COPY LINK

BREXIT

OPINION: Sweden must step up its efforts to reach Brits as post-Brexit deadline looms

Sweden needs to release more data on the Brits whose post-Brexit residence status applications have been rejected, and have a clear plan in place for those at risk of missing the deadline altogether, writes David Milstead of the Facebook group Brits in Sweden.

Published: 19 August 2021 11:29 CEST
Updated: 21 August 2021 07:32 CEST

A person getting their fingerprints taken at the Migration Agency.

Brits have until September 30th to apply for their post-Brexit residence status in Sweden. Photo: Marcus Ericsson/TT

At the end of 2020 Sweden introduced a new immigration status (uppehållsstatus) and protections for cross-border workers to protect Brits who would otherwise be left without rights when the transition year ended. The deadline for applications for uppehållsstatus is looming (September 30th) and it’s worth asking how well the programme has been working. The report card is mixed.

Anecdotally from the Brits in Sweden Facebook community, the vast majority of applications are being approved. However, Migration Agency case workers sometimes make what are felt to be unreasonable demands. Furthermore, though the average waiting time is two to three months there are often far longer delays. Also, while most are clued up on the need to apply, a few aren’t and they are often those Brits who’ve been here the longest.

Anecdotes about Sweden’s protections have a value but give an incomplete picture and should ideally be matched with quantitative data. Regrettably, even at this late stage in the application window, there is little relevant data published by the Migration Agency. The explanation given for not including uppehållsstatus in the Migration Agency’s regularly updated statistical overview of applications is that uppehållsstatus is new. However, the application period for uppehållsstatus is short (10 months) and will soon end. The absence of detailed published data makes scrutiny difficult. Furthermore, the data that are public raise concerns.

When uppehållsstatus is discussed in the media, the headline figures tend to be the number of applications and the number of citizens who need uppehållsstatus to retain their rights on October 1st. The official target is for 17,000 applications and the data show that around 10,000 applications have so far been made. However, the target is known to be an overestimate due to many Brits recently becoming Swedish citizens.

Furthermore, there are many Brits who weren’t included in the 17,000 estimate as they had secure residence but who will have applied anyway to retain enhanced family unification rights. In other words the difference between the official target and the number of applications is not a particularly useful proxy for determining how many need to apply. The absence of any serious public assessment on the number of unprotected Brits is worrying especially in view of the impending deadline. If that number is large Sweden should consider extending the deadline, as was done in France and the Netherlands.

Maybe we shouldn’t worry about those who don’t apply in time. I’ve often seen it remarked that they would only have themselves to blame. However, this ignores the many vulnerable people who aren’t web-savvy. As for those who arguably should have known and acted, the referendum was five years ago and life (and residence rights) have carried on as normal. It is easy for someone who doesn’t follow the news and is without British friends in Sweden to not know about the need to apply. Furthermore, cross-border travel has been massively suppressed due to Covid-19 so there wouldn’t even be a trigger at passport control.

The Withdrawal Agreement recognises that we are all fallible and places a legal responsibility on the host state to reach out to the community to inform them about uppehållsstatus. Brits in Denmark and the Netherlands have received letters from the government telling them to apply. Sweden’s outreach effort is perceived to be weak in comparison.

Furthermore, Sweden has given no substantive explanation on how Brits without rights on October 1st will be treated. According to the Withdrawal Agreement, anyone who can supply a good reason for not applying on time can be considered. However, Sweden needs to define what they regard as good reasons. In addition, social benefits and the right to work are linked to having a legal residence status. Will Brits who don’t apply find themselves effectively falling off a cliff-edge on October 1st?

‘It’s a shit show’: How one Gothenburg business is struggling under post-Brexit bureaucracy

When it comes to outcomes of those applications that have been made, the Joint Committee which oversees the implementation of the common Withdrawal Agreement residence protections in the UK and the EU reports that 8.5 percent of applications for work/residence protections in Sweden did not lead to a permit being given. This is higher than reported for states which host British populations which may be expected to have similar demographic profiles as that in Sweden, such as the Netherlands, Finland and Denmark. In those countries, only 1-3 percent of applications didn’t lead to a status.

The equivalent figure for the UK’s Settled Status programme is 4.9 percent though this also includes rejected applications from EU nationals who are dual UK-EU citizens (and thus have residence security) but who can’t hold the Settled Status immigration title.

The UK voted in 2016 to leave the European Union. Photo: AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali

There are certainly possible reasons for such a large difference in outcomes between Sweden and other countries which are not alarming. For example, Sweden has comparatively generous citizenship rules which thousands of Brits have used as a Brexit lifeboat. This skews the data such that applications in Sweden are dominantly (though not exclusively) made by Brits who arrived in the past five years.

However, the Netherlands and Finland also publish the proportion of applications that didn’t lead to a residence status from Brits who typically moved to those states in the past five years. These data also seem to be at around the 2-3 percent level.

Another factor that may explain the difference is data definition. Sweden may include repeated applications or applications for cross-border residence permits in its figures which may be omitted in other countries. There may also be differences in the breakdown of reasons why applications weren’t granted (i.e. formally refused, withdrawn/invalid or incomplete). The question of whether the Brit in Sweden is treated fairly (or unfairly) compared to other Brits in the EU (or EU citizens in the UK) is a basic one to which, unfortunately, a firm answer can’t be given, despite the data raising concerns.

IN NUMBERS: How many Brits have applied for their post-Brexit status in Sweden?

If comparisons between countries on application rejections are tricky, they can be made between different groups of Brits in Sweden applying for uppehållsstatus. The Migration Agency supplied on request data related to applications made up to the end of July. Outcomes for different applicant categories, eg employee, self-sufficient and student can thus be studied.

Around 10 percent of applications made under the student category didn’t lead to a status being granted. This rises to 14 percent for self-sufficient applicants, which may be related to a demand by the Migration Agency for some self-sufficient applicants to show up to five years’ worth of funding. This demand seems both odd and excessive given that a Brit can change category from eg self-sufficient to worker at any point. Furthermore, EU citizens in Sweden whose residence rights are nominally governed by the same rules as Brits under the Withdrawal Agreement do not face such a demand.

What about cross-border workers? Photo: Johan Nilsson/TT

Another worrying statistic concerns applications for a cross-border worker certificate to allow a Brit who lives elsewhere but who worked in Sweden in 2020 to continue to do so. Around 50 percent of these applications failed. Limited anecdotal evidence suggests Sweden is not taking into account Covid-related difficulties in cross-border working during 2020. There can be other explanations such as posted workers from the UK applying even though they are not eligible. However, the data require an explanation.

One should spare a thought for those who have applied but are waiting for a decision. The average time to a decision is around 2.5 months according to a poll in Brits in Sweden. However, the distribution of waiting times has very large tails. Anyone who worries that they still don’t have a decision after applying in December when the scheme started should be aware that they’re not alone. The Migration Agency states that there were 162 such people living in limbo at the end of July.

As mentioned at the start of this piece, the report card is mixed. On one hand, the majority of Brits are empirically sailing through. On the other hand, despite applying as soon as the application window opened, some Brits are still waiting for a decision. Furthermore, a demand from the Migration Agency on self-supporting Brits and data on application outcomes raises concerns. Worryingly there may be thousands who will even miss out on applying by the deadline with little information on how they will be treated.

Going forward in the limited time left, it is essential that Sweden steps up its outreach efforts and makes public plans for dealing with late applications and applicants. If the number of unprotected Brits is large, Sweden should consider extending the deadline. Furthermore, comprehensive data on applications and outcomes need to be published, ideally with an analysis of why some applications fail. Finally, it may be worth the Migration Agency prioritising applications from those who have waited the longest for a decision.

Member comments

Anonymous - 20 August 2021 at 16:50 CEST

I’ve mulled over this article for a couple of days now and still can’t get my head round why the Swedish or British authorities should chase those who haven’t yet sorted out their post-Brexit residency status. One must be leading an extremely sheltered life somewhere in the vast Swedish forest or alone on a small island to not have heard about Brexit and the subsequent new residency status of hundreds of thousands of British people who live somewhere within the EU.

I’ve also seen a few mentions in the France edition of The Local of British people living a secluded life out in the French countryside who seem to be blissfully unaware that they need to update their status, with the imminent danger of losing their health insurance entitlements and much more. And presumably a similar situation can be found in places other than just Sweden and France.

Even the old chestnut of not having access to the internet is running out of steam. There will of course always be people who refuse to have a television, computer, smartphone, or the paper version of a newspaper or whatever, but as a ‘foreigner’ one surely has the moral obligation to keep abreast of local residency laws and permits and keep an eye out for when they need to be renewed or the status needs to be updated.
1. Anonymous - 29 August 2021 at 22:34 CEST
  
  I agree with you completely, why are they more special than any other immigrant to the country? It’s pure entitlement, honestly if they miss the deadline they should be deported like every other person who breaks the law.
Anonymous - 20 August 2021 at 19:48 CEST

This manifesto belongs to Facebook, where it originally came from. Entitled rubbish and a waste of bytes.

Become a Member to leave a comment.

'I feel exiled': How Brits in Europe are locked abroad with foreign partners

Europe is home to hundreds of thousands of British nationals, many of whom have foreign partners and children. But if they want to move to the UK to live and work it will soon become more difficult.

When it comes to getting a partner visa, the UK has some of the strictest rules in Europe. In addition to hefty fees and a healthcare surcharge, the Home Office requires British citizens and long-term residents who bring their foreign partner to the UK to have a minimum income showing they can support them without relying on the social security system.

The minimum income up until now was set at £18,600 (€21,700), or £22,400 (€26,100) if the couple had one child, plus another £2,400 (€2,800) for each other child.

But these income requirements will rise steeply from April 11th 2024.

How it works: What Brits in Europe should know about UK’s new minimum income rules

From this date the minimum a British national or long-term resident will need to earn if they want to return home will increase to £29,000 (€33,800) and up to £38,000 (€44,313) by spring 2025, although there will no longer be an additional amount for accompanying children.

Alternatively, families need to prove they have at least £62,500 (€72,884) in cash, which from 11 April will increase to £88,500 (€103,207).

‘Family life has been destroyed’

To put this in context the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford suggests that around 50 percent of UK employees earn less than the £29,000 threshold and 70 percent less than £38,700. The Observatory also says that while the number of people affected by the policy is small compared to the overall UK immigration (family visas represent 5 percent of all entry visas), the impacts on concerned families can be “very significant”.

The Migration Observatory notes that other European countries apply income thresholds to sponsor foreign partners. Spain, for instance, requires sponsors to have an annual income equal to the social security salary. In Denmark, sponsors must not have claimed social benefits in the three years before the application. But in Spain and the US, the partner’s foreign income also counts towards the threshold.

So what does this mean for mixed British and international families living in Europe who might want or even need to return to the UK to live?

Campaigners have complained that many Britons with foreign partners have simply been “locked abroad” or families have been separated while they try to meet the minimum income or savings requirement.

Reunite Families UK, a non-profit organisation supporting people affected by the UK spouse visa rules, says this policy causes distress, especially for children.

Some 65 percent of respondents in research carried out by the group said that their child received a diagnosis of a mental health condition due to the separation of their parents.

“Since its introduction, this policy has destroyed the family life of countless people and children,” Matteo Besana, Advocacy and Campaigns Manager at Reunite Families UK said.

“Women have been forced to become single parents to their children and live away from their partner and the father of their children only because they didn’t meet the threshold.

“As shown by our research on the mental health impact of the policy, these are scars that, particularly for children, will be carried for the rest of their lives,” Besana said.

The people most likely to be affected are women, who tend to earn less or not work because they took on caring responsibilities. Also heavily impacted are people under 30 and over 50 years of age, people living outside London and the Southeast of England where wages are higher, and those belonging to specific ethnicities, according to the Migration Observatory.

The Local spoke to two British women, in Italy and Sweden, struggling to return to the UK with their families because of these rules.

More savings needed

Sarah Douglas, who has been living in Italy since 2007, was planning to return to Scotland with her Italian husband and three children.

“It was always our long-term goal to move back to the UK after we had our children and once we’d have saved enough to buy a home in the UK,” she said.

“In hindsight, we should have gone after the Brexit referendum, but in the beginning it wasn’t clear what the final deal would be and I naively assumed that situations like mine would be taken into account and we would have the right to return… Once it did become clear, we were in the middle of the pandemic and it wasn’t the time to move,” she said.

Having stayed home to take care of the children, Sarah will find it hard to land a job near her family in Scotland that meets the minimum income required to sponsor a foreign partner for a UK visa.

Her husband, a computer programmer, has been trying to get an employment visa, “but most of them state that you must already have permission to work in the UK,” Sarah says. And applying for British citizenship is not an option for a non-UK resident spouse.

‘People need to be aware’

Sarah and her husband are trying to save as much as they can, an alternative to the income requirement, but the amount they need is rising to almost £90,000, meaning it may be a long time before they have enough to move home.

While the aim of the UK’s policy is to ensure families moving to the UK are not a burden on the taxpayer, the reality is that people arriving on a family visa are not able to claim any benefits from the UK government.

“They should judge the overall financial viability of the family unit, rather than just the earning potential of the sponsoring partner,” Sarah says.

“We could live well with my husband’s salary and he could work remotely. We are stable and financially secure, but because I don’t earn any money, they say we are not able to support ourselves.”

Sarah says that most of the British public are unaware of the minimum income requirement.

“People think if you are married, your husband is allowed to come to the UK, but when I say no, it doesn’t work like that, they are really surprised. A lot of people are not aware of how this could affect them,” she said.

Looking for a job from abroad

Another British women who lives in Sweden with her South African husband and two children and plans to move to the UK told The Local how the minimum income requirement had put them in a “precarious and stressful situation”.

The woman, who preferred to remain anonymous said: “After having the two children, I was very fortunate to find a research position and do my PhD, which is a salaried position in Scandinavia, and now that I finished, we are looking to leave.

“But I need a job in the UK to sponsor my husband, and as a new graduate with limited work experience, it is not easy. It is even more difficult when you are not in the country and I missed out on opportunities because they wanted an immediate start. I really don’t want to move without my whole family,” she said.

She says the UK’s policy is “gendered and geographically discriminatory” because it makes life harder for women and also harder for anyone who is planning to move to a part of the country that isn’t in London, where salaries are higher.

“I feel exiled from my country and separated from my family there,” she said.

Her husband, she argues, has his own company and could continue working remotely from the UK, earning well above the requirement. He would also pay taxes and national insurance while having to pay the healthcare surcharge, a form of double taxation, she argues. But that would not entitle him to a visa.

“Our house is on the market now. We have booked removal companies for the 6th of June. The dog is booked for his transport. I just think this policy is so out of touch with the modern world,” she said.

Reunite Families UK has called on the government to recognise the right for British or settled citizens to bring their close family members to the UK and scrap the minimum income requirement. Alternatively, the group says the rules should take into consideration the earning potential of both partners and consider “the best interests of children”.

A petition on the UK parliament website asks the government to reconsider the minimum income policy. If it reaches 100,000 signatures, it will have to be debated in parliament.

This article has been produced by Europe Street news.

SHOW COMMENTS

Url copied to clipboard!