New UK marriage regulations from 1st February

£135 visa fee beats the pants off what it costs to stay in France for 40 days to meet their requirements!

1) But to make you get a visa if you don't intend to settle? Doesn't that seem rather stupid?

It doesn't seem stupid to me. There are all sorts of visas, for all sorts of reasons. If someone wants to enter the UK, they need to be honest, and they need to have a valid reason for coming here. The new regulation is entirely consistent with this.

2) Bogus marriages will simply take place abroad instead.

Bogus marriages aren't like normal marriages. If you don't let people get...er...bogusly married in the country they're trying to sneak citizenship of, then the whole bogus marriage tends to fall apart.

3) It is not up to the UK to say who can and cannot marry. Is it at the point that a foreign spouse applies for permission to stay in the UK that those that are felt to be bogus applications should be weeded out.

It is up to the UK Government, if you're a furriner and want to get married in Britain. As of February 1st I think this could be an effective deterrent to people thinking of entering the UK for their bogus marriage. Much simpler and cheaper to keep people out in the first place than to try and chase them down to kick then out afterwards.

4) The destination wedding industry will be very hard hit by this hysterical new law in response the stories in The Sun.. Imagine two Americans or Canadians dream of marrying in a Scottish castle.

I'm imagining. And shivering

But I'm not worried about the destination wedding industry. If Glen and Glenda (not their real names) are organised and wealthy enough to hire a Scottish castle for their wedding, I am confident they'll manage the paperwork and the £135 visa fee.

Btw, Ratlover, I noticed you're a new member.  Welcome to UKY!  Hope you find it as welcome a refuge as many of us do - it's wonderful to find a place where we can be ourselves.  Can't wait to read more about you in your introduction post in the Welcome Wagon section.   

I think if it was my dream to marry in a Scottish castle and I had to fill out some paperwork for a visa, I would.  A dream is a dream.  You either want it or you don't. 

You can legally marry elsewhere, like City Hall, then have a reception or some type of affirmation ceremony in the castle.

Bogus marriages aren't like normal marriages. If you don't let people get...er...bogusly married in the country they're trying to sneak citizenship of, then the whole bogus marriage tends to fall apart.

But this visa is not for people who are trying to become citizens of the UK. It is a marriage visitor visa. It is for people who plan to make a short trip to the UK to get married, maybe do a little sightseeing, then go back to wherever they came from. If you want to get married in the UK and settle there, you have to get a fiance visa, which I don't think most people object to.

[ But I'm not worried about the destination wedding industry. If Glen and Glenda (not their real names) are organised and wealthy enough to hire a Scottish castle for their wedding, I am confident they'll manage the paperwork and the £135 visa fee.

I don't know the rules for applying for this visa, but generally applying for a visa involves providing lots of personal information, such as financial statements, proof that you have someone in the UK willing to sponsor your visit, proof of a place to stay, proof of an ongoing relationship, etc.  Why would the fact that a couple is wealthy mean that they would be willing to submit to this invasion of their privacy?

Look if I was going to get married in some other country I would expect to have to do certain things I might not be asked to do here. If you get married in certain states of the US you have to provide a blood sample which seems like a massive invasion of privacy if you ask me.  It is not like the UK is asking people to renounce their religion or anything, as some countries do.  It is an inconvenience, yes. And an expense, yes. But an invasion of privacy? Hardly.

Well, looking at this practically, in the last twenty years people have started to travel ALOT more and are meeting more and more people from other countries.  On top of that there is the whole internet thing.  More people than ever are coming here to get married.  And man, do we know from this site that alot of people come here  without going through  the proper channels, get married and then try to sort it out.  The government had to come up with a way to address this.  This is what they came up with.  It makes sense to me.

Isn't any visa an invasion of privacy?  That's the entire point!  They want to know who they allow in. 

If someone has the dosh to fly all the way to Scotland for a castle wedding, I'm sure applying for a visa isn't going to be that big of a deal.  Why do people get all hysterical about visas?  I was worried about getting mine, just like anyone else but there was no reason to worry about it.  And if you have nothing to hide, do what you have to do and quit whinging about it.

It does make sense if one of the members of the couple is British, but I don't see why there should be a requirement for two foreigners to get married here.   

That's an excellent point. The gov't is entitled to think up taxes to gain revenue. It's like any other kind of license (driving, hunting, etc.), which is to say a fund raiser.

well, that's just a way to make a few bucks.  I guess I don't really have a problem with that either.  

snap, lightbulb

Look if I was going to get married in some other country I would expect to have to do certain things I might not be asked to do here. If you get married in certain states of the US you have to provide a blood sample which seems like a massive invasion of privacy if you ask me.  It is not like the UK is asking people to renounce their religion or anything, as some countries do.  It is an inconvenience, yes. And an expense, yes. But an invasion of privacy? Hardly.

Being required to provide any type of personal information is an invasion of privacy.  Having to fill out your personal financial information on your tax forms is an invasion of privacy. The thing is, sometimes it's worth it to give up a little bit of privacy in exchange for certain benefits.  (If nobody paid their taxes, how would the trash collectors get paid? If we didn't get searched at the airport, what would prevent someone getting on the plane with a weapon?)  In the case of providing personal information for a destination wedding, there is hardly any benefit gained in exchange for the loss of privacy.  You're not getting the benefit of being able to settle in the country. You're not getting the benefit of being allowed to have a ceremony when you wouldn't be allowed otherwise. (You can still have a non-legally binding ceremony.)

I think it's important to remember the point of preventing sham marriages in the first places--it's to keep people from coming into the country and taking resources away from those who are there legally: getting public benefits, taking jobs away from legal residents, etc. If the people who are getting married aren't going to stay in the country, then there's no problem.  There are already restrictions in place to keep people from settling in the UK without the proper visa. It's illegal settlement that is the problem, not illegal visiting.

As for the government's being allowed to raise revenue, funds have to obtained in a  fair and reasonable manner. Just because the government needs money, it can't take it from wherever it wants.  It can't place a special 10 percent tax surcharge on red-headed women who eat pistachio ice cream, for example.

You know, as long as other people aren't affected financially (by illegal employment, illegal government benefits, etc.) it really isn't the government's business whether a marriage is "real."  As long as we obey the law and pay our taxes, if my (hypothetical) husband and I, as consenting adults, want to have separate apartments, while I bonk the pizza delivery boy and he has sex with prostitutes, it's really nobody's  business but our own.

It's their business if  you came here under a visa to marry  a UK citizen.  And it's up to them to require you to live as a married couple.   Otherwise,you're here under false pretenses aren't you?  You came to shag the pizza delivery boy, not live as a married couple.  It's the same as having an arrangement with a  UK citizen in order to settle here.  You only have to read this forum for five minutes to know that there are alot of people who want  to move to the UK.
You seem to be looking at this in a perfect world scenario-that you can go where you like, do what you like, get married where you like and not be answerable to any government.  It doesn't  work that way.  They make the laws.  And unless they  are completly unfair or draconian,  then we just put up and shut up-or we don't go to that particular place. 
I'm not seeing what the big deal is.
People want to get married in the UK.  The government wants to not only keep track of who's getting married, but possibly make a buck while doing it.  Why is that so terrible?

Ideally, the purpose of a government is to make sure contracts are enforced, protect people's property and financial interests (the point of preventing illegal immigration), and to ensure that people have the ability to be healthy (making sure everyone has access to food, housing, healthcare, clothing) and safe (preventing people from hurting each other).

That's it.

Just because the government does more than that, doesn't make it right. (You'll find very few people who agree with everything their government does.)

By the way, I deleted the latter part of my previous post because I agree that as long as the government is involved in marriage, then it does have the right to restrict marriages to an extent, and the idea of both people living separately is a bit too much. However, the government does not have the right to judge whether or not two people should be married based on whether or not they are in love with each other. That's way too personal.

Once again, the government has the right to make a buck.  It does not have the right to make a buck in an unreasonable or unfair manner.  Those of you who think the government has the right to take extra money simply because it needs it, why don't you donate an extra hundred pounds to Inland Revenue?