EU limits Irish Government's 'sham marriage' investigations

free to prosper

Am I the only one who finds it incredible that the EU will continually interfere in the details of a state's legal system?

This time the EU wants to prevent Ireland investigating and acting against sham marriages so people can enter and stay in our state under false pretenses.

Ireland should be allowed to stop sham marriages and abuse of the system, the EU should not interfere.
Another reason not to hand over more power to the EU institutions don't you think?

IRISH GOVERNMENT investigations into “sham marriages” must not encroach on European citizens and their non-EU spouses’ right to move freely in the EU, say new guidelines.

The guidelines due to be published tomorrow by the European Commission also say the same fundamental right of free movement in the EU also applies to non-EU partners in “durable relationships” who are not married.

The guidelines have been drawn up in response to complaints voiced by Ireland and Denmark following a landmark ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 2008 in the Metock v Ireland case.

This test case was taken by four married couples living in Ireland who faced deportation. In each case the four EU citizens married asylum seekers, whose request for leave to remain in the Republic was subsequently rejected by the Minister for Justice. The Government argued unsuccessfully that it should be allowed to deport non-EU spouses who had not lived in another EU state prior to arriving in Ireland, to combat “marriages of convenience”.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009
JAMIE SMYTH European Correspondent
EU sets limits on Government's 'sham marriage' investigations
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0701/1224249839443.html

PopeBuckfastXVI

Thread title is inaccurate, the EU is not 'preventing' investigations, merely stating no government should encroach on the rights of movement of people in legitimate marriages and 'durable relationships', which I would think is the opposite of 'sham marriages'.

Edit to add this quote from the article:

The commission leaves it up to member states to set a time period under which a partnership can be considered durable. Some campaigners may be concerned that this will allow states to continue to refuse some non-EU spouses leave to stay in the country.

But the guidelines say other criteria must be taken into account, such as whether a couple has a joint mortgage.

All seems pretty reasonable to me...

free to prosper

Under most legal systems - and certianly under the Irish constitution

a durable relationship - is not necessarily a marriage.

Ireland should be free to define what a marriage is in Ireland, don't you think?

PopeBuckfastXVI

free to prosper wrote: »

Under most legal systems - and certianly under the Irish constitution

a durable relationship - is not necessarily a marriage.

Ireland should be free to define what a marriage is in Ireland, don't you think?

No, not where it impinges on consenting adults rights to form and keep relationships.

Mena

Ireland has been flouting EU rules i.r.o. marriages to foreign nationals, residency rights and the freedom of movement principle for ages now. It's about time they were taken to task for it.

This does not curtail the governments ability to weed out the sham marriages, of which I am sure do happen, it simply sets out the limits the government can go to to oppress these people for having the audacity to widen the gene pool.

free to prosper

Irish people passed a divorce referendum in 1995.
The outcome of this can be practically circumvented by going to another EU state under an EU regulation Brussels II.

A few years ago a leading Irish expert on EU family law has accused the Govenment of misleading the people over the effects of a binding EU regulation on the Irish family law system.

In the Dail, Minister Brian Cowan claimed Ireland had complete power in family law and the EU exercised no competence in this matter.
However, leading Irish expert on EU Family Law, Geoffrey Shannon said that the Taoiseach had “failed to paint a full picture.” Mr Shannon stated the Taoiseach had “failed to tell the people about the effect of the ‘Brussels II’ regulation.”

This Brussels II regulation which is binding on all EU states, means that that divorces obtained in other EU member states must be recognised in Ireland. Irish people who can claim ‘permanent residence’ in another EU states may obtain a divorce there under that state’s laws.

“Therefore, for any minister to says divorce law or family matters is still a matter for Irish courts alone would be untrue,” he said. “This EU regulation has a direct impact on the Irish family law system. It introduces ‘quickie’ divorce by the back door, making divorce-planning and forum-shopping a reality for Irish people.”

Mr Shannon said the Irish Government had “earlier passed up an opportunity to opt out of this binding EU regulation as Denmark had done. The Irish Government failed to opt out and instead opted into the ‘communitarisation’ of Irish family law. There was not even a debate about the substance of this matter in the Dail or Seanad.”

The origin of this regulation derives from a change brought in under the Treaty of Amsterdam which was followed up later by the EU Commission. According to Dr Shannon, the “Irish Constitutional position is undermined by Brussels II and by the opt in of the Government, effective since March 2000.” The Brussells II regulation, he said “rewards the party who litigates earlier, thus mitigating against mediation and counselling.” It allows, he said “the practical circumvention of the Irish four year wait for divorce rule, and instead rewards the party who legally strikes first.”

In a further development, a more recent EU regulation on family law,known as Brussels IIbis allows foreign courts to decide on the custody of Irish children involved in divorces obtained in other EU states.

I would severly question any reassurance given in the Dail by politicians like Brian Cowan that the Irish people have complete power to decide their own affairs and social policies.

This recent action by the EU confirms that stance.

PopeBuckfastXVI

free to prosper wrote: »

This recent action by the EU confirms that stance.

Seems completely unrelated to me...

Also, I'm glad that we can't force divorced people from England to remarry if they move to Ireland.

Maybe I just don't understand that old Catholic mindset that it's way better for other people to interfere in people's private relationships, or lack thereof, than to just live and let live...

free to prosper

It comes down to this:

Irish people, and those in other states, should be able to decide family law and social policies without the opposition or interference of EU institutions.

Voting no to Lisbon retains more power with the nation states in the EU.

PopeBuckfastXVI

free to prosper wrote: »

It comes down to this:

Irish people, and those in other states, should be able to decide family law and social policies without the opposition or interference of EU institutions.

In your opinion. In mine I think membership of the EU should come with certain obligations of the member state's government not to oppress either it's own citizens, or citizens of other EU states resident there.

Then, I'd imagine, when it comes down to it, you probably would rather we weren't in the EU at all, so the point is probably moot.

free to prosper wrote: »

Voting no to Lisbon retains more power with the nation states in the EU.

But still has no affect on family law?

oscarBravo

free to prosper wrote: »

Irish people passed a divorce referendum in 1995.
The outcome of this can be practically circumvented by going to another EU state under an EU regulation Brussels II.

Clear this up for me: is it your position that an Irish couple, permanently resident in another EU member state, who get divorced in that member state, should be considered married in Ireland? That Ireland should not recognise divorces from other states?

Mena

free to prosper wrote: »

It comes down to this:

Irish people, and those in other states, should be able to decide family law and social policies without the opposition or interference of EU institutions.

While, in general, I would agree with this, it's been proven that they're incapable of handiling it really. Four years to get a divorce? What is this? 1745? It's shameful.

If this change makes "quickie" divorces possible, as you claim, then I'm all for it. People need to be able to move on with their lives.

Anyway, how did we go from Sham marriages to quickie divorces?

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Clear this up for me: is it your position that an Irish couple, permanently resident in another EU member state, who get divorced in that member state, should be considered married in Ireland? That Ireland should not recognise divorces from other states?

I'd still like an answer to this.

Scofflaw

free to prosper wrote: »

It comes down to this:

Irish people, and those in other states, should be able to decide family law and social policies without the opposition or interference of EU institutions.

Voting no to Lisbon retains more power with the nation states in the EU.

Are you very worried about the new competences on energy, space, and sport, then?

cordially,
Scofflaw

carveone

Mena wrote: »

Ireland has been flouting EU rules i.r.o. marriages to foreign nationals, residency rights and the freedom of movement principle for ages now. It's about time they were taken to task for it.

Agree. I was trying to help a couple in 2007, she was Spanish, he was Brazilian with Spanish residency, they had been married for two years. He was told by various employers he couldn't work here and when I inquired I got all sorts of bull from various people. INIS said he needed a green card (taking 6 months) and when I questioned that (with regard to the Legislation section on their website - which says you need to work within 6 months) they told me to eff off (two fingers and she walked away from me). The Department of Work and something said he needed a work permit (costing over a grand). Noone was consistent.

Writing to the minister at the time quoting SI 656 of 2006 I got a reponse that I was confusing a Statutory Instrument with an Act of the Oireactas having legislative effect or something (then why is it on the inis web site?).

Plus he (Lenihan I think) added that these people all have sham marriages in order to gain entry to the state. Which is essentially telling me to eff off again. Great. At that point the couple had given up and left so I thought it was pointless quoting Article 41 of the Constitution at them...

KINGVictor

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Thread title is inaccurate, the EU is not 'preventing' investigations, merely stating no government should encroach on the rights of movement of people in legitimate marriages and 'durable relationships', which I would think is the opposite of 'sham marriages'.

Edit to add this quote from the article:


All seems pretty reasonable to me...

Still doesn't excuse the fact that the EU and all its various apparatus consistently encroach on national laws.I have always reiterated that the concept of the EU as an economic body is laudable but when it decides to be political then it will surely lead to its demise.

A lot of folks can come on here and argue endlessly and pedantically about how great the EU concept is without realising and admitting its obvious shortcomings.

IT is a fact that if a non eu citizen overstayed in Ireland for example and was caught and ...subsequently deported to his/her country of origin.That individual could effectively return legally...under EU laws in a matter of days ( if he/she marries an EU citizen)..

thereby bypassing the Irish Immigration laws that forbids such a person entry for at least 10 years...and same applies to all EU countries.That is absolutely stupid TBH...

PopeBuckfastXVI

KINGVictor wrote: »

That is absolutely stupid TBH...

In your opinion. In mine it is perfectly reasonable that an EU citizen can have their spouse live anywhere with them in the EU.

This doesn't just apply to Ireland. There are plenty of Irish people married or in relationships with non EU citizens, and they should have the right to move anywhere in the EU with their partners, in my opinion, and it seems, in the opinion of the governments of the member states of the EU.

You could argue it on the purely economic basis of the restriction free freedom of movement of labour, but the EU always has been, and always will be more than just an economical union.

View

KINGVictor wrote: »

Still doesn't excuse the fact that the EU and all its various apparatus consistently encroach on national laws.I have always reiterated that the concept of the EU as an economic body is laudable but when it decides to be political then it will surely lead to its demise.

A lot of folks can come on here and argue endlessly and pedantically about how great the EU concept is without realising and admitting its obvious shortcomings.

Well speaking personally, I am fully aware that the EU has shortcomings. That is part of the reason why I welcome efforts to reform it, efforts such as the Lisbon Treaty.

Likewise, I also am fully aware that Ireland itself has shortcomings. I'd welcome if we made an effort to reform it too!

I certainly am not about to become a Unionist just because of Ireland's shortcomings, anymore than I am going to become a Eurosceptic just because the EU has shortcomings also.

As the old saying goes - it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote:

Still doesn't excuse the fact that the EU and all its various apparatus consistently encroach on national laws.

What does "encroach" mean, though? The EU isn't something separate from the member states - it's a system for joint decision-making. What you're saying is that you find it outrageous that the member states agree together laws that they then follow.

KINGVictor wrote:

I have always reiterated that the concept of the EU as an economic body is laudable but when it decides to be political then it will surely lead to its demise.

Should be dead by now, then. It's always been a political body, with an over-riding political purpose. The common market is the result of the political purpose behind the EU, not the point of it.

KINGVictor wrote:

A lot of folks can come on here and argue endlessly and pedantically about how great the EU concept is without realising and admitting its obvious shortcomings.

I wish it were possible to have a discussion about the shortcomings of the EU that didn't simply serve as ammunition for eurosceptics. Unfortunately, it isn't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

netron

free to prosper wrote: »

Am I the only one who finds it incredible that the EU will continually interfere in the details of a state's legal system?

This time the EU wants to prevent Ireland investigating and acting against sham marriages so people can enter and stay in our state under false pretenses.

Ireland should be allowed to stop sham marriages and abuse of the system, the EU should not interfere.
Another reason not to hand over more power to the EU institutions don't you think?



Wednesday, July 1, 2009
JAMIE SMYTH European Correspondent
EU sets limits on Government's 'sham marriage' investigations
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0701/1224249839443.html

after Lisbon is passed, you can say bye bye to anti-abortion laws. just watch the cases being sent to the ECJ in the "charter of fundemental rights". It'll be a lawyers feast.

disagree? no. i'm actually a pro-choice kind of person.

democratic? nah. certainly not. not a good idea when lawyers start ruling society rather than your elected representatives.

K-9

netron wrote: »

after Lisbon is passed, you can say bye bye to anti-abortion laws. just watch the cases being sent to the ECJ in the "charter of fundemental rights". It'll be a lawyers feast.

disagree? no. i'm actually a pro-choice kind of person.

democratic? nah. certainly not. not a good idea when lawyers start ruling society rather than your elected representatives.

I'm sure cannibas will be introduced here under the same idea.

netron

K-9 wrote: »

I'm sure cannibas will be introduced here under the same idea.

experiment is already happening in Portugal.

K-9

netron wrote: »

experiment is already happening in Portugal.

By ECJ Direction?

Any links on the background as you've caught my interest?

Scofflaw

netron wrote: »

after Lisbon is passed, you can say bye bye to anti-abortion laws. just watch the cases being sent to the ECJ in the "charter of fundemental rights". It'll be a lawyers feast.

disagree? no. i'm actually a pro-choice kind of person.

democratic? nah. certainly not. not a good idea when lawyers start ruling society rather than your elected representatives.

It's interesting that many No proponents are quick to deny that abortion was an issue for No voters, while other No voters make it extremely clear that it is an issue for them.

What's bizarre, though, is that Ireland's abortion stance has very specific protection in the treaties, through the Protocol on 40.3.3.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

By ECJ Direction?

Any links on the background as you've caught my interest?

I presume he's referring to Portugal's decriminalisation of cannabis in 2001. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it's not under ECJ direction in any sense - in fact, it's rather a good demonstration of the way that something can be legal in one member state and illegal in another.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

I presume he's referring to Portugal's decriminalisation of cannabis in 2001. Perhaps unsurprisingly, it's not under ECJ direction in any sense - in fact, it's rather a good demonstration of the way that something can be legal in one member state and illegal in another.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Jaysus, don't let the facts get in the way now.

free to prosper

(copied from another thread, in response to a request from me to answer the question I posed in post #10 - oB)

I have already give my answer earlier.

It is for the Irish people alone to decide the family and social laws to be applied in their country.
It is the right of other people to decided the family and social laws of their states.

For future reference - I answer questions while and only when I feel like it. I won't be twisted into a position that I don't actually hold.

oscarBravo

free to prosper wrote: »

I have already give my answer earlier.

It is for the Irish people alone to decide the family and social laws to be applied in their country.
It is the right of other people to decided the family and social laws of their states.

That's not an answer. That's an evasion.

For future reference - I answer questions while and only when I feel like it. I won't be twisted into a position that I don't actually hold.

It seems to me you don't answer questions much at all. Posting your views and refusing to discuss them is called "soapboxing", and is against the forum charter.

So, once again: is it your view that Ireland should consider people married who have legally divorced in another jurisdiction?

View

free to prosper wrote: »

(copied from another thread, in response to a request from me to answer the question I posed in post #10 - oB)

I have already give my answer earlier.

It is for the Irish people alone to decide the family and social laws to be applied in their country.
It is the right of other people to decided the family and social laws of their states.

For future reference - I answer questions while and only when I feel like it. I won't be twisted into a position that I don't actually hold.

As a matter of interest, in your opinion, do Irish people have the right to decide that their Government can sit down and reach common agreement on family and social laws with the Governments of the other member states should they so choose? Or the people not allowed to make such a decision?

After all, most of the electorate would probably accept that if an Irish couple living in France get a divorce there, that they shouldn't have to get re-divorced should they move back to Ireland, and that recognising the divorce under French law might be the smart way to go. And since, should that should the couple be, let's say an Irish-Spanish couple living in Germany who got married in France, it might be better to have a common EU agreement on what standards should apply in such a case rather than insisting that the courts of the 27 member states engage in pointless "turf wars" over what laws are applicable in such a case just because you object to the 27 member states actually sitting down and making such agreements.

djpbarry

KINGVictor wrote: »

I have always reiterated that the concept of the EU as an economic body is laudable but when it decides to be political then it will surely lead to its demise.

How exactly can an economic union function without political oversight?

free to prosper

Irish people should decide for themselves their own family and social laws, just the same way as other state should. It's called diversity.

Do I think the people should decide?
Yes I do. The people - not the political class - who rarely represent the views of the people.
I don't believe the EU should have any competence over the whole range of family and social issues.

I am disgusted the way they have practically circumvented the Irish people's 1995 Divorce referendum decision.
The people decided, it should not be dismissed in the name of EU political union or integration.

PopeBuckfastXVI

free to prosper wrote: »

Do I think the people should decide?
Yes I do. The people - not the political class - who rarely represent the views of the people.

What people? Obviously not the majority, who vote for the 'political class', perhaps it's more like person, or you?

So basically not enough people think like you to elect politicians you like, therefore those politicians don't represent your views, that's democracy for you...

oscarBravo

free to prosper wrote: »

Irish people should decide for themselves their own family and social laws, just the same way as other state should. It's called diversity.

Do I think the people should decide?
Yes I do. The people - not the political class - who rarely represent the views of the people.
I don't believe the EU should have any competence over the whole range of family and social issues.

I am disgusted the way they have practically circumvented the Irish people's 1995 Divorce referendum decision.
The people decided, it should not be dismissed in the name of EU political union or integration.

I'm confused. Does this mean that people who divorce outside of Ireland should be considered legally married in Ireland, or not?

View

free to prosper wrote: »

Irish people should decide for themselves their own family and social laws, just the same way as other state should. It's called diversity.

Do I think the people should decide?
Yes I do. The people - not the political class - who rarely represent the views of the people.

Very good. Only the people decided (by approving the ((Irish) Constitution) that we would have a system of representative democracy. This results in a "political class" who - in the case of the Government - are explicity authorised (in the constitution) to represent the people of Ireland in international relations, such as the EU and other bodies.

The people are also free in elections to change the members of the "political class" if they are unhappy with the views that are representing.

Basically, you don't accept our democratically approved Constitution and/or the right of the people to decide to choose politicans who they believe do represent their views.
.

sceptre

Mena wrote: »

While, in general, I would agree with this, it's been proven that they're incapable of handiling it really. Four years to get a divorce? What is this? 1745? It's shameful.

It is. It's one of the things I didn't want to see enshrined in the constitution so I voted against the last divorce referendum, though it hurt me a little to do so. I was pleased that it was passed though.



Looking at the thread as a whole (or at least the earliest bits and most recent bits from various posters), to my knowledge we've recognised foreign divorces since we officially banned divorce ourselves in 1937. Because divorce was legal but disallowed between 1921 and 1937 (the pre-1921 law hadn't changed) we recognised foreign divorces between 1921 and 1937. Before 1921 we recognised foreign divorces as part of the UK. So that "loophole" has always been there and its existence has never had anything to do with the EEC/EU or our membership of it. Anyone who actually thinks that people capable of securing a divorce in a foreign country should have to get one here too just to double up is looking to set a new reality as it's not something anyone has ever had to do before.

What Brian Cowen (edit: or, at a quick glance, perhaps the other guy) doesn't appear to understand, judging from the text reposted by the OP is that the Brussels II regulations (there are two by the way, one from 2000, one from 2003) addresses only issues of jurisdiction, not of fact. In other words, it doesn't make rulings - it says who gets to. So it doesn't create rules about what should have happened in Lawrence v Lawrence (English case where a wife married in Brazil and got divorced in nevadeqa which was recognised in Nevada but not in Brazil - that was all about divorce recognition, interesting to read for anyone who feels the urge) or Schwebel v Ungar (Canadian case, too long to describe but alao worth a read, also all about jurisdiction).

But I'm a bit confused about what all this has to do with the original post, apart from also involving a bit on marriages and jurisdiction. The issue here as stated is the ability of the EU to "interfere" in national and subnational affairs. The question is whether they should be allowed to do that or not, in other words, is that a good thing or a bad thing (and no, one can't assume it's automatically a bad thing, that's part of the discussion). It's the same question the Americans face every few yearss with the Federal Government v Power To the States argument. It's cool to throw out a bit of interference but if someone's going to propose this to be a bad thing, it helps their own case if they throw up a pile of other examples where the EU "meddle" or "interfere" or "stick their unwarranted oar in". Those in favour of village governments, those in favour of super-Brussels-control and everyone in between would get a better discussion out of it.

Then, I'm assuming that was really the point. It was, wasn't it? Because that's what I assumed the first post was really about, just using the sham marriage thing as an example to start a case from. If it wasn't, then just ignore my last two paragraphs.

KINGVictor

djpbarry wrote: »

How exactly can an economic union function without political oversight?

I never mentioned economic union...???...economic body like nafta in north america...YES.

The European union was meant to be an economic bloc to harness the economic potentials of member countries in other achieve collective gains...when politics comes into it...bad situation.

I agree with you that contextually there cannot be economic progress without political will but the EU has basically strayed beyonds its original design and now been used a political experiment between the polarized Franco/German vs the Anglo axis...historically all sides have not worked well with each other( and I am not referring to the 2nd world war) but recently as the Iraq war ,terrorism,Nato,relations with russia etc.

The Eu views Iran as a potential threat to world peace but France has various contracts with the Islamic regime in respect of their Nuclear project.The British govt supported the Iraq war while France and Germany didnt.Some people want Turkey in the EU...alot dont.Some polish MPs described Obamas election as the end of the white mans civilisation,some think that Homosexuality is an abomination and some believe that Global warming is a myth.


The EU should conceptually stick to its original framework...which was to increase economic prosperity and integration ...trying to be like the USA politicallywould be impossible.

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

I never mentioned economic union...???...economic body like nafta in north america...YES.

The European union was meant to be an economic bloc to harness the economic potentials of member countries in other achieve collective gains...when politics comes into it...bad situation.

I agree with you that contextually there cannot be economic progress without political will but the EU has basically strayed beyonds its original design and now been used a political experiment between the polarized Franco/German vs the Anglo axis...historically all sides have not worked well with each other( and I am not referring to the 2nd world war) but recently as the Iraq war ,terrorism,Nato,relations with russia etc.

The Eu views Iran as a potential threat to world peace but France has various contracts with the Islamic regime in respect of their Nuclear project.The British govt supported the Iraq war while France and Germany didnt.Some people want Turkey in the EU...alot dont.Some polish MPs described Obamas election as the end of the white mans civilisation,some think that Homosexuality is an abomination and some believe that Global warming is a myth.


The EU should conceptually stick to its original framework...which was to increase economic prosperity and integration ...trying to be like the USA politicallywould be impossible.

The EU was never intended to be a purely economic union. Really, people should read up on its history before they say that kind of thing, because it's completely false.

The origin of the EU is the ECSC - the European Coal and Steel Community. Why coal and steel? Because they were the necessary materièl for warfare. The whole intent was to prevent European wars by bringing the European powers closer together - coal and steel were a means to that end, not an end in themselves. That's a completely political aim.

Similarly, the common market was created to bring European countries closer together. Prosperity is a nice side-effect. By the time the EC created the common market in the Eighties the EU and predecessors had been in existence for a generation.

The whole point of the EU is closer relationships between European countries and their peoples - the "ever closer union" that's been the very first phrase in the preamble to every European treaty since Rome in 1957:

"DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"

That's what it's about. That's the whole point, that drawing together of Europeans so that they don't fight each other ever again. The economic stuff is secondary. The EU has always been political.

historically,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

Scofflaw wrote: »

The EU was never intended to be a purely economic union. Really, people should read up on its history before they say that kind of thing, because it's completely false.

The origin of the EU is the ECSC - the European Coal and Steel Community. Why coal and steel? Because they were the necessary materièl for warfare. The whole intent was to prevent European wars by bringing the European powers closer together - coal and steel were a means to that end, not an end in themselves. That's a completely political aim.

Similarly, the common market was created to bring European countries closer together. Prosperity is a nice side-effect. By the time the EC created the common market in the Eighties the EU and predecessors had been in existence for a generation.

The whole point of the EU is closer relationships between European countries and their peoples - the "ever closer union" that's been the very first phrase in the preamble to every European treaty since Rome in 1957:

"DETERMINED to establish the foundations of an ever closer union among the European peoples,"

That's what it's about. That's the whole point, that drawing together of Europeans so that they don't fight each other ever again. The economic stuff is secondary. The EU has always been political.

Well summarised.

I suspect that the representation of the community as a purely economic one comes mainly from the UK, where successive governments have focused on that dimension and tried to ignore or downplay all the concomitants.

Outline history here: http://europa.eu/abc/history/index_en.htm which includes the early days of the union here: http://europa.eu/abc/history/1945-1959/index_en.htm It's presented in a very simple style.

Imbolc57

According to the ERSI 200,000 Irish will have to emigrate in the years ahead and last year as many as 70,000 may have done so.
Eurostat though shows that the Irish population grew by 56,000 last year and by 67,000 in the year before.
If these figures are true then it means that 126,000 people came to live in Ireland last year, reckless figures when one considers the state of our society and the export of our own best and brightest.
One can only suppose that it’s a “let them in policy” to fill up the vacant houses and ghosts estates; come what may.
With a government like this, our future if we have one, looks grim indeed.

Scofflaw

Imbolc57 wrote: »

According to the ERSI 200,000 Irish will have to emigrate in the years ahead and last year as many as 70,000 may have done so.
Eurostat though shows that the Irish population grew by 56,000 last year and by 67,000 in the year before.
If these figures are true then it means that 126,000 people came to live in Ireland last year, reckless figures when one considers the state of our society and the export of our own best and brightest.
One can only suppose that it’s a “let them in policy” to fill up the vacant houses and ghosts estates; come what may.
With a government like this, our future if we have one, looks grim indeed.

Please don't dig up old threads like this. If you have something sufficiently new to say, you can start a new thread. In this case, though, your starting material is too thin for a new thread either.

moderately,
Scofflaw