'Absurd' visa rules on income force UK citizens into exile, court told

[rasg]

Yes, property prices are variable depending on where you live, and in London the rent on a one bedroom property goes from under £250 per week to over £1800 per week depending on where you live (source).

On that basis there is no way on earth that somebody. on even £18,600 a year, gross, without extra financial help, can settle within 100 miles of London and adequately care for their partner. If their partner was allowed to work I have no doubt that it would make life easier for many people.

Obviously, the higher housing costs are where you live, the higher income you will need.

All the more reason for factoring this into the calculation, surely?

Something the old requirement did, but the current one doesn't.

I'm not disagreeing with you but I have no idea how they could implement a system like it because people could, say, move to Wales, to get a visa, and hot foot it back to London as soon as they have it. The only way that they would then finance the higher rents etc, would be to work in the black economy or get "recourse to public funds". It's been like a sieve for many years.

The government may be 'stupidly generous with the benefits system' but I doubt that is the reason why British citizens want to live in the UK with their foreign family.

I am one of them and I think the whole system sucks too. If I make the choice to fall in love with a Thai national, for example, as a tax payer since I was 15, I should be allowed to pay a very low visa fee for the visa for my GF or wife. I think the cost of visas are outrageous with all of the extra hoops we have to jump through. Here’s another quirk of the system for you. All the plebs have to have a TB test but it doesn't apply to diplomats and their families. Really?! Are they any less prone to TB than normal people. I don't think so.

Simply because, as repeatedly said, no matter how 'stupidly generous' the government may be with the benefits system; the foreign family member(s) have no recourse to public funds, including social housing, and the British family member cannot claim anything extra due to their foreign family now living with them. This includes moving to a larger council or housing association property due to their now having a larger family..

Quite right too. If the UK national doesn’t have adequate accommodation for his spouse and family in the first place, why should the UK tax payer foot the bill to house them?

Which brings us back to the question:

If a British citizen is perfectly able to support his foreign family in the UK without recourse to public funds, why do you believe they should be prevented from so doing simply because their gross income is below a set figure which takes no account of their disposable income and actual living costs?

See my response above. The old system was flawed. The new system is flawed in a different way. Neither are right and neither are wrong. A few of the anomalies directly affect me. I don't like it one bit but I have to put up with it. Until it is changed to a fairer system, of course. I won't hold my breath. I will have to work within it to get the visa I need to get my partner to the UK. I also realise that I am fortunate enough to be able to do that. Others are not so fortunate. If somebody cannot get the visa they need they will need to change their situation if they want it badly enough.

[cjw121]

How about people in the same situation as a friend of mine?

I can't see how coming back to the UK is going to help him when if he has been living in Thailand for an extended period of time he will not be entitled to free health care.Expats from outside Europe who return to the UK to use NHS hospitals will be billed for 150 per cent of the cost of treatment if they don’t have sufficient insurance.

It may be an old chestnut; but it's perfectly valid. Cjw121 refuses to answer; will you?

The requirements may seem harsh to some but the requirements pre 2012 where to lax the income level was set far to low. So you think that a person on £73 per week (Over 25 Rate) can support him/her self and a partner on that amount of money? so if a person does not have to pay rent or council tax due to getting housing benefit they would still have to pay for gas, electric ETC.

[barry553]

I believe 7by7 to be a very reasonable, helpful and knowledgeable person.

His opponent in this argument is none of the above and is merely trolling.

[cjw121]

I believe 7by7 to be a very reasonable, helpful and knowledgeable person

I believe 7by7 to be a very narcissistic person

[loppylugs1]

I believe 7by7 to be a very reasonable, helpful and knowledgeable person

I believe 7by7 to be a very narcissistic person

Well whatever.

But if 7x7 thinks taking not just wives,but anyone with no money back to the UK is asking for major problems. The public pot of money is shrinking,more so in a few more days. The "no access to public funds" is just a temporary barrier,thoughts of how to breech it paramount.

The UK govt. will be making access to the UK by foreign nationals even more difficult,and if BREXIT comes about,which as things stand will happen,watch the departure gates fill

[theoldgit]

How about people in the same situation as a friend of mine?

I can't see how coming back to the UK is going to help him when if he has been living in Thailand for an extended period of time he will not be entitled to free health care. Expats from outside Europe who return to the UK to use NHS hospitals will be billed for 150 per cent of the cost of treatment if they don’t have sufficient insurance.

I'm sorry but that's not correct, if a British Citizen decides to return to the UK to take up residence after living in anywhere in the world for an extended period, then they are entitled to free NHS health care from day one, they may well have to satisfy administrators that they are indeed returning to live and not just for an extended holiday. As I say this applies to all returning UK Citizens, not just those returning from the EU.

Your second point is not fully correct either, UK Citizens are indeed liable for 150% of the actual cost of any treatment when they need NHS treatment whilst visiting the UK. If they are insured they're still liable for the cost of treatment and would be billed for it, but they may be able to claim it back from their insurers.

[sandyf]

It is not about money, more about principle and human rights. It is a basic right that legitimate married couples be entitled to live together as man and wife. The right of access to public funds is a separate issue entirely and should be treated as such.

Under these absurd regulations the denial of this basic right is not based on any reasoned decision but some all inclusive statement.

It is a sad state of affairs that so many on this forum are prepared to support the UK government on this abuse of human rights.

[geriatrickid]

What is totally unreasonable is the cost of the visas themselves imho.

If somebody doesn’t have an income of £18,600, what chance is that they will find the £3-4K for settlement and that is without flights, tests etc.

I think UK nationals who have lived in the UK all their lives and have paid their taxes etc should have a huge discount on their visa fees if they have the temerity to fall in love with somebody outside the EU.

NHS surcharge? Disgusting. Just make it a requirement that the visa applicant has medical health insurance for the duration of their stay.

Your comment about people paying taxes being entitled to a "huge" discount is unfair. The people who would be claiming hardship have most likely have never paid taxes in an amount sufficient to cover even a part of the services provided to them by national and local governments.

The reality is that a small number of the population are stuck with the personal tax burden.

You ignore the fact that there is a personal allowance of £10,600 upon which no personal tax is paid. Then, for income up to £31,785 the tax rate is only 20% or £4237, before any of the additional credits and allowances are applied.

There are approximately 30 million income tax payers in the UK. Of this, 0.01% or 3,000 tax payers pay 30% of income taxes collected. This amount exceeds that paid by 9,000,000 taxpayers who account for only 4% of the income taxes collected.

The reality is that there are millions of citizens who do not pay income taxes, and/or have rreceived or receive goods and services far in excess of any taxes previously paid or any other contribution made.

In plain language, there are millions of people who have neither the means to support their spouse, nor have contributed anything much to justify being subsidized.

Your comment in respect to making health insurance mandatory is unworkable. There are visitors who are unable to obtain health coverage, or will not pay the money. I would expect to see a booming business with bogus health insurance certificates. Who will enforce this requirement? More expense. The reality is that if one of these angels ends up in hospital without insurance, the UK taxpayer will still pick up the costs. The NHS does not dump foreigners in the street. It will serve substandard meals, delay providing care to the elderly, or cut screening measures to UK nationals before it denies care to special visitors.

[theoldgit]

This issue has been discussed a number of times, in order to keep this thread open please limit your comments to the actual issue of the court case, and maybe the actual subject in hand and associated costs like the Health Surcharge, though this has already been discussed at length elsewhere.

Please refrain from derailing this thread by posting about off topic subjects like asylum seekers and the EU vote. A number of off topic posts have already been removed.

It's been necessary to remove some more posts due to members continuing to post off topic and offensive remarks.

When I have some time there are some more to go.

This issue is clearly close to some of our hearts, if you want this to stay open, please play nicely guys.

[rasg]

Your comment about people paying taxes being entitled to a "huge" discount is unfair. The people who would be claiming hardship have most likely have never paid taxes in an amount sufficient to cover even a part of the services provided to them by national and local governments.

I was thinking about my own situation. I have never been married and have no kids. I've been self employed from the age of 21 and I have paid a lot of tax and NIC over many, many years. I have never claimed any benefits. I am also an unpaid VAT collector for the government. I doubt the people you are referring on the low salaries you mention would meet the £18,600 requirement and that is one of the reasons it is there.

I know many, many people who haven’t paid a penny into the tax system for many, many years because they only work for cash. Mainly in the building trade and I have neighbours who moonlight with weekend businesses who supplement their income and don't pay tax on it. If all of the people in the UK doing that and the biggest companies paid their fair share, our national debt would probably disappear overnight.

Your comment in respect to making health insurance mandatory is unworkable.

I'm not convinced about that. If you are stopped in your car the police officer knows if your car is taxed MOT'd and insured before you have even switched your engine off. The British Embassy in Bangkok has access electronically to the language test database. They could do exactly the same with the private health insurance companies. If the NHS adopted the same system they would know instantly if somebody was entitled to treatment or not. At least it would stop the health tourists. That last one will never be adopted because the doctors don't think it should be part of their job.

[loppylugs1]

It is not about money, more about principle and human rights. It is a basic right that legitimate married couples be entitled to live together as man and wife. The right of access to public funds is a separate issue entirely and should be treated as such.

Under these absurd regulations the denial of this basic right is not based on any reasoned decision but some all inclusive statement.

It is a sad state of affairs that so many on this forum are prepared to support the UK government on this abuse of human rights.

This is a load of rubbish

Anyone,anyone at all could marry (in fact multiple times) taking any poverty stricken Mick ,Mary, Joe Bloggs, Josephine Bloggs to a place that clearly does not want them.

Why import poverty into the UK when there is enough of it to be seen,everyone screaming out for more more more when a guaranteed less less less is manifesting itself

Not got the money? TUFF not enough to live on period,only abuse here is self abuse,you knew the rules of the game,stop complaing,it will never change and fact is it will get far worse

[7by7]

To recap, if I may, my previous comments for the benefit of those who have not read them, misinterpreted them or ignored them.

1) I do not believe that immigration to the UK, even family immigration, should be an open door.

What I do believe is that a British citizen should have the right to live in the UK with their foreign partner, and that partner's children if any, provided they can all be adequately supported and accommodated without state aid.

2) I do not believe the above should be determined by some arbitrary figure, regardless of how that figure is arrived at.

I do believe that it should be determined by looking at the British partner's finances, income and savings, and their fixed outgoings in order to determine their disposable income and whether this will be enough to support their family once they arrive.

Pre July 2012 the British sponsor had to provide documentary evidence to not only prove their income, but also their fixed outgoings to show that their disposable income was sufficient for this.

3) What we have at the moment is a set minimum income level which takes absolutely no account of outgoings.

Rasg said earlier that someone living in some parts London where rents are astronomical would struggle to live on £18,600 p.a. after paying their rent. True.

But they meet the current financial requirement!

Whereas someone living in other parts of the UK and paying far less rent but earning £18,599 p.a. does not meet the requirement.

Even though their disposable income is higher than the Londoner's!

There is simply no logic to that.

4) Pre July 2012 the de facto minimum disposable income requirement was the income support level for a British family of the same size.

The income support level for a couple, both over 18, is £114.85 per week (source)

If the government expect a British couple to be able to live on this, then there is logical reason why they should not accept that a British/immigrant couple should not be able to do the same.

So I believe that if a couple have a disposable income, after ducting housing and any other fixed outgoings, of at least this amount, then they have sufficient financial resources to support themselves in the UK without state aid.

They may not live as well as some of the posters here do; they wont have the latest phone or tablet, no satellite TV, not eat out or have takeaways very often etc.; but live they will.

5) Cjw121 says that if a British citizen really wanted to live in the UK with their foreign partner then they should be prepared to make sacrifices. He means the sacrifice of working whatever number of hours necessary; to which I would add the sacrifice of having a lower standard of living than they may wish.

Of course, once here the foreign partner will be able to work, if they wish; and many do. So that low standard of living would only be temporary.

6) Any system is open to abuse; the old one was, the current one is.

Where relevant to this topic, that abuse revolves around false declarations of finances and producing fraudulent evidence to back up those declarations.

In many cases this fraud is discovered; resulting in a refusal and a possible lifetime ban on entering the UK in any capacity.

But no system is perfect; some fraudsters will always get through.

But fraud is, in my opinion, irrelevant to this discussion; it will happen no matter what the financial requirement is.

[bobrussell]

It is not about money, more about principle and human rights. It is a basic right that legitimate married couples be entitled to live together as man and wife. The right of access to public funds is a separate issue entirely and should be treated as such.

Under these absurd regulations the denial of this basic right is not based on any reasoned decision but some all inclusive statement.

It is a sad state of affairs that so many on this forum are prepared to support the UK government on this abuse of human rights.

It is about money, it is also about severe political pressure to limit immigration. It is about taking steps to prevent Channel 5 or The Daily Mail producing journalism that winds up viewers and readers (also voters).

The £18 600 figure was specifically chosen because it is the level where income based benefits do not kick in. These are claimed as a couple (as far as I am aware).

Principles and rights come with responsibilities which include not draining taxpayer funds.

Thousands of asylum seeker families all on benefits, just because they are married?

There have to be rules but they should be as fair as possible and fairly administered.

[sandyf]

It is not about money, more about principle and human rights. It is a basic right that legitimate married couples be entitled to live together as man and wife. The right of access to public funds is a separate issue entirely and should be treated as such.

Under these absurd regulations the denial of this basic right is not based on any reasoned decision but some all inclusive statement.

It is a sad state of affairs that so many on this forum are prepared to support the UK government on this abuse of human rights.

It is about money, it is also about severe political pressure to limit immigration. It is about taking steps to prevent Channel 5 or The Daily Mail producing journalism that winds up viewers and readers (also voters).

The £18 600 figure was specifically chosen because it is the level where income based benefits do not kick in. These are claimed as a couple (as far as I am aware).

Principles and rights come with responsibilities which include not draining taxpayer funds.

Thousands of asylum seeker families all on benefits, just because they are married?

There have to be rules but they should be as fair as possible and fairly administered.

It always comes back to the money, nothing to do with human decency,

The EU had the humanity to agree that a married couple should be able to stay together, something the UK government was party to. The UK government however is only prepared to observe this agreement with EU nationals and deny UK nationals.

It would appear that the general view is that it is very important to set an income level for a UK national and Non EU spouse but then it is not necessary for an EU national and non EU spouse, and that is not absurd?

There is something fundamentally wrong when family members are seen as asylum seekers.

[rasg]

We can go round and round on this one for ever and nothing will change.

Most seem to agree that there should be a level of some kind. The discussion seems to be what that level should be and who it should apply to.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown opened the floodgates to this country to anybody in the hope that those same people would vote for Labour. Happy to see that it didn’t work too well. Most people saw dramatic changes to their village, towns and cities. We weren't asked if we wanted it but we got it any way.

You reap what you sow and it was necessary to restore the balance a little. I don't like the system because it discriminates against me but it is marginally better than it was. Merely my opinion but I think this thread has pretty much run its course. Same stuff, said in a slightly different way each time.

[Richard W]

The EU had the humanity to agree that a married couple should be able to stay together, something the UK government was party to. The UK government however is only prepared to observe this agreement with EU nationals and deny UK nationals.

On a point of information, the UK government has arranged for the withdrawal of this concession, at least to a very large extent. Under the terms of the declaration:

The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement of Union citizens in order to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host Member State.

While it's meaning is as clear as mud, a Frenchman will not more be able able to being a Thai to Britain than can an Englishman. (Indeed, the Frenchman now may have to have been here 5 years himself.) It's not clear on the import of non-EEA spouses from within the EEA. I think the declaration is essentially a reversal of Metock, so that loophole may be open.

[uptheos]

How about people in the same situation as a friend of mine?

I can't see how coming back to the UK is going to help him when if he has been living in Thailand for an extended period of time he will not be entitled to free health care. Expats from outside Europe who return to the UK to use NHS hospitals will be billed for 150 per cent of the cost of treatment if they don’t have sufficient insurance.

I'm sorry but that's not correct, if a British Citizen decides to return to the UK to take up residence after living in anywhere in the world for an extended period, then they are entitled to free NHS health care from day one, they may well have to satisfy administrators that they are indeed returning to live and not just for an extended holiday. As I say this applies to all returning UK Citizens, not just those returning from the EU.

Your second point is not fully correct either, UK Citizens are indeed liable for 150% of the actual cost of any treatment when they need NHS treatment whilst visiting the UK. If they are insured they're still liable for the cost of treatment and would be billed for it, but they may be able to claim it back from their insurers.

Old Git is absolutely correct and believe me it doesn't take a lot to convince them especially if you are elderly.

If you are vulnerable in any way,Age UK, Shelter, CAB and any doctor you register with will give you advice.

One council I know of tried it on with an old guy who wanted housing. They put him on the housing list as he

was sleeping on his sons sofa. They said that they weren't convinced that he had given up living in Thailand

and even said he owned a house until he pointed out the land laws for foreigners. The housing dept banded

him at D, but he appealed asking who would rent to a 75 year old on a pension, who definitely would be claiming

HB. No estate agent will touch you neither will an owner, so you're left in a catch22. Most won't entertain HB no

matter how nice you would keep a place, they don't want to declare income to the revenue bods. After a visit from

Age UK Advoacy and a very strongly worded letter to the council, his housing needs were increased to Band A

because of 'multiple housing needs' and he now has a very nice one bedroom flat.

It's all there and available for you if you are a returning BC, especially if you are elderly and are ill. You just need to have the balls to stand up to these people, regardless what is 'written' and stop taking in daily doses of scare mongering

from people who probably couldn't go back anyway without being arrested!!

And don't forget, you an have 10,000 pounds in savings and still claim HB, Council Tax benefit, winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions, free bus pass. If you are in need and want to go back, take Nike's advice 'JUST DO IT'.

Edited March 1, 2016 by uptheos

[loppylugs1]

We can go round and round on this one for ever and nothing will change.

Most seem to agree that there should be a level of some kind. The discussion seems to be what that level should be and who it should apply to.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown opened the floodgates to this country to anybody in the hope that those same people would vote for Labour. Happy to see that it didn’t work too well. Most people saw dramatic changes to their village, towns and cities. We weren't asked if we wanted it but we got it any way.

You reap what you sow and it was necessary to restore the balance a little. I don't like the system because it discriminates against me but it is marginally better than it was. Merely my opinion but I think this thread has pretty much run its course. Same stuff, said in a slightly different way each time.

Rubbish The earlier poster complaining his bride cannot access the UK because lack of funds needs to re-adjust his thinking.

Go back,get a job, McDonalds shift or two there,back to back shifts ,Tesco ,window cleaning,anything,the £18600 will easily be achieved

No relying on charity,benefits etc,will make you proud and happy

[whiterussian]

Rubbish The earlier poster complaining his bride cannot access the UK because lack of funds needs to re-adjust his thinking.

Go back,get a job, McDonalds shift or two there,back to back shifts ,Tesco ,window cleaning,anything,the £18600 will easily be achieved

No relying on charity,benefits etc,will make you proud and happy

Nothing like govt hoops to jump through for 5 years to keep you on your toes eh! Threat of deportation and the end of your family life in the UK.

Got a half Thai child? Who cares!? Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what back-to-back burger flipping you can do for your country.

p.s: Don't forget the random British trivia test at the end of it! - you not know who St. Bevan or Mr. Shakeypseare - you go!

Edited March 2, 2016 by whiterussian

[Richard W]

Nothing like govt hoops to jump through for 5 years to keep you on your toes eh! Threat of deportation and the end of your family life in the UK.

Got a half Thai child? Who cares!?

Actually, a half-Thai child excuses you from meeting the threshold at the subsequent stages, at the cost of 10 years of visas and NHS surcharges.

Having wrecked your health scraping together the £18,600, your newly arrived wife can then help with meeting the threshold for the next stages.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Richard W

[whiterussian]

* rant deleted *

wrecked your health scraping together the £18,600

Nail on the head - I'll be spending 20% of my earnings on train fares to work so as to allow my new arrived Thai family the pleasure of not living in London where I'll be working.

But hey, greater good and all that

Edited March 2, 2016 by whiterussian

[loppylugs1]

Old Git is absolutely correct and believe me it doesn't take a lot to convince them especially if you are elderly.

If you are vulnerable in any way,Age UK, Shelter, CAB and any doctor you register with will give you advice.

One council I know of tried it on with an old guy who wanted housing. They put him on the housing list as he

was sleeping on his sons sofa. They said that they weren't convinced that he had given up living in Thailand

and even said he owned a house until he pointed out the land laws for foreigners. The housing dept banded

him at D, but he appealed asking who would rent to a 75 year old on a pension, who definitely would be claiming

HB. No estate agent will touch you neither will an owner, so you're left in a catch22. Most won't entertain HB no

matter how nice you would keep a place, they don't want to declare income to the revenue bods. After a visit from

Age UK Advoacy and a very strongly worded letter to the council, his housing needs were increased to Band A

because of 'multiple housing needs' and he now has a very nice one bedroom flat.

It's all there and available for you if you are a returning BC, especially if you are elderly and are ill. You just need to have the balls to stand up to these people, regardless what is 'written' and stop taking in daily doses of scare mongering

from people who probably couldn't go back anyway without being arrested!!

And don't forget, you an have 10,000 pounds in savings and still claim HB, Council Tax benefit, winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions, free bus pass. If you are in need and want to go back, take Nike's advice 'JUST DO IT'.

Its nothing but an <deleted> nuisance getting old,comes the day I have to go back,infirm, older than old,or ill, Ill wrap myself in a blanket outside.....thinking here ...Christchurch seems a nice place...council offices one dark night and hope I survive the night,let them do the rest

[oldsailor35]

Apart from getting their kids a decent sort of an education, i cannot understand why anyone would prefer life in UK to Thailand.

[whiterussian]

Apart from getting their kids a decent sort of an education, i cannot understand why anyone would prefer life in UK to Thailand.

That, and the fact they've raised the bar to level that makes it now (+5 years) or never for many non-retired Brits.

Edited March 2, 2016 by whiterussian

[cjw121]

Apart from getting their kids a decent sort of an education, i cannot understand why anyone would prefer life in UK to Thailand.

That can be very hit and miss with some schools having very high levels of children who are unable to talk, read and speak English

Edited March 2, 2016 by cjw121

[7by7]

The EU had the humanity to agree that a married couple should be able to stay together, something the UK government was party to. The UK government however is only prepared to observe this agreement with EU nationals and deny UK nationals.

On a point of information, the UK government has arranged for the withdrawal of this concession, at least to a very large extent. Under the terms of the declaration:

The Commission intends to adopt a proposal to complement Directive 2004/38 on free movement of Union citizens in order to exclude, from the scope of free movement rights, third country nationals who had no prior lawful residence in a Member State before marrying a Union citizen or who marry a Union citizen only after the Union citizen has established residence in the host Member State.

While it's meaning is as clear as mud, a Frenchman will not more be able able to being a Thai to Britain than can an Englishman. (Indeed, the Frenchman now may have to have been here 5 years himself.) It's not clear on the import of non-EEA spouses from within the EEA. I think the declaration is essentially a reversal of Metock, so that loophole may be open.

In addition, whether this proposal is adopted or not, the directive only applies when the EEA national and their non EEA family are living in or moving to a member state other than that of which they are a citizen.

So, for example, the Thai wife of a Frenchman cannot enter France under the directive but has to comply with the requirements of the French immigration rules the same as the Thai wife of a Brit has to comply with the UK immigration rules to enter the UK.

Unless Surinder Singh applies, which the Commission seem intent on making virtually impossible.

[7by7]

<snip>

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown opened the floodgates to this country to anybody in the hope that those same people would vote for Labour......

Between Blair coming to power in 1997 and Brown losing the 2010 election, the Labour government:-

• changed the visa and LTR fees regime from one which was designed to cover processing costs to one designed to make large profits for the Treasury;
• established the principle of annual increases to those fees at a rate well above inflation;
• increased the residential qualification for ILR from 12 months to 24;
• introduced the LitUK test, first for naturalisation and then for ILR;
• proposed the English speaking and listening tests, although these weren't introduced until after the 2010 election by the new, coalition government.
• introduced a points based system for work and student visas and made it harder to switch from one of these to settlement.

How is that 'opening the floodgates?'

BTW, while I am strongly opposed to the first two points, I believe that any fees charged for any government service should be set to recover costs not make vast profits, I agree with the rest; and with the later increase in the residential qualifying period for ILR to five years.

The Labour government did agree to the new EEA Freedom of Movement Directive 2004/38/EC, but that only consolidated existing rights into one single directive; so that 'floodgate' was already open!

It also flows both ways; whilst approximately 2 million EEA nationals have used the directive to live in the UK, around 1.8 million British citizens have used it to live in another EEA country.

Not that EEA immigrants would have any effect on the outcome of a UK General Election; because they can't vote in one (unless, for historical reasons which have nothing to do with the EU nor EEA, they are citizens of the Irish Republic).

[rasg]

How is that 'opening the floodgates?'

That is exactly what it was. I can't be bothered to check because i am done with this thread but I would guess those systems were put in place in towards the very end of their tenure. After the horse has bolted is the expression that springs to mind.

And there is nobody who can tell you just how many were allowed in.

Edited March 2, 2016 by rasg

[7by7]

If you could be bothered to check you would find that your guess is wrong.

[rasg]

Are you seriously suggesting that whole swathes of this country were not changed radically by mass immigration in the 13 years Labour were in power?

I live in one of them and my eyes work very well. My ears too.