Your article (Checklist: What does the Home Office offer mean for Europeans in Britain?, 27 June) suggests all that EU nationals will lose is the right to vote and to bring in spouses without meeting the UK’s minimum income threshold requirement. That assumption also accepts the Home Office line that EU nationals will gain equal rights to UK nationals. That is wholly wrong. The rights that nationals of the European Union currently have are similar to the rights of British nationals in the UK where families – including parents, dependant adults and children – can move from one country to another, eg from Wales or Scotland to England.
EU nationals who have planned their lives and their futures with their families’ interests and ability to move in mind will now be deprived of these rights. They will not be treated like UK nationals. They will be foreigners who are granted permission to remain in the UK, on the condition that they keep apart from their families and homes in the rest of the EU.
Pierre Makhlouf
London
Theresa May’s “fair and serious offer” for anxious EU nationals living in the UK (Report, 23 June) is neither fair nor serious. It presents nothing new while leaving many with the same uncertainty that they currently face.
The central problem is that the government has not properly thought through the details – in particular, what to do with EU citizens residing in the UK who do not fit neatly within the European Economic Area regulations for getting permanent residency. How are they to be treated?
For example, what happens to EU nationals married to Britons and who are not exercising EU treaty rights, such as housewives? Will they get settled status or will they have to apply under UK immigration rules, requiring a further five years in the spouse category before they are granted indefinite leave to remain? The spouse category also requires harsh minimum-income requirements that don’t exist under EEA regulations.
And the “offer” is also contingent on the EU guaranteeing the same rights to UK citizens living in the EU. This is something that the UK government has said repeatedly since Brexit. So no change.
Ivon Sampson
Immigration lawyer, Healys LLP
In the light of Theresa May’s offer to secure the rights of EU nationals living and working in the UK to be able to stay, I would like to highlight another group of Europeans whom this affects but who are not necessarily included in this offer: EU citizens who have strong connections and investments in the UK but who are not presently living there.
I’m a Swedish citizen who lived in the UK for five years. When I moved to London I bought a property, which I still own. However, having been offered a job in another country, I exercised my right of free movement to be able to take up that job without having to worry about my ability to come back to the UK.
Since the Brexit vote, I have been increasingly worried that EU migrants who have homes in the UK, but are not presently living there, will not be given the rights to remain and work in the UK.
I therefore plead to David Davis, Amber Rudd and Theresa May that among the EU nationals who will receive permanent right to remain, those who own property in the UK should be included, even if they are presently not living in the UK.
Philip Grönberg
Stockholm, Sweden
As a British expat who has lived in Germany for 22 years, I am astounded at the naivety of the expat group the3million. They complain that the European court of justice (ECJ) will have no say in their future rights.
I travel extensively around the world and the idea that, if I were in the US or India or China, I would be subject to EU law, rather than the law of the country I am in, would be quite rightly met with derision. No sovereign country would or could accept it. This is an attempt by the EU to humiliate the UK internationally and maintain power and influence in the UK after Brexit.
If there is no deal between the EU and the UK then I, like every other citizen of a non-EU country working and living in the EU, will have to apply for a work permit, a dual passport or permission to stay. It is not exactly the end of the world.
Frankly, I find the suggestion that the rights British people living in Britain enjoy (and will continue to enjoy once EU law has been transposed into UK law), and that are protected by the British legal system, are not good enough for them a bit insulting. Perhaps they could try Romania? I expect Alexander and Dan Adamescu can tell them what happens to outspoken opponents of the regime there, despite the ECJ.
Lucy Wills
Butzbach, Germany
Your article (EU nationals must join register to stay under May’s plans, 27 June) seems to suggest that EU nationals who have already applied for (and obtained) UK permanent residency after the referendum will have to do so again.
Leaving aside the “tease” of the reapplication process being “streamlined” (whatever that means), I would question the very legality of it – unless there are caveats which I am not aware of and the article doesn’t address for reason of space.
So, let me understand: an Australian national with granted permanent residency is all right, but an Italian national with granted permanent residency needs to reapply? Based on what? Isn’t this discrimination based on country of origin? I am aware it may not be the worst form of discrimination, and yet we should not add wrong to wrong.
When I moved here six or seven years ago, worked and paid all my taxes, married a lovely handsome Brit, and had a gorgeous half-Brit, half-Italian daughter, I thought the UK was the best model of contemporary democracy; with its “human” imperfections, an example to the world. It’s been a very disappointing few months, but I can’t wait to become a citizen to challenge all this, with Italian passion and British flair, from the inside.
Magda Cavanna
Staplehurst, Kent
Theresa May’s assertion that the UK’s judicial system will provide sufficient guarantees for EU citizens is belied by the lack of detail on judicial oversight in her policy paper. Out of 59 paragraphs of proposals, there is one sentence. This states that any arrangements will “be enforceable through the UK judicial system, up to and including the Supreme Court”.
There is notably nothing on the standard of review. Will courts be able to strike down a decision only if there is some failure of procedure or some other egregious failure? Or will they be able to strike it down because they simply believe the wrong decision was made? Precedent suggests the former is more likely. Justice requires the latter. The “streamlined procedure” will almost certainly involve overstretched, possibly poorly trained officials making significant decisions against very tight deadlines.
Prof Damian Chalmers
National University of Singapore and London School of Economics
Paul Mason (G2, 27 June) is right to highlight inconsistencies of approach in considering voting entitlement. The argument for allowing UK citizens living abroad to vote in UK elections, even 15 years after leaving, is based on the possibility of them returning here, and their having ongoing interests in our economy, pensions etc. But the case for extending the parliamentary franchise to EU citizens now wishing to settle here permanently, paying taxes here and supporting our economy and public services, must be at least as strong. They are entitled to vote for local councillors, they previously voted for MEPs, and they should now also be able to vote for MPs.
Chris Rennard
Liberal Democrat, House of Lords
Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com