Mudcat Café message #4015453 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #165570   Message #4015453
Posted By: DMcG
26-Oct-19 - 05:40 AM
Thread Name: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
Subject: RE: BS: Brexit #3: A futile gesture?
AS I think most of you know, I try to read through as many of the relevant documents as I can, rather than base my views on comments from intermediaries. So I am working my way through Johnson's version of the Withdrawal Agreement.

It is not easy, as it is forever referring to other documents, like this:
With regard to nationals of third countries who fulfil the conditions of Regulation (EC) No 859/2003, as well as their family members or survivors within the scope of this Title, the references to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 in this Title shall be understood as references to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/711 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/722 respectively. References to specific provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 shall be understood as references to the corresponding provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

Well, yes, I thought so too

Anyway, I am far from through it. But it is worth pointing out that Northern Ireland is far from the only place where special considerations apply. It lists :

Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and Turks and Caicos Islands.


Article 18 - which is as far as I had got before deciding to post this - is talking about the 'Issuance of residence document', which is of course central in many respects: having a right of residence unlocks lots of other rights. This looks to me a Windrush scandal in the making, specifying as it does some of the documents needed to convince the authorities you have a right of residence. For example:


for cases other than those set out in points (k), (l) and (m), the host State shall not require applicants to present supporting documents that go beyond what is strictly necessary and proportionate to provide evidence that the conditions relating to the right of residence under this Title have been fulfilled;

Warm words, but who decides whether requiring a particular document goes beyond 'what is strictly necessary'?