- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, Amber, archigabe, batleykhan, ca.funke, ChetanOjha, EUsmileWEallsmile, JAJ, John, Obie, push, geriatrix, vinny, CR001, zimba, meself2, Administrator
Does this qualify me to marry her?
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.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 wrote:I think you mean you have a British passport, don't you?
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.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.
In fact most of the format of passports is laid down by international agreement.Docterror wrote: 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?
United Kingdom nationals for European purposes are British citizens, British overseas territories citizens connected to Gibraltar, and British subjects with Right of Abode.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.
Other organisations have common-format passports too, including Mercosur and Caricom.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.
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...JAJ wrote:In fact most of the format of passports is laid down by international agreement.
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.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.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (a UN agency) is closely involved with international passport standards, eg for machine readable and biometric passports.Docterror wrote: I do not think that it is international agreements solely that decides the format of passports.
Many British citizens would prefer to have a government that looked after British interests first, not constantly worrying about what the EU thinks.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.
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.Many British citizens would prefer to have a government that looked after British interests first, not constantly worrying about what the EU thinks.
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.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 really do not think that the UK immigration forum is the right place to get the sort of information that would answer these questions.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?
If the marriage is considered as being legal by Canadian authorities, then it will be valid in the UK as well.And if I get married in Canada, will the marriage be valid in the UK?
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.Docterror wrote: 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.)Docterror wrote: 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?
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.... 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.
So why is this BMW more expensive here than it is in the US?best of luck trying to get an BMW .... at an affordable price due to the taxes
JAJ wrote:or go on holiday to France/Spain than it would be to go on holiday to Canada,
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.Christophe wrote: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
JAJ wrote:it would be no harder to buy a BMW or Swiss chocolate ...buy Australian wine, or New Zealand lamb.
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.Christophe wrote: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
That wouldn't be strong - that would be petty.Docterror wrote: 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
Why was that a sign of weakness, particularly?Docterror wrote: ...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
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).sakura wrote: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
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?OL7MAX wrote: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