*** Please note I am not Mark Wadsworth ***
From The Times:
Lord Justice Thorpe said that any rule that prenuptial contracts are void seemed “to be increasingly unrealistic” and “reflects the laws and morals of earlier generations”. He added: “As a society we should be seeking to reduce and not to maintain rules of law that divide us from the majority of the member states of Europe.You what?
Who gave you, an unelected judge the right to choose to bring about further European integration? Who gave you the right to decide that pre-nups are something we want in this country? I couldn't really care less about pre-nuptial agreements, but the law should be based on the society we want, not that of any other country and agreed by us, the people.
What happens if someone comes before this judge who has had sex with a 15 year old? Can he argue that because the majority of member states have an age of consent around that figure that he should be let off? Or what about someone who owns a handgun? Will they be let off because most of the EU allows them?
They might be venal scumbags, but the correct place for changing the law is parliament. And they might come up with some stupid laws about smoking in pubs and dangerous dogs, but parliament is still the right place to change the law.
5 comments:
I don't think that there is an actual statute that says pre-nuptial agreements can't be binding.
It is the whole legal system itself that doesn't like pre-nup's because they deprive lawyers and meddling civil servants of the power to make people's lives a misery for years.
Well, if that sets a precedent then it's goodbye the hunting ban.
MW: "I don't think that there is an actual statute that says pre-nuptial agreements can't be binding."
It is simply a matter that one agreement takes precedent, Make another agreement at a later date, in this case an actual marriage ceremony, that now overrides the previous contract.
In principle I can't see a problem with pre-nuptial agreements.
The idea, as I understand it, is to agree the division of propertycare of the children (and perhaps more) upon the event of divorce. That is an agreement or contract that both parties are free to accept or walk away from when it is signed. It is the individualist's solution to marriage. Instead, as things stand, we have the state determining what is a fair marriage contract and what is the fair arrangement of property and access after divorce.
Now, you may be right about the provenance of the device but given the general statist direction of the EU, pre-nuptuals seem to point the other way. I understand someone disliking a thing based on principle but not on its provenance.
What's really improper is the way that the state reserves the right to alter the marriage contract retrospectively. At least the pre-nup remains what it was when two willing adults signed it.
Post a Comment