My analysis of the proposed revision of EU law on the rights of long-term resident non-EU citizens (part 1):
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/05/long-term-resident-non-eu-citizens-eu.html?m=1
Long-term resident non-EU citizens: the EU Commission’s new proposal (part 1)

  Professor Steve Peers , University of Essex Photo credit: Marcomob, via Wikimedia commons As part of its broader policy on legal mig...

Part 2 of my analysis of the proposed new law on long-term resident non-EU citizens in the EU - on their rights to move to other Member States:
http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2022/05/poundshop-free-movement-long-term.html?m=1
Poundshop free movement? Long-term resident non-EU citizens: the EU Commission’s new proposal (part 2)

  Professor Steve Peers , University of Essex Photo credit: Rept0n1x , via Wikimedia commons Free movement of people between EU Member...

@StevePeers I have a question - what does the [OR] mean in section 43 regarding Ireland’s opt-out? Is it setting up a way for them to opt back in? I don’t see a similar [OR] for Denmark.
@Squozen That simply recognises that Ireland can opt in within three months of the proposal. Denmark can't do that.
@StevePeers is that a typical thing with proposals? Why three months? Sorry to pester, but this could be incredibly handy for me. 🤪
@Squozen It's typical with justice and home affairs proposals, where the Irish opt out applies. The three month deadline is in the opt out protocol. Ireland can also opt in to a JHA law it initially opted out of after the law is adopted.
@StevePeers thank you. And both member states would need to have opted in to allow a non-EU resident to move between countries, correct? Because the EU does things in a reciprocal fashion?
@Squozen yes. But these are the only two Member States with opt outs.
@StevePeers cheers!