# French permanent "Carte de Sejour" and Spanish Residency Rights



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

We have been living in France for 18 years but remain UK citizens. We are fully integrated into the French social and taxation systems.

At Brexit, we were allocated a permanent right of French and EU residence through a Carte de Sejour. The French regs for this clearly state it is valid as a permanent right of residence in all EU countries except for Eire and Denmark, for reasons that are not clearly explained but I guess might be to do with Schengen.

Those regs also say it is fully valid for residency in Spain but must be exchanged within 3 months for the Spanish equivalent.

Now if there's one thing I've learned all these years in France, it's that one EU country's interpretation of the "rules" is often not the same as another's. I have tried researching this on official Spanish sites but the responses seem vague and often don't cover ex-EU citizens, only those needing a visa to visit the EU such as US citizens (which of course we don't).

So, I thought I'd ask the question at the Spanish end on this forum. Anyone have knowledge of this area?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

My understanding was that although UK nats in EU countries could retain their right of residence post Brexit they lost right of free movement. So I believe that you cannot exchange French residency for Spanish. This was certainly the case during Brexit as it was one of those things that companies and workers were complaining about. Not sure if there has been a new deal made since the


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

Well, yes, I know but it is really confusing. Firstly, that's absolutely not what the French government websites say (and they are clearly talking about non-EU citizens). I guess that doesn't matter much though, it's what the Spanish authorities say that counts.

Secondly, I know 24 months or so back there was a reported (real? imagined?) 'fear' in some reputable UK media sources that France and Germany might make a unilateral award of permanent residency rights to their very large undocumented migrant populations, thereby giving those same populations an automatic right to enter and reside/work in the UK.

If that had any foundation in fact rather than hysteria, it would be difficult to understand how a non-EU citizen with permanent residency rights in Germany could go to th UK when it was in the EU but couldn't go to Spain?

Difficult. I may need to ask the Spanish embassy in France or the EU's site.

Be nice if things were easier eh? Thanks!


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

I think it is perhaps different when you say non EU citizens etc . Unfortunately Pre Brexit UK nats resident in EU countries have their particular rights enshrined in the WA agreement which is not exactly the same as other non EU citizens. For example on the Spanish cards we have been issued it says that our rights are subject to the WA. This does not make us equal to EU members rights- we dont have free movement anymore.


----------



## MataMata (Nov 30, 2008)

There is a potential path for non EU citizens with permanent residency in one country to transfer that to another but I do not believe it applies to Brits made 'non EU' by Brexit.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Minosina said:


> At Brexit, we were allocated a permanent right of French and EU residence through a Carte de Sejour. The French regs for this clearly state it is valid as a permanent right of residence in all EU countries except for Eire and Denmark, for reasons that are not clearly explained but I guess might be to do with Schengen.


Yes, this is something I know a fair bit about, and it has been discussed on this forum not so long ago.
Under Lisbon treaty, which has now been incorporated into the main EU legislation, EU member states can acknowledge permanent residency issued by another member state and allow permanent residency to the said third country nationals. Ireland and Denmark, together with UK prior to Brexit, have opt-outs from this provision. 
Residency granted under the Brexit withdrawal agreement is specific to the UK citizens who qualify and isn't equivalent to permanent residency issued to other third country nationals. Unlike the latter, it does not allow transfer of residency to another member state. In Spain, residency document issued to UK citizens under the withdrawal agreement (TIE) is differentiated from the document issued to other non-EU citizens and clearly states the residency is allowed under Article 18.4 - Withdrawal Agreement. 
So in short, no, you cannot transfer your French residency under Brexit to Spanish. If you want to live in Spain, you have to apply for a suitable visa first and follow the requirements laid down.


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

Thanks - this is really very useful. 

Odd and I find rather sad that an American, Russian, Brazilian, Iranian or Indian or indeed anyone else, once awarded permanent residency status, could go anywhere in the EU they wished. In fact, this restriction only applies to one nationality on the planet - the Brits?

Not quite the egalitarian face Brussels would like to present to the world and at face value, it looks rather petty and spiteful.

Thanks again for your comments - much appreciated.


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

I forgot to say, if this is correct and I'm sure it is, it makes a lot of published official French government and EU material on this subject basically inaccurate. The guides should all say "does not apply if you're a UK citizen - tough"!

Best wishes.


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

Minosina said:


> Thanks - this is really very useful.
> 
> Odd and I find rather sad that an American, Russian, Brazilian, Iranian or Indian or indeed anyone else, once awarded permanent residency status, could go anywhere in the EU they wished. In fact, this restriction only applies to one nationality on the planet - the Brits?
> 
> ...


Nothing to do with Brussels. It was the UK that said it didn't want free movement. It was a key policy of Brexit. The UK then agreed the WA. Everything was negotiated by the UK government up front and on the table. And yes it does apply to one country as that country wants to be different and not participate with others.


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

I suspect this has been debated extensively but I must disagree.

The EU allows free movement of people within its borders not as a 'perk' it offers its citizens for being good boys and girls but as something that facilitates and enhances its own development and benefit. It is good for the ideal called "the EU" and serves as a beacon and example of civilized behaviour to the rest of the world. So, removing it for one group of people already legally long-term resident within EU borders is unnecessarily discriminatory and potentially damaging to its own interests.

I agree the UK started this and wanted to end free access. I understand the EU had to respond. However, both sides said clearly at conclusion that the rights of people already resident in each others territory would be protected and maintained. Clearly, in this case, this has not happened. British people long-term resident in the EU have been penalized and subject to an unnecessary restriction of their rights vis-à-vis any other non-EU nationality.

Note we are not talking about new British entrants here but long term fully integrated into a member state residents who have seen one their rights unilaterally removed. There is no equivalent to this 'penalty' for EU citizens living in the UK with right of residency.

That behaviour is an example of playground tit-for-tat childishness that as a supporter of the EU, I would have liked to have seen the EU rise above and lead by example. They could have easily accepted visa requirements for new entrants as the UK was asking whilst not changing the existing interpretation of free movement for everyone in the EU who already had a legal right to be there. 

It would have cost them nothing and given them much tangible and intangible benefit. By contrast, this just looks churlish. So, I blame the UK for Brexit but not this. I doubt very much that the UK's negotiators said "we want people going between the UK and EU to need visas but we also want you to stop the free EU-wide movement of UK citizens already resident in the EU".

So, while I heavily criticize Westminster for many things - I can't on this occasion. I don't find this admirable at all. 

Best.


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

I should imagine the WA was a difficult process and of course its tit for tat . That is how every deal is. If it was all perfectly fair and reasonable then you would just have arbitrators for all trade deals. Anyway who knows how the agreement was made and why the fact is that you cant move residency as a UK national around EU states like other EU members. You will need to apply for a Visa or alternatively do what many immigrants do and that is wait 10 years and apply for citizenship in France then you will have earned the right to be an EU citizen with all the rights


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

Well, I guess I am anyone but I don't understand why the WA inevitably meant these rights for permanent British residents had to be removed. 

If it's OK for permanent EU-resident Russians, Americans or Chinese to have those rights (or anyone else) - why was it so absolutely unthinkable for Brits to have the same? Are we less trustworthy perhaps? Was this a case of "if you don't give us better fishing access we'll stop the free movement of your citizens" or similar? I really hope not - would that be the sort of example of enlightened behaviour the EU wished to show to the rest of the world?

In fact, negotiations absolutely do not need to be tit-for-tat in nature. They should consist of all parties working together to find an amicable solution to a joint challenge or to realise an opportunity, which is a very very different philosophical concept. I can say that based upon an extensive background in at least business negotiations. Clearly that wisdom hasn't yet reached politics though but it must. As a planet, we just must stop thinking "winners" and "losers" and "retaliation" in discussing our shared problems.

Back in the 70s, I was madly passionate about the EU and campaigned for it during the UK referendum. That's because then the concept was more about building a beacon based upon new values and exemplary example to the world. It was going to be totally different to insane nationalism.

Sadly, over the decades, that ideal has wilted on the stem. The EU has become all about the same state-oriented nationalistic nonsense as everyone else. It's started to become about borders, capitals, presidents, parliaments, flags, armies, discriminations, single rule book with digression punished and so on. This tiny subject is just one example. The EU could have been 'big' here in the value sense of its founding fathers but chose not to be. That's why today I'm still just about pro-EU but sad at the way it is evolving.

In passing, after 18 years here we have virtual automatic right of citizenship and are progressing it having not done so pre-Brexit because it made no difference - but it's not the point. In terms of freedom around the EU, that's just a practical workaround to overcome needless anti-British discrimination. In passing, I'd be saying exactly the same if this restriction was being applied only to Canadians, Ghanians, Japanese or whoever.

Good debate but it's all been said many times before. Thanks again for your help.


----------



## kalohi (May 6, 2012)

Are you confusing permanent (long term) Spanish residency and long term EU residency? I'm American and have permanent Spanish residency. I've always been told that my residency is only valid in Spain, and that if I moved to another EU country I'd have to start from scratch for residency. 

Long term EU residency, however, can be transferred from one EU country to another. 

I found this article which sums up the difference: Long Term Residence Permit vs. EU Long Term Residence Permit


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

Er, no, not I think.......though it is notoriously and unnecessarily complicated.

To explain - as I understand it (maybe that should be a big 'if'!) a non-EU citizen with permanent residency status in a member state has the automatic right to move to another member state though after a period of time (3 months I think but the period may vary by country) the must apply for permanent residency status in their new EU country of residence. 

This is what the French government states unambiguously to be the case for those it has awarded a permanent status carte de sejour which is described as being valid for the EU. Except, some believe that it doesn't apply if you're a British holder of that status.

I have read thoroughly the relevant provisions of the WA including the wonderful article 18 (groan!) and I can see no mention whatsoever of differentiating between British citizens and everyone else, however, the document seems to be fundamentally unclear at times in terms of the differences between the EU and a member state. To make matters even worse, it confuses "free movement" in terms of moving from the UK to EU or vice-versa and "free movement" meaning non-EU nationals moving around the EU with residence rights in one state meaning something in another.

In April this year , the EU published a document confirming that British nationals even with permanent status in one state, had no right of automatic entry to another. I have only found this document in the last 30 mins or so.

I also noted that in October of 2020, a UK Parliamentary committee had specifically voiced concerns over this very aspect of the EU's interpretation of the WA and they pointed out to the EU that this was discriminatory, seemingly singling out UK citizens amongst all others for this treatment. This has apparently been taken on board by the EU and was being considered. However, as 6 months later the EU was maintaining its position, it seems the matter had been lost, overlooked or they'd decided to continue doing it anyway.

I have also read article 12 of the WA which strictly forbids discrimination based on nationality. At face value, this interpretation of Brit residents' rights within the WA appears to be in strict conflict with article 12 but then again, I'm not a lawyer.

I've spent about a week reading on this now (all because we had a half-idea to buy somewhere in Spain for a last adventure before we kicked the bucket) and I must say I've been appalled at the confusion, lack of clarity, incorrect official guidance (in France anyway) and what seems to be discrimination.

I think the point is, you as an American on a Spanish permanent residence, could enter France for a period and live here pending your residency application. I as a Brit with French permanent residency status cannot do the same with Spain. If that understanding is correct, then that's a bad thing. If it's wrong, well, then I'm moaning about nothing but clearly the UK's Parliament in October last year didn't think so.

Such is life I guess...............


----------



## MataMata (Nov 30, 2008)

Britain voluntarily made itself a special case and it's citizens abroad have been treated accordingly.

The WA laid out specific rights distinct from those enjoyed or available to other existing non EU citizens, frankly I think we came out of it pretty well but more due to the EU than UK!


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

Sorry but I must disagree - for reasons I stated earlier.

The UK and EU discussed the WA in terms of relationships between political entities. The effects of that on their citizens' rights were meant to be 100% reciprocal.

Clearly, this is not reciprocity. EU citizens moving to the UK have no such restrictions placed upon them because the UK is a single political entity. So it cannot (and would not anyway) say even if it could, "EU citizens granted residency rights in England can no longer go and live in Scotland".

The EU had absolutely no need to remove this right from permanent residency status Brits. It doesn't require other non-EU citizens to forgo their freedom of movement rights, so by definition it is discriminatory.

It gains the EU nothing except ill-will and doesn't relate in any way shape or form to the reciprocal agreements affecting EU citizens in the UK. 

They didn't have to do it (I can see no mention of this at all in the WA). It therefore looks petulant and a case of "we don't like what your parents have done so we're going to punish you for it....." I do blame the UK government also for not spotting this one earlier and dealing with it.

Not what the EU is meant to be about.


----------



## proud.to.be.EUROPEAN (Feb 14, 2020)

Minosina said:


> Thanks - this is really very useful.
> 
> Odd and I find rather sad that an American, Russian, Brazilian, Iranian or Indian or indeed anyone else, once awarded permanent residency status, could go anywhere in the EU they wished. In fact, this restriction only applies to one nationality on the planet - the Brits?
> 
> ...


Sorry, but your post screams of royal entitlement complex.
Bexit was not negotiated with US, Russia, Brazil,etc. but with UK only, hence specific rules for British.


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

Minosina said:


> Sorry but I must disagree - for reasons I stated earlier.
> 
> The UK and EU discussed the WA in terms of relationships between political entities. The effects of that on their citizens' rights were meant to be 100% reciprocal.
> 
> ...


But the EU is not about protecting the rights of 3rd countries. The UK left the EU so that meant it citizens effectively were saying to Brussels we dont like freedom of movement and dont want it. So Brussels said fine dont have. Hardly petulant. The UK government effectively acted on your behalf and decided that you didn't want it. You are not being discriminated against anymore than an African immigrant is being discriminated against taking up residency in UK.


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

I hate to be pedantic but the EU in fact IS about protecting the rights and equalities of ALL third party countries citizens resident within its territories - that is a fundamental provision of its various charters and specifically the WA. It has signed up to that so is legally bound by its duties in that respect. It's not a matter of whether they feel like it or not.

I think we also have to be careful to distinguish between two very different concepts of "free movement" here.

The first, as used in the WA is "the right to enter and live wherever you want in the EU without formalities". I agree, the UK government sadly decided it didn't want this and that explains why everyone now going to the UK from the EU or vice-versa, is now saddled with the nonsense of visas and residence requirements etc.

The second, which I can see no mention of specifically in the WA, refers to the rights of non-EU citizens with permanent residence status in one EU country, having the right to limited residence status in another member state too.

As far as I can see, your hypothetical African country citizen with permanent residency status in one EU state now has more EU-wide freedom of movement than a Brit with the same. As I can see no discussion of this type of freedom of movement specifically in the WA, I must assume this is an EU administrative decision not a "deal" relating to a specific clause of the WA.

I think my analysis here is probably correct because the UK government raised the same discrimination point back in October 2020. I assume they weren't daft and badly mistaken - might be debateable that one though!

So, the EU is treating some forms of British citizens less flexibly than those of any other country and I will gladly be corrected by reference to a section of the WA but I can see no obvious legal justification for that. 

There is also another morality point here. There is nothing wrong with discrimination in appropriate circumstances providing you can justify it morally or practically in terms of need or benefit. For example, a country might say it is discriminating against giving people with criminal records residency and we might all understand.

In this case though, I can find no moral justification for this differentiation between Brit and non-Brit permanent residents in the EU. The best you get are variations of "this is all Boris' fault and this is what stopping free movement means".

Well, not according to the WA it isn't. It's also very difficult to see a reasonable answer to "why is this happening?" How exactly is the EU benefiting by giving greater flexibility to say an Australian than a Brit? 

The question 'why' is a big and painful one. If we don't have an answer based on need, advantage or utility, well, it's hard to escape a conclusion of petulance or 'payback time'. I'll change my view instantly if someone can tell me how the EU benefits by treating Brits differently to say Americans. 

However, I apologise. I've drifted miles and miles off original post here and unintentionally started a debate on rights and legalities. I was only seeking info and I've received some great leads that have added hugely to my knowledge. My thanks to all for that.

In closure, I may follow up on the UK government's request for this to be addressed in October 2020. If I find anything, I'll update the forum. Cheers.


----------



## tardigrade (May 23, 2021)

Spain discriminates against me everyday, an American. Now if I was from one of their ex colonies or even central or south america I would have a shorter period of time to become a permanent resident or even passport holder with all the bells and whistles it entails.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Despite the obvious shortcoming of the WA when it comes to onward or transferable residency for UK citizens, in one respect the WA gives more or better right to UK citizens who are its beneficiary: Once you obtain permanent residency after 5 years, you can stay away from your country of residence for up to 5 years before you lose your right to return. For non-EU citizens generally, it's just two years.


----------



## alpinist (Feb 8, 2009)

kaipa said:


> I think it is perhaps different when you say non EU citizens etc . Unfortunately Pre Brexit UK nats resident in EU countries have their particular rights enshrined in the WA agreement which is not exactly the same as other non EU citizens. For example *on the Spanish cards we have been issued it says that our rights are subject to the WA*. This does not make us equal to EU members rights- we dont have free movement anymore.





Joppa said:


> Yes, this is something I know a fair bit about, and it has been discussed on this forum not so long ago.
> *Under Lisbon treaty, which has now been incorporated into the main EU legislation, EU member states can acknowledge permanent residency issued by another member state* and allow permanent residency to the said third country nationals. Ireland and Denmark, together with UK prior to Brexit, have opt-outs from this provision.
> *Residency granted under the Brexit withdrawal agreement is specific to the UK citizens* who qualify and isn't equivalent to permanent residency issued to other third country nationals. Unlike the latter, it does not allow transfer of residency to another member state. In Spain, residency document issued to UK citizens under the withdrawal agreement (TIE) is differentiated from the document issued to other non-EU citizens and clearly states the residency is allowed under Article 18.4 - Withdrawal Agreement.
> So in short, no, you cannot transfer your French residency under Brexit to Spanish. If you want to live in Spain, you have to apply for a suitable visa first and follow the requirements laid down.


Sorry for being slow here, but does this all not mean there is a distinction between Brits who got Residencia / Carte de Sejour pre-Brexit under 'normal' circumstances (e.g. a decade ago) and then those who got it once the Withdrawal Agreement kicked in?
In turn, that would mean that _some _Brits can use (older) residence of one country to move to another. Or did the WA strip that right from them too?

(I appreciate it wasn't necessary pre-Brexit to have these documents, nor always possible).


----------



## tardigrade (May 23, 2021)

From my understanding the WA was for a specific few who "just lived" in the other country a chance to become residents in that country instead of being told to go back.
You would imagine that the ones who have been here for yonks are grandfathered claused as their documents should have no mention of the WA.


----------



## Barriej (Jul 23, 2012)

tardigrade said:


> From my understanding the WA was for a specific few who "just lived" in the other country a chance to become residents in that country instead of being told to go back.
> You would imagine that the ones who have been here for yonks are grandfathered claused as their documents should have no mention of the WA.


Ah, but swapping the green card for a TIE might make some difference if you were to try and move country as its worded that you can stay because of the WA.
The actual wording on the back is. *EMITIDO BAJO ART 18.4 ACUERDO RETIRADA*
My FIL swapped his earlier in the week and while its says permanent on it, there is no date from arrival (he has been here 20 plus years)
Mine says temporary but as Im below retirement age it also states I can work if I want too. Otherwise the wording is the same.

Might hope that it would be possible to prove previous residency dates to enable the move from one EU state to another.


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

The right of free movement was taken away from all UK nationals irrespective of if they were pre or post Brexit. It was one of the first things that we pointed out on this forum years ago and was debated and reported on at length in the media although for most people it was not something they were particularly worried about unless you worked between countries.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

kaipa said:


> The right of free movement was taken away from all UK nationals irrespective of if they were pre or post Brexit. It was one of the first things that we pointed out on this forum years ago and was debated and reported on at length in the media although for most people it was not something they were particularly worried about unless you worked between countries.


Precisely! All UK nationals who were living in EU before 1st January 2021 regardless of the length of residence and when they gained permanent residence are now under the provision of the WA. Some you lose - onward residency, and some you gain - you can stay away for up to 5 years instead of 2.


----------



## tardigrade (May 23, 2021)

Thinking about it, the above is true. When I first arrived on my French visa in 1998 I was offered a better employment opportunity that I had but it was in Spain. I would have had to go back to the States and do the whole visa thing again but thru the Spanish embassy. So I do not see how it can be any different for brits.


----------



## alpinist (Feb 8, 2009)

It makes sense that all Brits be treated the same now, but I wouldn't have been surprised if an anomoly existed. 



kaipa said:


> The right of free movement was taken away from all UK nationals irrespective of if they were pre or post Brexit. It was one of the first things that we pointed out on this forum years ago and was debated and reported on at length in the media although for most people it was not something they were particularly worried about unless you worked between countries.


Well, I don't live on this forum and in my experience the only point in the media was about removing the hypothetical right of people to go from the UK to Europe should they wish. It was usually countered with blithe comments about how young people work in Australia and older ones managed to retire to Spain before the EU was ever a thing, or how Americans etc. don't have any trouble (lol!). 

I don't think it was widely publicised that not only would Brits be reduced to third country status, but be worse off than citizens from other third countries (depending how you see the gains/loss Kappa highlights).


----------



## vianina (Feb 25, 2020)

Hi all. Very useful thread. Does anyone have a link to the EU document confirming that WA residency is not transferable to another state, please? The OP refers to it above but I’ve never seen it.


----------



## Barriej (Jul 23, 2012)

vianina said:


> Hi all. Very useful thread. Does anyone have a link to the EU document confirming that WA residency is not transferable to another state, please? The OP refers to it above but I’ve never seen it.


There is this 


https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/q-a-uk-citizens-declaratory-countries_en.pdf



*1.2. Does EU law on free movement of EU citizens still apply to UK nationals? 
No, EU law on free movement ceased to apply on 31 December 2020 in the UK and with respect to UK nationals in the EU.*

Would seem to be quite clear.


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

Barriej said:


> There is this
> 
> 
> https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/q-a-uk-citizens-declaratory-countries_en.pdf
> ...


Yes, we have been through many times. It was one of the first points highlighted at the time of Brexit. Just because you have residency in an EU member state does not confer right of EU free movement after Brexit. UK nationals can only have residency in one country. Any movement to another country requires a 3rd country Visa.


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

kaipa said:


> Yes, we have been through many times. It was one of the first points highlighted at the time of Brexit. Just because you have residency in an EU member state does not confer right of EU free movement after Brexit. UK nationals can only have residency in one country. Any movement to another country requires a 3rd country Visa.


The ability of a third country national (non-EU/EEA citizen), who has permanent resident status in one EU state, to transfer it to another EU state (with the exception of Ireland and Denmark who have opt-out; but British citizens can live and work in Ireland under another treaty) has nothing to do with EU free movement. It is a right conferred by the Lisbon Treaty, signed in 2007, which has now been incorporated into the main EU legislation. This provision doesn't apply to British citizens who are beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement, neither does it apply to those who achieved permanent resident status prior to Brexit, as the status of all British citizens resident in an EU state by 31st December 2020 has been incorporated into the provisions of the withdrawal agreement. My reading of the regulations says this should not stop British citizens, who become permanent residents of an EU state without first being beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement, to transfer their status to another eligible EU state, so those who obtain residency from 1st January 2021, such as through NL visa, may be able to transfer permanent residency from 2026 onwards. This is my interpretation of the rules, as no EU statute to my knowledge clearly defines them for British citizens.


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

Joppa said:


> The ability of a third country national (non-EU/EEA citizen), who has permanent resident status in one EU state, to transfer it to another EU state (with the exception of Ireland and Denmark who have opt-out; but British citizens can live and work in Ireland under another treaty) has nothing to do with EU free movement. It is a right conferred by the Lisbon Treaty, signed in 2007, which has now been incorporated into the main EU legislation. This provision doesn't apply to British citizens who are beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement, neither does it apply to those who achieved permanent resident status prior to Brexit, as the status of all British citizens resident in an EU state by 31st December 2020 has been incorporated into the provisions of the withdrawal agreement. My reading of the regulations says this should not stop British citizens, who become permanent residents of an EU state without first being beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement, to transfer their status to another eligible EU state, so those who obtain residency from 1st January 2021, such as through NL visa, may be able to transfer permanent residency from 2026 onwards. This is my interpretation of the rules, as no EU statute to my knowledge clearly defines them for British citizens.


Unfortunately I dont think our individual interpretations are as solid as the facts on the ground. During the latter stages of the Brexit WA many UK publications examined the effect on UK nationals already resident in EU countries. The overwhelming disadvantage was the fact that UK nationals were prevented from using their Pre-Brexit rights to move to other European countries. The main complaints were from large companies that were used to employees being moved around Europe on various contracts. Furthermore where is the clause in the agreement that specially says that you can transfer your residency rights?


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

kaipa said:


> Furthermore where is the clause in the agreement that specially says that you can transfer your residency rights?


For general EU rights, EUR-Lex - 32003L0109 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

Joppa said:


> For general EU rights, EUR-Lex - 32003L0109 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu)


So you are saying that if you have residency in Spain you have the same rights to free movement as an EU national? So a UK national with a Spanish residency card issued before Brexit can move to Sweden without a visa? If so why is it not clearly indicated in the WA agreement?


----------



## MataMata (Nov 30, 2008)

That directive expressly states that it does not apply to the UK (or Ireland) and references CNS 2001/0074 *"Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents"*

Essentially it comes down to UK declining to join the Schengen area.


----------



## vianina (Feb 25, 2020)

Many thanks to all for the info


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

I think the conclusion we reached some months ago when debating this, still must remain "largely unclear but on balance of probabilities, Brit citizens are now severely constrained and should revert to standard non-EU residency application status when thinking of living in an EU country they don't already have permanent residency rights for".

They key point is that both Lisbon and the WA fail to clearly differentiate between "free movement" as in an EU citizen deciding to go and live and work anywhere and the issues arising from new non-EU citizens (aka the Brits) holding permanent residency cards in one country having the right to go to another EU state. I agree that in principle, the WA is the governing factor for Brits now but the WA is simply imprecisely worded on this point or arguably silent altogether. 

I have read and re-read all the documentation and it all boils down to how one chooses to interpret various appallingly ambiguous phrases and definitions or indeed the complete silence of these documents on certain points. In fact, I've even spoken to various officials and it becomes clear after about 10 seconds that they don't know either (nor do they seem to care frankly).

I assume the WA agreement was drafted or reviewed in advance, by lawyers. If so, they should be fired because the ambiguity and undefined conditions and terminology in this document would never have been allowed to progress in the case of a major commercial contract negotiation.

Bottom line, I'd assume as a Brit with permanent residency status in one EU country, however, long that has been the case, you now no longer have the automatic right to go and live in another EU country.


----------



## tardigrade (May 23, 2021)

There are different income or savings, health care requirements for all 3rd worlds in all the countries around the EU. It should not be transferable and if they do let the brits enjoy this, the EU courts will be full up with Canadians, Americans, Asian people feeling discriminated against..

Having the cake and eating it was never and will not be the "status quo" for Brits now that they voted to leave...


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

I think there's a note of glee there! Actually, I'm not sure that would be the case. How many Brits are now going through EU courts claiming, correctly, that they're being discriminated against vis-à-vis Americans, Canadians etc? I suspect the answer is zero. 

The real point is that Brits were just not comparable to any other nationality. 

This was a completely unique situation. They were leaving the EU and therefore all the implications for their citizens should have been thought through and very explicitly referenced. They weren't and that's the fault of the UK government's incompetence primarily, with the EU getting an honourable mention too for trying to 'score points' and adopt a tone for UK Citizens of "he he he - look what your nasty Brexit government have forced us to do to you!"

Whole business is really very sad. Nobody comes out smelling of roses.


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

Alot of Brexit was about immigration and the concept of free movement was hated by Brexiteers. In stands to reason then the UK negotiators were not exactly going to be too concerned about a few expats wanting to move around Europe. Anyway along with remote working, driving licences, financial thresholds finally people are realizing that Gove"s statement that nothing would change was something of a lie! And if you think that it will easily be solved take a look at what has happened with student visas to Spain. Despite the power of the UK universities combined with Government officials Spain is refusing to fast track all the students who should be completing their degrees in Spain. The Spanish say it was something that everyone should have been aware of months ago and are refusing to budge.


----------



## tardigrade (May 23, 2021)

kaipa said:


> And if you think that it will easily be solved take a look at what has happened with student visas to Spain. Despite the power of the UK universities combined with Government officials Spain is refusing to fast track all the students who should be completing their degrees in Spain. The Spanish say it was something that everyone should have been aware of months ago and are refusing to budge.


Did not Brexit happen years ago. Way before the students even started Uni here in Spain or their first year if in a medical course ... Ignorance is not an excuse.


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

Thousands of British students in limbo with post-Brexit visa chaos


Students delay studying abroad and some even switch continents because of visa delays




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

Brexit was a unique situation both for EU (a member state leaving the Union; only remotely comparable was Greenland) and for UK (long-established member making a clean break after almost 40 years). UK wanted a hard Brexit, not wanting freedom of movement for EU citizens in UK, and consequently, no freedom of movement for UK citizens in EU. The end product was that UK citizens became third country nationals subject to the full regime stipulated for non-EU citizens such as the one applicable to US citizens, Canadians, Australians, Russians and Chinese (with the exception of no visa for short stay). There was still a question of what to do with existing Britons in EU and EU citizens in UK, many of whom with permanent resident status. So the withdrawal agreement (WA) was drawn up safeguarding their existing rights, and extending them for those who move into EU or UK during the transition period. UK decided to implement EU settlement Scheme with settled and pre-settled status for EU citizens, and EU states generally decided to continue with their existing arrangement for UK citizens wanting to live in their territory, using either constitutive or declaratory system roughly in equal numbers. The WA roughly corresponds to existing rights, with the exception of no onward freedom of movement for UK citizens and extension from 2 to 5 years for safeguarding permanent residency in a member state after temporary absence. Ability for UK citizens to move to another member state to continue permanent residence (with the exception of Denmark) is no longer recognised for those subject to WA, but there is nothing in the regulations to state that those who have begun living in an EU state from 1st January 2021 under the general third country rules (such as using non-lucrative visa) will not have that right once they attain permanent residence after 5 years.


----------



## Minosina (Jul 18, 2021)

kaipa said:


> Thousands of British students in limbo with post-Brexit visa chaos
> 
> 
> Students delay studying abroad and some even switch continents because of visa delays
> ...


A point I've made before.........and I am not a Brexiteer in any way shape or form..........

The UK didn't suddenly become anti-EU immigrant. 

However, free movement was causing the UK more and more difficulty because the numbers were simply not comparable to any other EU state. For example, last week the UK government confirmed that from just two countries alone, Poland and Romania, around 2.25 million people have now applied for residency rights. If one assumes, conservatively, that there should be another 25% added to that for people from those countries who are resident in the UK but wish to stay 'off the radar', then realistically we're talking about 2.5million - from just two EU countries.

Add in the other 27 countries and you get some idea of the absolutely unprecedented scale of inward migration to the UK. It is starting to become a significant percentage of the population overall.

Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all, except.....

Britain is a relatively small island and the vast majority of the incoming populations were heading to southern parts of the country. They were and are not evenly distributed. Yes, they were delivering huge value and benefit to British society but there just isn't the housing, schooling, social services or just infrastructure to cope with that sort of level of inward migration and population growth.

For some years prior to Brexit, British governments had been raising the issue of the problems caused by unmanaged EU free movement and migration and trying to find ways in partnership with the EU of dealing with it. Generally, they were rebuffed because free movement is a fundamental cornerstone of EU philosophy. Fair enough and I support that but some of the most lucid and magnificent speakers in favour of the inviolability of Free Movement were those from EU countries who were relatively unaffected by mass inward migration.

As the UK government proved to be increasingly impotent to deal with the problem in the eyes of its electorate, inevitably anti-EU sentiment grew in the general population.

This is tragic but I'm trying to clear any perception that the UK government or the majority of British people suddenly overnight became 'anti-foreigner'. It's just not true - there was simply an ever-growing problem that the structures of the EU could not deal with. So, a lot of basically decent people though it could only be dealt with outside of the EU.

It was and remains a real tragedy for all.


----------



## Dyll (11 mo ago)

Minosina said:


> We have been living in France for 18 years but remain UK citizens. We are fully integrated into the French social and taxation systems.
> 
> At Brexit, we were allocated a permanent right of French and EU residence through a Carte de Sejour. The French regs for this clearly state it is valid as a permanent right of residence in all EU countries except for Eire and Denmark, for reasons that are not clearly explained but I guess might be to do with Schengen.
> 
> ...


I have just seen this original question s and would be interested to know which particular page of the French government website this (apparently inaccurate) information appears as I am in a similar situation . . .


----------



## MataMata (Nov 30, 2008)

I may have posted this before:









Long-term residents


Directive on the status of non-EU nationals who are long-term residents sets the conditions under which non-EU nationals can obtain the status of long-term residents, which grant them a set of uniform rights, similar to those enjoyed by EU.




ec.europa.eu





The only question is whether it could be applied to those already EU resident Brits made non EU nationals by Brexit and until that is actually tested in the real world the answer would seem to be a firm no as they are subject to the terms of the WA.

Ironically Brits arriving on an NLV or other visa would without doubt come under it!


----------



## Joppa (Sep 7, 2009)

MataMata said:


> I may have posted this before:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This question crops up frequently, and the answer is, sadly, British citizens who are beneficiaries of the withdrawal agreement (WA), including those who had obtained permanent residence prior to Brexit and have now been absorbed into the WA, can't transfer their residency to another EU state.
And yes, those who pursue residency as third country nationals through NLV etc can obtain transferrable residency after 5 years, but there is a little more red tape to negotiate (e.g. you need to apply for EU permanent residency, not one under the rules of the host state).
The reason why Ireland and Denmark are excluded is that those countries have opt-outs from this specific EU regulation. In case of Ireland, thanks to the common travel area, British citizens have the right to live in Ireland.


----------



## kaipa (Aug 3, 2013)

You can not move your rights of residency to another EU country if a uk national even if you obtained residency before Brexit. You have to apply for a visa as a 3rd country national. 



https://www.inclusion.gob.es/es/brexit/residencia/index.htm


----------

