Marriage in the UK

[UberKrieger]

I am planning on marrying my Canadian fiancee as soon as possible. Does she need a visa to get married to me within the UK?

I've known her for 2 and a half years and we share our savings together. We originally met on the internet and we've been going back and fourth to Canada trying to spend as much time together as possible.

Does this qualify me to marry her?

[Docterror]

Does this qualify me to marry her?

You should be asking your fiancee whether all this qualifies for marrying her, not us.

But from an immigration point of view, any evidence that you have to prove that the two of you have met and do have genuine intentions of living as husband as wife will aid in applying for the fiancee visa for her which is a must if she intends to get married and then settle here with you.

Alternatively she can apply for the Marriage Visitor Visa if she has no intentions of settling over here. Curiously, what is your immigration status? Are you subject to immigration controls and need permission to get married yourself or are you a British/EEA citizen/ILR holder?

[UberKrieger]

I am British & I have a European Union passport, i'm not sure which that entitles me to exactly. Is it possible I can get married without requiring permission to do so?

She wants to become a British citizen and live with me so what would be the best Visa to get first?

What sort of evidence can I use in aid, I have photographs, e-mails, shared bank accounts/joint savings account, ticket stubs etc

[Docterror]

Since you are British, you do not need permission to get married. But since your fiance is Canadian, she will need to get the Fiance Visa from the British embassy if she wants to settle here with you after the marriage. Please check the documenets needed for the Fiance Visa in the website of the British Embassy your fiance plans to apply in.

[UberKrieger]

Is it possible that I can marry my fiancee in Canada without a visa and then she can apply for a visit visa to come live with me in the United Kingdom now and then?

[JAJ]

I am British & I have a European Union passport ...

I think you mean you have a British passport, don't you?

[UberKrieger]

Yes, and Britain is apart of the EU right?

[JAJ]

Yes, and Britain is apart of the EU right?

It's also a member of NATO, the Commonwealth and the United Nations - but these organisations don't issue passports any more than the EU does.

[sakura]

British passport holder, EU citizen....EU does not issue passports in its own right, passports are issued by EU states, i.e. UK.

If you want to get married in Canada, see the 'Canada' section on this board....or look through the Canadian High Commission in UK website for information about getting married there. If wanting to marry here, see the British High Commission in Canada website for how your partner can get a fiancee visa.

FYI....High Commission is used instead of 'Embassy' for all countries in the Commonwealth - i.e. former colonies, dependencies, etc, of thy great British Empire...so basically one third of the planet....

[Docterror]

Is it possible that I can marry my fiancee in Canada without a visa and then she can apply for a visit visa to come live with me in the United Kingdom now and then?

If you do succeed to get married in Canada and the marriage is recognised by Canadian authorities, then you can apply for Visit Visa or Spouse visa depending on whether she wants to settle here or just visit you from time to time. Make sure to have a thorough look into the requirements of getting married in Canada and judge for yourself where it is more convenient for you to do so.

I think you mean you have a British passport, don't you?

It's also a member of NATO, the Commonwealth and the United Nations - but these organisations don't issue passports any more than the EU does.

It may be true that the EU may not issue passports, but isnt it also true that the passports issued by the EU countries should be in line with the EU regulation laid down regarding passports? I do vaguely remember that holders of British passports not meeting the requirements (like it not saying "European Union" in the passport) were not not allowed entrance to other EU countries and were adviced to get the correct passports if they wanted to avail the right of free movement.

All the organisations above do not have any passport with their name written on it, unlike EU passports which have "European Union" and so should not be tagged along with the EU.

[JAJ]

It may be true that the EU may not issue passports, but isnt it also true that the passports issued by the EU countries should be in line with the EU regulation laid down regarding passports?

In fact most of the format of passports is laid down by international agreement.

I do vaguely remember that holders of British passports not meeting the requirements (like it not saying "European Union" in the passport) were not not allowed entrance to other EU countries and were adviced to get the correct passports if they wanted to avail the right of free movement.

United Kingdom nationals for European purposes are British citizens, British overseas territories citizens connected to Gibraltar, and British subjects with Right of Abode.

All other categories are issued a British passport that is very similar but does not contain any EU references.

The point is that a future British government could remove all EU references from British passports (and change the colour back to dark blue) if it really wished to.

All the organisations above do not have any passport with their name written on it, unlike EU passports which have "European Union" and so should not be tagged along with the EU.

Other organisations have common-format passports too, including Mercosur and Caricom.

[Docterror]

In fact most of the format of passports is laid down by international agreement.

I do not think that it is international agreements solely that decides the format of passports. It is true that if a country does not get in line with a particular agreement with a country, then they may forefeit the advantages it brings. For example, if the UK does not make its passports biometric, the holders will not be able to obtain visa-free entrance to the US. But...

The point is that a future British government could remove all EU references from British passports (and change the colour back to dark blue) if it really wished to.

Then they would have a problem with the EU as a lot of the features of the passports issued by the EU are agreed upon- like for example the Burgandy colour and the EU references etc. much like the common vignette to be used for visit visas etc. If the UK were to withdraw from the agreements, I do not know how it will be viewed by the EU. But I am assuming that if they are so specific to having references to the EU in the passport in order to avail the right of free movement, then the EU would not be be favourable to such a change.

[JAJ]

I do not think that it is international agreements solely that decides the format of passports.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation (a UN agency) is closely involved with international passport standards, eg for machine readable and biometric passports.

Then they would have a problem with the EU as a lot of the features of the passports issued by the EU are agreed upon- like for example the Burgandy colour and the EU references etc. much like the common vignette to be used for visit visas etc. If the UK were to withdraw from the agreements, I do not know how it will be viewed by the EU.

Many British citizens would prefer to have a government that looked after British interests first, not constantly worrying about what the EU thinks.

The EU would most likely do nothing, and even if it actually did something, the United Kingdom would immediately reimpose immigration control on citizens of other EU states. Thinking about it, that might be a rather popular idea in Britain too these days.

[UberKrieger]

{Off Topic}

What requirements would I need to get married in Canada as i'm a foreign national to the country?

Would I need a Fiancee Visa issued by Canada of some kind?
And if I get married in Canada, will the marriage be valid in the UK?

I searched but could not find anything helpful

[Docterror]

Many British citizens would prefer to have a government that looked after British interests first, not constantly worrying about what the EU thinks.

All the citizens of the Member states of the EU would prefer a government that looks after their own citizen's interest first, and not just the British. Also, the British government or any other government for that matter would not be a part of an organisation without having any benefit from it at all.

The EU would most likely do nothing, and even if it actually did something, the United Kingdom would immediately reimpose immigration control on citizens of other EU states. Thinking about it, that might be a rather popular idea in Britain too these days.

I do not want this debate to disintegrate into extolling the virtues of being a part of EU. But just to respond to the idea, if it be executed, the so be it. Who stands to lose? All the British staying or even visiting other EU countries will be restricted by their border controls as well. Want to visit the Eiffel tower? Get in queue at the French embassy. Want to tan at Costa del Sol? Then the Spanish embassy it is.

Also if the internal market breaks down, best of luck trying to get an BMW or a Swiss chocolate or any other comodities that we use in our daily lives and take for granted at an affordable price due to the taxes. If the rest of Europe were to go forth and fulfil its potential, who gets left out?

I still think that the basis of the EU of wanting to have a common trade area to build and strengthen Europe and prevent another World War are really commendable efforts and whole-heartedly support the notion. But if nationalism in the Member states were to take over over the want of unity and the EU were to be disabled, who would be the poorer?

Getting back to the original topic, I still think that the comparison of NATO, UN or the Commonwealth not issuing passports to the EU not issuing them is not a valid comparison. At least the EU has millions of people holding travel documents that says "European Union" on it even though the EU issues no passports... something none of the above can boast of.

[Docterror]

What requirements would I need to get married in Canada as i'm a foreign national to the country?

Would I need a Fiancee Visa issued by Canada of some kind?

I really do not think that the UK immigration forum is the right place to get the sort of information that would answer these questions.

And if I get married in Canada, will the marriage be valid in the UK?

If the marriage is considered as being legal by Canadian authorities, then it will be valid in the UK as well.

[JAJ]

I do not want this debate to disintegrate into extolling the virtues of being a part of EU. But just to respond to the idea, if it be executed, the so be it. Who stands to lose? All the British staying or even visiting other EU countries will be restricted by their border controls as well. Want to visit the Eiffel tower? Get in queue at the French embassy. Want to tan at Costa del Sol? Then the Spanish embassy it is.

Also if the internal market breaks down, best of luck trying to get an BMW or a Swiss chocolate or any other comodities that we use in our daily lives and take for granted at an affordable price due to the taxes. If the rest of Europe were to go forth and fulfil its potential, who gets left out?

This is typical of euro-scaremongering that goes on - it would be no harder to buy a BMW or Swiss chocolate (Switzerland isn't in the EU, incidentally) or go on holiday to France/Spain than it would be to go on holiday to Canada, buy Australian wine, or New Zealand lamb.

It may escape the notice of some, but EU-style political union is not necessary for free trade and exchange of persons elsewhere in the world.

This is not necessarily an argument for immediate withdrawal from the EU, but simply pointing out that the withdrawal option must always remain for Britain.

[Christophe]

I do not want this debate to disintegrate into extolling the virtues of being a part of EU. But just to respond to the idea, if it be executed, the so be it. Who stands to lose? All the British staying or even visiting other EU countries will be restricted by their border controls as well. Want to visit the Eiffel tower? Get in queue at the French embassy. Want to tan at Costa del Sol? Then the Spanish embassy it is.

Also if the internal market breaks down, best of luck trying to get an BMW or a Swiss chocolate or any other comodities that we use in our daily lives and take for granted at an affordable price due to the taxes. If the rest of Europe were to go forth and fulfil its potential, who gets left out?

But that's all just silly. Even if routine immigration controls were to be re-established for, say, British citizens visiting EU countries, it doesn't follow that British people would need to queue at the French Embassy before visiting France to visit the Eiffel Tower: nationals of plenty of non-EU countries do not require visas or pre-entry clearance to visit EU countries. (And, in passing, there are non-EU countries who benefit from free movement of people within the EU - the EEA countries and Switzerland.)

As to the internal market - even if the UK were outside the common market, British people would still be able to buy BMWs or Swiss chocolate at affordable prices - how do you think people in Australia, Singapore, South Korea etc, etc, get their Swiss chocolate etc?

There may be many advantages to being part of the EU, but the examples above of what might happen if the UK were not are not, in truth, good ones.

[sakura]

I was going to reply to Docterror's post, but seems two people beat me to it!

But may I add: I am sure a lot of anti-EU people - those who want to leave the EU - feel like that mostly because of the types of laws the UK has to implement, like allowing free movement of people...at some point, Romanians, Bulgarians, and all newer EU members will be able to move freely into the UK, whatever their circumstances.

The main reason why people want to leave the EU is so that the UK can implement selective bi-lateral agreements, and, using immigration as an example, it means some EU countries will still be able to move/live/study in the UK and vice versa.

Most likely, the UK would be able to opt into bi-lateral (immigration) agreements with the old EU countries (i.e. France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, some other countries) where migration for study and work purposes is very necessary, but the UK could opt-out of agreements with other EU countries, such as Poland, Romania, and (when they all join, at some point), Croatia, Albania, etc etc etc. Old EU countries would probably want to make these agreements, because of the vital necessity of City of London businesses, high education opportunities, and greater economic development opportunities for both parties

Those countries where people use as an argument to not be in the EU (notably Switzerland, Norway) actually have to implement a lot of EU laws without having a say in it, so actually being an EEA member might not be wise for the UK.

Also....in terms of trade...all EU members are in the WTO...so free trade (of certain goods) would be happening even if the UK was not in the EU. Again, it could still implement the same EU trade laws on a bi-lateral basis, meaning such agreements (in respect of trade) does not change. The CAP...UK probably pays more into EU coffers than it receives, so that doesn't matter?

[OL7MAX]

... UN ... not issuing passports ... At least the EU has millions of people holding travel documents that says "European Union" on it even though the EU issues no passports.

The UN does issue Laissez-passer "passports" to its staff, stateless people and others. If the Canadian finacee had a UN passport she'd be allowed into the UK (which accepts the UN document). In fact, it's pretty easy to get a UN document and that's one of the dodgy ways to come and stay here legally (though a lot of people don't know about it). You can go one step further and get a UN diplomatic passport. There are several African countries that "sell" their diplomatic posts. Pay enough and you can represent Tinpotistan at the UN. Diplomatic bag privileges are the icing on the coke (pun intended). I'm not expanding on this as it's not to be encouraged, and no PMs on this subject will get a reply.

sakura, Christophe, and JAJ have effectively debunked that EU scaremongering about swiss chocolates and visiting the Eiffel tower but....I have a question.

best of luck trying to get an BMW .... at an affordable price due to the taxes

So why is this BMW more expensive here than it is in the US?

[Docterror]

or go on holiday to France/Spain than it would be to go on holiday to Canada,

Even if routine immigration controls were to be re-established for, say, British citizens visiting EU countries, it doesn't follow that British people would need to queue at the French Embassy before visiting France to visit the Eiffel Tower: nationals of plenty of non-EU countries do not require visas or pre-entry clearance to visit EU countries. (And, in passing, there are non-EU countries who benefit from free movement of people within the EU - the EEA countries and Switzerland

Agreed. I do see your point. If routine immigration controls were to be re-established, then UK nationals may not still need visas to visit the EU. (Unless of course the EU is to become strong enough to decide that the UK nationals will need one just to get back at them for pulling out of the EU in the first place...something I dont think will ever happen as evidenced by the EU's weakness by extending the right of free movement to the EEA and Swiss countries as well.) But it would still be tough for the British nationals to go and settle down in such countries without the rights of free movement to aid them.

it would be no harder to buy a BMW or Swiss chocolate ...buy Australian wine, or New Zealand lamb.

As to the internal market - even if the UK were outside the common market, British people would still be able to buy BMWs or Swiss chocolate at affordable prices

Will depend on the taxation policy that UK will adopt once it is out of the common market. Also, pls correct me if I am wrong here, the EU could also levy unbearable taxes on the goods produced by the UK and thus effectively minimise the consumer market for UK goods in the EU.

how do you think people in Australia, Singapore, South Korea etc, etc, get their Swiss chocolate

Depends on the taxation policies adopted by those countries as some countries do not take well to imported goods. While it is effectively cheaper to get a BMW in, say, Dubai than it is to get over here due to lack of taxes over there, I do remember a case of some Indian/Pakistan (one of the countries in that area) cricket star being taxed 200% of the cost of the Ferrari that was gifted to him. I admittedly am not well read in matters of this sort and so am open to any information what will enrich me.

[Christophe]

Unless of course the EU is to become strong enough to decide that the UK nationals will need one just to get back at them for pulling out of the EU in the first place

That wouldn't be strong - that would be petty.

...something I dont think will ever happen as evidenced by the EU's weakness by extending the right of free movement to the EEA and Swiss countries as well

Why was that a sign of weakness, particularly?

[Docterror]

I am sure a lot of anti-EU people - those who want to leave the EU - feel like that mostly because of the types of laws the UK has to implement, like allowing free movement of people...at some point, Romanians, Bulgarians, and all newer EU members will be able to move freely into the UK, whatever their circumstances.

Most likely, the UK would be able to opt into bi-lateral (immigration) agreements with the old EU countries (i.e. France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, some other countries) where migration for study and work purposes is very necessary, but the UK could opt-out of agreements with other EU countries, such as Poland, Romania, and (when they all join, at some point), Croatia, Albania, etc etc etc. Old EU countries would probably want to make these agreements, because of the vital necessity of City of London businesses, high education opportunities, and greater economic development opportunities for both parties

I am a supporter of the EU as an economic and political bloc which would be powerful enough to be united and have a voice of its own and to be heard in decision making process instead of having to live in a unipolar world with numerous small countries having multiple voices that will not be heeded by the more powerful country(ies).

That said, there a lot of things about it that I do oppose, one of which is the rapid expansion and integration of the current EU with member states with economies with such glaring deficiencies. Neither am I a fan of countries outside the EU given many of its previlages whether it be the EFTA or Switzerland without actually being a part of the EU.

The UN does issue Laissez-passer "passports" to its staff, stateless people and others. If the Canadian finacee had a UN passport she'd be allowed into the UK (which accepts the UN document). In fact, it's pretty easy to get a UN document and that's one of the dodgy ways to come and stay here legally (though a lot of people don't know about it). You can go one step further and get a UN diplomatic passport. There are several African countries that "sell" their diplomatic posts. Pay enough and you can represent Tinpotistan at the UN. Diplomatic bag privileges are the icing on the coke (pun intended). I'm not expanding on this as it's not to be encouraged, and no PMs on this subject will get a reply

Wasnt aware of it. Thanks for the info. But still, are millions eligible for such "passports"? Also, do you think that a comparion of such passports to the ones issued by the EU member states is a valid one?

[Docterror]

Why was that a sign of weakness, particularly?

What is the point in being a part of an organisation if you could get all the benefits without being a part of it? If the EU must gain more power it should stop extending such previlages to countries who are not willing to commit.

[Docterror]

There may be many advantages to being part of the EU

Just out of curiousity, what exactly are the advantages of being a part of EU according to eurosceptics?