Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

EU limits Irish Government's 'sham marriage' investigations

Options
  • 01-07-2009 2:20pm
    #1
    free to prosper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭


    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
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #3
    free to prosper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭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?


  • Options
    #4
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #5
    Mena
    Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #6
    free to prosper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #8
    free to prosper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #9
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #10
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #11
    Mena
    Registered Users Posts: 3,180 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #13
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #14
    carveone
    Registered Users Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #15
    KINGVictor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,184 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #16
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #17
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #18
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #19
    netron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #20
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #21
    netron
    Closed Accounts Posts: 225 ✭✭netron


    K-9 wrote: »
    I'm sure cannibas will be introduced here under the same idea.

    experiment is already happening in Portugal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    netron wrote: »
    experiment is already happening in Portugal.

    By ECJ Direction?

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

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #23
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #24
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #25
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #26
    free to prosper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #27
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #28
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #29
    djpbarry
    Registered Users Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #30
    free to prosper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 106 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    PopeBuckfastXVI
    Registered Users Posts: 5,155 ✭✭✭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...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement