The court isn't a "member state", and all they are doing is interpreting the rules that we voluntarily signed up to. Apparently, all EU residents (not just citizens) have free movement within the EU.
It's all part of "ever closer union". Enjoy!
This directive seems to have brought together all previous ones and extended them in 2004 on Tony Blair's watch.
The Free Movement of Citizens Directive 2004/38/EC[1][2] defines the right of free movement for citizens of the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes the European Union (EU) and the three European Free Trade Association (EFTA) members Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. Switzerland, which is a member of EFTA but not of the EEA, is not bound by the Directive but rather has a separate bilateral agreement on the free movement with the EU.
It consolidated older regulations and directives, and extended the rights of unmarried couples. It gives EEA citizens the right of free movement and residence across the European Economic Area, as long as they are not an undue burden on the country of residence and have comprehensive health insurance.[3] This right also extends to close family members that are not EEA citizens.
After five years, the right of residence becomes permanent, which means it does not depend on any precondition any longer. This permanent right of residence can be seen as a precursor to a true European citizenship.
So automatic permanent settlement for EU citizens, was introduced when the East European countries joined, not by the treaty of Rome and agreed by Blair.
Is this another case of them extending it bit by bit, getting away from the original meaning of workers being able to apply for jobs in different countries? That is the usual European way of eroding British sovereignty.
We sign a treaty that gives them power, then they interpret it to mean things we did not contemplate at the time. Then when we are unhappy they say we signed up to it.
Of course if the politicians had given the British people a vote, we might not be in this situation.
To be fully covered by the European right of free movement, the EEA citizen needs to exercise one of the four treaty rights:
*working as an employee (this includes looking for work for a reasonable amount of time),
*working as a self-employed person,
*studying,
*being self-sufficient or retired.
These rights are named after the Treaty of Rome, which defines the freedom of movement for workers. They have been extended over time, and are mainly of historical significance by now, since being self-sufficient has been added to the list. As long as a citizen has sufficient money or income not to rely on public funds and holds comprehensive health insurance, he/she exercises one or more treaty rights. If no treaty right is exercised, the right of free movement is limited to three months.
Family members are also covered by the right of free movement, but only as a dependent of the EEA citizen. The right is limited to the EEA state in which the EEA citizen is exercising treaty rights. In certain cases (e.g. divorce after at least 3 years of marriage where 1 year must have been spent in the host member state), the family member can retain the right of residence.
A family member is defined as:
*the spouse (unless in a marriage of convenience),
*the registered same-sex partner (but only in a state where same-sex relationships are recognised),
*a child under the age of 21, or
*a dependent child or parent (of the EEA citizen or partner).
There is a second category of extended family members, which can be included at the discretion of national legislation. It covers dependent relatives (especially siblings), dependent household members and unmarried/unregistered partners in a "durable relationship".
It seems obvious we are heading for European citizenship. Britain won't need borders or immigration control, because we will be a state and not a country.
Which is a bloody stupid idea whatever way you look it it. Have arbitrary caps or quotas ever solved any problem? I can't think of a problem that has been solved with caps or quotas.
The 190 actual democracies worldwide not in the EU that have quotas on who comes in and out of their countries are bloody stupid are they?
Which is a bloody stupid idea whatever way you look it it. Have arbitrary caps or quotas ever solved any problem? I can't think of a problem that has been solved with caps or quotas.
Considering our population increase due to immigration vs. infrastructure and resource shortage, I think a cap on permanent settlement here makes a lot of sense.
That would not affect temporary migrants such as foreign students, or EU citizens moving around the EU to work, so why is it a stupid idea? It's secondary immigration, i.e. the least useful, that would be mostly affected.
A cap is something the voters could vote on at the election, which would restore public confidence in our system and create a more positive attitude towards migrants. It's the fear that government is powerless to control immigration, or just doesn't want to and is not being honest about it, that creates resentment.
Quotas make a great deal of sense for temporary guest workers.
Whereas I prefer to be able to marry whom I like and still be able to live with my spouse in my home country if I wish. I'm funny like that.
Maybe so but my guess is that many of us would expect that only a UK Govt should decide and rule on whom may or may not be allowed to settle here in our own country, and not to have relegated such an important ruling to what many see as a foreign power based in Brussels !
Maybe so but my guess is that many of us would expect that only a UK Govt should decide and rule on whom may or may not be allowed to settle here in our own country, and not to have relegated such an important ruling to what many see as a foreign power based in Brussels !
Given the basis of the EU is free movement its hard to argue against it
I'm looking for a British wife. British born only, 36-26-36. 34B or A, well spoken, well read with a nice property in central London preferably Mayfair and surrounding areas. Any takers, message me through inbox.
Considering our population increase due to immigration vs. infrastructure and resource shortage, I think a cap on permanent settlement here makes a lot of sense.
That would not affect temporary migrants such as foreign students, or EU citizens moving around the EU to work, so why is it a stupid idea? It's secondary immigration, i.e. the least useful, that would be mostly affected.
A cap is something the voters could vote on at the election, which would restore public confidence in our system and create a more positive attitude towards migrants. It's the fear that government is powerless to control immigration, or just doesn't want to and is not being honest about it, that creates resentment.
Quotas make a great deal of sense for temporary guest workers.
Quotas are all well and good but do not make much difference when there is still a gaping hole at places like Calais where people can still successfully sneak into the UK.
Given the basis of the EU is free movement its hard to argue against it
Given our idiotic UK Government foolishly signed the nation into everlasting mass immigration, later admitting to their gross incompetence - Its not a case of arguing against - but more a matter of throwing out bad rules, but sadly the UK doesn't possess politicians of such calibre !
It seems a pretty specific family situation, so I don't see how this will open the floodgates.
I imagine it is not that specific as a lot of countries have give EU residency to a lot of refuges, Greece, Italy, Sweden for example who will now have freedom of movement across the EU.
David Cameron will not be offering UKIP a seat in the next government. He'd rather deal with the LibDems or Northern Ireland Unionists.
I might just have been being a tad provocative, a few times on here this week it's been suggested by me and others that UKIP fans don't have long to wait for their idols to secure power, yet none of said fans seemed to keen to endorse that view
Its easy to argue against, free movement of non-EU citizens is not part of anything we signed up to.
Actually we did - spouses of EU citizens have always had the right to enter the UK regardless of their nationality. However governments can discriminate against their own citizens to restrict this right - thus the need for 'visas' which this case revolved about which decided if the spouse was legally resident in another EU country they should be treated as if they were an EU citizen
It seems obvious we are heading for European citizenship. Britain won't need borders or immigration control, because we will be a state and not a country.
we already are European citizens, and we already are a "member state" according to the European Commission and European Parliament
the sheer fact is - the EU institutions are quite clear in how they refer to the United Kingdom, they never use the word "country" or "nation" because to the EU, we are not a country/nation in our own right, we are a "state" within a union of other states (similar to how the US Government refer to Texas or California)
the UK has a very simple choice:
1) remain in the EU as a member state, and give up the pretence that we are still a sovereign "country" because we cannot be both a "state" within a union of other "states" as the two definitions contradict each other
2) we leave the EU, and return to being a proper sovereign country, with the capability to decide our own foreign and domestic affairs regardless of whether a supra-national dictat from Brussels deems it "unsuitable" for other countries nearby
I'd rather that we Brits grew a pair and chose the second, but I fully expect we continue with the first in an "as is/status quo" situation until the EU declares itself as a full country in it's own right
I find it a complete shame that some British people have decided that being ruled by an undemocratic/unaccountable entity is a better way forward for our country
I find it a complete shame that some British people have decided that being ruled by an undemocratic/unaccountable entity is a better way forward for our country
In what way is the UK ruled by an undemocratic/unaccountable entity.
The EU council is made up of representatives from elected national governments, and the EU parliament is made up of representatives elected in the euro elections. If you mean the EU President due to not being directly elected by the people, then you might as well say the UK Prime minister and the UK Queen are also undemocratic as we do not directly vote on who our prime minister is or who our head of state is. If you mean that decisions are taken on many issues by majority voting well again the same can be said of our own national parliament. As for court rulings the UK too has a tradition of an independent judiciary interpreting and clarifying the law.
President due to not being directly elected by the people, then you might as well say the UK Prime minister and the UK Queen are also undemocratic as we do not directly vote on who our prime minister is or who our head of state is.
1) In virtually all circumstances, we know who we are voting for as Prime Minister. It's why Labour is languishing so.
2) Yes. We should vote for a head of state. I am an out-of-EU Republican. A logical place to be for a true democrat.
1) In virtually all circumstances, we know who we are voting for as Prime Minister. It's why Labour is languishing so.
You do not get a vote on who gets to be Prime Minister just on who you want to be your local Member of Parliament. And even if you count voting for the party as a vote for the leader of that party to be Prime Minister the UK has had many a change in Prime Minister without a general election.
Gordon Brown, 2007 (Blair resigned)
John Major, 1990 (Thatcher was forced out),
Jim Callaghan, 1976 (Wilson resigned),
Alec Douglas-Home, 1963 (Macmillan resigned)
Harold Macmillan, 1957 (Eden resigned),
Anthony Eden, 1955 (Winston resigned)
Winston Churchill, 1940 (Chamberlain resigned)
Neville Chamberlain, 1937 (Baldwin resigned),
Stanley Baldwin 1935 (succeeded MacDonald in the National Government)
Stanley Baldwin, 1923 (Bonar Law resigned),
David Lloyd George, 1916 (Asquith was forced out),
HH Asquith, 1908 (Campbell-Bannerman resigned)
Arthur Balfour, 1902 (Salisbury resigned)
Name me another country that has unlimited unfettered immigration outside the EU. I'll be in for a long wait.
No country within the EU has unlimited unfettered immigration, they all have limits. Nor is it responsibility of any other EU member state that the UK has chosen to admit non-EU immigrants at all.
As for your comment about name another non-EU country, there are several worldwide. Indeed, you barely have to go outside the British Isles as both the UK & Ireland (two EU member states) allow free movement from the non-EU crown dependencies in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Going slightly further afield, we have EFTA and - separately - the Nordic States have it between themselves (irrespective of whether the state concerned is an EU member, an EFTA member or neither).
As such, this isn't just an "EU" issue as you seem to believe...
"The court ruled: "Where a family member of an EU citizen who has exercised his right of freedom of movement is in a situation such as that of Ms McCarthy Rodriguez, that family member is not subject to the requirement to obtain a visa or an equivalent requirement in order to be able to enter the territory of that EU citizen’s member state of origin."
So the ruling applies across the EU...
I don't understand what that means per se. Does it mean that a couple have to jump through certain hoops/technicalities or is the ruling saying the Government cannot stop spouses of british citizens coming here regardless?
It should be the case that spouses and children of british citizens should be allowed to live here, its crazy and outrageous that this Government ever went down the route of trying to stop them in the first place! >:(
The rules on the financial requirement are discriminatory too. They allow employed people to be gifted the money to meet that rule but not self employed people! The Government and their supporters squirm bigtime on why they don't allow the self employed to be gifted the money but there is no getting away from the fact that its one rule for employed people and another for self employed people.
I have no doubt thats because they are targetting people with heritage to the Indian sub continent especially who marry people from there in the hundreds of thousands every year.
Comments
David Cameron will not be offering UKIP a seat in the next government. He'd rather deal with the LibDems or Northern Ireland Unionists.
This directive seems to have brought together all previous ones and extended them in 2004 on Tony Blair's watch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Movement_of_Citizens_Directive
So automatic permanent settlement for EU citizens, was introduced when the East European countries joined, not by the treaty of Rome and agreed by Blair.
Is this another case of them extending it bit by bit, getting away from the original meaning of workers being able to apply for jobs in different countries? That is the usual European way of eroding British sovereignty.
We sign a treaty that gives them power, then they interpret it to mean things we did not contemplate at the time. Then when we are unhappy they say we signed up to it.
Of course if the politicians had given the British people a vote, we might not be in this situation.
It seems obvious we are heading for European citizenship. Britain won't need borders or immigration control, because we will be a state and not a country.
The 190 actual democracies worldwide not in the EU that have quotas on who comes in and out of their countries are bloody stupid are they?
Considering our population increase due to immigration vs. infrastructure and resource shortage, I think a cap on permanent settlement here makes a lot of sense.
That would not affect temporary migrants such as foreign students, or EU citizens moving around the EU to work, so why is it a stupid idea? It's secondary immigration, i.e. the least useful, that would be mostly affected.
A cap is something the voters could vote on at the election, which would restore public confidence in our system and create a more positive attitude towards migrants. It's the fear that government is powerless to control immigration, or just doesn't want to and is not being honest about it, that creates resentment.
Quotas make a great deal of sense for temporary guest workers.
Maybe so but my guess is that many of us would expect that only a UK Govt should decide and rule on whom may or may not be allowed to settle here in our own country, and not to have relegated such an important ruling to what many see as a foreign power based in Brussels !
190 countries have quotas do they? You got a link for that nugget or did you just make it up?
Quotas are all well and good but do not make much difference when there is still a gaping hole at places like Calais where people can still successfully sneak into the UK.
Given our idiotic UK Government foolishly signed the nation into everlasting mass immigration, later admitting to their gross incompetence - Its not a case of arguing against - but more a matter of throwing out bad rules, but sadly the UK doesn't possess politicians of such calibre !
Its easy to argue against, free movement of non-EU citizens is not part of anything we signed up to.
Name me another country that has unlimited unfettered immigration outside the EU. I'll be in for a long wait.
I imagine it is not that specific as a lot of countries have give EU residency to a lot of refuges, Greece, Italy, Sweden for example who will now have freedom of movement across the EU.
So you did just make it up. Thanks for clarifying that. It isn't up to me to disprove whatever "facts" you decide to post.
I might just have been being a tad provocative, a few times on here this week it's been suggested by me and others that UKIP fans don't have long to wait for their idols to secure power, yet none of said fans seemed to keen to endorse that view
Actually we did - spouses of EU citizens have always had the right to enter the UK regardless of their nationality. However governments can discriminate against their own citizens to restrict this right - thus the need for 'visas' which this case revolved about which decided if the spouse was legally resident in another EU country they should be treated as if they were an EU citizen
I didn't. Answer the question old chap.
we already are European citizens, and we already are a "member state" according to the European Commission and European Parliament
the sheer fact is - the EU institutions are quite clear in how they refer to the United Kingdom, they never use the word "country" or "nation" because to the EU, we are not a country/nation in our own right, we are a "state" within a union of other states (similar to how the US Government refer to Texas or California)
the UK has a very simple choice:
1) remain in the EU as a member state, and give up the pretence that we are still a sovereign "country" because we cannot be both a "state" within a union of other "states" as the two definitions contradict each other
2) we leave the EU, and return to being a proper sovereign country, with the capability to decide our own foreign and domestic affairs regardless of whether a supra-national dictat from Brussels deems it "unsuitable" for other countries nearby
I'd rather that we Brits grew a pair and chose the second, but I fully expect we continue with the first in an "as is/status quo" situation until the EU declares itself as a full country in it's own right
I find it a complete shame that some British people have decided that being ruled by an undemocratic/unaccountable entity is a better way forward for our country
The EU council is made up of representatives from elected national governments, and the EU parliament is made up of representatives elected in the euro elections. If you mean the EU President due to not being directly elected by the people, then you might as well say the UK Prime minister and the UK Queen are also undemocratic as we do not directly vote on who our prime minister is or who our head of state is. If you mean that decisions are taken on many issues by majority voting well again the same can be said of our own national parliament. As for court rulings the UK too has a tradition of an independent judiciary interpreting and clarifying the law.
1) In virtually all circumstances, we know who we are voting for as Prime Minister. It's why Labour is languishing so.
2) Yes. We should vote for a head of state. I am an out-of-EU Republican. A logical place to be for a true democrat.
Gordon Brown, 2007 (Blair resigned)
John Major, 1990 (Thatcher was forced out),
Jim Callaghan, 1976 (Wilson resigned),
Alec Douglas-Home, 1963 (Macmillan resigned)
Harold Macmillan, 1957 (Eden resigned),
Anthony Eden, 1955 (Winston resigned)
Winston Churchill, 1940 (Chamberlain resigned)
Neville Chamberlain, 1937 (Baldwin resigned),
Stanley Baldwin 1935 (succeeded MacDonald in the National Government)
Stanley Baldwin, 1923 (Bonar Law resigned),
David Lloyd George, 1916 (Asquith was forced out),
HH Asquith, 1908 (Campbell-Bannerman resigned)
Arthur Balfour, 1902 (Salisbury resigned)
No country within the EU has unlimited unfettered immigration, they all have limits. Nor is it responsibility of any other EU member state that the UK has chosen to admit non-EU immigrants at all.
As for your comment about name another non-EU country, there are several worldwide. Indeed, you barely have to go outside the British Isles as both the UK & Ireland (two EU member states) allow free movement from the non-EU crown dependencies in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Going slightly further afield, we have EFTA and - separately - the Nordic States have it between themselves (irrespective of whether the state concerned is an EU member, an EFTA member or neither).
As such, this isn't just an "EU" issue as you seem to believe...
I don't understand what that means per se. Does it mean that a couple have to jump through certain hoops/technicalities or is the ruling saying the Government cannot stop spouses of british citizens coming here regardless?
It should be the case that spouses and children of british citizens should be allowed to live here, its crazy and outrageous that this Government ever went down the route of trying to stop them in the first place! >:(
The rules on the financial requirement are discriminatory too. They allow employed people to be gifted the money to meet that rule but not self employed people! The Government and their supporters squirm bigtime on why they don't allow the self employed to be gifted the money but there is no getting away from the fact that its one rule for employed people and another for self employed people.
I have no doubt thats because they are targetting people with heritage to the Indian sub continent especially who marry people from there in the hundreds of thousands every year.