Unfortunately, this is incompatible with the UK statement (both parliamentary question and white paper) that a non-EU spouse's entry will be governed by the national laws of the first member state they enter. In particular, the spouse of a Frenchman will have no more right to come to the UK than the spouse of a Briton. Actually, it now seems that the former will have less right if the Frenchman does not have permanent residence in the UK.shnooks1 wrote:I understand now thank you for explaining. However, after re-reading this thread I think what liksah said makes more sense and I hope he/she is correct:
http://www.immigrationboards.com/search ... sf=msgonly
"who had no prior lawful residence
probably means:
were not lawfully resident at some point earlier"
The reason why I'm so confused is because I don't understand the reasoning of why I wouldn't share my husband's freedom of movement rights just because I never lived in the EU but what liksah pointed out makes perfect sense. If I was previously living in Europe illegally, then it would be understandable as to why I would not be entitled to any movement rights even though I am married to an EU citizen.
Does anyone else think this may just be a case of poor wording?
Shnooks1, you wouldn't share your husband's freedom of movement rights because they are now being restricted to movement within the EEA+. It is still possible that once settled in the EEA, you may be able to enjoy those rights. On this point, the wording shown so far is extremely unclear. For example, you might be able to enter Italy with a view to settlement, and then promptly enter the UK under free movement. However, according to the words of the declaration, you would be permanently denied the rights.
Now, there may be technical work-arounds, but it seems that they will be difficult for those with prior unlawful residence. Failed or bogus asylum seekers are likely to be particularly hard hit.