EU & Brexit Deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40376083

As expected.

"PM Theresa May has told EU leaders any EU citizen living in UK for five years will be given "settled EU status".
The new immigration status would grant them rights to stay in the UK and get health, education and other benefits after Brexit.
But it is not clear what the cut-off date would be.
Mrs May made clear the proposals would be adopted only if the same rights were granted to UK citizens in other EU states, it is understood."

Are there any details available on the status of non EU (extended) family members? Ie those with a five year residence permit (EEA2)?

Essentially, May is offering an EU ILR. The rights that she has listed are almost exactly the same rights as what a non-EEA ILR holder has in the UK.

mia777 wrote:Are there any details available on the status of non EU (extended) family members? Ie those with a five year residence permit (EEA2)?

Further details on Monday.

The offers made by the weakened and robotic Prime Minister is nothing new.

EU citizens who have resided here for 5 years are already allowed to stay. Allowin other EU nationals to Accrue PR does not amount to much of a concession in my view.

Give everyone permanent right.

Just a publicity stunt. Meaningless in the same way as her leadership and premier.

A decent person would have made an unconditional offer.

Still very unclear at this stage. Very reserved offer if UK doesn't specify dispute right, family members and on top of that, UK wants to ditch the ECJ ruling, which means no guarantee in reality for whoever entering the country by EEA law, let alone the grey areas like 'extended family members', retained right, Surinder Singh, etc etc. Condition of 5 years 'lawful' residence is not elaborated either.

Good thing might be 85 pages form will likely be gone.

Although she has offered nothing new but her conditional offer is a good thing imho. She wants the same reciprocal rights for the British citizens living in EU - which surely is good thing. No?

We have to wait until Monday to see the details as devil is always in details in these kind of publicity stunts, especially the rights to bring eu and non-eu relatives into UK after Brexit by EU citizens under EU laws.

As I understand it, the UK offer is that EU citizens already permanently resident in the UK will be treated effectively as quasi UK citizens, with the exception of the right to vote. Depending on your viewpoint, that is generous (getting most rights that a British citizens would have) or rubbish (EU rights will be lost, as they will be to British citizens as well).

There is an argument to be had as to whether non-UK citizens can and should have rights further than those of British citizens themselves, or whether rights conferred by British citizenship should be at the pinnacle of the scale of rights enjoyed by residents in the UK.

There is a saying that karma behaves like a canine creature of the female gender. Well, she arguably is, in this case. The EU is treating the UK how the UK (and indeed, other European powers) are accused of treated the rest of the world in the heyday of colonialism. The EU envisages “a super-privileged caste” entitled to more rights than Britons after Brexit, a former judge at the European Court of Justice has warned (also see his full article - The European Union is exaggerating in its demands for Brexit, especially about the European Court of Justice’s future role

Obvious parallels can also be drawn between the EU position and the status of Europeans (primarily the British and the French, but also other nations, including the US in China) in Ottoman Turkey - the Capitulations and China - the Unequal Treaties in the 19th century, where they were entitled to be governed by their own laws, even when resident in another country. An empire, whether it be British or EU, should do its best to ensure its citizens are protected by that empire's own laws and courts, wherever in the world those citizens choose to move to.

Mrs May has offered nothing new, save for the part where she said she will allow certain people an opportunity to acquire 5 years of residence.

She said those who have lived here, by so i understand her to be asserting those who have been exercising treaty rights for 5 years, although she is vague in her offer, will be permitted to stay.

But this is currently the situation in place. Nothing new about that. Same old same old from a lame duck, failed Prime Minister, who has lost all credibility and moral authority.

EU national already have the right of Permanent Residence after 5 years of Exercising treaty rights, they don't mrs May to give them that, they already have that. Once they acquired it, they have rights on par with a British or Settled Person.

Do you think that "settled EU status" is the same as PR and then we can apply for British citizenship 1 year after getting this "settled EU status"?

It is already the case that PR (and ILR) are treated as "settled status" in the UK. Therefore, as Obie has mentioned, there is relatively no change.

As I understand it, logically, PR will cease to exist, with the rest of EU law, when Brexit occurs. The offer is that everybody with PR would be transitioned to this new "settled EU status" under UK law, thus giving them the right to reside in the UK. It will likely be the same as ILR, except that it will be issued to people who either already had PR or would be on that pathway.

One of the most distasteful thing about this charade that Mrs May call an offer, is the fact that it seeks to use even EU citizen with PR in the UK as bargaining chip.

She is not saying that her deal does not apply to those with PR, she is counting all EEA national into it, and essentially saying if you don't give what i want, then my offer will not exist.

Essentially she is threatening to deport even EEA nationals with PR, if the EU don't give her what she wants. How can she call this a generous offer.

This shambolic minority government are so out of touch, so deluded and totally devoid of reality. No wonder UK has become a laughing stock and a symbol of disdain and derision in the EU,

The right of the British Citizen in the 27 countries will be controlled by the CJEU, at an EU level after Brexit, why should the EU citizen in the UK not have similar right.

Obie wrote:The right of the British Citizen in the 27 countries will be controlled by the CJEU, at an EU level after Brexit, why should the EU citizen in the UK not have similar right.

Because the UK will be a third-party country then? The CJEU may be the highest court at EU level and so may be best placed to have jurisdiction within it, but as the UK will be out of the EU, it logically follows that the CJEU's jurisdiction ceases.

I wonder what your attitude to the situation would have been had the UK insisted that British citizens resident in newly independent colonies were to remain under UK judicial jurisdiction, even after those countries became independent. After all, many of those citizens exercised freedom of movement within the British Empire as then. Would you have approved of white British people in Zimbabwe being subject to British courts for life, not Zimbabwean courts, even after Zimbabwean independence?

I believe that the one element of the EU proposal most likely to be dropped is having continued jurisdiction on EEA citizens in the UK. It is simply not sustainable for a foreign court to exercise jurisdiction in another court, especially if that jurisdiction is based on people, rather than actions. That smacks of modern-day rac-ism, not of skin colour, but of citizenship of birth.

So does this mean existing ECJ case law will no longer have effect in UK courts to enforce existing rights under EU law after Brexit?

mkhan2525 wrote:So does this mean existing ECJ case law will no longer have effect in UK courts to enforce existing rights under EU law after Brexit?

As I recall, the government proposal is that ECJ case law before the date of Brexit will become part of the UK's case law on par with UK Supreme Court judgments. So, the SS route and Zambrano will arrive into UK case law.

However, from the date of Brexit onwards, new ECJ case law will logically no longer apply to the UK. Also, a subsequent Supreme Court judgment can alter older ECJ case law, just as it can alter older UK Supreme Court/House of Lords judgments.

And of course, primary legislation (Act of the Westminster Parliament) can alter and/or override any judgment, even of the Supreme Court. It can therefore alter and/or change all ECJ case law imported into UK law.

Existing EU rights will be imported into UK law. But after Brexit, logically, they will continue as prescribed and modified by the Westminster Parliament, not as by the EU.

secret.simon wrote: Because the UK will be a third-party country then? The CJEU may be the highest court at EU level and so may be best placed to have jurisdiction within it, but as the UK will be out of the EU, it logically follows that the CJEU's jurisdiction ceases.

I wonder what your attitude to the situation would have been had the UK insisted that British citizens resident in newly independent colonies were to remain under UK judicial jurisdiction, even after those countries became independent. After all, many of those citizens exercised freedom of movement within the British Empire as then. Would you have approved of white British people in Zimbabwe being subject to British courts for life, not Zimbabwean courts, even after Zimbabwean independence?

I believe that the one element of the EU proposal most likely to be dropped is having continued jurisdiction on EEA citizens in the UK. It is simply not sustainable for a foreign court to exercise jurisdiction in another court, especially if that jurisdiction is based on people, rather than actions. That smacks of modern-day rac-ism, not of skin colour, but of citizenship of birth.

You analogy is completely nonsensical.

The situation in Zimbabwe is very different from this.

The only arbiter of EU law, is the CJEU. Alternatively the treaty could make provision for a special arbitration body to oversea things. It will be absurd for anyone to conclude that the UK supreme Court will be the final arbiter of an EU treaty. No reasonable person or government will suggest this, only a weak and wobbly governmentry will.

Obie wrote:The only arbiter of EU law, is the CJEU.

The point is, the treaty will be a treaty between the EU and a third-party country, the UK. EU law does not apply between EU and third-party countries, public international law does. Just as EU law or the CJEU does not govern treaties between the EU and the US or Canada.

Please help me clear my doubt,

What i understood is that only those who entered before Mar 2014 will be given the "settlement" rights.
What about those who entered in 2015 and 2016 . How will those be handled, will they be asked to leave?

secret.simon wrote:

Obie wrote:The only arbiter of EU law, is the CJEU.

The point is, the treaty will be a treaty between the EU and a third-party country, the UK. EU law does not apply between EU and third-party countries, public international law does. Just as EU law or the CJEU does not govern treaties between the EU and the US or Canada.

I don't think you get what i was trying to convey.

It doesn't matter any more, as David Davis has realised that the UK Supreme Court cannot be the final Arbiter for the deal between UK and EU, if there will be one..

This government is very weak and unstable, they will keep capitulating, of that i am very sure.

Hi obie
Those who came to uk and received RC after triggering article 50 under SS route what will happen to their status ? Please guide me with this .thank you

tortise wrote:Hi obie
Those who came to uk and received RC after triggering article 50 under SS route what will happen to their status ? Please guide me with this .thank you

Today a 15 page (heard this on the radio) document will be published by the government which is supposed to give all the details. I somehow doubt all the details could be summarised on 15 pages.

Obie wrote:It doesn't matter any more, as David Davis has realised that the UK Supreme Court cannot be the final Arbiter for the deal between UK and EU, if there will be one..

It may not be the UK Supreme Court, but it won't be the ECJ either, if you read the article that you linked to.

Post-Brexit, the relationship between the UK and the EU will come under public international law, not EU law. Therefore the ECJ would not have jurisdiction on the same basis as the UK Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction. It will likely be an independent arbitration body, made up of both EU and UK representatives.

tortise wrote:Hi obie
Those who came to uk and received RC after triggering article 50 under SS route what will happen to their status ? Please guide me with this .thank you

It is a known unknown. We do not yet know the answer to that. Wait for the document that alterhase was referring to.

mkhan2525 wrote:So does this mean existing ECJ case law will no longer have effect in UK courts to enforce existing rights under EU law after Brexit?

An excellent analysis (by the Institute for Government) of what is likely to happen to (and what Parliament should do about) ECJ case law post-Brexit. Definitely worth a read for lawyers and people interested in the law.

There is a very good explanation of the difference in the approach of interpretation of the law on Page 11.

secret.simon wrote:

Obie wrote:It doesn't matter any more, as David Davis has realised that the UK Supreme Court cannot be the final Arbiter for the deal between UK and EU, if there will be one..

It may not be the UK Supreme Court, but it won't be the ECJ either, if you read the article that you linked to.

Post-Brexit, the relationship between the UK and the EU will come under public international law, not EU law. Therefore the ECJ would not have jurisdiction on the same basis as the UK Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction. It will likely be an independent arbitration body, made up of both EU and UK representatives.

tortise wrote:Hi obie
Those who came to uk and received RC after triggering article 50 under SS route what will happen to their status ? Please guide me with this .thank you

It is a known unknown. We do not yet know the answer to that. Wait for the document that alterhase was referring to.

I don't think you have been reading my post.

I said the Supreme Court cannot be the final Arbiter.

Even the minister of the weaken minority government, accepts that EU Judges will play a part, and they will adjudicate on the application of EU law.

The importance of the statement is that, they have abandon the illusion that the Supreme COurt will be the final Arbiter.

The UK government's offer on the rights of EU citizens living in the UK

Quick headlines
- Rights will be codified in the Withdrawal Agreement, which will be public international law, not EU law. CJEU jurisdiction will end.
- Offer is for ILR under the Immigration Act 1971 as expected.
- Application required, not automatic status. EU citizens will also require documentation to prove right to reside in the UK.
- CSI will not be a requirement in these applications.

Family Members wrote:• family dependants who join a qualifying EU citizen in the UK before the UK’s exit will be able to apply for settled status after five years (including where the five years falls after our exit), irrespective of the specified date. Those joining after our exit will be subject to the same rules as those joining British citizens or alternatively to the postexit immigration arrangements for EU citizens who arrive after the specified date;
• the specified date will be no earlier than the 29 March 2017, the date the formal Article 50 process for exiting the EU was triggered, and no later than the date of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. We expect to discuss the specified date with our European partners as part of delivering a reciprocal dea

29. Family members6 of eligible EU citizens (who can be either EU citizens or non-EU nationals) who are resident in the UK before we leave the EU will also be eligible to apply for settled status, provided that they too meet the criteria above and have been in a genuine relationship with an eligible EU citizen while resident in the UK.

Genuine relationship is not required at the moment.

30. Future family members of those EU citizens who arrived before the specified date – for example a future spouse – who come to the UK after we leave the EU, will be subject to the same rules that apply to non-EU nationals joining British citizens, or alternatively to the postexit immigration arrangements for EU citizens who arrive after the specified date.

This will likely be a flashpoint in the negotiations.

39. After our departure, it will become mandatory to apply for permission to stay in the UK.

58. The arrangements set out above will be enshrined in UK law and enforceable through the UK judicial system, up to and including the Supreme Court. We are also ready to make commitments in the Withdrawal Agreement which will have the status of international law. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will not have jurisdiction in the UK.

This answers my initial question:

29. Family members of eligible EU citizens (who can be either EU citizens or non-EU nationals) who are resident in the UK before we leave the EU will also be eligible to apply for settled status, provided that they too meet the criteria above and have been in a genuine relationship with an eligible EU citizen while resident in the UK. Family members who do not yet have five years’ residence will also be eligible to apply for permission to stay (‘leave to remain’) to enable them to accrue these. Most EU citizens will be eligible for the settlement scheme in their own right (rather than as a family member of a resident EU citizen), so this will be most relevant to non-EU national family members. However, EU citizens will be able to access the scheme as a family member if they wish to and can evidence their relationship

Footnote:

Includes direct family members (spouse/civil partner, direct descendants in the descending line (under 21 or dependent), direct dependants in the ascending line), including those with retained rights, and extended family members whose residence has previously been facilitated by the Home Office.