age?

Many returning ex pats may not have contributed enough for a reduced pension of their own let alone a full pension, and probably have no other provision for their twilight years.

But there again this may be a big burden to those of use who do work and pay taxes but there again not as big as the burden of those in the UK who chose benefits as a way of life.

[Donutz]

should tell the EU to mind it's own business, sooner we are out the better

Lol, well then vote for a party that wants out of the EU or for a party that wants to change some EU directives and treaties.

I for one find the EU too slow in forcing it's memberstates to execute various directives correctl. Directives that all memberstates agreed upon together, no one forced them to sign the treaties. As with any law or agreement it will always be a compromise between the various parties (countries). But when it comes to executing them properly various memberstates seem to cherry pick. Take for instance the UK who still does not non-EU family members of an EU citizen who have a "family member of EU national" RC to enter visa free (except for German and Estonian cards since late 2013).

Other people may wish to see border back into place, not being able to easily move, work or tour other EU nations. Fair enough, some people may have good reasons to wish for the return of queues at the border of people, trucks etc. I'm glad we got rid of that for the most part. Though the social wellfare system may need some overhaul in various memberstates. Especially the UK (?) seems in need of some changes in the law when it comes to this (such as access to NHS). But I think that EU/EEA citizens and their family should be able to move, reside and work freely across the EU. Aslong as they are not an unreasonable burden on their host, just as per the directive. It may need some tweaking and so do various national laws to better combat abuse or unforseen legal exploits but in the long run your avarage EU citizen will pick the benefits of freedom of movement. That's my opinion atleast.

Edit: I do have one issue though with the directive: it allows for the discrimination of nationals in their own country. So Brits may not meet meet the British immigration standards and thus cannot invite their family over, Dutchies may face the same issue in NL etc. Their only option, aslong as they are not a burden on the state is to use the SS/EU route. Rather ackward I'd say. If a Brit or Dutchy is not a burden on the state, why not let them get their direct family over? And yes, ofcourse scam relations should not be covered and if busted the consequences should be quite serious. And yes the wellfare system should be protected against abuse, but it does need such protection anyway to prevent born and bred nationals from abusing the system of leeching of the wallet of fellow citizens.

Edited September 29, 2014 by Donutz

[NeverSure]

"Surinder" is a very good name for it.

I. can. not. believe. that the Brits gave up their sovereign borders and now have to crawl for permissions.

England used to be the greatest country on earth, and in many ways still is. What happened?

[elliss]

should tell the EU to mind it's own business, sooner we are out the better

Lol, well then vote for a party that wants out of the EU or for a party that wants to change some EU directives and treaties.

To cast a vote in the UK , one has to be on the electoral register .

That would eliminate most expats living in Thailand, from having any control over which party governs UK .

After the Scots, No vote for leaving the Union , there Not be a referendum on EU membership .

Edited September 30, 2014 by theoldgit
Quote fixed

[Donutz]

Well at some point there must have been a democraticly elected administration(s) that favoured Freedom of Movement, contributed in it's drafting and found the end result worth signing. And as with any law or contract, you cannot cherry pick, ignore or violate parts that (in hin sight) are not your cup of tea. Though oddly enough the UK right now is not begging for permission, it has been violation various parts of the treaty they helped drafting and signed ever since it came to be. But now some figures feel like they are being overrun and blame the EU for something it cannot be blamed for. Those who have issues with a treaty, law or other legally binding contract should -to begin with- abide what said paper dictates and then -secondly- may push for change(s) such as a new agreements or leaving the partnership (EU).

I find it shocking and dispicable that various memberstates get away with whiping their bottoms with the various legally binding obligations they agreed upon years ago. The EU Commission and EU Court move slow, and many violations have to fought out in (EU) court. Shameful.

[Thai at Heart]

The stupid thing is, and no disrespect to anyone, but 18.5k is barely enough to support anyone anyway.

I have had to split the family for a while and have my wife over on a visit visa and then she will return soon. If we had had to live on 18.5k, we would have been destitute.

So what does this rule solve? It breaks families and makes extended family unable to help people. It achieves nothing to stop genuine destitute people and just serves to separate families for at least 6 months.

It is a stupid law. Long term married families should be together and extended family should be allowed to help. Meanwhile, the Europeans are free to come and go as they please.

Extremely immoral and discriminatory law

[beano2274]

I will most likely use the Surinder Singh way to get my wife to the UK as most people on here are aware.

I am a Brit live and work in Munich, my wife has been here for over a year speaks German and has the Residence Card with the annotation about Family Member of a Union Citizen, we are going back to the UK for a long weekend in November and she will enter the UK with her Thai Passport and her German Residence Card.

Our plan is to move permanently to the UK next year dependant on the job situation as I am a Consultant.

[beano2274]

The stupid thing is, and no disrespect to anyone, but 18.5k is barely enough to support anyone anyway.

I have had to split the family for a while and have my wife over on a visit visa and then she will return soon. If we had had to live on 18.5k, we would have been destitute.

So what does this rule solve? It breaks families and makes extended family unable to help people. It achieves nothing to stop genuine destitute people and just serves to separate families for at least 6 months.

It is a stupid law. Long term married families should be together and extended family should be allowed to help. Meanwhile, the Europeans are free to come and go as they please.

Extremely immoral and discriminatory law

And you can go to Europe and are free to come and go like them in the UK.

[Thai at Heart]

The stupid thing is, and no disrespect to anyone, but 18.5k is barely enough to support anyone anyway.

I have had to split the family for a while and have my wife over on a visit visa and then she will return soon. If we had had to live on 18.5k, we would have been destitute.

So what does this rule solve? It breaks families and makes extended family unable to help people. It achieves nothing to stop genuine destitute people and just serves to separate families for at least 6 months.

It is a stupid law. Long term married families should be together and extended family should be allowed to help. Meanwhile, the Europeans are free to come and go as they please.

Extremely immoral and discriminatory law

And you can go to Europe and are free to come and go like them in the UK.

My wife will need a visa to visit Europe since she will not be a citizen and Britain is not in the schengen. People who abuse the benefit system deserve to have problems. Families who have extended family to help, should not be punished.

[manarak]

"Surinder" is a very good name for it.

I. can. not. believe. that the Brits gave up their sovereign borders and now have to crawl for permissions.

England used to be the greatest country on earth, and in many ways still is. What happened?

you mean like the Swiss reporting bank accounts of US persons?

[manarak]

Surinder Singh is important because, as you say, it allows people who, although they are perfectly capable of supporting their family without recourse to public funds, cannot meet the government's ridiculously high financial requirement to use this route to living together in the UK.

how high is "ridiculously high" ?

[manarak]

I welcome this intervention by the EU, but unfortunately if the EU fines the UK it will not be David and the Tories that will have to pay...

Anyone marrying a person from abroad should really consider their responsibilities, particularly if they wish to bring there spouse to the UK.

I always believe a married couple should be able to live as man and wife, having said that no one should have the right to come here and get benefits when they have not contributed.

More importantly will they have the opportunity to work the required 35 years to get a full pension? if not will the country they come from be providing some form of pension or the spouse has funds or private pensions for their old age?

Many returning ex pats may not have contributed enough for a reduced pension of their own let alone a full pension, and probably have no other provision for their twilight years.

But there again this may be a big burden to those of use who do work and pay taxes but there again not as big as the burden of those in the UK who chose benefits as a way of life.

Nationals should always be able to bring their spouse, but spouses wouldn't be allowed to claim benefits unless they had already worked and paid taxes for a minimum of 3 years.

After two years, they could be allowed to get a work permit and work and could initiate the process to become a national themselves (I would require good knowledge of the language, a clean criminal record and 10 years of procedure for that).

Incase of divorce, spouses have to get out unless they hold a work permit, are a guardian of children or the husband dies.

[zyphodb]

I think that it's an infringement of my Human rights for the UK to say that I can't bring my wife & Child back to the UK without having a large amount of money in my bank account, not let her claim benefits is fair enough, but to say that I have to split my family up if I want my Daughter to visit her Grandparents who are too old to travel to Thailand for instance, is crazy, has anyone taken this to the court of human rights I wonder? & if so has there been a ruling? & if so has the British Government conveniently ignored it as I suspect would be the case?

[daveAustin]

It is a disgrace that the UK does this to its own people, but I reckon it is a form of damage-limitation regards the opening up of the EU -- the inevitable infiltration by those people who have no UK connection and have put nothing into the coffers coming in to exploit the welfare system. Tough titties at the end of the day as, someone mentioned, we signed up to this. Well, someone did in governments past, perhaps without the hindsight that every Tom, Dick and Romanian Harry would eventually be granted EU status. Another mentioned we are also free to go play in those other countries. Well, f'k-a-doodle-do, to do what? To obtain similar benefits? From who? Poland, Romania, Bulgaria? lol It's all one-way, everyone in Europe knows this. I'm with the guy up top; the sooner we're out, the better. Borders up and the Surinder Singh method could be defunct since the UK gov can revert to norm, i.e. letting in those it chooses.

Off-topic

Addressing NeverSure: Indeed, England was great and still has a lot of clout, accounting for the bulk of UK GDP, main financial centre of Europe etc etc, but i fear it has decapitated itself to please those little people it has trodden on in the past, to sit and take the crap it does from the home countries, namely Scotland (see above), and sickening PCness. One has grown up to feel it is not cool to blab about being English, to wave the George cross, to remark on the rich culture and history, etc, for fear of upsetting the 'guests' and the stigma of empire. I.E. we've had our day!

[slipperx]

I think that it's an infringement of my Human rights for the UK to say that I can't bring my wife & Child back to the UK without having a large amount of money in my bank account, not let her claim benefits is fair enough, but to say that I have to split my family up if I want my Daughter to visit her Grandparents who are too old to travel to Thailand for instance, is crazy, has anyone taken this to the court of human rights I wonder? & if so has there been a ruling? & if so has the British Government conveniently ignored it as I suspect would be the case?

It's not about visiting, it is about repatriating and bringing your wife with you if she is may an EU national. Other than that you can be sure that the UK will be taken to task and I believe will have to backtrack on this. No benefits is fine as you say, otherwise it's s nonsense and actually counter productive. How can a man with children go to work if his wife is not there to assist - just a stupid vote grabbing law which is ill thought out.

[Basil B]

I welcome this intervention by the EU, but unfortunately if the EU fines the UK it will not be David and the Tories that will have to pay...

Anyone marrying a person from abroad should really consider their responsibilities, particularly if they wish to bring there spouse to the UK.

I always believe a married couple should be able to live as man and wife, having said that no one should have the right to come here and get benefits when they have not contributed.

More importantly will they have the opportunity to work the required 35 years to get a full pension? if not will the country they come from be providing some form of pension or the spouse has funds or private pensions for their old age?

Many returning ex pats may not have contributed enough for a reduced pension of their own let alone a full pension, and probably have no other provision for their twilight years.

But there again this may be a big burden to those of use who do work and pay taxes but there again not as big as the burden of those in the UK who chose benefits as a way of life.

Nationals should always be able to bring their spouse, but spouses wouldn't be allowed to claim benefits unless they had already worked and paid taxes for a minimum of 3 years.

After two years, they could be allowed to get a work permit and work and could initiate the process to become a national themselves (I would require good knowledge of the language, a clean criminal record and 10 years of procedure for that).

Incase of divorce, spouses have to get out unless they hold a work permit, are a guardian of children or the husband dies.

The thing I was trying to put, if you commit to marriage you should consider the future particularly the later years, for most of us acquiring 35 years NI contribution is no problem, and those who stay at home to care for young children, or other family members that need care or are unable to work themselves for genuine reasons, crediting them these years is only right.

The thing is if you have 35 years as of next year when you reach 66 you can get in the region of £7,500 a year pension, if you have a wife or partner who is 66 or over and also has 35 years contributions then that would be £15,000 for the two of you (still below the £18,600) but depending where you live and assuming you have your own mortgage free house it could be comfortable living.

Assuming your Thai partner comes to the UK aged 45 that means they may only get the equivalent of £4,500 of today's money in retirement after working 21 years in the UK, if you are not around that could be all they have to live on, that would probably be below the acceptable subsistence level and as Britain does have a welfare system that does provide those in need, it would have to be made up from public funds, no one is going to tell them to go back from where they came (assuming UKIP or the BNP are not in government).

But there again Britain should also sort out its own none contributors which are a bigger burden on those who do contribute.

I suppose this is getting off topic but their should be no need Surinder Singh route in the first place.

Edited September 30, 2014 by Basil B

[manarak]

I welcome this intervention by the EU, but unfortunately if the EU fines the UK it will not be David and the Tories that will have to pay...

Anyone marrying a person from abroad should really consider their responsibilities, particularly if they wish to bring there spouse to the UK.

I always believe a married couple should be able to live as man and wife, having said that no one should have the right to come here and get benefits when they have not contributed.

More importantly will they have the opportunity to work the required 35 years to get a full pension? if not will the country they come from be providing some form of pension or the spouse has funds or private pensions for their old age?

Many returning ex pats may not have contributed enough for a reduced pension of their own let alone a full pension, and probably have no other provision for their twilight years.

But there again this may be a big burden to those of use who do work and pay taxes but there again not as big as the burden of those in the UK who chose benefits as a way of life.

Nationals should always be able to bring their spouse, but spouses wouldn't be allowed to claim benefits unless they had already worked and paid taxes for a minimum of 3 years.

After two years, they could be allowed to get a work permit and work and could initiate the process to become a national themselves (I would require good knowledge of the language, a clean criminal record and 10 years of procedure for that).

Incase of divorce, spouses have to get out unless they hold a work permit, are a guardian of children or the husband dies.

The thing I was trying to put, if you commit to marriage you should consider the future particularly the later years, for most of us acquiring 35 years NI contribution is no problem, and those who stay at home to care for young children, or other family members that need care or are unable to work themselves for genuine reasons, crediting them these years is only right.

The thing is if you have 35 years as of next year when you reach 66 you can get in the region of £7,500 a year pension, if you have a wife or partner who is 66 or over and also has 35 years contributions then that would be £15,000 for the two of you (still below the £18,600) but depending where you live and assuming you have your own mortgage free house it could be comfortable living.

Assuming your Thai partner comes to the UK aged 45 that means they may only get the equivalent of £4,500 of today's money in retirement after working 21 years in the UK, if you are not around that could be all they have to live on, that would probably be below the acceptable subsistence level and as Britain does have a welfare system that does provide those in need, it would have to be made up from public funds, no one is going to tell them to go back from where they came (assuming UKIP or the BNP are not in government).

But there again Britain should also sort out its own none contributors which are a bigger burden on those who do contribute.

I suppose this is getting off topic but their should be no need Surinder Singh route in the first place.

Crediting people with work years when in fact they didn't work is wrong and will unbalance the budgets in the end.

There are other subsides to step in if people can't reach a minimum income - and before getting government aid, they should need to first sell off what they have.

Also, I think that in order to avoid big problems (the very first baby boomers are just now beginning to trickle into the pension system), pensions must be built on an insurance system and not by levy of a contribution/tax from current wage earners. The population's age structure will not allow that in the future.

The insurance route also offers opportunities to make up for lost years by buying into the scheme.

Personally, I believe that having a small business or shop is much better than a pension.

[7by7]

This topic is about the Surinder Singh judgement, how it is applied by the UK and how it effects BRITISH citizens and their family.

Although some seem to want to turn it into a general EU bashing one!

How the ruling is applied by the UK has nothing whatsoever to do with other EEA nationals, they could not use it to bring their non EEA national families to the UK, but can to take them to their own country in the same way that British citizens can use it to bring their family to the UK.

Surinder Singh is important because, as you say, it allows people who, although they are perfectly capable of supporting their family without recourse to public funds, cannot meet the government's ridiculously high financial requirement to use this route to living together in the UK.

how high is "ridiculously high" ?

Gone over at length in many other topics, so I don't want to get into a discussion on this here.

All I will say is that the British government expects a British couple, both over 18, without children who receive income support to be able to live on £113.70 per week (£5912.40 p.a.) (source) plus rent, or if they are buying their mortgage interest payments.

But for a settlement visa the sponsor, and the sponsor alone ignoring any potential income the applicant may have once in the UK, must have an income of at least £18,600!

That is why I say it is ridiculously high; it should, as it used to be in practice, the same as the income support level for a British family of the same size.

But, as said, this is not the topic to discuss this matter.

[7by7]

(Quote removed for clarity)

And you can go to Europe and are free to come and go like them in the UK.

My wife will need a visa to visit Europe since she will not be a citizen and Britain is not in the schengen.....

Yes, she will need a visa for other EEA states including the Schengen ones.

But as you are, I assume, British and therefore an EEA national the Freedom of Movement regulations state that her visa should be free, all you need to show is that she is your wife and that she is travelling with or to join you and it should be issued with the minimum of delay.

[manarak]

This topic is about the Surinder Singh judgement, how it is applied by the UK and how it effects BRITISH citizens and their family.

Although some seem to want to turn it into a general EU bashing one!

How the ruling is applied by the UK has nothing whatsoever to do with other EEA nationals, they could not use it to bring their non EEA national families to the UK, but can to take them to their own country in the same way that British citizens can use it to bring their family to the UK.

Surinder Singh is important because, as you say, it allows people who, although they are perfectly capable of supporting their family without recourse to public funds, cannot meet the government's ridiculously high financial requirement to use this route to living together in the UK.

how high is "ridiculously high" ?

Gone over at length in many other topics, so I don't want to get into a discussion on this here.

All I will say is that the British government expects a British couple, both over 18, without children who receive income support to be able to live on £113.70 per week (£5912.40 p.a.) (source) plus rent, or if they are buying their mortgage interest payments.

But for a settlement visa the sponsor, and the sponsor alone ignoring any potential income the applicant may have once in the UK, must have an income of at least £18,600!

That is why I say it is ridiculously high; it should, as it used to be in practice, the same as the income support level for a British family of the same size.

But, as said, this is not the topic to discuss this matter.

Hmmm...

The figure is very low in relation with UK household incomes, but I can see why it can be a problem for people coming in from low wage countries.

That means the sponsor has to first go to the UK and find a job!

I can clearly see why they did this.

But as I already said in the other thread, I think making a "rule" on this is wrong.

Applicants should simply be excluded from receiving government support for a minimum of 3 years and until they find a job.

Edited September 30, 2014 by manarak

[zyphodb]

I think that it's an infringement of my Human rights for the UK to say that I can't bring my wife & Child back to the UK without having a large amount of money in my bank account, not let her claim benefits is fair enough, but to say that I have to split my family up if I want my Daughter to visit her Grandparents who are too old to travel to Thailand for instance, is crazy, has anyone taken this to the court of human rights I wonder? & if so has there been a ruling? & if so has the British Government conveniently ignored it as I suspect would be the case?

It's not about visiting, it is about repatriating and bringing your wife with you if she is may an EU national. Other than that you can be sure that the UK will be taken to task and I believe will have to backtrack on this. No benefits is fine as you say, otherwise it's s nonsense and actually counter productive. How can a man with children go to work if his wife is not there to assist - just a stupid vote grabbing law which is ill thought out.

I know that, I was just using this as an example of how stupid this law is. Come the day, God forbid when I have to leave Thailand for some reason or other, of course I want to take my family with me. Under the present law they wouldn't let my wife in despite me having extended family in the UK who would happily look after us until we got on our feet.

I don't see 1st & 2nd generation ex commonwealth, Indians, Pakistani's etc having these problems bringing their extended families in, presumably because they can play the racist card. However I, who am English born & bred with at least 10 generations of my family before me the same, have to leave my wife behind because of this f&%*£%g law, made by a government who is supposed to be looking out for it's citizens...

[theoldgit]

I don't see 1st & 2nd generation ex commonwealth, Indians, Pakistani's etc having these problems bringing their extended families in, presumably because they can play the racist card. However I, who am English born & bred with at least 10 generations of my family before me the same, have to leave my wife behind because of this f&%*£%g law, made by a government who is supposed to be looking out for it's citizens...

I've seen it, a good friend and former colleague of mine is a second generation Indian, she's born and bred in London, she wanted to bring her grandmother to the UK, but the application was refused.

My friend is an Immigration Officer, and wouldn't, and didn't, even dream of trying to play the "race card".