Will Surinder singh route be available for next few years?

[Petaltop]

@Obie
"Accordingly, when a Community national who has availed himself or herself of those rights returns to his or her country of origin, his or her spouse must enjoy at least the same rights of entry and residence as would be granted to him or her under Community law if his or her spouse chose to enter and reside in another member-State."

Who will pay for the healthcare of these dependants now that from June 2015 the UK now only gives free NHS to worker qualified persons, and a spouse entering on a visa under UK laws from April 2015 can no longer have free NHS until they have IRL, and the NHS from April 2015 can now check which EU citizens can use the NHS for free?

[Casa]

But under Surinder Singh they won't be entering under UK regulations

[Obie]

Better still. Petaltop will pay it for them.

[Casa]

Better still. Petaltop will pay it for them.

[Petaltop]

But under Surinder Singh they won't be entering under UK regulations

Then under EU regualtions in the UK, now only the worker qualifed person gets free NHS from the UK and when they aren't in work, they have to pay for their family members healthcare. The NHS can now check which EU citizens are in work and paying NICs (worker qualified person) and get fined it they give the NHS for free when they must bill.

Before 6 April 2015, an non -eu spouse of a UK citizen could use the NHS for free if they were a resident and Singh dependants benefited from that. The Immigration Act changed that to only free NHS for those who are "settled" (British citizen, IRL, PR) in the UK.

Where do the family members using SS, fit into this for their healthcare costs in the UK? Is there anything under the Singh ruling that says the home nation must pay all the healthcare costs of the dependants entering under SS?

[Obie]

Petaltop, seriously you need to chill out, and stop worrying about these trivial things.

If it is of any comfort, the CJEU in the case of Eind, stated that a worker who returns home after exercising treaty rights in another memberstate, retains their worker staus, and they should continue to benefit from the right as a worker that they enjoyed in the memberstate in which they worked.

Therefore these your Surinder Singh compatriot are entitled to enjoy the NHS with their family, when they return home, in the same was as you and your family.

[Petaltop]

Petaltop, seriously you need to chill out, and stop worrying about these trivial things.

If it is of any comfort, the CJEU in the case of Eind, stated that a worker who returns home after exercising treaty rights in another memberstate, retains their worker staus, and they should continue to benefit from the right as a worker that they enjoyed in the memberstate in which they worked.

Therefore these your Surinder Singh compatriot are entitled to enjoy the NHS with their family, when they return home, in the same was as you and your family.

That's all I was asking. Under EU laws, the EEA country gets to decide who they will give healthcare to and nobody wants to face medical bills of thousands of pounds with no insurance to pay. That wouldn't be "trivial"

[Obie]

Petaltop, seriously you need to chill out, and stop worrying about these trivial things.

If it is of any comfort, the CJEU in the case of Eind, stated that a worker who returns home after exercising treaty rights in another memberstate, retains their worker staus, and they should continue to benefit from the right as a worker that they enjoyed in the memberstate in which they worked.

Therefore these your Surinder Singh compatriot are entitled to enjoy the NHS with their family, when they return home, in the same was as you and your family.

That's all I was asking. The EU country gets to decide who they will give healthcare too and nobody wants to face medical bills of thousands of pounds and no insurance to pay. That wouldn't be "trivial"

I seriously thought your were questioning the right of these people to be eligible to the NHS.

I understand your concerns now.

I am really sure the cost to the UK will not be as much as the cost of building their fortress in Calais.

[tebee]

Excuse me asking a simplistic question here, after all the discussion of the finer points of the interpretation of legal rulings, but as Surinder Singh is part of free movement laws which are EEA in origin what will happen to it if the UK leaves the EU, but remains in the EEA?

[secret.simon]

The EEA is a combination of the EU and the EFTA (European Free Trade Area), comprising of Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and by some interpretations Switzerland.

The freedom of movement laws originate from the EU treaties, but are a part of the conditions for remaining in the EEA. They are not EEA in origin.

At this point in time, the EEA countries (except Switzerland) abide by the EU rules on freedom of movement. Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein must implement EU rules (the EU acquis communitaire) into their own laws to remain a part of the EEA. That is why they are called fax democracies. The EU laws are faxed to them and they must implement them without having a choice.

Given the ructions in Greece about rules coming down from Brussels, that may or may not change in the near future.

Switzerland has a different model, where the rights flow not from EU laws, but from bilateral treaties between the EU and Switzerland, thus adding EU laws into Swiss law. But each change in EU law, while automatically applying to the EU and by legislation in the other three EFTA countries, must be negotiated and approved by treaty in Switzerland.

Also, Switzerland is a country with strong direct democracy traditions. In February 2014, they approved a referendum reimposing immigration quotas on all foreign citizens, including those from the EU. That violates EU laws and there is a good chance that Switzerland will exit the EEA in February 2017 (when the referendum results take effect).

So, it depends on whether the UK's relationship with the EEA is based on the Norwegian model or the Swiss model.

Given that we do not know the outcome of the EU renegotiations, it is too early to speculate on what would happen in 2017.

I stand by my earlier prediction that one possible negotiation plank that the PM could win is to bring family members under the ambit of national, not EU, law. That will effectively abolish the Surinder Singh route, without compromising the German "red line" of impacting the freedom of movement of EEA citizens themselves.

What I can say with absolute certainty is, nobody (not even the PM) knows.

[Dirk]

I am very worried about the future of SS and the whole EEA route. It was featured in Cameron's speech outlining his renegotiation terms. I am sure he will be given some small and in significant treaty changes on things like frww movement and ine of those coule be shutting down the EEA family member route which is small in the grand scheme of things but majornto us on this forum.

[mkhan2525]

The EEA is a combination of the EU and the EFTA (European Free Trade Area), comprising of Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and by some interpretations Switzerland.

The freedom of movement laws originate from the EU treaties, but are a part of the conditions for remaining in the EEA. They are not EEA in origin.

At this point in time, the EEA countries (except Switzerland) abide by the EU rules on freedom of movement. Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein must implement EU rules (the EU acquis communitaire) into their own laws to remain a part of the EEA. That is why they are called fax democracies. The EU laws are faxed to them and they must implement them without having a choice.

Given the ructions in Greece about rules coming down from Brussels, that may or may not change in the near future.

Switzerland has a different model, where the rights flow not from EU laws, but from bilateral treaties between the EU and Switzerland, thus adding EU laws into Swiss law. But each change in EU law, while automatically applying to the EU and by legislation in the other three EFTA countries, must be negotiated and approved by treaty in Switzerland.

Also, Switzerland is a country with strong direct democracy traditions. In February 2014, they approved a referendum reimposing immigration quotas on all foreign citizens, including those from the EU. That violates EU laws and there is a good chance that Switzerland will exit the EEA in February 2017 (when the referendum results take effect).

So, it depends on whether the UK's relationship with the EEA is based on the Norwegian model or the Swiss model.

Given that we do not know the outcome of the EU renegotiations, it is too early to speculate on what would happen in 2017.

I stand by my earlier prediction that one possible negotiation plank that the PM could win is to bring family members under the ambit of national, not EU, law. That will effectively abolish the Surinder Singh route, without compromising the German "red line" of impacting the freedom of movement of EEA citizens themselves.

What I can say with absolute certainty is, nobody (not even the PM) knows.

Surely if Switzerland left the EEA wouldn't they lose access to the EU market as a consequence?

Switzerland only signed up to EEA so that they could have access to the EU market and had to implement freedom of movement rules as a condition.

Brussels views both freedom of movement and access to EU market as inseparable. If Britain left the EU they would be in a similar position as Switzerland because the EU is their biggest trading partner.

[Dirk]

Switzerland is not part of the European Economic Area instead it chooses to deal with European issues with a multitude of bilateral agreements. One of these agreements is covering freedom of movement and recently the Swiss passed by a referendum a limitation on the Freedom of movement which directly put them into breach of the bilateral treaty so the future of Swiss involvement with freedom of movement is questionable however as it is a separate issue to the other bilateral agreements covering trade in goods and services it won't affect their economic status.

[secret.simon]

however as it is a separate issue to the other bilateral agreements covering trade in goods and services it won't affect their economic status.

There are clauses in the seven core "Bilateral I" treaties that mean that they either all stand together or fall together. Being in breach of one of them voids them all.

@Dirk, compliments to you on knowing about this. It is quite an obscure piece of EU law.

@mkhan2525, you are quite correct. Switzerland would lose access to the EEA market directly. But Switzerland is quite wealthy (at least per capita) and can afford to negotiate its own terms. They may come to a different form of treaty agreement with the EU. Whether the UK can do that, I am not so sure, especially after a really messy divorce from the EU, rather than just breaching bilateral treaties.

Switzerland is a special case in that the government is obliged to enforce the results of a referendum, even one called against its own will and that it campaigned against. But you are quite right about the relationship between the Swiss and the EU. It may be that there is another referendum and the Swiss people reverse their earlier judgement or that they exit the EEA (Swissit???).

Interestingly enough, the Swiss involvement in the Schengen zone is not a part of the Bilateral I treaties and I presume that it does not automatically kick them out of Schengen. But presumably, as the Schengen Zone is all about freedom of movement, it will have to be implicitly repealed. Given that two of its airports (Basel and Geneva) are actually in French territory, I wonder what will happen then?

[secret.simon]

The difference between a Brexit and a Swissit is the difference between a breakup in a polyamorous relationship and a breakup with a neighbour with whom you share a corridor, but nothing else. Because the former is more emotional than the latter (and you can see how emotional it is with the current Greek crisis and their relationship with Germany while in the EU), it is unlikely that the rEU (the rest of the EU) will give us the choice of how we would like a future relationship to be, after an acrimonious divorce.

I doubt they would treate us like the Swiss, especially after the Swiss have just shown how fragile the model is in practice.

And do we really want to be like the Norwegians, who get no say in the decision, but must implement it anyway? That will be an even worse situation than now (with apologies to the Norwegians). At least now, we are at the table, even though we can get outvoted. Then we will not be at the table to make the rules, but will still need to implement the rules.

So, there are really only two options, completely in or completely out.

To stay completely in, we will have to accept the freedom of movement principle for EEA citizens.

But freedom of movement for family members is not enshrined in the treaties, but came about because of judicial interpretation and directives issued under the treaties, both of which can be modified without treaty change.

I will therefore argue again, for the purposes of this thread, that the probability of the Surinder Singh route existing in two years time are low, almost approaching negligible. Make your plans for life on the assumption that it will not exist in 2017.

[Petaltop]

I stand by my earlier prediction that one possible negotiation plank that the PM could win is to bring family members under the ambit of national, not EU, law. That will effectively abolish the Surinder Singh route, without compromising the German "red line" of impacting the freedom of movement of EEA citizens themselves.

What I can say with absolute certainty is, nobody (not even the PM) knows.

That's good point. The PM has gone on a lot about UK citizens having to prove they can afford to sponsor to show they won't bring in someone who will be burden to the UK and how it isn't right that EEA citizens don't have to do that if they want to bring in a non-EU to the UK.

Has anyone else noticed the turnaruund from Merkel? In 2010 Merkel said the UK was wrong to deport and ban EEA citizens and their families for 1 year. It is legal in EU law but she said it was against the spirit of free movement, although the UK ignored her. Then last year Merkel spoke about banning EU citizens and their families for 5 years and the UK backed her on this as did some northern EEA countries. It went down well with Germans. The UK dropping their childrens benefits (Tax Credits) in April 2016 to below that of Germany and France as the first part of the UK's welfare cuts, will put more pressure on Merkel in Germany.

[Petaltop]

[
Brussels views both freedom of movement and access to EU market as inseparable. If Britain left the EU they would be in a similar position as Switzerland because the EU is their biggest trading partner.

The UK buys more from the EU than they sell to the EU and that is something Merkel is very mindful of.

[Obie]

I think this thread is getting almost irrelevant. so I am going to lock it.

I believe the OP's Question has been answered, allowing this thread to proceed indefinitely will cause unnecessary anxiety, which i do not believe is appropriate.

Surinder Singh is here to stay I am afraid, and so long as the Jurisdiction of the CJEU continue to exist, the UK will continue to follow its judgement.

Even if I am wrong, I still believe Singh will continue, until at least there is a Treaty change, something which even David Cameron acknowledged is not on the table in the short term.

Contrary to the view expressed by others, the only way the UK could ignore the CJEU caselaws is through a mechanism of treaty change.

It has been a long and tiring discussion, and I hope it has helped alleviate OP's anxiety.