Let’s give all newlyweds an escape route just in case they hit the rocks

WHAT with emails, texts, mobile phones and Facebook, when the postman arrives it’s almost always to deliver us a bill or yet more junk mail.

One tradition has survived the electronic revolution more or less intact, though: to receive a wedding invitation through the post is usually a thrill, a day to look forward to. The only concern is having something to wear.

Perhaps you’ve had the same experience as me, though. A good friend tells you he or she is marrying that totally unsuitable person they met what seems like only weeks ago. You hadn’t realised it had gotten so serious so soon.

Alternatively, one morning, there on the doormat is an invitation to the wedding of that couple who are forever arguing, forever breaking up and making up. What they really need is to put the relationship out of its misery, but they’ve done the opposite and you fear the worst.

And then, eventually, the happy/unhappy day comes around and as you’re posing for the photos, an awful thought crosses your mind: “How long’s this one going to last?”

The freedom to do silly things is an important one, but when children are involved it becomes a lot more serious. Either way, it will almost certainly be a very costly process: you’re whole standard of living could change overnight.

In America, of course, couples are protected against the worst financial aspects of divorce by prenuptial agreements. There, such things are legally recognised and are routinely incorporated not only into the unions of Hollywood’s filthy rich but also those of the modest middle classes with a vision of the future that involves keeping a roof over their eventually broken hearts.

On this side of the Atlantic, we remain squeamish about the prenup. It is unromantic, we say, mindful always that there are unkind words for women — or men, come to that — who negotiate a price for the sharing of a bed.

But since when was divorce ever romantic? And against the backdrop of a case being heard by the British Law Lords about a divorce obtained in the Isle of Man, it might be time for the Irish courts to reconsider their position, too.

The Manx case is the first time so high a legal authority in Britain has been asked its opinion on prenuptial agreements since 1929.

Millionaire Roderick MacLeod ended his 10-year marriage to wife Marcia after she had an affair. The American couple had recorded a prenup when they married in Florida in 1994, and the agreement was twice amended in later years, most of which were spent on the Isle of Man where they had five sons.

Arguing the prenup should be enforced, Mr MacLeod wanted to give his former wife the total of £1.89 million specified in the agreement. But Mrs MacLeod asked for £5.6m, consisting of 30% of her husband’s wealth before they married and 50% of what he had made since.

Her legal team argued she had been pressured to sign the agreement, that her legal advice had been inadequate and her future husband had not disclosed all his assets. The judge disagreed with her claims, but did not enforce the agreement, ruling that she was entitled to a greater sum to pay for her housing needs.

Under British and Irish law, prenuptial agreements are only taken into account by the courts, but are not legally binding. Certainly, a precedent will be set if Mr MacLeod wins his court battle, which British judges would be bound to follow.

The ruling is expected within weeks and will be closely studied in Ireland following last year’s report commissioned by former Minister of Justice Michael McDowell which recommended a change in the divorce laws here to require the courts to have regard to existing prenuptial agreements when making financial relief orders in judicial separation and divorce proceedings.

Now that, 13 years on from the referendum, there are more than 60,000 divorced people in the State, and with more than 20,000 marriages being entered into every year, this is a matter of interest to a not inconsiderable number of people. The promise made by the Government to act should be made good.

Change of circumstance requires change of response, and a single generation has presided over a sea change in attitudes towards divorce.

If anyone is in any doubt about the scale of the social change, it’s worth bearing in mind there were just 95 divorced people out there at the time of the referendum. You were more likely to live near a practicing Satanist than a divorced person.

Separation, on the other hand, is as old as time and was always taken to be the fault of the man. Today, by contrast, it is generally assumed that many new marriages will, unfortunately, end in divorce and the blame will be slung in every direction. The mucky financial consequences may adversely affect either or both parties.

I know a woman who was earning more than her husband prior to their break-up. She now lives in dramatically reduced circumstances having had to sell up her home to pay off her husband after his lawyers argued it was his nurture and support that had allowed her to build her business. In essence, the argument in divorce settlements is one of earnings; of rewarding labour with appropriate payment, fixing a fee for the job.

Would you wait until after starting work in a new office to haggle the salary for the job? Of course you wouldn’t. But people marry on the principle that we don’t determine the job’s worth until after it is done.

It is certainly true that elements of some prenuptial agreements in the US are tacky: a specified number of dollars per proven adultery, for instance.

THERE would need to be proper safeguards, too. For an agreement to be enforceable it would have to be in writing and only made after both partners had received separate legal advice well before the intended marriage.

This does not mean, however, that it would be impossible to devise an outline agreement that could become a standard precaution at the start of any and all modern marriages. None but the exceptionally starry-eyed or the foolhardy can possibly look at the statistics and say with confidence that it could never happen to them.

Besides, if they do end up in one of the marriages that are not parted until death, what will they have lost by signing that silly little slip of paper all those long and happy years ago?

It might even encourage more people to enter long-lasting relationships which are better for society in general. (Hint, hint, Minister Dermot Ahern: get a move on with the civil partnerships legislation).

As for the accusation that prenuptial agreements are unromantic, isn’t it best to hope for the best and prepare for the worst?

We don’t refuse to take out life insurance because it might bring bad luck, or not take out insurance against theft because it assumes the worst about human nature. So why would we not want to sort these things out when we’re in love rather than when we’re at each other’s throats already?