EU limits Irish Government's 'sham marriage' investigations

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