UK EU referendum confirmed for summer 2016

[Obie]

There could be changes to the Treaties even in the absence of a vote to leave the EU.

It is not improbable that a part of a successful renegotiation before the referendum is a protocol modifying the EU Treaties giving the UK a derogation from specific provisions of EU immigration laws. In other words, the UK could be allowed to excuse itself from EU immigration laws even before the referendum.

So, don't assume that changes will take place only after the referendum. It could happen before.

And if the referendum led to a vote for Brexit, the UK government could potentially suspend EU immigration laws with immediate effect. After all, the highest sanction that the EU could impose would be...to throw the country out of the EU, which is what the UK will have indicated it wants anyway.

If you have plans that involve EU immigration laws, such as bringing people in through the Surinder Singh route, I would suggest actioning those plans as soon as possible.

This report from the House of Lords gives an idea of the direction of travel as regards the timing of the referendum. The government can of course call the referendum at any time it sees fit, now that the bill authorising it passed both Houses of Parliament on 17th December.

This analysis has no basis in law.

Firstly a result on referendum is not a change in the act of parliament.

If what this contributor is saying is to be correct, the 1972 European Communities Act will need to be repealed . The UK will then need to negotiate with the EU an Exit strategy, there will be a transitional arrangement on UK exit in regards to the millions of British who live in the community and the EU NATIONAL who live in the UK.

In the event of a vote to exit, I really can't see anything happening for at least 2 years.

When Switzerland voted to limit free movement , up to today a single change has not taken place. So it is clear that Secretsimon post has no legal basis, but only aimed at at causing unnecessary anxiety.

[secret.simon]

It seems October 2016 is likely to be the date for the referendum given the fact that House of Lords has granted 16 and 17 year olds the chance to vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -year-olds

That news is slightly stale. The Lords did suggest giving 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote in the referendum, but the Commons rejected it and asserted their financial privilege. As giving 16 and 17 year olds would mean that they would need to be registered first, which would cost money, the Commons, as the elected House, gets to have the final say. So, the bill (now an Act of Parliament) is still limited to the same people who can vote in a General Election; British and other Commonwealth citizens over the age of 18.

This analysis has no basis in law.

I am looking at the wider political/economic picture, in addition to the legal status and not confiding myself to the text of the law, which is, after all, mutable.

Secretsimon post has no legal basis, but only aimed at at causing unnecessary anxiety.

Much as people want a black and white picture (either in or out of the EU, either full EU immigration law or none), reality has not just fifty shades of grey, but also innumerable shades of countless colours.

Reality is complex and I am attempting to make people on these forums aware of the sheer complexity of the situation, much as some people tend to take an overtly simplistic point of view. There are alternatives which are not obvious or visible, especially for those who tend not to follow the news on a regular basis.

When Switzerland voted to limit free movement , up to today a single change has not taken place. So it is clear that Secretsimon post has no legal basis, but only aimed at at causing unnecessary anxiety.

Switzerland and the EU have until February 2017 to take into account the Swiss referendum on limiting migration within the EEA. There may be developments below the surface that none of us who focus on UK developments may be aware of.

[Obie]

You say the UK could suspend free movement with immediate effect, and that is clearly wrong. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the 4 freedoms enshrined in the treaty, that they are all or nothing and if the UK suspend free movement, which is part of the treaty, then movement of goods and services will need to suspended , and in the absence of a trade agreement, which can take years to agree upon that will be economically suicidal to the UK. Nevermind the fact that immediate freeze will be illegal without an act of parliament repealing the 1972 European Communities Act.

[secret.simon]

@sceret.simon i agree with all of your logic with respect

I am flattered and thankful that my post makes sense, even though it goes against your interest. As mentioned in my previous post, the idea is to show just how complex the debate & the consequences actually are.

i also agree with the fact that refrendum outcome is sure and short which is brexit

I am not certain of that. I believe that Brexit can be averted, if the UK is allowed to derogate from certain parts of the EU treaties.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that the two hard-nosed countries who have had repeated referendums have won the most concessions from the EU. Denmark has a high level of derogation, and while Norway has been derisorely called a "fax democracy", it has an almost complete derogation from the Common Agricultural Policy and the fisheries policy.

it will lead to scotish referendum scots think diffrent from an average English they still think they are diffrent and independent look at them they have diffrent currecny diffrent way of life diffrent transport system diffrent rules for NHS diffrent food and list goes on and on.If UK want to leave EU maybe they will decide by next year but within 2 years or maximum by 2020 scotland will be free independent and will be the part of EU.
the result will be same what ireland did in 2005.48% scotish men and women think to leave UK which is very fragile relationship.and most importantly scotland is one of the richest european countries they can stand on there feet and boost there economy without UK easily.in total coming up few years will totaly change europe aswell as UK

It is not that easy. If Scotland were to become independent and apply to join the EU, both Spain and Belgium (which have countries within them that want to become independent but join the EU) may object. And one objection is enough to block joining the EU.

As a new member, it will be expected to sign up to all the EU requirements including joining the Euro and handing over control of the border to the EU. Given that the English-Scottish border will become an external border of the EU, that will mean that the Scottish government can not control the only land border that it has.

To be honest, Scotland may probably be better off outside the UK. England has about 86% of the UK population while Scotland has 8%. Even using a system of supermajority, England can outvote Scotland comfortably. It may be better off as an independent nation.

the result will be same what ireland did in 2005

What did the Irish do in 2005? The Irish Free State was founded in 1922, after a civil war lasting almost fifty years. But 2005 does not spring to mind as a significant year for the Irish.

most importantly scotland is one of the richest european countries they can stand on there feet and boost there economy without UK easily.

That is a good joke. I would love to see Scotland survive on the low price of oil (which is pretty much all that Scotland has got). EU laws may classify most major companies in Scotland (such as Halifax-Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland) as English because most of their customers are in England. Scotland could reinvent itself as an off-shore tax haven, but given that the Scottish electorate is to the left of the erstwhile Labour leadership, that sounds unlikely.

Much as I dislike it, Margaret Thatcher did get it right when she said that socialists eventually run out of other people's money to spend. The current Scottish Executive has the ambitious target of higher public spending without increasing taxation. I would love to know the secret of how to fill in that hole.

@secert.simion in last i want to ask a question from you what do you think if UK leaves EU.will they loose
there CH Membership aswell becuase the free movement rule applies to CH members aswell.

You have totally got me there. What do you mean by CH? I presume you do not mean Companions of Honour.

CH is the country code for Switzerland, but the UK does not have Swiss membership.

Alternatively, do you mean the CommonwealtH? Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK have the right to vote but no right to freedom of movement.

[secret.simon]

Nevermind the fact that immediate freeze will be illegal without an act of parliament repealing the 1972 European Communities Act.

I meant that a vote for Brexit could be interpreted as a signal to the UK Parliament to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 with immediate effect. It would be hard for even the Europhile House of Lords to block it if the referendum has given a mandate to the government to walk out of the EU.

It shows a complete lack of understanding of the 4 freedoms enshrined in the treaty, that they are all or nothing

My knowledge may be less than yours, but I am not completely oblivious to the nuances in this field.

[noajthan]

Has anything been said of what will happen to EEA citizens living in the UK? I know the UK won't immediately exit; it will take at least two years. But I read the UKIP manifesto before the general election and it said there would be a five year moratorium on migrants before they would basically be kicked out.

I have PR now, and have lived in the UK for my whole life but I am not British. I plan to naturalise, and my application will be in WELL in time for any potential Brexit. But if the worst happens and I am refused, does that mean a have to leave?

Interesting question.

Surely it depends on the precise wording of any referendum question.
And then how the outcome manifests itself & is transposed into UK law (once the electorate has exercised their democratic right).

After all does an 'EU exit' mean an 'EEA exit' too
- I'm confused about that.

Where does EU free movement end and EEA free movement begin

My understanding is Iceland and Norway are 'EEA only' and yet do enjoy the rights/responsibilities of free movement & treaty rights under EEA agreements.

And this thoughtful analysis looks at the question from the other end of the telescope;
ie from the point of view of British expats elsewhere in Europe.
Ref: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/201 ... es-if.html

[secret.simon]

Surely it depends on the precise wording of any referendum question.

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/f ... assessment

We have recommended that the referendum question be amended to:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

I believe that the government has accepted the Electoral Commission's wording of the question.

As for the question of staying in the EEA but leaving the EU, it is entirely possible but not probable.

The point is, it is not nearly as simple as a "stay in the EU with no change" or "get out and lose everything". That is an ocean of possibilities in between that nobody is contemplating.

[Obie]

Well I do not accept that a legislative change can come into effect with immediate effect. Unlike a regulation which can be easily put in place, an act of parliament which will repeal a legislative act is not quite the same.

I have lived with English people for a large portion of my life. I have attended their primary and secondary schools and also their tertiary institutions.

I understand the English people may dislike foreigners, but I strongly believe they like themselves more than they hate foreigners. On that basis , even though their heart may lead them to say no, their head will hold the contrary view and I am sure their head will prevail.

Perhaps a vote to leave the ECHR might have been an easier one for them.

I say English, because the polls indicates that England is pro exist whiles the other 3 regions are firmly in support of staying in.

Even in England the picture is not all clear, we have London which is strongly for staying , and some xenophobic regions of the Midlands, Yorkshire and other area in the North East firmly wanting to leave.
I don't think UK will leave.

Even if they leave they will join EEA , and the effect will be the same.

I actually would like them to vote to leave, so Scotland can make an easy decision to leave the union .

But I don't think my wishes will come to past.

When the consequences of leaving, is made clear to the British people, I am confident they will vote to stay.

[noajthan]

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/f ... assessment

We have recommended that the referendum question be amended to:

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

I believe that the government has accepted the Electoral Commission's wording of the question.

As for the question of staying in the EEA but leaving the EU, it is entirely possible. The point is, it is not nearly as simple as a "stay in the EU with no change" or "get out and lose everything". That is an ocean of possibilities in between that nobody is contemplating.

+1

Thanks for clarifying Simon.

I will continue my self-study of these matters.

[secret.simon]

I don't think UK will leave.

I predict a stay as well, but with significant concessions on immigration.

Immigration is what will sway the vote and the EU can not be blind to that.

I also think that the Syrian migration crisis will focus minds within the rest of the EU. Look at the spectacle of Poland wanting to maintain unlimited migration to the UK, but not accepting any refugees to itself. Personally, I think the Schengen zone and absolute and unrestrained freedom of movement within the EU are doomed. Freedom of movement will exist, but there will be requirements to be met, such as border checks, etc.

[Obie]

Well you views precede from the standpoint that everyone wants UK to stay, and they will run to make concessions to keep it in.

Majority of French don't want the UK in the EU. German have said that Freemovement is untouchable and discrimination against EU citizens will not be permitted.

I recon it will be a yes without concession.

The Refugee crisis is not a UK problem, they have turned their backs, just like America. They caused the mess and live it for others to clear.

German has absorbed 1 million already this year, with little complaint.

The UK has taken in an insignificant number, and no one really care about how they feel as they are not part of the solution.

When English people go to the polls I don't think the interest of the EU or refugee will be in the forefront of their minds.

They will think about their Jobs, their household expenses which is likely to increase, they will think about their own ability to move to other memberstate to live and work, which opinion polls indicate that by a margin of 2 to 1, the British people don't want to have taken away from them.

Bearing in mind the above, I believe their hatred fro migrant will not exceed their anxiety of the above.

I don't think their will be any meaningful concession, and in the interest of a cohesive EU, I don't want there to be any.

[secret.simon]

And yet again, I disagree But it is in my nature to disagree, so don't be offended.

everyone wants UK to stay,

Not everyone, but Germany, the Benelux countries and the Nordic countries, while backing the freedom of movement principle, have also stated that they would like the UK to stay and are open to making concessions.

The French (De Gaulle in particular) have never been fans of any alternate to the Franco-German centre in the EU.

German has absorbed 1 million already this year, with little complaint.

Not from what I have seen in the German media. There seems to be quite a bit of resentment in local communities. It is not unlike the UK. The national government is in favour; the local communities, the most affected, are against. The Syrian migrant crisis may yet be Angela Merkel's Achilles heel in 2017.

As for English voters, keep in mind that even if you assume that the entire Scottish (8%), Welsh(4.5%) and Northern Ireland (3%) population were to vote totally in favour, that would still amount only to about 15% of the vote. It will be England that makes the decision.

When English people go to the polls I don't think the interest of the EU or refugee will be in the forefront of their minds.

No, but the Polish or the Somali children taking up spaces in the local schools will be. They won't distinguish between where the migrants will come from. And they will be reminded repeatedly that being in the EU, we have no say about who enters the country from the EU.

Much as most people on these forums would dislike it, the referendum is, in the minds of most voters, a vote for or against immigration, nothing more and nothing less.

I don't think their will be any meaningful concession

Define meaningful.

in the interest of a cohesive EU, I don't want there to be any

In the interest of a cohesive UK, I hope there are.

We signed up for the European equivalent of the (American) Articles of Confederation. Now that we are moving towards a US Constitution equivalent, I think we need to decide whether we are European or British.

[Obie]

I am open to contrary ideas and views . I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I welcome critics . So long as inaccurate information are not posted , I am happy for people to express their view, and I do not like supressio of views, so long as they are not posted as facts.

The EU will be a laughing stock if it allows the UK to undermine it's founding principle and impose breaks in movement of people .

Polish children are not filling in UK schools , and most statistics shows that EU migrant tends to be single and mostly come to UK for work or search of work.

Somali are refuges, who are not part of UK international agreement on free movement.

The last time I checked, I don't think Somalia was part of EU.

When scots who make ten percent of the UK, and spend more per head into the UK , than any other of its nation, vote to stay, and the English vote to leave , then it will be interesting to see what will happen.

The UK has a choice. David Cameron say he will impose breaks on NI number and the EU rejected it, if they were dying to make concessions, I am sure Germany would have accepted it.

EU is getting more powerful and a power to be recon with.

UK can leave. The problem in the UK is this empire mentality, which has left UK hated in most quarter of the world.

English people have to view their partners as equal, they cannot expect to live in other countries and being treated as equals and then expect to treat other as unwelcome guest when they come to their nations.

The cannot expect to make laws for Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland in non- devolved areas and then get upset when laws are made in Brussels.

The real world is not quite like that.

[Wise]

Hi all,

Please can I just say well done to all of your contribution I genuinely respect your thoughts over this matter, like Casa said the referendum is an opinion and if the result is to leave then I think Obei's opinion will surely prevail by the time they realised the consequences.

British doesn't want to be told or command over anything but we shall all see. If a door closes another good one will open.

Merry Xmas .

[secret.simon]

On that basis , even though their heart may lead them to say no, their head will hold the contrary view and I am sure their head will prevail.

Much as I wish I could agree to this sentiment, I feel we both will be disappointed.

It has been hypothesised that we live in a "post truth" era, where people are weary of complex discussions, such as the one that we are having, and want simple answers or solutions. They are likely to go with what feels good now, and regard any long term thinking as cumbersome, irritating and unwanted.

You only have to look at the rise of Trump in the US and Corbyn here to see the way the wind is blowing.

So, I regrettably think that the heart might triumph over the head, to the detriment of the entire body politic.

[secret.simon]

The EU will be a laughing stock if it allows the UK to undermine it's founding principle and impose breaks in movement of people .

It will merely be reminding the EU that it started as an economic community and that is the way that some people wish to keep it. Ever closer union is not welcome to all.

Polish children are not filling in UK schools , and most statistics shows that EU migrant tends to be single and mostly come to UK for work or search of work.

Somali are refuges, who are not part of UK international agreement on free movement.

The last time I checked, I don't think Somalia was part of EU.

Perception is reality. If that is what people percieve, that is what they believe is true. The actual truth does not matter.

EU is getting more powerful and a power to be recon with.

If you mean in domestic interference, I agree. Better to get out before it completely stifles all national existence.

The problem in the UK is this empire mentality, which has left UK hated in most quarter of the world.

People have always hated success. We should be damned proud of ours.

The cannot expect to make laws for Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland in non- devolved areas and then get upset when laws are made in Brussels.

Northern Ireland is British by choice. It actually surrendered some power back to Westminster just two years ago. Wales does not have a separatist bent like Scotland because it shares a considerably longer history with England. And as for Scotland, if there were a referendum in the whole of the UK on Scottish independence, they would be booted out by an overwhelming majority even if they wanted to stay.

[rooibos]

It will merely be reminding the EU that it started as an economic community and that is the way that some people wish to keep it. Ever closer union is not welcome to all.

With due respect Simon, the EEC became a political entity in 1992 when it turned into the EU. The EEC doesn't exist any more.
You are 23 years late to the party. What is it that "some people wish to keep"?

[secret.simon]

While the EEC turned into the EU in 1992, its character is turning more into a unified political state with each treaty since Maastricht (Amsterdam 1997-99, Nice 2001-03 & Lisbon 2007-09). It has been argued that the Lisbon Treaty was the same as the proposed EU Constitution and that it was implemented as a Treaty to bypass more referendums and rejections after that Constitution was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands.

Perhaps the Maastricht rebels in 1992 were right after all. Had we hit the brakes at that time, Europe would not have been so centralised and domineering.

[rooibos]

The what-you-call Maastricht rebels (I think you mean UKIP and various neo-fascist parties like Front National, Lega Nord and other openly dearly beloved fractions in East Europe) have not come up with a rational plan on what they would do once a nation breaks away from the EU. Stay in the EEA? Complete breakup from the EEA? Complete repudiation of all European treaties, including the ones involving NATO, WTO, IMF, World Bank, etc? Complete isolation? Self sufficiency? A return to the British Empire?

UKIP and the likes have never come out with a straight answer and will never come out with one because: 1) it requires some sort of political intelligence, which is in short supply in their ranks apart from Farage and Carswell. 2) It would alienate part of their voting base 3) there's no straight answer. This is is unchartered territory and politicians who use Brexit for a cheap political score are irresponsible.

[secret.simon]

The what-you-call Maastricht rebels (I think you mean UKIP and various neo-fascist parties like Front National, Lega Nord and other openly dearly beloved fractions in East Europe)

I am not old...well, atleast I don't feel old...but my word, you make me feel ancient.

You may wish to read the headlines from 1992 when the Maastricht Treaty had to be legislated into UK domestic law by Act of Parliament. The Conservative Party had a bare majority in the Commons (like right now) and John Major's government was repeatedly defeated in the Commons on various parts of the Maastricht Treaty by members party voting against it. They were called the Maastricht rebels. Had they succeeded in defeating the Maastricht Treaty itself, we would not have come to this pass and this forum would have been moot.

Interestingly, not only are many of them still in Parliament, two of them are members of Her Majesty's Government; Iain Duncan Smith and John Whittingdale.

As for the political intelligence required come up with a straight answer of what if the UK leaves the EU, there is none, because the UK leaving the EU will also change the EU, as much as it changes the UK if not more.

Firstly, it will set a precedent that a major country (the third largest economy) can walk out of the EU if the EU gets overbearing.

Secondly, if Scotland votes to leave the UK and attempt to join the EU in a hypothetical second referendum, parts of Belgium (both halves), Italy (the North) and Spain (Catalonia) will all clamour to leave their countries but remain part of the EU.

The EU will be in far worse turmoil than the UK. And then if some other countries decide to exit, following on from the precedent of the UK, the EU will be left a rump of its former self. It would be very ironic if the EU, which is one of the greatest achievements of diplomacy in modern times, is destroyed because it failed at diplomatically coming to agreement with its own member states.

That is why it is also in the EU's self-interest to negotiate with the UK.

Anyway, for some crystal ball gazing into 2016, have a listen (iPlayer so only accessible within the UK) to the BBC News Review of the Year at 53 minutes into the programme. On a lighter note, for those of you who can never remember the planets of the solar system, there is a wonderful mnemonic at 51:45 minutes into the programme.

[khanmzk]

@secret.simion i will advise you to get off your high horse and look into figures which are based on statistics
and also i will request you to look into the figuers and studies before you claim that scotland is a poor country
without UK.See yourself and challenge it with your assumptions..do not be offended face the reality...mate

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ ... harts.html

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/10 ... nt-nation/

[secret.simon]

But the view from my high horse is awesome

A thread about the forthcoming EU Referendum on an immigration forum is probably not the best place to discuss viewpoints on the Scottish economy.

Suffice to say that
a) the link that you provided from the Telegraph actually states my side of the argument, not yours.
b) The Business for Scotland link that you provide is based on oil prices being above $110 and considers the OBR's forecast of $80 as too negative. Now, in real life, it is $35, less than a third of the level that the Business for Scotland's case is predicated on.
c) Much of Scotland's corporate wealth is mainly UK companies, such as Lloyds, TSB, HBOS & RBS, who are headquartered in Scotland. If the UK splits, those companies will have to be redomiciled in England to conform to EU laws (which Scotland will want to follow). Otherwise, they will dwarf the Scottish economy more than the Icelandic banks (this point is mentioned in the Telegraph article).

Here is another view on possible developments in Scotland: A British departure from the EU will not inevitably lead to Scottish independence

Back to the EU referendum, I would suggest following two blogs from the LSE;
Brexit
European Politics and Policy

And I wish everybody on these forums a happy 2016, it looks like it will be interesting enough. See you all in the New Year.

[ALKB]

German has absorbed 1 million already this year, with little complaint.

I really don't know why you keep claiming this. What are you trying to do? I am alarmed about the incorrect picture you are painting. Only a teeny-tiny fraction has been "absorbed" - if any at all.

Have you actually been to Germany?

I have been there several times since the refugee crisis started and have returned only yesterday from Berlin.

What I have seen in English language media so far has either been translated very selectively (out of context) or simply translated incorrectly.

The reality I have seen is that the purpose-built reception centres have been filled to overcrowding months ago, that refugees are housed in re-purposed gym halls and warehouses and even tents (yes, it is getting colder and colder) with little to no privacey. Refugees are assigned to small communities that literally do not know where to put them.

Also, quite a few of them seem "to have been told" prior to starting their journey that they can immediately work or study, which is not the case at all. Work permission is only given once an asylum application has been decided positively, which usually takes several months. Also, while there are no tuition fees in Germany, taking up university studies usually stops all social security benefits.

My mother's friend who volunteers as a teacher of German as a foreign language has been telling me of the intense frustration and boredom many refugees experience. Many regret having paid tens of thousands of Euro to people smugglers only to end up in an overcrowded, noisy gym hall with no end in sight.

[alvarez0306]

I am not expecting an answer to my query/worry just really your thoughts and opinions on this. I am a Spanish national, however I have lived in the UK since I was 4. I am now 27 years of age and I am employed as a police officer. I have been a police officer since February 2010 so almost six years now. My history in this country includes going through the whole education system here (primary school high school sixth form university etc).
As you are aware there will be a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the eu before the end of 2017 (probably will be held this year if you read the papers and listen to Mr Cameron). I am extremely concerned of the possibility of the outcome being a 'leave' result or as it has been labelled a 'Brexit' would mean not just to me, but other eu nationals in the same or similar position to myself. Would i be required to politely leave? Would I have to apply for a visa to stay here? Would I lose my job which I love as a police officer? So many unanswered questions and at this stage the only responses I am getting are merely conjecture.
Are you aware of any reciprocal arrangements that the government may introduce for expats and eu citizens living in the uk post Brexit? The consequences for me personally would be enormous. All my family are in England and I don't even know how to speak Spanish! I am in the middle of the laborious and complicated process of attempting to apply for British citizenship but the home office seen to change the goal posts when they see fit to make it seemingly more difficult for me to obtain this privilege. I am now required to apply for permanent residency first, wait one year after receiving the permanent residence certificate, and then apply for British citizenship. Basically the earliest I am able to officially apply for British citizenship will be may 2017 way after what I believe will be the outcome of the referendum.
I look forward to reading any response and thank you for taking the time to read my email.

[ohara]

I am now required to apply for permanent residency first, wait one year after receiving the permanent residence certificate, and then apply for British citizenship. Basically the earliest I am able to officially apply for British citizenship will be may 2017

You have almost certainly acquired permanent residence (you don't apply for it) already, and in the worst case scenario you will only need to wait until February 2016 until you have held it for 12 months. I have read online that being in compulsory education (primary/secondary school) counts towards PR also. If this is true, you will have held PR for a very long time!

You have two options and both are good:

1) Call UKVI and ask them to confirm whether being in compulsory education counts towards PR clock. If it does, complete the EEA(PR) application and submit it immediately.

2) If the above fails, complete the EEA(PR) application on the basis of exercising treaty rights as a worker for the period February 2010 to February 2015. Wait until a week or two after the date you started working as a police officer in Feb 2010 and then submit the EEA(PR).

In both cases, once you receive the document certifying permanent residence, you will be able to submit the naturalisation application immediately. ACT FAST! The EEA(PR) can take up to 6 months and naturalisation....well you've seen the timelines!