Ægteskabudengrænser.dk

Aftalen bliver præsenteret i aften. Der står ingenting i artiklen, men bare så folk ved det:

http://politiken.dk/politik/article571183.ece

Ja vi venter i spænding. Det er næsten lige som da man var barn juleaften...

Studehandlen kan læses her!

http://multimedia.jp.dk/archive/00123/p ... 23435a.pdf

Hvis det rent faktisk betyder, at dem, som fx bor i Malmö i dag, og kun af nød, kan vende hjem igen med deres udenlandske ægtefælle med henvisning til den nye aftale, hvis det rent faktisk er tilfældet, er det selvsagt en triumf for den retssikkerhed, der bør være i at have dansk statsborgerskab.

Men jeg må sige, at de nye stramninger mhp at opnå statsborgerskab foruroliger mig.

Jeg troede, aftalen præciserede hvilke krav, man har at henholde sig til, men fx står der jo i aftalen, at "Man har ikke et retskrav på at blive anset som EU-arbejdstager, selvom arbejdsforholdet har varet 10 uger eller mere" - dvs., folk må stadig gå rundt i usikkerhed om, hvorvidt de rent faktisk opfylder de betingelser, regeringen stiller, fordi det er uklart, præcist hvad betingelserne er!

Præcis skaanebo. Det troede jeg også de ville!

og hvad med grænseoverskridende tjenesteydelser?

Skærpet praksis for familiesammenføring ved levering af tjenesteydelser
Aftaleparterne er også enige om, at integrationsministeren vil skærpe praksis for
familiesammenføring ved levering af tjenesteydelser.
Udlændingemyndighederne har hidtil fortolket EF-domstolens afgørelse i Carpenter-sagen
således, at danske statsborgere, der leverer tjenesteydelser til borgere i andre lande, f.eks. sælger
varer over grænsen, har haft krav på familiesammenføring.
Fremover vil danske statsborgere, der leverer tjenesteydelser til borgere i andre EU-lande, ikke pr.
automatik have krav på familiesammenføring efter EU-reglerne. EF-domstolens afgørelse i
Carpenter-sagen har et snævert anvendelsesområde, hvor der bl.a. vil blive lagt betydelig vægt på,
om tredjelandsstatsborgeren er indrejst lovligt. Det nye dokumentationskrav vil også gælde i denne
type sager.



det der med "fast etablering" er vist ikke helt lovlig:


http://jp.dk/indland/indland_politik/article1445872.ece

hvad betyder etablere??

Som jeg ser det, er denne aftale mest af alt en politisk begivenhed i Danmark. Den betyder således, at den faste VKO-alliance nu er genetableret, efter ellers at have vaklet voldsomt i krogene. Dansk Folkeparti kravlede i sidste instans ned fra træet og søgte tilbage til den strategi, som de altid har fuldt, nemlig at søge maximal indflydelse ved at samarbejde tæt med V og K. Fremfor at være et rendyrket protestparti, som Fremskridtspartiet var det.

Det V og K får ud af aftalen er igen at have et fast parlamentarisk grundlag bag sig, som de har haft det siden 2001. V og K slipper således for f.eks. at skulle ud og forhandle finansloven på plads med oppositionen, som de ville have skullet, hvis DF var blevet siddende oppe i træet.

Dansk Folkeparti har så til gengæld fået gennemført nogle meget rabiate krav til folk, som gerne vil være danske statsborgere. Krav, der går langt ud over de krav, som selv V og K hidtil har ønsket at stille. Og herudover har Dansk Folkeparti fået nedfældet en masse ting i aftalen, som efter min opfattelse kun har rent symbolsk betydning, og som derfor nok mest af alt skal bruges af partiets ledelse til at berolige det utilfredse bagland, som mener, at der er blevet solgt for meget ud af principperne.

For os med udenlandske ægtefæller gør aftalen hverken fra eller til. Det er nu helt sikkert, at regeringen ikke vil forsøge at løbe fra de aftaler, den har indgået i EU. Men det har det sådan set været lige siden statsministeren kom hjem fra Frankrig og meget tydeligt satte på plads, at det kunne Dansk Folkeparti og partiets medløbere i Venstre (Søren Pind, Birthe Rønn Hornbæk m.fl) godt glemme alt om. Så det er ingen nyhed, at EU´s regler fortsat gælder i Danmark og også for os.

Hvad angår Danmarks konkrete implementering af Metock-dommen gør aftalen mellem regeringen og Dansk Folkeparti os heller ikke klogere på noget som helst. Det er således åbenbart udsat til en senere lejlighed at tage stilling til, om Danmark også skal anerkende f.eks. studerendes rettigheder, eller om regeringen foretrækker at gå planken ud og få flere domme fra EF-domstolen imod sig, før man giver sig også på dette punkt.

Hvad angår længden af det ophold i et andet land, som der skal til for at opnå status som EU-borger, vil man åbenbart forsøge at fastholde den gamle strategi med at undlade at give korrekt information til borgerne for at skabe maximal forvirring.

Det behøver folk dog ikke at lade sig skræmme af, for det er uden tvivl sådan, at 10 ugers ophold er nok. Det eneste, der kan være tvivl om, er, om mindre end 10 uger også kan være nok, og hvad der i givet fald skal til for, at mindre end 10 uger er nok.

Mit gæt er, at Ombudsmanden før eller siden vil tvinge Udlændingeservice til at offentligøre de retningslinier, som man naturligvis bliver nødt til at udstede til medarbejderne. Så på det tidspunkt vil vi få klar besked, men indtil da må vi nøjes med at vide, at 10 uger utvivlsomt er nok. Uanset at Birthe Rønn Hornbæk og regeringen nægter at sige dette højt.

I forlængelse af ovenstående vil jeg gerne opfordre til, at alle medlemmer af ÆUG fortsætter den politiske kamp for at få fjernet de vanvittige danske regler for familiesammenføring.

Vi bør stå frem i medierne, hvis vi magter det, og f.eks. humoristisk fremføre, at det da er lidt fjollet, at vi som danskere skal flytte 10 uger til Grækenland, alene for at opnå de samme rettigheder i Danmark, som en græker har.

Men at vi da naturligvis gerne gør dette, hvis det kan glæde de danske politikere. For der er da helt sikkert dejligt i Grækenland og især om sommeren. Og det kan da være meget sjovt at prøve at arbejde som tjener på en græsk restaurant.

Lad os prøve sammen at komme væk fra den "offerrolle", som medierne ofte placerer os i, og i stedet fremstå som borgere med overskud, humor, energi og udsyn.

Det er i hvert fald min opfordring, og jeg har allerede selv tilbudt DR at stille op. Nu håber jeg så bare, at DR før eller siden finder lejlighed til at tage imod det tilbud i stedet for i èn evendelighed at agere mikrofonholder for Peter Skaarup fra Dansk Folkeparti.

Man føler efterhånden det er som om man lever i et kæmpestort fængsel hvor besøg næsten er en umulighed

Fundiver,

You have good heart, fighting spirit and strong european commitment.

So we have to help you.

It is 10 hours per week and 45 hours per month. One month + 1 day are enough.

You have to come back to a European Commission communication of late 2002 to find it. There is many many more to know from this communication :
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... FIN:DA:PDF

Alle en medlemsstats statsborgere har ret til at arbejde i en anden medlemsstat13. Ordet
"arbejdstager" er ikke defineret i traktaten, men er blevet fortolket af Domstolen som
dækkende enhver, der (i) har et reelt arbejde (ii) under en arbejdsleder (iii) som han aflønnes
for. Det dækker f.eks. en person, der arbejder ti timer ugentligt14, og praktikanter15. En
person, der er direktør for en virksomhed, hvor han også er eneste aktionær, er dog ikke en
arbejdstager, da han ikke har en overordnet16. En person er fortsat en arbejdstager, selvom
hans løn er lavere end det mindstebeløb til leveomkostninger, der er fastsat i
værtsmedlemsstaten17. I definitionen af begrebet "arbejdstager" indgår også det
grundlæggende princip om fri bevægelighed, som ikke må fortolkes snævert18. Personer med
tidsbestemte kontrakter betragtes som arbejdstagere, så længe de opfylder ovennævnte tre
betingelser. Tjenestemænd og lønmodtagere i den offentlige sektor er også arbejdstagere i
denne sammenhæng. EU-bestemmelserne om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed finder ikke
anvendelse på rent indenlandske situationer. Personer, som har benyttet sig af deres ret til fri
bevægelighed og efterfølgende er vendt tilbage til deres oprindelige medlemsstat, er dog
omfattet af EU-bestemmelserne19.

Danish authorities know that very well because they were part of the Rinner judgment at the European Court on July 13th, 1998 :
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/Result.do?code ... RECH_celex

By the way,

Can you get a big Danish boat (lets say 20 passengers) under Danish working contract, that may be able to go to Africa with 10 other European country spouses, working on the boat under Danish law, and coming back to Europe with some very close friends that have to be picked up in various African Countries ?

We can get one in France, under French working law, that could welcome Danish spouses in order to do the same.

Three boats together, of three European flags, cannot be stopped. We can give them nicknames : one will be Metock , the second one Carpenter and the third one [url=http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/s ... 0109&lg=da] Akrich [/list]. Full transparency, media and political support are necessary in order to garanty that everything is perfectly legal.

A right fight for European mixed couples must keep in mind that the priority is also to get back the heart of the "traditionnal" European population. They must be proud of us and not to be afraid of us. They must also be proud of being part, as we are, of the European Citizenship which is something they don't know yet. They should know that the European Citizenship has a very crucial characteristic to work only for people with good heart and genuine partner. Sham marriage are not allowed.

This should be the next fight.
What do you think ?

EU vil ikke ændre direktivet - til gengæld mener de heller ikke at den nye aftale er i strid med EU!:

http://www.berlingske.dk/article/200809 ... /80925145/

http://jp.dk/udland/europa/article1449559.ece


Jeg synes det er utroligt man kan harmonisere krumme agurker, engelske vægtsystemer og alt muligt andet gøgl, men man kan ikke blive enige om en standard i EU hvad arbejde er ?

I agree Pierre. This is also, and maybe most of all, a fight for the "heart & soul" of the common people. But unfortunatly this fight is very difficult in Danmark, since the opposition has given up to be a true opposition out of fear for losing even more voters. And since practically all the medie are acting like completely uncritical microphone holders for the current goverment and Dansk Folkeparti. The many misconceptions, that these parties deliberately are spreading, are therefore not argued against in any serious and consistent way.

Why for instance is it seen as something very problematic, if a EU-citizen choose to live in Denmark or another EU-country with her spouse, just because her spouse have previously applyed for asylum? Does this make a big difference compared to, if she had met her spouse in his home country? And why?

These questions are not even asked by neither journalists or politicians any more, since everyone takes it for completely granted, that it is unacceptable, if a person, who have applied for asylum and have been rejected, can stay in Europa if he find someone, who is willing to marry him. But again, why? Why is it so important, that he have applyed for asylum? Nobody have answered that question, at least not in Danmark.

According to the media, the british and irish governments are now supporting the danish goverment in its wish to prohibit EU-citizens, who have married an illigal immigrant or a person, who have applyed for asylum, to get a residence permit for their spouse.

The argument it, that if they are allowed to get such a residence permit for their spouses, then it will be very tempting for illigal immigrants or seekers of asylum to engage into a marriage of convenience.

Sure enough, but to do so is very tempting for any citizen from a non-EU country, who wish to move to EU, and who do not qualify for a work permit. So what exactly is the difference, except that it is perhaps a bit easier for people, who are already in Europe, to find someone willing to help them engage into the illigal activity of entering into a marriage of convinience.

The point of view of the danish, irish and british governments seems to be, that it is unreasonable to demand, that the authorities have to lift the burden of proof, that a marriage between a EU-citizen and an illigal immigrant or an asylum seeker, is in fact a marriage of convenience.

But why is that unfair? In all other areas, the authorities also have to prove, that people have broken the law, before they can punish them. So why should this be any different?

We do not make it illegal for everybody to drive a car, just because some people abuse this right by driving while drunk or driving to fast. And we do not even make it illegal for all young men to drive a car, just because there statistically are a higher % of this group, who e.g. break the speed limit. Instead we punish only the ones, who actually commit a crime, and not a whole group of people, most of whom are completely innocent.

This is the main point in this discussion, and also the maint point in the false reasoning behind the danish "24-year rule".

As a side comment, since right wing politicians in all other matters think, that more police and harder punishment are the best methods to fight crime, then why do they not wish to pursue these methods, when it comes to the crime of breaking european immigration laws by entering into marriages of convinience?

A non EU-citizen can not commit the crime of entering into a marriage of convenience on his own. A EU-citizen also has to be involved, so why not just raise the punishment for this crime to a level, that will effectively deter anyone but the most foolhearted EU-citizens from even trying?

Since people are often payd to enter into marriages of convenience, then a simple but hard economic punishment for defenders might be enough to defer most people. But if this isn´t the case, then what is wrong about giving offenders a short term sentence in jail?

That would probably wake the majority of EU-citizens up to the fact, that the right to familiy unification are intended for those and only for those, who intend to live together as a family.

The current times and the financial crisis are not on our side.

In my view, as well as we have to ask our governments to make reasonable arrangements regarding respect of the cultural diversity that is in place in Europe, we have also to make ourselves reasonable arrangements about the family reunification.

It means we have to accept to prove that our marriages/partnership are real and genuine in order to avoid sham marriages. Since we met our partner, we have to collect proofs of the reality and the regularity of this partnership (photos together at specific events from which you can prove when was it, telephone bills with both our numbers, copies of our mail messages or letters with residency adress, bills with our two names, proof of common lease of appartment with our two names if so, receipts of money sending from one of us to his/her partner, letters from friends, family, local politicians stating that we are genuine partners ...). It is of course awfull for our private life but it is reasonable arrangement.

BUT we cannot agree to have the burden of giving the proof of our legitimacy of using the rights of free movement in Europe because it will not be used by the administration as a way to check our legitimacy but as a weapon to stop us to use our rights. AND we cannot neither agree not to be allowed to use the free movement directive in order to bring our partner in order to live together.

Akrich case - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex ... 09:EN:HTML : "Where the marriage between a national of a Member State and a national of a non-Member State is genuine, the fact that the spouses installed themselves in another Member State in order, on their return to the Member State of which the former is a national, to obtain the benefit of rights conferred by Community law is not relevant to an assessment of their legal situation by the competent authorities of the latter State."

So we have to accept the reasonable arrangement for ourselves of having to handdle the burder to prove our genuine marriage/partnership and we have to require our government to accept in turn reasonable arrangment : Sham marriages are not allowed but assesment of our legal situation is not allowed neither.

And the Danish boat Fundiver ?