If we were to rewrite our treaty rights...

I noted before posting that the rules for this forum stated that it was about debate and not rants. Sadly, I can't engage with your answer because I actually can't work out what your point is. I'm surprised that, as a mod, you couldn't do better.

Sorry for going quiet on this, I've been pretty busy over the last few days. And thanks Victor for clarifying. I'm afraid I wasn't familiar with that particular Simpsons quote!

Just to answer View's point, my original post is a hypothetical. If we, and in particular Ireland, were to find ourselves pre-Maastricht drafting the rights we have (and yes I acknowledge that some of them go back a long way further than that), what might we do differently if we had a crystal ball in front of us?

I would question whether this is solely a 'class' issue - although I admit that I framed my original post in that way and I don't want to go shifting goalposts. I think the point is that every Irish teenager knows that if they mess up and get a conviction for anything significant, it will deal a blow to their prospects of getting into the US/Australia/Canada etc. Similarly, if you step out of line in some of those countries, you could find yourself on a plane home pretty quickly or at least jeapardise your visa renewal or extension.

Similarly, if you want to reside long term in many of the countries Irish people tend to go to, and particularly take out citizenship, you increasingly need to pass a test or otherwise prove your level of integration and fidelity to your adopted homeland. I do realise that is the case here also for citizenship.

When the immigration issue is raised on certain phone-in programmes in this country - not always in measured terms - the arguments that Irish people seem to relate to are:
1) our laws should be respected and those who don't do so should be deported
2) people should integrate and learn English
3) Irish people traditionally pulled themselves up by their boot strings overseas and didn't look for handouts.

The third point reflects the new world dimension to Irish emigration but it does actually resonate in people's views regarding what they expect of people who come here.

View's point about Northern Ireland is a red herring since both Irish and UK citizenship are afforded equal status there and there is of course no expectation that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland would embrace loyalist parades or symbols.

There is always a balancing act to be struck as to what living in a liberal, European democracy means for our expectations of newcomers. Victor states that criminals can already be deported. How do we square this with media reports that certain people have flown back in here shortly afterwards and gone on to commit further crimes? Obviously that's an enforcement issue. However, my central argument is that by awarding virtually blanket rights whilst failing to look at expectations/conditions that have enabled other perfectly democratic countries to manage these issues, the EU has created the conditions - as seen with UKIP in the UK - for large numbers of people to believe that the traditional ethos and values of their countries are not being afforded sufficient protection.

Let's be clear: I am very much in favour of the general thrust of what the EU is about and the treaty rights we're discussing. Indeed, I've benefited from them myself having lived in two other EU states for a while.

However, what non-EU states do enters very much into the hypothetical question I'm asking here because the conditions they set down legislate for the fact that rights should never exist without responsibilities and also the fact that one of the main incentives not to abuse our freedoms is the threat of very tangible sanctions if we do.

Again, the issue of Roma gypsies is a red herring. As it happens, many of them are Romanian and thus have had restrictions placed on their right to 'work' alongside the rest of their countrymen. You could argue that it is non-Roma Romanian citizens (along with Bulgarians) who have been most discriminated against because the restrictions placed on their right to work across the EU stem from a 'scare' regarding mass Roma immigration. Imagine if the movement of Irish people was restricted because of exaggerated fears about certain elements of the travelling community.

Furthermore, I suspect Cody may be referring to the deportation of Roma from France in the recent past. Let's be clear: none of us has the right to go to another EU state and become destitute and ultimately a burden on that state. We have the right to travel, live and work provided we can support ourselves in a legitimate manner. After a certain period, we become entitled to social welfare but not immediately. Sorry to risk the ire of some, but what France did was stick to the letter of the treaties. I have sometimes wondered whether we should have sought the assistance of the Czech government regarding that poor homeless man who died in Ennis. Surely his own country had some responsibility towards him.

Cody, all I can say about the media reports is that one of them pertains to a case that has been on the front pages here over the past week or so and it would be reckless of me to endanger a possible trial by saying more here. I genuinely am not aware of how it has become easier to deport EU citizens recently. Please elaborate as that would very possibly allay some of these concerns.

There is nothing wrong with trying to break down borders provided we are clear with people regarding what the migrant is expected to do for themselves and the mechanisms for keeping out dangerous individuals are robust. When we hear of eastern European 'mafias' operating here - even if the tone is sometimes hyperbolic and dangerous - we have to be concerned.