Government overruled again.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....ming-UK-partners.html

Yet again the Government is overruled by the Judges, not the European Judges this time, but our own.

If the Government had made this law, would the Supreme Court have been able to intervene then?

[bazwillrun]

When I first read the story online this morning the supreme court said it was against EU laws, thats what made me read it in the first place, another instance of the meddling EU telling us what we can and cant do over here

[rojash]

"Yet again the Government is overruled by the Judges,"
Governments have to obey the law just like everyone else.

"If the Government had made this law"
Governments don't make the law, Parliament does.

[Gromit]

So basically, it is against the law (in practice) to marry someone from another country. What a bizarre law.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

Stop trying to twist the issue.

Banning foreign spouses aged between 18 and 21 from entering the UK, was a method of dealing with the problem of forced marriages.

/// David Cameron promised to make forced marriages a criminal offence for the first time after describing them as 'little more than slavery'.///

Banning foreign spouses aged between 18 and 21 from entering the UK, may not have been the ideal answer, but at least it would have been a start.

We certainly need to crack down on these forced marriages, I must agree with David Cameron when he said " 'Forced marriage is little more than slavery".

[jake-the-peg]

//Banning foreign spouses between 18 and 21 from entering the UK//

In what crazy mixed up mind was this ever an acceptable policy?

Thank goodness we have Europe to keep this nutty government on the straight and narrow!

I can just imagine your howls of protest if you were refused entrance to a country because of your nationality.

You think being British should entitle you to special treatment!

[Gromit]

Her Majesty the Queen has a foreign spouse. Maybe we should deport Phil the Greek.

[Zeuhl]

<<Banning foreign spouses aged between 18 and 21 from entering the UK, was a method of dealing with the problem of forced marriages. >>

But clearly a p1ss poor one as it will affect people not engaging in forced marriages and overlook anyone who is who is not between 18 and 21.

New entrants are interviewed anyway - better use of that to identify forced marriage plus the means to exclude and prosecute. They largely exist already but require proper staffing levels to do it which are currently being cut.

An unworkable and poorly targeted law is a poor substitute.

[anotheoldgit]

jake the peg

/// Thank goodness we have Europe to keep this nutty government on the straight and narrow!///

Before you praise 'Europe' too much perhaps you would care to read this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15272121

*** Immigration minister Damian Green said the judgement was "very disappointing" because the policy had been judged elsewhere in Europe to be lawful.***

So it is OK for Europe but not for us eh?

Gromit

/// So basically, it is against the law (in practice) to marry someone from another country. What a bizarre law.///

*** The ban, introduced by Labour in 2008, meant a foreign partner from outside the EU could not join their partner in the UK if they were under 21 years old.***

So we have to blame your beloved Labour Party do we?

[anotheoldgit]

redhelen

/// AOG - May i ask what your ideal UK would be like? redhelen ///

Instead of just asking me, perhaps you could raise this as a question for everyone to answer?

[ichkeria]

Was this "ruling" actually debated in Parliament and passed?
As noted, it's a pretty stupid rule anyway.
But if it was properly debated and passed in Parliament, and enacted as law, then plainly it ought not to be overturned. If it was simply a "government ban" on the other hand ...
Say what you like about the HRA (not the EU, surely??, or even the unrelated ECHR), but as far as the judiciary is concerned we are v lucky to have an independent one. Many countries do not. Look at Ukraine this week, for example, where a court effectively jailed the president's arch political enemy on a trumped-up charge

[THECORBYLOON]

Red, this may provide a clue

"1. All British passports to be considered void, on the granting of independence from British rule.

2. Limit immigration to include only self financing skilled persons.

3. Immigrants to learn English, and then to apply for British citizenship.

4. Ban on certain items of clothing that is alien to our culture.

5. No dispensations from the law of the land

6. Restrictions on the type of architecture, that is liable to change the face of English towns, cities and villages."

aog implied these should have been in place fifty years ago

[THECORBYLOON]

aog asked "If the Government had made this law, would the Supreme Court have been able to intervene then? "

The article says "the reason is Article 8 of Labour’s Human Rights Act, which enshrines in our law the European Convention on Human Rights" so it is domestic law that was used.

If the Judges had not given the judgement they delivered, would they not be giving a dispensation from the law of the land?

[ichkeria]

""If the Government had made this law"

Governments don't make laws, Parliament does. Which is why I am asking: was this a law that was overruled or a government ruling?