Are we there yet? Your second Travel Megathread (threadbans in OP}

Hulk Hands

pjohnson wrote: »

YOU can travel. YOU choose not to because YOU dont want to pay the fine.

Unless you are "populist FF" own YOUR decision.

This really reminds me of that poster in the pubs thread who kept repeating over and over again for months that pubs were open and he had enjoyed beautiful tasty Guinness

Valhallapt

pjohnson wrote: »

You cannot travel without paying for flights.

so its a tax on flying out of Dublin airport?

Tazz T

pjohnson wrote: »

YOU can travel. YOU choose not to because YOU dont want to pay the fine.

Unless you are "populist FF" own YOUR decision.

Is this the official government line on the reasons behind renewing the legislation on the ban on non-essential travel yesterday?

Wallander

I've just submitted my complaint to the EU. I mentioned the lack of public health justification for the fine, as I'm sure the government will revert back to the 'Ireland is a special case with low Covid rates' argument. This is BS - Leinster is red on the latest EU Covid travel map, yet I cannot leave there to go to any of around 40 regions in Europe currently yellow or green:

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/situation-updates/weekly-maps-coordinated-restriction-free-movement

Valhallapt

Valhallapt wrote: »

Yes I do, in 1992 Ireland voted in favour of the Maastricht treaty which guaranteed my European citizenship and enshrined my right to travel, live and work in any part of the eu.

Are we to start to unpick other referendums as you don’t like them?

Well first off, it does not mention tourism. You can look, it's not there.

You can live and work in another nation but it does NOT anywhere, say that you cannot be prevented from leaving.

That treaty, despite limited googling, places no obligations on the country you wish to leave. It only refers to allowing people in for the purpose of work and living from other eu nations. Not tourism either.

Don't forget that little bit of the constitution "save in accordance with law".

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

The thing is, Niner, that Ireland has limited ability to preclude actual travel out of the country (especially for non-Irish residents) on the basis of freedom of movement (I know you’ve disputed this but I’ve cited the treaty articles) abject to serious public security or health matter. Leaving the country is not a challenge to Ireland’s public health. Returning to Ireland would be. This is effectively acknowledged by the government failing to enact a travel ban but leaving a fine for travel to an airport or port (with intent to travel).

There is a practical aspect to letting people leave as they will want to come back and that is when the hard cases get newspaper space. The fact is that there is no higher risk in certain areas than in Ireland. The travel ban is not a practical measure at this stage.

The thing is Marcus, as others countered, you misrepresent the treaties. There is no golden rule guaranteeing the right to a holiday or even the right to leave. You know this, I know this. This is why multiple borders have been closed over the last year. The freedom of movement is not absolute and refers to accepting oncoming migrants. Not outgoing tourism.

Secondly, why muddy the water? No non resident is being denied permission to return home so why are you mentioning it?

Third, yes the legislation is specific and there is no argument here. The simple facts, the state is not stopping people leaving. So again, even accepting your view of freedom of movement, it's not being denied.

Again, my own views aren't coming into this. It is what it is regardless of if I like it or not.

FlubberJones

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The thing is Marcus, as others countered, you misrepresent the treaties. There is no golden rule guaranteeing the right to a holiday or even the right to leave. You know this, I know this. This is why multiple borders have been closed over the last year. The freedom of movement is not absolute and refers to accepting oncoming migrants. Not outgoing tourism.

Secondly, why muddy the water? No non resident is being denied permission to return home so why are you mentioning it?

Third, yes the legislation is specific and there is no argument here. The simple facts, the state is not stopping people leaving. So again, even accepting your view of freedom of movement, it's not being denied.

Hopefully people can leave sooner rather than later... and I expect a mass departure, the absolute joke of staycations should be stopped dead in its tracks.

FlubberJones

FlubberJones wrote: »

Hopefully people can leave sooner rather than later... and I expect a mass departure, the absolute joke of staycations should be stopped dead in its tracks.

People already can. I remain baffled why this is so confusing for people.

A fine after the fact for committing an act that absolutely no person in the country can physically prevent you from doing.

munchkin_utd

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

People already can. I remain baffled why this is so confusing for people.

A fine after the fact for committing an act that absolutely no person in the country can physically prevent you from doing.

So a fine of €8000 for a family of 4 to take a spin abroad, on top of their travel and accomodation costs, is not something that is preventing them from travelling ?
Really?

Valhallapt

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Don't forget that little bit of the constitution "save in accordance with law".

Nowhere in the constitution does it say the government can arbitrarily detain its citizens.

Ireland is not North Korea. We have rights and freedoms and the ability to exercise and defend those rights and freedoms. Recent amendments to the constitution clarified the right to travel, you are clearly like the ability to deny children the right visit their elderly parents, but the constitution does not provide for that, sorry.

Valhallapt

Valhallapt wrote: »

Do they have to power to question and detain. Can I just ignore them and walk passed them? Do they need to prove intent to travel, or do I need to prove that travel is essential? Do gardai have the ability to define what is essential?

Yes, no, yes, yes and yes

Valhallapt

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

People already can. I remain baffled why this is so confusing for people.

A fine after the fact for committing an act that absolutely no person in the country can physically prevent you from doing.

By your logic: if we fined kids €2000 for going to school it would have no impact on their right to an education?

Valhallapt

Valhallapt wrote: »

Nowhere in the constitution does it say the government can arbitrarily detain its citizens.

Ireland is not North Korea. We have rights and freedoms and the ability to exercise and defend those rights and freedoms. Recent amendments to the constitution clarified the right to travel, you are clearly like the ability to deny children the right visit their elderly parents, but the constitution does not provide for that, sorry.

Correct. Not at all relevant as again, the constitution allows for the government to pass laws and no one is being arbitrarily detained.

No, it did not. Please quote this travel amendment to the constitution.

Again, neither myself or any other person are denying anyone that right or ability.

Please refrain from getting personal and emotional.

Valhallapt wrote: »

By your logic: if we fined kids €2000 for going to school it would have no impact on their right to an education?

It would discourage as is part of the reason for all financial penalties but it does not amount to prevention. Again, all fines be it court imposed penalties or tickets. The events that result in them cannot logically have been prevented if you then get punished for performing them.

The murder victim is still dead even if you are punished but perhaps there's less murders as a result of the possible punishment.

I really don't understand this line of arguing though. It's not personal opinion, it's just reality. I feel like I'm trying to argue gravity with someone that wants to fly.

FlubberJones

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

People already can. I remain baffled why this is so confusing for people.

A fine after the fact for committing an act that absolutely no person in the country can physically prevent you from doing.

I'm not confused I'm bring realistic, the ludicrously high 2k fine is the restriction.

Valhallapt

Valhallapt wrote: »

Nowhere in the constitution does it say the government can arbitrarily detain its citizens.

Ireland is not North Korea. We have rights and freedoms and the ability to exercise and defend those rights and freedoms. Recent amendments to the constitution clarified the right to travel, you are clearly like the ability to deny children the right visit their elderly parents, but the constitution does not provide for that, sorry.

'in accordance with law'
Rights in the constitution are protected, except in accordance with law, when they can be temporarily suspended.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

'in accordance with law'
Rights in the constitution are protected, except in accordance with law, when they can be temporarily suspended.

He denies this it seems.

FlubberJones

FlubberJones wrote: »

I'm not confused I'm bring realistic, the ludicrously high 2k fine is the restriction.

Ah, a clear distinction. The likely fine on return restricts people via financial means but it does not actually prevent. They can still travel.

The justification of the fine, the amount being high are all subject to personal opinion. I'm not offering mine in any of this. I merely point out the cold, hard reality of the situation.

munchkin_utd wrote: »

So a fine of €8000 for a family of 4 to take a spin abroad, on top of their travel and accomodation costs, is not something that is preventing them from travelling ?
Really?

Nope, it's a financial decision that may or may not be feasible. I assume you know children can't be fined, yes? So that's 4 adults you are referring to.

Are the airlines preventing you from traveling because of the cost of the tickets? That's your argument here. "I'm being denied my right to a five star hotel by the costs they charge".

Again, if you can still perform the task and will be punished AFTER the act, you are not being prevented. You are being discouraged as is the case in all penalties applied via ticket or court.

I keep saying it but people keep getting emotional and arguing their personal opinions. The murder victim is still dead. The caged murderer was therefore not prevented from committing the crime. You got a fine on return from your trip, therefore you did in fact travel and were not prevented from doing so.

If you are going to argue eu law and rights, you need to argue the law with the actual law. Not eu law v an incorrect interpretation taken from your own head.

FlubberJones

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Ah, a clear distinction. The likely fine on return restricts people via financial means but it does not actually prevent. They can still travel.

The justification of the fine, the amount being high are all subject to personal opinion. I'm not offering mine in any of this. I merely point out the cold, hard reality of the situation.

"cold, hard reality..." are you a robot?

But joking aside, 2k is just a little too much for me to justify a long weekend in Antibes, that wouldn't be expensive until I got back to Eire and was lamped with this... it would take the shine of what would certainly be an enjoyable weekend.

FlubberJones

FlubberJones wrote: »

"cold, hard reality..." are you a robot?

But joking aside, 2k is just a little too much for me to justify a long weekend in Antibes, that wouldn't be expensive until I got back to Eire and was lamped with this... it would take the shine of what would certainly be an enjoyable weekend.

I agree, I'm not one bit arguing with you. I love travel but at the moment even the pcr costs are prohibitive to bringing my family here. Doesn't in any way change that I can should I swallow the financial hit.

In a thread about travel, I just feel it's important to keep the actual facts correct and not allow opinion and emotion to muddy the water in that regard. Otherwise we have foolish sheep declaring that the Gardai have no authority at a checkpoint and end up getting arrested as we saw with the last buffoon who took bad info from the web.

Valhallapt

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

He denies this it seems.

No one is denying this. The problem is it’s arbitrary and “temporary” nature. Last February I was all in favour of restricting flights from Italy. Today there is no reason for it to apply.

You are just trolling.


As the Supreme Court ruled, Even the right to protect life could not be used to prevent a woman travelling for an abortion. But a populist incompetent government can prevent travel of a vaccinated and pcr negative person travelling to their own home in a county with lower covid rates. It’s bonkers.

josip

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Ah, a clear distinction. The likely fine on return restricts people via financial means but it does not actually prevent. They can still travel.

The justification of the fine, the amount being high are all subject to personal opinion. I'm not offering mine in any of this. I merely point out the cold, hard reality of the situation.

If the purpose is to disincentivize non-essential international travel could the government have instead put a €2000 levy or some kind of financial tax on non-essential travel?

Since it's a 'fine' does that mean that I've broken some law of the state ?
Does that make me a criminal ?

Valhallapt

Valhallapt wrote: »

No one is denying this. The problem is it’s arbitrary and “temporary” nature. Last February I was all in favour of restricting flights from Italy. Today there is no reason for it to apply.

You are just trolling.


As the Supreme Court ruled, Even the right to protect life could not be used to prevent a woman travelling for an abortion. But a populist incompetent government can prevent travel of a vaccinated and pcr negative person travelling to their own home in a county with lower covid rates. It’s bonkers.

You denied it, it was stated twice and you said no.

Again, please stop getting personal with me.

Jesus wept. Can you please understand what "preventing" means. That girl was being denied the travel via a court order and that case referred to those circumstances only. The court absolutely did NOT state that you can't be denied travel. It simple did not. That's an outright lie or an unbelievable misunderstanding of the case.

josip

josip wrote: »

If the purpose is to disincentivize non-essential international travel could the government have instead put a €2000 levy or some kind of financial tax on non-essential travel?

Since it's a 'fine' does that mean that I've broken some law of the state ?
Does that make me a criminal ?

Possible but how would you separate essential from non essential? There's nothing against essential travel.

Well yes, of course. It's an offence under the law and failing to pay results in a summons and on conviction, possible a record. Just as any unpaid fine can result in.

Traffic offences are the same but generally excluded from vetting

a_squirrelman

This thread is now as bad as the other one.

Lumen

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Well yes, of course. It's an offence under the law and failing to pay results in a summons and on conviction, possible a record. Just as any unpaid fine can result in.

This is particularly relevant for those who will apply for citizenship in future, who are also those most wanting to travel to see family in other countries.

For these people isn't not a just about getting the fine, and it's nothing like a tax.

From citizens information

Character
You must be ‘of good character’. There is no exhaustive legal definition of what ‘good character’ means.

The Garda Síochána (Ireland's national police) provide a report about your background. As part of this, the Minister receives information about:

Your criminal record
- Driving offences you may have committed
- Ongoing investigations against you
- Pending criminal cases (that haven’t been heard in court yet)
- Cautions or other warnings you have received from the Gardaí
- Certain civil cases (for example, if you were subject to a barring order)

You are asked on the application form to declare any of the above and you are given the opportunity to explain the circumstances that led to the Garda or court action. You may also be contacted by the Citizenship division at a later stage for further information about your history in the State.

M_Murphy57

a_squirrelman wrote: »

This thread is now as bad as the other one.

I say it every time, but there is already a thread for ranting about the evils of travel. Why cant stupid arguments about the constitutionality of the fine be kept over there and this thread kept for people actually planning for and interested in travel?

If the same heads are just stirring up **** on both then the mods might as well merge them.

MaryBrowne21

Has anyone here successfully travelled abroad and avoided the fine? If so what were the grounds you used and what proof did you provide?

Thanks!

Corholio

a_squirrelman wrote: »

This thread is now as bad as the other one.

Corholio

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

I say it every time, but there is already a thread for ranting about the evils of travel. Why cant stupid arguments about the constitutionality of the fine be kept over there and this thread kept for people actually planning for and interested in travel?

If the same heads are just stirring up **** on both then the mods might as well merge them.

Not merge imo, just have the other one for what it's title is intended for, bickering, and leave this one to discuss actual travel plans. Not trojan horsed as 'travel' but actually about the same ****e the other one ends up in.

Chuck Norris 2021

MaryBrowne21 wrote: »

Has anyone here successfully travelled abroad and avoided the fine? If so what were the grounds you used and what proof did you provide?

Thanks!

Yes, I believe two Dublin women went to Dubai without being fined. They must have shown proof of appointments for cosmetic work. Their return was not as sucessful :pac::p. Apologies, someone will be along shortly with a better answer