"I have never welcomed the weakening of family ties by politics or pressure" - Nelson Mandela. "He who travels for love finds a thousand miles no longer than one" - Japanese proverb. "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." - Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. "When people's love is divided by law, it is the law that needs to change". - David Cameron.
So the UK government has made much of the abuse of the right of EU citizens to move freely between member states, with their family members, even where the family members are third country nationals. The European Commission seems to have given massive concessions with this extract from the draft declaration (bear in mind this is just a draft) :
"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. Accordingly, in such cases, the host Member State's immigration law will apply to the third country national. "
Further down, the declaration states "Member States can address
specific cases of abuse of free movement rights by Union citizens
returning to their Member State of nationality with a non-EU family
member where residence in the host Member State has not been
sufficiently genuine to create or strengthen family life and had the
purpose of evading the application of national immigration rules." which
is a direct attack on those undertaking the Surinder Singh route, so it
will need to be clearer that the moving to another EU country and then
returning eventually to the UK was not for the purpose of evading the UK
I set out my understanding below - I think this is right, but if not apologies in advance. This is all a bit new for me as it is for everyone but I will correct if realise there are any errors.
Example - current
Scott is a British citizen. His wife, Lila, is from India.
Under current EEA regulations, Scott and Lila can use free movement to move to France which specifically excludes income and language requirements.
There are conditions imposed on Scott's right of residence however, in that he needs to be engaging in certain permitted activities, like working or being self-employed, studying or self-sufficiency.
If after some time Scott wishes to move to the UK (and utilise the Surinder Singh route), he can do so with his Indian wife and be exempt from the UK income threshold of £18,600 and the English language requirements, as long as he can evidence acceptable activity in France (which by UK's interpretation seems to be only work or self-employment). Alternatively, he can also use free movement rights to move to Germany or Ireland or any other member state, with Lila.
Example - as proposed
However, if the draft declaration comes to fruition then Lila could only move to France if either
i) she and Scott satisfy the French immigration rules for sponsoring a family member, or
ii) if she is able to obtain a visa allowing her to reside in France herself (e.g. perhaps through a work visa).
Once she is resident in France legally, the couple can then exercise their free movement rights to move to another member state, or indeed, the UK if their time in France cannot be interpreted by the Home Office as being for the purpose of evading UK immigration rules.
However, were Scott to have married after establishing his residence in France, they could not use free movement rights to live in France or another member state immediately. There will need to be
i) first, an instance of having lived in a member state together with the third country national under the domestic immigration rules and
ii) second, the EU citizen having moved to the member state (the residence in which he wishes to use as the base for the free movement exercise with his third country national spouse) only after his marriage took place.
Update added for clarity: So say I as a British citizen move to France and establish my residence
there. I subsequently get married and my non-EU husband moves to France (on
say a work visa under French immigration rules). We would not be able
to move to the UK using free movement, because our
marriage took place after my residence in France was established.
Assuming these rules apply to all member states, we would not even be
able to use free movement to move to Germany because the marriage took
place after my residence in France was established. However, if we move
to Germany and he gets a work or spouse visa under German domestic
immigration rules, and I establish residence in Germany, THEN we can
move to another member state using free movement or even use free movement to move to the UK, as long as HO is not able to suggest that the
purpose of my residence in France and/or Germany was to evade UK
There doesn't appear to be any changes for family members like elderly parents or children, for whom the free movement rights appear to be exercisable from the outset; less clear on the situation for unmarried partners...I expect the intention would be to treat them as spouses but it's not mentioned in this declaration.
So yes Surinder Singh will be harder but its not closed - the non-EU spouse will at some point need to meet at least one member state's domestic immigration rules, family life will need to have been strengthened or created living in that member state and if returning to the say the UK (if the EU citizen is British) under free movement rights, the family may be required to evidence that living in another member state and now moving to the UK was not to evade UK immigration rules...although more likely the onus on proving they were attempting to evade will remain with the Home Office but being able to disprove the very likely assertion would be helpful.
Edit: upon reflection I think the changes will make it really hard for anyone with adverse immigration history, be it just a visa refusal. UK visa refusals may for example make it harder to get a visa for Spain and if the applicant succeeds there, then the earlier visa refusal may lead UK to suggest the move to Spain was to evade UK rules as evidenced by an earlier intention to live in the UK! Best thing now may be well, use your FM rights sooner rather than later, and if after any such changes come into force, don't even bother applying for a UK visa if you suspect it will be refused, because the refusal is very likely to work against you in the future if you decide to move to the UK using free movement rights. Where in any doubt, do seek legal advice.
More light no doubt will be shed over the coming weeks and maybe months especially on what will constitute 'establishing residence'. Looking forward to lawyers providing a legal interpretation to replace my lay one!
don’t know how anyone could expect me to be separated from my baby’s daddy.
My son deserves the best in life I can give him ... I hope I can give him his
daddy as his first ever Christmas present.”
citizen Emma is 24 years old, with a beautiful son with her husband Driss, a
Moroccan citizen.Emma met Driss while
working as a store manager in the international departures terminal at
Eurostar. Emma signed up to a language course to improve her French, which is where
she met Driss.
helped Emma with French and she helped him with English. Over time, they became
friends and a year later, fell in love in Marrakech. Driss makes Emma feel
secure and she recalls the night she realised she was in love with him,
“ ..the night I fell in love was the world cup final. We were in a
restaurant watching the match, when I fell ill. Driss took me home, staying
with me until the pain passed. I knew then that any man who loves football yet
would give up the final for me is special."
met regularly after that and finally, on Valentine's Day 2011, Driss proposed.
In July 2011, Emma moved to Moroccoand got
married, with her family attending their wedding; they moved into a traditional
house, without electricity or running water, sharing it with Driss’s family.
Not speaking Arabic, Emma found it difficult to adjust. Driss bought Emma a
puppy so she’d have some company while he was at work.
missed her family and returned home in January to visit her mum, and found out
she was pregnant. Emma was advised against travel by the doctor during
pregnancy because of the risk to her and her unborn baby’s health for various
reasons (including the conditions in Morocco and Emma’s medical history).
accepted the medical advice and remained in the UK, trying to find a job so
Driss could join them. However, she discovered that jobs were few and far
between for a pregnant woman, especially in roles for which she had experience,
i.e. store management positions. The pregnancy started to affect her health and
Emma, terrified at the prospect of having the baby without her husband, had
Driss come over for the birth.
A few weeks later, they were blessed with a beautiful
son, Aymane Ben. As any parent will confirm, on holding her son, Emma knew
she’d give her life for her son in order to offer him the best upbringing she
could. How could she raise her first baby in an environment she wasn’t happy in
– wasn’t it her responsibility as a parent to give the baby the best of
everything she could, to protect him?
isn’t sure she can quickly leave her baby to find a job paying £18,600 – at a
time when a baby needs his mum all the time. Realistically therefore, this
family is looking at a separation of at least 12 months; in his first year,
baby Aymane is forced to be part of a single parent family because of this
gain during pregnancy put a lot of pressure on Emma’s legs; now, she can’t
climb the stairs of her property without a helper and is dependent on him. Emma
has also seen mental health workers who believe splitting up this family puts
Emma at grave risk of post-natal
and Driss are applying for compassionate leave to remain, for Driss to be here
with the family. The solicitor they have hired believes they will be refused,
despite the family staying together being what is in the best interest of the
child and Emma’s health.
Update: Emma and Driss did defeat
Theresa May in court.They are now
happily living in the UK and Aymane is now big brother to Sami.The family is grateful for all the support
and continue to be active in the fight against UK’s immigration rules forcing
British citizens out of their own country.