Apply the precautionary principle to leave to remove cases

Around 1200 families each year are affected by a situation where the parent with care (normally the mother) wishes to leave the UK taking their children with them.

Often the child is too young to express his/her views let alone have those views determine whether leave is given to the mother to remove the child.

Sometimes the child objects entirely to the move but the mother is still able to remove the child, away from his/her father and extended family, school and life.

The secrecy of the family courts stops us from finding out exactly what happens to the families involved but it is clear that children generally need and want both their parents in their lives and ae much more likely to suffer long term damage if this is not possible.

I think that there should be a law that places a bar to international relocation with children of a family until such point that the child is deemed competent and wishes to go.

Until the child is competent, the presumption should be that it would be in the child's best interests to remain in the UK – where they were born and raised, where there extended family and father are, where they go to school and have a life – as the least disruptive and best option for their future wellbeing.

There should be an assumption that the child's best interests are served by regular staying contact with both parents.

This application of the precautionary principle might result in a parent wishing to relocate anyway – without the child. But if it is clear from the outset that they won't be able to easily take the children of a family with them, then perhaps they would adjust their own life choices before the situation arises.

This leads to one last point, there should be a legal assumption that, where separated mothers and fathers both provide care under a shared residence and where there is no doubt that either parent could meet the child's education, physical, psychological and emotional needs, that should one parent wish to relocate to another country, then the child lives with the parent who remains in the UK.

Get rid of the Payne v Payne in the lives of thousands or children who are threatened with leave to remove and forcibly removed from the UK and narrow the judicial discretion that allows 95% of mothers who apply to remove UK-born children from the country.

Why is this idea important?

Around 1200 families each year are affected by a situation where the parent with care (normally the mother) wishes to leave the UK taking their children with them.

Often the child is too young to express his/her views let alone have those views determine whether leave is given to the mother to remove the child.

Sometimes the child objects entirely to the move but the mother is still able to remove the child, away from his/her father and extended family, school and life.

The secrecy of the family courts stops us from finding out exactly what happens to the families involved but it is clear that children generally need and want both their parents in their lives and ae much more likely to suffer long term damage if this is not possible.

I think that there should be a law that places a bar to international relocation with children of a family until such point that the child is deemed competent and wishes to go.

Until the child is competent, the presumption should be that it would be in the child's best interests to remain in the UK – where they were born and raised, where there extended family and father are, where they go to school and have a life – as the least disruptive and best option for their future wellbeing.

There should be an assumption that the child's best interests are served by regular staying contact with both parents.

This application of the precautionary principle might result in a parent wishing to relocate anyway – without the child. But if it is clear from the outset that they won't be able to easily take the children of a family with them, then perhaps they would adjust their own life choices before the situation arises.

This leads to one last point, there should be a legal assumption that, where separated mothers and fathers both provide care under a shared residence and where there is no doubt that either parent could meet the child's education, physical, psychological and emotional needs, that should one parent wish to relocate to another country, then the child lives with the parent who remains in the UK.

Get rid of the Payne v Payne in the lives of thousands or children who are threatened with leave to remove and forcibly removed from the UK and narrow the judicial discretion that allows 95% of mothers who apply to remove UK-born children from the country.

Withdraw from unfair extradition treaties

Withdraw from extradition treaties with the USA. Current arrangements are demonstrably and grossly biased in favour of the US. The treatment of the 'NatWest Three' underlines the point. UK citizens should always be fairly treated. 

Withdraw from the EU arrest warrant scheme until such time as proper arrangements have been put in place to ensure that British citizens are not at risk of being arrested abroad as a consequence of mistaken identity, and we are satisfied that there is no risk of miscarriages of justice in respect of those who may be arrested under these warrants.

 

Why is this idea important?

Withdraw from extradition treaties with the USA. Current arrangements are demonstrably and grossly biased in favour of the US. The treatment of the 'NatWest Three' underlines the point. UK citizens should always be fairly treated. 

Withdraw from the EU arrest warrant scheme until such time as proper arrangements have been put in place to ensure that British citizens are not at risk of being arrested abroad as a consequence of mistaken identity, and we are satisfied that there is no risk of miscarriages of justice in respect of those who may be arrested under these warrants.

 

Remove restrictions on issue of EEA family member residence cards

Amend Part 3 of The Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 so that residence cards compliant with Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC are issued to  non-EEA spouses/civil partners of uK citizens when they are issued with UK identity cards and are granted leave to remain in the UK. The issue in particular should include non-EEA spouses/partners originating form countries listed in Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001.

Why is this idea important?

Amend Part 3 of The Immigration (EEA) Regulations 2006 so that residence cards compliant with Article 10 of Directive 2004/38/EC are issued to  non-EEA spouses/civil partners of uK citizens when they are issued with UK identity cards and are granted leave to remain in the UK. The issue in particular should include non-EEA spouses/partners originating form countries listed in Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001.

YOU MUST SEEK ASYLUM IN THE FIRST SAFE COUNTRY YOU COME TO

You must seek asylum in the first safe country you come to.

Lets implement this law.

It is a European law that was set up to prevent the problems that this fine country has had with imagration.

Think about how much money this country would save if we implemented this law.

The law was set up to stop the camps in calais where illegal immagrints gather to run through into our country.

Why?

Because the last time i checked France was a safe country.

Infact to get to the UK through Europe these people have to travel thousands of miles through europe to soft touch britain as we are affectionatly known throughout the world.

The french dont have a massive problem with immagration, neither do the germans the dutch, the reason being soft touch britain will look after these people better than any other country in europe.

I am all for genuine illegal immigrints who are fleeing pursecusion to be allowed to stay in the UK. As long as we are the first safe country they come to.

So what i am proposing is simple. STICK TO THE LAW. If you traveled here through Europe then you are more interested in getting to Britain than fleeing pursecusion as the french DO NOT pursecute anyone.

So if they come through our airports and they can prove this let them stay if they are genuine. If not dont.

This will save this country an absolute fortune and give some extra money to the good people of this country who pay their taxes all their lives and get treated like second class citizens behind ungenuine asylum seekers who only want Britain not just to stay alive.

Why is this idea important?

You must seek asylum in the first safe country you come to.

Lets implement this law.

It is a European law that was set up to prevent the problems that this fine country has had with imagration.

Think about how much money this country would save if we implemented this law.

The law was set up to stop the camps in calais where illegal immagrints gather to run through into our country.

Why?

Because the last time i checked France was a safe country.

Infact to get to the UK through Europe these people have to travel thousands of miles through europe to soft touch britain as we are affectionatly known throughout the world.

The french dont have a massive problem with immagration, neither do the germans the dutch, the reason being soft touch britain will look after these people better than any other country in europe.

I am all for genuine illegal immigrints who are fleeing pursecusion to be allowed to stay in the UK. As long as we are the first safe country they come to.

So what i am proposing is simple. STICK TO THE LAW. If you traveled here through Europe then you are more interested in getting to Britain than fleeing pursecusion as the french DO NOT pursecute anyone.

So if they come through our airports and they can prove this let them stay if they are genuine. If not dont.

This will save this country an absolute fortune and give some extra money to the good people of this country who pay their taxes all their lives and get treated like second class citizens behind ungenuine asylum seekers who only want Britain not just to stay alive.