Surinder Singh under a Conservative government

[frustratedbrit]

This is an open ended question, but one I feel needs to be asked (apologies if this has already been covered in another question). Given that the Conservatives won the 2015 general election pledging to leave the ECHR unless they could secure concessions, including restricting the right to a family life in certain cases, and given that this is the basis of the Surinder Singh route for British nationals bringing their non-EEA family members into the UK, can we expect home office policy to continue to respect the Surinder Singh route, at least until an ECHR exit happens (if it does ever happen)? Or is there a significant risk that policy may change in the next few months, given that the government seems more concerned with reducing immigration numbers than respecting human rights?

[Imshzd]

At the moment there is no change in the policy.
Any changes in the uk policy subject to pre public notifications.

[Casa]

More may be disclosed in the Queen's Speech on May 27th

[Andrewbird35]

Well it's not possible for UK to take away this Island from Europe as geographically they can not.
Even though they leave or now EC kick UK off from European Union it's still not possible to live in completely isolation and segregation in this era when world has become a global village.
Prime example is Switzerland as they are not part of EU but still enjoy same rights.All these laws are reciprocal,if UK kick people off all Britain would be kicked off from Europe.
British politicians make public fool in name of immigration and hide their own inefficiencies and make immigrants a scape goat in order to win election.
This sophisticated Xenophobia should not be developed in civilised world and human rights should not be compromised.
Only they should renegotiate with Ec commission and do not let immigrants abuse the system.
Proper law ie no claim of benefits should be implemented.
So it's too early to say what would happen next and how it affect EU nationals and their families.

[PrestonLancs]

OP has asked specifically about SS route.

ECHR or UK human rights act, or the talked about bill of rights has no bearing on any EU family member route, including SS route. SS route is based on freemovement directive and SS and other court rulings.

As far as I can read, government has not even talked once about restricting free movement. They are only talking about benefits claimed by EEA citizens. Needless to say, restricting benefits for EEA nationals is of no concern for people using SS route, as they are British citizens.

But nothing can be said about whether govt will try to make further changes to EEA regs, and bring up some strange requirements for SS route, on the lines of centre of life test.

As far as changes generally to EEA regs for all EEA citizens and their family members are concerned, it all depends on how the govt wants to play. They might either start making changes slowly (depending upon negotiations and agreements), and then claim nearer the referendum that they have "reformed" the european union and ask people to vote Yes. Or they might not make or implement any changes, but put all the changes in their referendum manifesto. Hoping that they can convince British people that if they vote Yes, then government will immediately implement reform.

A lot will depend on how NO campaign performs in coming months. Basically, if the YES campaign fails to fool people, UK will vote NO to EU. But the YES lobby is very strong, and with strong media backing. BBC has already started its rhetoric about the harms of leaving the EU. All the crooked bankers, money swindlers, left wing lunatics including the SNP, zionists, human rights money making organisations and solicitors, all will be supporting the campaign to stay in EU.

[PrestonLancs]

Well it's not possible for UK to take away this Island from Europe as geographically they can not.
By the way, UK is not part of continental europe. As you have said, its and Island.


Even though they leave or now EC kick UK off from European Union it's still not possible to live in completely isolation and segregation in this era when world has become a global village.
There are 27 countries in EEA. So, the remaining 169 countries in the world are remaining in complete isolation and segregations?
USA, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Norway, Russia, Kazakhstan, India, China, Malaysia etc etc are not in EU/EEA. The truth is, EU/EEA is sinking to the bottom. Every single rising nation on this earth is outside EU/EEA

Prime example is Switzerland as they are not part of EU but still enjoy same rights.All these laws are reciprocal,if UK kick people off all Britain would be kicked off from Europe.
No one has ever remotely implied that if UK leaves EU, then citizens of EU or thier familieswill be kicked out.

British politicians make public fool in name of immigration and hide their own inefficiencies and make immigrants a scape goat in order to win election.

True. Politicians of UK have been inefficient. But that does not take away the fact, that immigration is a real issue.

This sophisticated Xenophobia should not be developed in civilised world and human rights should not be compromised.

Only they should renegotiate with Ec commission and do not let immigrants abuse the system.
Proper law ie no claim of benefits should be implemented.
With the present structure of EU/EEA, and various treaties, only a very few superficial changes can actually be achieved. The structure of EU/EEA can't be changed. There is no chance that all member states will ever vote identically, and without every single member state agreeing, no change is possible. Even restricting benefits does not seem possible, as the premise of EU/EEA is that all union citizens are to be treated eually throughout the union, with only a few caveats. In the end, its comes down to one simple thing. Either stay in, and live with it, or leave EU.

So it's too early to say what would happen next and how it affect EU nationals and their families.

[frustratedbrit]

@PrestonLancs: Surely the Surinder Singh ruling relates to right to a family life, otherwise surely it would be irrelevant to home nationals because they of course have the right to work in their own country. I think the govt would very much want to force its own nationals to follow the same immigration procedures regardless of whether they happened to have done a stretch of employment in the EEA (although it's slightly reassuring if it is indeed the case that they haven't been making pronouncements about closing down the SS route). What I'm worried about is what scope they have, or think they have, and what plans they have, for going against the Surinder Singh ruling (rather than tinkering with its interpretation) even before any ECHR exit (regardless of an EU exit, although I suppose the two are linked).

[frustratedbrit]

Looks like I was getting confused between the ECHR and the ECJ. The govt want to opt out of aspects of the ECHR, but Surinder Singh is an ECJ ruling (presumably following an ECHR principle of right to a family life?). Not sure how that affects anything. Out of my depth here.

[PrestonLancs]

There is no magic procedure of opting out of ECHR (european convention of human rights. But for example's sake, if UK somehow "comes out" of ECHR tomorrow, then it will make no difference to SS route. SS route is based on freemovement rights of union citizens. The idea being, that if a citizen of a country goes and lives in another member state, and if that citizen cannot bring his family back to his home country under freemovement directive, then this might hamper union citizens move to another member nations to exercise their treaty rights.

[Czdude]

PrestonLancs, have to disagree that the current government has not mentioned free movement; see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30250299

Note the following excerpt e.g.:
"We must also deal with the extraordinary situation where it's easier for an EU citizen to bring a
non-EU spouse to Britain, than it is for a British citizen to do the same.
At the moment, if a British citizen wants to bring, say, a South American partner to the UK, then we ask for proof that they meet an income threshold and can speak English.
But EU law means we cannot apply these tests to EU migrants. Their partners can just come straight into our country without any proper controls at all.
And this has driven a growing industry in sham marriages, with this loophole accounting for most of the 4,000 bogus marriages that are thought to take place in Britain every year.
We have got to end this abuse."

[frustratedbrit]

I see PrestonLancs point about the ECJ judgement being about free movement, and so shouldn't be affected by UK concessions with the ECHR. In Directive 2004/38 in the paragraphs relating to family members, it does mention "family life and human dignity", but maybe this still doesn't relate to the ECHR.

Thanks for that CzdudeBut. I thought I had heard something like that myself. This doesn't look encouraging does it? Sounds like this will be one of the concessions Cameron is seeking from the EU.

I find it quite disgusting that they are pointing to the Surinder Singh route and concluding that the regulations need to be toughened up in this area rather than loosened. Only in the UK and the Netherlands are the regulations for home citizens tougher than those provided for by foreign EEA citizens in Directive 2004/38. There must be thousands and thousands of home citizens in genuine relationships whose lives are being ruined by this ridiculous situation, far more than the supposed 4,000 sham marriages.

[PrestonLancs]

They can't just get rid of SS route. They can't just undo a court judgement. Plus there is a new case, OB or whatever it is. To by pass surinder Singh totally, they will have to change Ec ffreemovement directive. To change the directive, they will need a treaty change. Treaty change is just not possible.

But as I said before, they might bring some other requirements on the lines of centre of life. But I don't think any of these new requirements will stand court's scrutiny.

In the meantime, it will be interesting to see the outcome of any appeals where ho refused on centre of life requirements.

[frustratedbrit]

So are you saying that a UK concession that would stop SS would be unachievable without an EU exit?

[Czdude]

They can undo SS at the stroke of a pen if they leave the EU. I don't think this is so much about reform by the Conservatives but cover for exit.

I would love to see some pushback by the media or others (maybe from the forum) on the UK meeting its obligations to the EU and EU law rather than all the attention on what the UK should get in tribute from the EU in reforms. The absolute blatant disrespect and adherence to EU law (including that directly transposed into UK law) is nothing short of shocking.

[Wanderer]

I could be (and probably am) wrong on this but I'm sure I've read the under EU law a State cannot, by implementing a EU Directive into local law, put it's own citizens at a disadvantage, which as alluded above, is certainly true as everyone knows.

I remember this specific to Germany, who would not permit free movement of unmarried partners, since local Germans have no way of doing the same, therefore EU citizens had the same restriction.

Wonder why the EU just doesn't implement this more aggressively, rather than just jumping up and down and postulating, assuming I've not imagined the whole thing.....

[PrestonLancs]

I think it's the other way round. A member state cannot put citizens of other member state at a disadvantage compared to their own citizens.