EU to investigate UK interpretation of Surinder Singh

[billd766]

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.

Some of us pensioners have paid 44 years of contributions and having made provision for our futures with extra pension funding and having to pay tax on those extra pensions even though we don't live in the UK nor use any benefits from the UK.

In case you assume that the state pension or any other pension is a benefit I will point out to you that I EARNED my pensions and I had and still have no choice in paying taxes and National Insurance contributions in the UK as my pensions are deemed to have been earned by UK companies.

As far as I am aware it is MY right and MY right alone to choose who I marry and that is my responsibility.

It is the UK governments who are changing the rules and abrogating the unwritten contracts between government and pensioners.

Why must I prove an income of £18,600 when the minimum working salary for a 40 hour week 54 week of the year is just over £13,500 and many people earn that or a bit more.

Quote "

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. "

I started my working life and paying tax at the age of 15 and 2 months and I retired 49 years and 10 months later.

I am however STILL paying income tax in the UK 5 years after my retirement and will continue to do so for the rest of my life.

[billd766]

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 .

Actually it does not eliminate most expats in Thailand. You have 15 years after leaving the UK to register for voting.

I did and I still have my vote either as a postal voter or using a friend as a proxy voter.

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Not they are not allowed just to bring their family at all. I had some savings, but not sufficient to cover the entirety, and I was searching for a job which took several months. What I should have done was to bring her with me on a visit visa and then send her back to do the settlement. Instead, assuming I would find a job, (which i was not looking for at the 18.5k level), i eventually found one a much much more than that but it took time. But, my missus was stuck in Thailand becasue we didn't meet the requirments. We haven't taken a penny off the tax payer, the house will be sold next week in Thailand and so we now exceed the requirements massively. Meanwhile the kids have settled brilliantly in school and life is great, and my father has loved every minute with his grandchildren.

So what did it achieve. Lots of tears, stress, heartache and unnecessary mess. We are now in a position that she HAS to apply outside the country and return to THailnad alone, because of the stupid rules, that I could be earning 500k per year, but she would still have to apply outside. We contacted a lawyer and extreme circumstances are not even met when as they say, "one man had terminal cancer, had returned to the UK and brought his missus on a visit visa, but she had to return to Thailand leaving him with the kids, because he had extended family to help". This rule is extremely discrimiatory since it hurts the children the most, and it does separate families. It assumes everyone is on the lam, and tars everyone with exactly the same brush. My old man would have added his cash to mine to satsify the cash requirements, but that is not allowed. The law is an ass.

it has the incongruous position, that it would be easier for my wife to stay if I was dead, or in a wheelchair, then she would be exempted from the financial tests.

[Richard W]

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?

The European Economic Community was based on the ideal of no internal boundaries for economics matters - free movement of labour, capital and goods. The feeling was that we were all Europeans together. It helped that we were mostly talking of Western Europe at the time - the collapse of the Iron Curtain was not expected.

I don't expect the freedom to enter another member country with one's entire family will last. Sooner or later this will be restricted to movement between EEA countries, as some countries have attempted to do in the past. For now, there remains the quaint notion that law applies to governments.

[7by7]

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".

Indeed; all non EEA nationals have to meet exactly the same requirements to enter or remain in the UK for any reason; regardless of their race, colour, whatever.

For those who think bringing extended family members to live in the UK is easy; have a read of para 317 of the immigration rules.

In particular;

317(iii) is financially wholly or mainly dependent on the relative present and settled in the United Kingdom

and

317(v) has no other close relatives in his own country to whom he could turn for financial support

I am always amused by people who complain about immigrants, particulalrly second, third generation onwards, saying that they are "English born and bred" or similar.

These islands are populated by immigrants and the descendants of immigrants. Unless you have pure Celtic genes, then you are descended from immigrants. (There is even archaeological evidence to suggest that the Celts were not the first to populate the British Isles)

Zyphodb, how many generations does it take before you regard a person as English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh instead of an immigrant?

[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.

Not they are not allowed just to bring their family at all. I had some savings, but not sufficient to cover the entirety, and I was searching for a job which took several months. What I should have done was to bring her with me on a visit visa and then send her back to do the settlement. Instead, assuming I would find a job, (which i was not looking for at the 18.5k level), i eventually found one a much much more than that but it took time. But, my missus was stuck in Thailand becasue we didn't meet the requirments. We haven't taken a penny off the tax payer, the house will be sold next week in Thailand and so we now exceed the requirements massively. Meanwhile the kids have settled brilliantly in school and life is great, and my father has loved every minute with his grandchildren.

So what did it achieve. Lots of tears, stress, heartache and unnecessary mess. We are now in a position that she HAS to apply outside the country and return to THailnad alone, because of the stupid rules, that I could be earning 500k per year, but she would still have to apply outside. We contacted a lawyer and extreme circumstances are not even met when as they say, "one man had terminal cancer, had returned to the UK and brought his missus on a visit visa, but she had to return to Thailand leaving him with the kids, because he had extended family to help". This rule is extremely discrimiatory since it hurts the children the most, and it does separate families. It assumes everyone is on the lam, and tars everyone with exactly the same brush. My old man would have added his cash to mine to satsify the cash requirements, but that is not allowed. The law is an ass.

it has the incongruous position, that it would be easier for my wife to stay if I was dead, or in a wheelchair, then she would be exempted from the financial tests.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but looking at it from the other side, give spouses the opportunity to come for six months on a visit visa while their other half looks for work, when their other half fails to find work and the visa expires many will stay here and it will cost the UK tax payer a lot to fight lengthy court cases and appeals to deport them.

[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.

Some of us pensioners have paid 44 years of contributions and having made provision for our futures with extra pension funding and having to pay tax on those extra pensions even though we don't live in the UK nor use any benefits from the UK.

In case you assume that the state pension or any other pension is a benefit I will point out to you that I EARNED my pensions and I had and still have no choice in paying taxes and National Insurance contributions in the UK as my pensions are deemed to have been earned by UK companies.

As far as I am aware it is MY right and MY right alone to choose who I marry and that is my responsibility.

It is the UK governments who are changing the rules and abrogating the unwritten contracts between government and pensioners.

Why must I prove an income of £18,600 when the minimum working salary for a 40 hour week 54 week of the year is just over £13,500 and many people earn that or a bit more.

Quote "

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. "

I started my working life and paying tax at the age of 15 and 2 months and I retired 49 years and 10 months later.

I am however STILL paying income tax in the UK 5 years after my retirement and will continue to do so for the rest of my life.

What I was saying is that it is unfair to those of us who have a full pension that some who have contributed a lot less or nothing at all will get benefits, probably not much less than those who have worked hard for their pensions.

[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.

Not they are not allowed just to bring their family at all. I had some savings, but not sufficient to cover the entirety, and I was searching for a job which took several months. What I should have done was to bring her with me on a visit visa and then send her back to do the settlement. Instead, assuming I would find a job, (which i was not looking for at the 18.5k level), i eventually found one a much much more than that but it took time. But, my missus was stuck in Thailand becasue we didn't meet the requirments. We haven't taken a penny off the tax payer, the house will be sold next week in Thailand and so we now exceed the requirements massively. Meanwhile the kids have settled brilliantly in school and life is great, and my father has loved every minute with his grandchildren.

So what did it achieve. Lots of tears, stress, heartache and unnecessary mess. We are now in a position that she HAS to apply outside the country and return to THailnad alone, because of the stupid rules, that I could be earning 500k per year, but she would still have to apply outside. We contacted a lawyer and extreme circumstances are not even met when as they say, "one man had terminal cancer, had returned to the UK and brought his missus on a visit visa, but she had to return to Thailand leaving him with the kids, because he had extended family to help". This rule is extremely discrimiatory since it hurts the children the most, and it does separate families. It assumes everyone is on the lam, and tars everyone with exactly the same brush. My old man would have added his cash to mine to satsify the cash requirements, but that is not allowed. The law is an ass.

it has the incongruous position, that it would be easier for my wife to stay if I was dead, or in a wheelchair, then she would be exempted from the financial tests.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but looking at it from the other side, give spouses the opportunity to come for six months on a visit visa while their other half looks for work, when their other half fails to find work and the visa expires many will stay here and it will cost the UK tax payer a lot to fight lengthy court cases and appeals to deport them.

why lengthy court cases - just do not grant benefits. problem solved.

[bobrussell]

Nearly fell over in shock! I am in agreement with something Richard W has said!

I also think EU movement will be limited and in some ways hope it will be.

Free movement for leisure/holidays etc but residence limited to those genuinely in work, study or self-supporting. Possibly enforced by total lack of access to any form of benefits until sufficient tax/NI have been paid.

Most movement would still be allowed but economic migration would depend on a job being available! Topic returning fairly well to Surinder-Singh!

[Thai at Heart]

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.

Not they are not allowed just to bring their family at all. I had some savings, but not sufficient to cover the entirety, and I was searching for a job which took several months. What I should have done was to bring her with me on a visit visa and then send her back to do the settlement. Instead, assuming I would find a job, (which i was not looking for at the 18.5k level), i eventually found one a much much more than that but it took time. But, my missus was stuck in Thailand becasue we didn't meet the requirments. We haven't taken a penny off the tax payer, the house will be sold next week in Thailand and so we now exceed the requirements massively. Meanwhile the kids have settled brilliantly in school and life is great, and my father has loved every minute with his grandchildren.

So what did it achieve. Lots of tears, stress, heartache and unnecessary mess. We are now in a position that she HAS to apply outside the country and return to THailnad alone, because of the stupid rules, that I could be earning 500k per year, but she would still have to apply outside. We contacted a lawyer and extreme circumstances are not even met when as they say, "one man had terminal cancer, had returned to the UK and brought his missus on a visit visa, but she had to return to Thailand leaving him with the kids, because he had extended family to help". This rule is extremely discrimiatory since it hurts the children the most, and it does separate families. It assumes everyone is on the lam, and tars everyone with exactly the same brush. My old man would have added his cash to mine to satsify the cash requirements, but that is not allowed. The law is an ass.

it has the incongruous position, that it would be easier for my wife to stay if I was dead, or in a wheelchair, then she would be exempted from the financial tests.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but looking at it from the other side, give spouses the opportunity to come for six months on a visit visa while their other half looks for work, when their other half fails to find work and the visa expires many will stay here and it will cost the UK tax payer a lot to fight lengthy court cases and appeals to deport them.

My extended family or myself would have happily lodged a bond to guarantee. It is particularly the inability for extended family to assist which is particularly inhumane.

It is basically wrong and deprives a British child of their mother. Why should a french child have more rights to access their mother in britain than a British child?

[Seekingasylum]

Surinder Singh as reinterpreted by May is indefensible under any scrutiny and they will be told to stop their silly games. I said as much in the sticky above. There is no requirement under the regulations to demonstrate that one has made their adoptive EU country central to their economic and social life and for May to impose such a foolishness is absurd as it is unenforceable.

Part of the joy of EU membership and its rules is the protection Brits have from their own daft governments.

If we didn't have the EU Brits would stil be swimming amid sewage polluted seas, forced to work overtime if one didn't want to lose a job and all part time workers would stil be without holiday pay etc, airlines would still be treating their customers like cattle and mobile phone operators would be ripping off folk mercilessly.

[Basil B]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but looking at it from the other side, give spouses the opportunity to come for six months on a visit visa while their other half looks for work, when their other half fails to find work and the visa expires many will stay here and it will cost the UK tax payer a lot to fight lengthy court cases and appeals to deport them.

why lengthy court cases - just do not grant benefits. problem solved.

Denning subsistence benefits? you can not starve them out, they never had benefits in the first place but they will get by, family help, charity hand outs, begging, and all else fails they would have to take them in at a immigration remand centre if they did not have accommodation or enough to live on, they would have to feed them there and eventually pay for their repatriation.

Lot easier to keep people out than kicking them out.

Anyway we are now far off topic and will say no more on the matter.

[7by7]

My extended family or myself would have happily lodged a bond to guarantee. It is particularly the inability for extended family to assist which is particularly inhumane.

It is basically wrong and deprives a British child of their mother.

I agree that the removal of third party financial support from the settlement rules is wrong. If a settlement applicant can be supported by their sponsor's family then they obviously will not be a burden upon the state and so be deemed to have met the requirement to be adequately maintained without access to public funds; as was the situation prior to 19/7/12.

Why should a french child have more rights to access their mother in britain than a British child?

Not sure what you mean by this; but assume you are referring to the EEA freedom of movement regulations. vs. the UK immigration rules.

A British child has, of course, every right to enter the UK at any time and stay as long as they wish. But I assume you mean that their non EEA national mother can't, unless she obtains the appropriate UK visa.

As said before, the EEA freedom of movement regulations do not apply if the non EEA national wants to enter the state of which their EEA family member is a citizen; they have to apply and qualify under that state's immigration law.

Unless they qualify under the Surinder Singh ruling or, if they are the sole carer for a child who is a citizen of that state, the Zambrano ruling.

I would not be surprised if somewhere in France someone is saying "Why should a British child have more rights to access their mother in France than a French child?"

[manarak]

I agree with a lot of what you say, but looking at it from the other side, give spouses the opportunity to come for six months on a visit visa while their other half looks for work, when their other half fails to find work and the visa expires many will stay here and it will cost the UK tax payer a lot to fight lengthy court cases and appeals to deport them.

why lengthy court cases - just do not grant benefits. problem solved.

Denning subsistence benefits? you can not starve them out, they never had benefits in the first place but they will get by, family help, charity hand outs, begging, and all else fails they would have to take them in at a immigration remand centre if they did not have accommodation or enough to live on, they would have to feed them there and eventually pay for their repatriation.

Lot easier to keep people out than kicking them out.

Anyway we are now far off topic and will say no more on the matter.

The british spouse and any children would be able to claim benefits, just not the foreigner.

I feel it is more cruel to deny entry than to deny benefits. The repatriation costs much less, and as I said earlier could be covered by a deposit.

[7by7]

Nearly fell over in shock! I am in agreement with something Richard W has said!

I also think EU movement will be limited and in some ways hope it will be.

Free movement for leisure/holidays etc but residence limited to those genuinely in work, study or self-supporting. Possibly enforced by total lack of access to any form of benefits until sufficient tax/NI have been paid.

Most movement would still be allowed but economic migration would depend on a job being available! Topic returning fairly well to Surinder-Singh!

To reside in another EEA state the person must be exercising an economic treaty right. These are:

• student,
• worker, employed or self employed,
• living off independent means such as a pension or
• job seeker.

If someone has entered, for example the UK, as a job seeker they cannot become an 'unreasonable burden upon the state;' and what they can claim is limited.

For the UK

A person with a right to reside as a jobseeker may claim income-based JSA (which can give entitlement to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit), Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit. Jobseekers may not however claim Income Support, income-related Employment and Support Allowance, or Pension Credit; nor can those with a right to reside as a jobseeker get housing or homelessness assistance from a local authority.

It is important to note that, unlike workers, self-employed persons and persons with a permanent right of residence, those with a right to reside as a jobseeker are not exempt from the main Habitual Residence Test and will also need to satisfy this requirement in order to claim income-based JSA (and with it HB and CTB).

source

Since April 2014 EEA nationals in the UK as job seekers cannot claim housing benefit. See here.

The amount of time a job seeker can remain before they either have to start work or leave is limited by some EEA states to a maximum of three months. The UK is different; the jobseeker has to show that they have a genuine chance of finding work within a reasonable period.

An EEA national who enters as a worker and then loses their job can remain as a job seeker; subject to the above conditions. But they can claim contribution based JSA; assuming they have paid the relevant NICs, of course.

EEA nationals living in the UK do not have automatic access to the NHS until they achieve permanent residence; which takes five years, and comprehensive health insurance is required.

The above is a brief summary of what is a complex, and at times confusing, set of rules. So please forgive any errors; which I'm sure will be corrected by those more knowledgeable than I.

[Seekingasylum]

The category you have omitted is a spouse or other family member of someone who has acquired indefinite leave to remain under the regulations.and consequently they have unfettered rights to employment and services including access to the NHS.

The limited access to NHS only applies to those who are not economically active and have established their residence under the regulations as a person of independent means such as pensioners and the like who are required to demonstrate they have sufficient private health insurance as a condition of qualifying for their 5 years residence permit.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Seekingasylum

[Donutz]

The category you have omitted is a spouse or other family member of someone who has acquired indefinite leave to remain under the regulations.and consequently they have unfettered rights to employment and services including access to the NHS.

The limited access to NHS only applies to those who are not economically active and have established their residence under the regulations as a person of independent means such as pensioners and the like who are required to demonstrate they have sufficient private health insurance as a condition of qualifying for their 5 years residence permit.

You cannot blame the SS route or EU for that, can you? If it is a problem then secure the welfare laws so that people cannot get access to it too easily. After 5-7 years of residence for instance or atleast some labour. Though it's always tricky to set up laws that prevent abuse from (new and born citizens or residents) while not denying access to those genuinly in need.

[zyphodb]

7by7, As far as I'm concerned If someone was born in the UK whatever their race or nationality they're British, I'm not a racist just extremely frustrated with the system.....BTW I'm also a Hawkwind fan...