In what could be the start of yet another pitched battle between the judiciary and the Government, the Supreme Court caused pandemonium at the Home Office by ruling all of its immigration rule changes since 2008 unlawful because they had not been scrutinised by Parliament. A hasty putting together of the myriad of jobs which may or may not qualify for residence followed, to be put before the House of Lords – the Commons were already on their jollies.
The bombshell followed the putting forward of further new rules that would have imposed a minimum earnings rule for those wanting to marry a non-EEA (European Economic Area) national and bring their loved one into the country. Nothing outrageous about that, you might think: except that the earnings level was set at £18,600! It does not take a genius to figure out that Ms May and co have no real idea what people in this country actually have to live on; or what the minimum wage is, for that matter.
Comments on the story included one relating how an MP thought a full-time week's pay on minimum wage represented part-time work. For the information of that MP, and Ms May, the minimum wage of £6.08 per hour would realise the princely sum of £12,646.40 per annum for a 40-hour week – less tax and NI.
Introducing the new rules, Home Secretary Theresa May told the Commons: "...we will introduce new tests to ensure family migrants can speak English, understand our history and respect our values." Our values, indeed: speak for yourself!
A perusal of the news site of the European Court of Justice makes entertaining reading. The sheer volume of arcane and frankly unfathomable rulings adds both to the feeling that there is something inherently pointless to the EU, and to a sense of admiration for those 27 unfazeable individuals who sit through the stuff week in week out. One classic – featured in the Expert Witness World News section of this website – concerned the suitability of directives on seed marketing for their purpose. Apparently they are, so now you know.
The court recently decided it needed more judges, to broaden its expertise and to lighten the load in the light of an increasing backlog of cases. Foolishly, it asked for 12 more. Now 12 might be the precise number needed, but it doesn't divide by 27, the number of Member States. It doesn't even give half-a-judge each, so they can alternate. There is, of course, therefore no chance of getting an agreement on whom to appoint. Maybe they should have asked for another 27, or appointed some of the experts from this site's Expert Witness Directory.
Chris Stokes