UK Risks Creating a “Second Windrush” for EU Families
The British government faces growing criticism over the treatment of European citizens and their family members who failed to register under the EU Settlement Scheme before the deadline.
Recent court decisions and Home Office policy have increasingly meant that some long-term European residents — including those from Latvia, Poland, Romania and other EU and EEA countries — are treated as unlawfully present in Britain if they did not apply to the scheme in time. That can mean loss of access to housing support, welfare benefits, employment rights and even free NHS treatment. Critics say the policy risks creating a “second Windrush” scandal, this time affecting European families who had lived in Britain lawfully for years before Brexit.
The central legal dispute is whether residence rights under the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement continue to exist even where a person has not completed registration under the Home Office system. Campaigners argue that the treaty protected the rights of EU citizens and their family members who were living in Britain before the end of the transition period, and that those rights should not simply disappear because someone missed an administrative deadline or was never individually contacted by the government.
Critics point out that the Home Office did not personally notify every potentially eligible EU or EEA citizen and family member. Many vulnerable people — elderly relatives, children, victims of domestic abuse, people with poor English, or those with limited access to digital technology — may never have realised they needed to apply. Others believed that because they had lived in Britain for decades, worked, paid tax and used the NHS, their rights were already secure.
The case of a Latvian mother being billed thousands of pounds for her child’s NHS cancer treatment has become one of the most politically sensitive examples. The woman had lived in Britain for years but had not secured her immigration status in time. Although she later obtained status under the settlement scheme, the NHS still pursued historic charges. Lawyers argue that once an applicant is granted status, that status should have retrospective effect, meaning their rights should be treated as continuous from the Brexit transition period onward.
Campaign groups such as the3million and the Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens' Rights Agreements have repeatedly argued that the Home Office’s interpretation of the Withdrawal Agreement is too narrow. In 2022, the High Court ruled that parts of the government’s approach to pre-settled status were unlawful, particularly where rights could be lost simply because a person failed to make a second application.
There is also growing pressure on European institutions to intervene. The European Commission has already referred the UK to the Court of Justice of the European Union over alleged failures to implement free movement protections properly after Brexit. The dispute includes questions about healthcare rights, family reunification and whether the UK is honouring the promises made under the Withdrawal Agreement.
Some lawyers believe that future cases could reach the Luxembourg court directly through referrals from British judges. That process has already begun in at least one case concerning family members under the Withdrawal Agreement.
The political contradiction is becoming harder to ignore. Britain and the EU are discussing closer youth mobility arrangements and better post-Brexit cooperation. Yet many EU citizens already in Britain still feel their rights remain insecure. Critics argue that before launching any new mobility scheme, the UK government should first resolve the legal uncertainty surrounding those who were already promised protection.
Campaigners are now calling for new legislation that would automatically protect EU and EEA citizens who were resident in Britain before Brexit, even if they missed the settlement deadline. They argue that the Home Office should presume lawful residence unless there is evidence otherwise, rather than forcing people to prove their status years later.
Without reform, Britain risks repeating one of its greatest immigration policy failures: turning long-term lawful residents into “illegal” migrants through bureaucracy, administrative confusion and government inaction.