Government trying to amend law on non-EU spouses' rights

Government trying to amend law on non-EU spouses' rights

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/fro ... 15927.html

THE GOVERNMENT is trying to amend European law to make it more difficult for the non-EU spouses of EU citizens to obtain the right to live in Ireland.

It has teamed up with Denmark to put the controversial issue on the agenda of a meeting of EU justice ministers in Brussels this Thursday.

Several other member states are also expected to support amending a key 2004 EU directive, which bolsters the rights of EU citizens and their family members to move and freely reside within the EU.

The emergency debate proposed at the Council of Ministers in Brussels follows a landmark judgment issued by the European Court of Justice in July.

Europe's highest court ruled the Government should not prevent spouses of EU citizens who are not themselves EU citizens from living in Ireland in the so-called "Metock" case.

Metock was one of four plaintiffs that challenged "intent to deport" notices issued against him by the Department of Justice even though he was married to an EU citizen.

In each of the four test cases ruled on by the court, the couples were married in the Republic and the non-EU national husbands had all unsuccessfully applied for asylum here.

The Government argued it should be allowed to deport non-EU spouses to better control immigration into the EU and combat "marriages of convenience". But the court dismissed its concerns ruling the Irish authorities had improperly transposed a 2004 EU directive on freedom of movement and was unfairly deporting the spouses of EU citizens.

The ruling is forcing the Government to review the cases of more than 1,500 spouses of EU citizens who were refused residency rights on the basis they were non-EU nationals. It has also been forced to amend its own national regulations transposing the EU directive into Irish law and to begin a wider review of the judgment's full implications.

Several other EU states have also expressed serious concern at the ruling with Denmark, in particular, forcefully arguing that the 2004 EU directive should be redrafted.

They can moan all they want, they need to understand directives or laws before they sign up to it, no need making noise now.

First-Class Moron wrote:They can moan all they want, they need to understand directives or laws before they sign up to it, no need making noise now.

So once made, a law is in place indefinitely even if it turns out to be a bad idea or people change their mind about it.

Whatever kind of government that may be it is not democracy and if the EU were to collapse, it would in part be due to this kind of inflexibility.

JAJ wrote:

First-Class Moron wrote:They can moan all they want, they need to understand directives or laws before they sign up to it, no need making noise now.

So once made, a law is in place indefinitely even if it turns out to be a bad idea or people change their mind about it.

Whatever kind of government that may be it is not democracy and if the EU were to collapse, it would in part be due to this kind of inflexibility.

Read it before you sign up to it, dont start crying over spilt milk because you got defeated due to your wrong interpretation of the law, change it by all means but then you also loose credibility, you telling me that with all the money government spends that they could not employ competent barristers to advice on implications before signing up to the directive.

First-Class Moron wrote:Read it before you sign up to it, dont start crying over spilt milk because you got defeated due to your wrong interpretation of the law, change it by all means but then you also loose credibility, you telling me that with all the money government spends that they could not employ competent barristers to advice on implications before signing up to the directive.

One of the problems with this is that circumstances change. In ordinary circumstances, the government of a country can amend the law in response to such changes.

I agree that governments sometimes seem to be lax in thinking through implications of things, but even with the best advice there can, on occasions, be unintended consequences. Again, in the normal run of events, a government can make changes accordingly.

The one thing I find unbelievable is that some governments

• First do not think and sign up to something.
• Then not like what they signed up to and subsequently ignore the law.
• Next try to change it as quickly as possible to their liking, ignoring their obligations with (effectively) the argument that "it will be changed soon"

As a consequence we have a situation where governments knowingly and deliberately ignore current valid laws

I would suggest the following:

• Use the brain BEFORE signing up to something
• After signing up (for whatever reason), obey the law.
• If the law does not have the expected effect, of course it can/should be amended.
• But UNTIL it IS effectively changed, it MUST be obeyed.

At current some governments seem to respect laws at will. That is -politely said- not a very desirable situation.

ca.funke wrote:The one thing I find unbelievable is that some governments

I find it unbelievable to see how so many nations are content to let so much of their economic and social legislation be dictated from Brussels, Paris and Berlin.

JAJ wrote:

ca.funke wrote:The one thing I find unbelievable is that some governments

I find it unbelievable to see how so many nations are content to let so much of their economic and social legislation be dictated from Brussels, Paris and Berlin.

it is simple. they all want the euro!

JAJ wrote:I find it unbelievable to see how so many nations are content to let so much of their economic and social legislation be dictated from Brussels, Paris and Berlin.

Eerrgghh - is that supposed to justify what they do, or am I getting you wrong here?

The main point I'm trying to make is that governments are free to sign up to anything. EU-membership, directives etc...

...but once signed up, which they do voluntarily, I think they should stick to the laws and not pick the parts they like and ignore others.

If you don't want any of this - don't join. (Such as Norway, Switzerland, San Marino, Monaco, Andorra...)

As from what I've seen I'd be quite happy if Ireland would leave the EU. I'm pretty confident they could broker a "leave"-deal. But -remembering the latest anti Lisbon campaign- they want to keep their "claw" in Europe.

And what a lovely claw they have

With all the uncertainties within the global economy any country contemplating leaving the EU would be commiting economic suicide. Ireland needs Europe, investments and being a member of a big trading bloc come with immense benefits especially when you have the new kids on the block namely China, India, Brazil etc. They can't pick and choose what they like or dont like about directives. Yes they can change laws but it's their responsibility to adhere to what they signed up to.

ca.funke wrote:

JAJ wrote:
If you don't want any of this - don't join. (Such as Norway, Switzerland, San Marino, Monaco, Andorra...)

Norway, San Switzerland......... to Iceland. They all signed up in some way. They might not be Full EU member but they are the member of the EEA. The people from the countries you have mentioned, they benefit in some way from the Union.

In Ireland, just forget about the Irish gov want this and that from EU in money point of view. I dont know were you in Ireland few years ago when Mary Hearny said it in the public. May be Ireland is closer to Berling geographically, but Ireland is closer to Washington in their mind. few years back, i dont think the Irish gov wanted to piss off the americans.

the other thing you must understand here. the irish themself dont really understand law themself. for good example. GNIB suppose to know the immigration law themself. they were trying to a nigerian family and czech family few years ago when the GNIB turned them down for asylum. but the 2 families have irish born child as family member. at the end, the high court over turned the GNIB deportation order. look how stupid that was, so whatever they mentioned in EU about amending the existing directives. that just show that they making the same stupid approach like they have done in ireland.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/wor ... tml?via=mr

Europe is pissed off with the Irish diddling

mktsoi wrote:Norway, San Switzerland......... to Iceland. They all signed up in some way. They might not be Full EU member but they are the member of the EEA. The people from the countries you have mentioned, they benefit in some way from the Union...

Yep - they participate in different ways they deem fit. As a consequence these countries (can and want to) obey all laws that are applicable in their jurisdictions.

Unlike Ireland. The government suggests being a full member of the EU when it comes to collecting funds from Brussels, but when not liking a law they just ignore it.

What Ireland does is simply ILLEGAL.

When someone knowingly and deliberately breaks the law, (s)he is a criminal. This is exactly what applies here.

First-Class Moron wrote:They can moan all they want, they need to understand directives or laws before they sign up to it, no need making noise now.

well done boss great understanding of the legislative process there, if, and bear in mind if its a big if, the major 4 players of the EU were to listen to countries like Denmark and Ireland then the directive as we know will be no more, and redrafted in a way that metock will never happen again. it is after all the council (member states) who have the real power in legislation

Christophe wrote:

First-Class Moron wrote:Read it before you sign up to it, dont start crying over spilt milk because you got defeated due to your wrong interpretation of the law, change it by all means but then you also loose credibility, you telling me that with all the money government spends that they could not employ competent barristers to advice on implications before signing up to the directive.

One of the problems with this is that circumstances change. In ordinary circumstances, the government of a country can amend the law in response to such changes.

I agree that governments sometimes seem to be lax in thinking through implications of things, but even with the best advice there can, on occasions, be unintended consequences. Again, in the normal run of events, a government can make changes accordingly.

i would love to see how many treaties, laws etc your country has passed before it realised they were bad ideas. you would swear france or germany have never gone to EU HQ over an issue similar to this before

its not like the directive became law with a unamnoius vote . wonder what would britian think? or even sarozy since he pled to deal with ill immigrants

some times, one may not be able to see future head aches a provision may cause

JAJ wrote:

ca.funke wrote:The one thing I find unbelievable is that some governments

I find it unbelievable to see how so many nations are content to let so much of their economic and social legislation be dictated from Brussels, Paris and Berlin.

well at times, the social legislation dictatorship from European courts and legislation has being a good thing , more rights than what may be given domestically,

I am seriously shocked of the attitude of some people in here.

I do not support 2004/38/EC the way it is laid out right now, if I was the "king of the EU" I would implement major changes. But that aside, the directive is binding law at present, and governments arbitrarily ignore the law.

Not only is there no outcry, the ignorance of the law is even protected and justified

Of course the law can and should be criticised and subsequently amended through a democratic process, but that doesn't change that at present it is valid as it is, making any breach an illegal act and if this is done knowingly and deliberately that's even worse.

I somehow remain hoping that there is a general consensus that laws in general should be obeyed...

walrusgumble wrote:its not like the directive became law with a unamnoius vote .

If I'm not mistaken, all decisions in the EU are taken unanimously at present. That was one of the main things that should have been changed by the Lisbon treaty.

Consequently, countries have two options to stop directives: They can except themselves from directives, as well as block them in their tracks. The UK (and their devote followers in the Dáil) did not make use of this possibility as far as 2004/38/EC is concerned.

Only now, as corresponding applications stream in, they read the fine-print.

walrusgumble wrote:

Christophe wrote:

First-Class Moron wrote:Read it before you sign up to it, dont start crying over spilt milk because you got defeated due to your wrong interpretation of the law, change it by all means but then you also loose credibility, you telling me that with all the money government spends that they could not employ competent barristers to advice on implications before signing up to the directive.

One of the problems with this is that circumstances change. In ordinary circumstances, the government of a country can amend the law in response to such changes.

I agree that governments sometimes seem to be lax in thinking through implications of things, but even with the best advice there can, on occasions, be unintended consequences. Again, in the normal run of events, a government can make changes accordingly.

i would love to see how many treaties, laws etc your country has passed before it realised they were bad ideas. you would swear france or germany have never gone to EU HQ over an issue similar to this before

its not like the directive became law with a unamnoius vote . wonder what would britian think? or even sarozy since he pled to deal with ill immigrants

some times, one may not be able to see future head aches a provision may cause

Not sure which country you think is "my country", but it's not France or Germany...

I'm not really sure either what you're meaning...

ca.funke wrote:I am seriously shocked of the attitude of some people in here.

I do not support 2004/38/EC the way it is laid out right now, if I was the "king of the EU" I would implement major changes. But that aside, the directive is binding law at present, and governments arbitrarily ignore the law.

Not only is there no outcry, the ignorance of the law is even protected and justified

Of course the law can and should be criticised and subsequently amended through a democratic process, but that doesn't change that at present it is valid as it is, making any breach an illegal act and if this is done knowingly and deliberately that's even worse.

I somehow remain hoping that there is a general consensus that laws in general should be obeyed...

I agree with you as far as it goes. Further, I think it is very bad indeed that individual people are adversely affected and put in a state of stress and uncertainty as a result of all of this disorder and lack of clarity.

But — and I'm not defending law-breaking by governments when I say this — this is a good example of the sort of mess that the EU project is liable to find itself in more and more if the EU tries to implement things over the heads of governments, particularly if (as in this case) the things they try to implement are partly unworkable. There seems to me to be a growing democratic deficit at the heart of the EU, whereby decisions are taken with very little consultation with the people of the EU, and enormous pressure is put on countries to "sign up" or agree.

What other democratic organisation, for example, would even think of trying to tell a people who had voted "no" in a referendum that they got it wrong and therefore need to vote again. I know that's not the official line, but it seems to be a loud message. It's an unwise message too, since it is likely to have the opposite effect, should there be another vote, from that which is intended. I am not in Ireland, so I don't pretend to know the real reasons why people voted against the Lisbon treaty in the numbers that they did: probably no one really does, I guess. I do strongly suspect that if other governments had been brave enough to (or had had to) have a referendum on the treaty it would have been rejected by more than just one country. But that's not really the point: you can't just tell people all the time, "It's got to be this way because that's what's good for Europe."

Well, in fact, you can tell them that, but if you keep doing it, the whole thing will surely fall apart eventually. In the case of the subject of this thread, for whatever reason, several countries have decided that they want to retain, or regain, more control over who can live within their borders. Because there seems to be a lack of any sensible way of discussing this (can't have that — it's not "European"; the EU has decided...; etc), a stalemate is being approached. I'm not commenting on whether these countries are right or wrong to want to regain this control, but clearly that is what they want. (And I don't suppose that these countries want to prevent the entry to live of all family members of EU citizens... I think we sometimes assume that this is the case, but I don't think it is.)

As I say, there seems to me to be a democratic deficit somewhere at the heart of the EU. This worries me, because if this problem is not resolved, I see only two outcomes: the unravelling of the EU as we know it, or a gradual diminution in the democratic credentials of the member states. The first would be messy and protracted, the second disastrous. My own view is that the EU itself would do well to recognise this problem and act to resolve it, before it finds that the problem is "resolved" for it. I have no doubt that the most likely outcome of this present débacle will be some sort of stitch-up, which will enable everyone to limp along again for a while, but a cloth can take only so many stitch-ups before it finally tears.

In the mean time, it is individual people who suffer, as we know from reading the stories on these boards if in no other way. I reiterate that I am not defending law-breaking on the part of governments, but this whole situation worries me very much: the EU and the national governments are failing their citizens (and the family members of their citizens) in my view (even though I am sure it is in an unfashionable view).

walrusgumble wrote: well at times, the social legislation dictatorship from European courts and legislation has being a good thing , more rights than what may be given domestically,

It is not a sign of national self-confidence and healthy democracy if citizens feel that they will get more "rights" from a foreign organisation than from their own democratically elected representatives.

"Rights" cannot be held in isolation. One person's "rights" may infringe on another's, and who should decide where the balance should lie?

ca.funke wrote:

walrusgumble wrote:its not like the directive became law with a unamnoius vote .

If I'm not mistaken, all decisions in the EU are taken unanimously at present. That was one of the main things that should have been changed by the Lisbon treaty.

Consequently, countries have two options to stop directives: They can except themselves from directives, as well as block them in their tracks. The UK (and their devote followers in the Dáil) did not make use of this possibility as far as 2004/38/EC is concerned.

Only now, as corresponding applications stream in, they read the fine-print.

then you are mistaken if you refer to ALL decisions. Regulations and Directives at this moment are created either by qualified majority voting or unanimous. To be fair, you may be right on this issue, as this would probably fall within teh Justice and Security pillar which some require unaminous voting, but then some, via amsterdam and nice are now under the EU pillar (qmv)

but yes i agree, no doubt, ireland beign pretty pro europe and a yes man in council (check previous eurobarometers for proof) probably passed this blindly and without question. i do agree with ye on the fact that as of now metock stands and what has happened re reg 3.2 is wrong

JAJ wrote:

walrusgumble wrote: well at times, the social legislation dictatorship from European courts and legislation has being a good thing , more rights than what may be given domestically,

It is not a sign of national self-confidence and healthy democracy if citizens feel that they will get more "rights" from a foreign organisation than from their own democratically elected representatives.

"Rights" cannot be held in isolation. One person's "rights" may infringe on another's, and who should decide where the balance should lie?

true. very true you do have to also look squarely at the legislators

it is all fine and well , but one the reason Ireland is as liberal today is becasue of some good men in the irish supreme court in the 1960's and the european court of justice and human rights court, of course some great dáilers too. examples of europe include norris (removing criminal offence on gays), or cases in relation to detention of certain groups in the north during internment.

our constitution is strong enough to creat new rights, just sometime the conversative pro state (cough cough) supreme court judges. all though the charter on fundamental rights was not really needed in lisbon, as our laws cater for this , as does European convention and international convenant on civil and political rights, as does children's charter, it would still be nice to have.

wow

That's a surprise to me.

so now they will bend the laws just because a "judgement" did not go their way.


*I would like to see Ireland kicked out of the EU
The way they treated immigrants.

*That's my personal opinion.

anyway I don't think Ireland will be hotspot for migrants any more.

Irish economy goes into recession
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7635426.stm

runie80 wrote:wow

That's a surprise to me.

so now they will bend the laws just because a "judgement" did not go their way.


*I would like to see Ireland kicked out of the EU
The way they treated immigrants.

*That's my personal opinion.

anyway I don't think Ireland will be hotspot for migrants any more.

Irish economy goes into recession
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7635426.stm

it is not like ireland is the first eu state to try and amend or make new legislation to change the opinion of the courts in europe! what happens if countries such as germany etc agree with this? what will you think of them then?

Do you really think if Asia had a union similar to the eu, some countries would not look into it. unfortunately for the geniune people, particularily those who had legal status on their own accounts, sham marriages has caused a urgent need for eu members state to at review the flow of non eu citizens into the union. maybe there should be a requirement of a relationship / marriage of at least etc 2 years prior to application...
(under no circumstances need one reply justifying themselves, i am not attacking any of ye, the dept was obviously satisifed with ye when cases were reconsidered)


if one comes to ireland or any eu state to apply for asylum, that is all, that is there basis for entering, not to resettle or marry etc. if they are granted status fine, they must stay but otherwise, the eu would be a laughing stock.

as for ireland being kicked out of the union? well they way things are going with other eu states rejecting and ignoring the irish people's vote against lisbon, i would say many irish (although wrong, despite lisbon) would not mind leaving eu, considering its sucking up the usa. you might want to remind yourself that you seem to have done ok for yourself in ireland, not to mention actually getting into th eu via the backdoor. how would have the other eu states treated your case or those of metock etc? the same? would they have had to go to court?